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

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to address issues related to what I believe and what many people believe is an important government initiative, and that is the establishment of a formal free trade agreement with Colombia.

Canada is as prosperous as it is, as a nation, because in fact we have been free traders since our very beginning. We can manufacture and produce more than we can consume. We discovered early on that if we are going to remain prosperous and maintain a good standard of living of which we can be proud, then we need to be a trading nation.

Of course, if we are going to be a trading nation, we cannot have one-way trade. If we want doors of opportunity to open up for our citizens, workers, investors and entrepreneurs, then we also have to allow other markets to experience the same possibilities. There are those who would say that keeping our doors closed is the best way to protect workers and industry. History has shown that not to be true.

I can give the House an example, and this may appear to be an extreme example, but for the sake of emphasis and elaboration, let us look back 100 or so years to the advent of the motor car and the development of mass production by Henry Ford, which resulted in a key industry around the world today.

When the motor car was being developed, people in other countries were saying that if these automobiles were allowed to cross their borders, it would put out of work those people who make buggies for horses to pull. They felt that people would not want buggies anymore but instead would want motor cars. Let me take this to the extreme. What if Canada had said that we could not open our doors to these motor cars because all the people who built wagons pulled by horses would be out of work?

That happens to be true. The advent of the motor car did put out of work those people who manufactured buggies, or harnesses to go with buggies, or wheels, or whatever. Thankfully, Canadians had the foresight to say that we could develop mechanized buggies, but to do that we also had to make sure our doors of trade were open. By doing that, people prosper.

Those who had been engaged in the making of buggies eventually became engaged in making parts for automobiles. Not all of them did that, obviously, and so the government of the day looked at re-education and retraining, and developed ways for people displaced by a particular product or a particular service to find work and be trained to do other things in other areas.

So it is when we look at free trade, especially in a time of economic downturn. This is a time when we need to open doors of opportunity for investors, producers, innovators, and Canadian workers. Not only do we have to maintain an open door policy, but we have to pursue more open doors around the world.

Canada is a member of the World Trade Organization and that entire process. Many countries are involved in this organization as well. The Doha round is somewhat stalled. Our Prime Minister and other world leaders have said the Doha round has to get moving and brought to a conclusion. That is our goal.

As we go through that somewhat difficult and prolonged process, we cannot have everything remain static. We cannot wait for the World Trade Organization process to be completed. It is a good process and a process that will lower tariffs and lower barriers for many countries around the world, but we cannot wait. We want to see the Doha round conclude, but at the same time we are pursuing free trade agreements with other countries.

Right here in this House of Commons, we are debating a free trade agreement with Peru, looking at it and hopefully moving it along, and I thank all colleagues for being engaged in that particular discussion.

We were also engaged just recently in bringing to a conclusion an agreement that we called the EFTA, a European free trade agreement with four countries: Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. In this agreement we saw the removal or the significant reduction of tariffs right across the board, allowing many Canadian products to go into those countries without the producers being hit with big tariff penalties. In other words, those Canadian products can move into those countries and Canadian producers will not have to face a competitive disadvantage of having a tariff laid on top of those Canadian products.

We know that we will see increased production. We will see more product going from Canadian producers to those particular countries because we will be more competitive in pricing.

We want to see that same principle that is being applied in the European markets as we move toward formally negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU as a whole, 27 other countries all under one organization. One of the reasons that the EU and those who are interested in the EU want to see a freer trade agreement with Canada is because they know we have already made this agreement with four countries in Europe. That is going to give those four countries a competitive advantage in shipping their products and services into Canada. It will give them a competitive advantage over the other 27 countries in the EU because we have lowered the tariffs. So, it is in their best interests to pursue a freer trade agreement with us under the broad EU.

We apply the same principle to what is happening in Colombia. Colombia is pursuing free trade agreements with other countries and it is bringing them to a conclusion. That means producers and the providers of a variety of services in other countries are going to have a competitive advantage over Canadian producers as they market their goods and services into Colombia because tariffs on a wide range of products are going to be reduced. That means Canadian producers and Canadian workers are going to be at a disadvantage if we do not move on and complete this free trade deal.

It is worthy to note, and I brought this out to people with whom I met at Amnesty International and other groups who have raised issues about human rights and the past record of Colombia, that the past record of Colombia has not been an enviable one, to say the least, when it comes to human rights issues. However, its present administration has made great gains and shown great commitment to principles that are related to democracy, human rights and protections that we have come to expect, that is part of our own history, and that we have advanced around the world.

It is interesting that concerns have been raised about the free trade deal between Canada and Colombia, for instance on the labour side, yet we have signed a labour accord with Colombia that insists on both countries following the ILO, the International Labour Organization, rules, regulations and obligations related to trade and labour, which of course Canada already does. That covers everything from child labour to hours worked, to a full array of occupational health and safety issues that we would expect workers to have made available to them.

What is interesting here is that Colombia has signed agreements with European countries that have not even required those same labour agreements that we have. We have certain groups raising issues about Canada's agreement with Colombia but they never raised the issues with the European countries that have signed these agreements.

We feel it is very important that when a country is making progress, as Colombia is, that has to be acknowledged. The way we make sure progress continues is to get those countries to actually sign on the dotted line to certain levels of human rights and rights of workers and others. These signatures between Canada and Colombia require that independent organizations do the evaluation. There are sanctions attached to each country. Obviously, we do not think Canada will run afoul of these principles because we have embraced them for decades, but there are sanctions should the countries fall short of following through on their commitments.

There are 46 million people in Colombia who are gradually experiencing a raise in their standard of living. Is it being done perfectly and evenly? No. This is not a socialist experiment in utopia. This is the hard reality of day-to-day living where increased opportunities are being made available to individuals. Just as happens in Canada, over time the standard of living increases. We have seen it happen in China and India. Is it being done perfectly? No. Are there still areas of poverty? Yes. But overall, is the direction an upward one? Yes, it is. We want to see that direction continue.

Two-way trade in 2008 was something like $1.35 billion between Canada and Colombia. There is always a good platform of trade. About 80% of that trade has to do with agriculture. Tariffs have been applied to Canadian industry; just in that one trading year, 2008, Canadian companies, and really, Canadian workers, paid about $25 million worth of tariffs on products that they were selling into Colombia. There is a range of tariffs that we would hope to see reduced in this agreement. Some products are being taxed with a tariff, Canadian products going into Colombia and Colombian products coming into Canada, as low as 17%. Some of the tariff lines go as high as over 80%. This is being tacked on to a product either going into Colombia or coming into Canada. It is time to reduce them. We should eliminate as many of them as possible and open up the doors of opportunity for people in Colombia as well as for people in Canada.

That is why these deals are two-way streets. This is not a zero-sum game. History clearly shows that when these doors of opportunity are opened up, overall more jobs are created, more investment happens and more people benefit than if we did not open up these doors of opportunity.

I look forward to the ongoing debate and discussion about this particular free trade agreement. We look forward to advice on how it possibly could be made even better.

I do ask that if people raise objections, that they raise objections based on fact. I will be very frank in saying that some of the objections we have heard have been based on things which are simply not factual. I have heard people in this House raise objections, stating things such as this new free trade deal means if a person murders somebody, a trade unionist in Colombia, all the person would get is a fine. I have presented the truth on that, that it is utter hogwash, but I still have not heard a retraction. It is those types of arguments that are not based on fact that do not help the state of being of people who are looking forward to more opportunities, better job opportunities, better opportunities to sell their wares, to sell their services and to sell their agricultural products. I would ask that any objections that are raised be based on fact and that the advice that is given also be based on fact. We are open to that.

An enduring fact that remains before us as a goal is that as countries open up doors of opportunity through freer trade agreements, increased levels of prosperity are the result, whether we are talking about what I have referenced in terms of our European agreements or about the North American Free Trade Agreement. With respect to NAFTA, we now see about $2 billion worth of trade a day crossing our borders. Certainly that agreement has its difficulties and we are involved in some of them right now. That is another debate for another time, but we are involved.

The fact of the matter is that a free trade agreement based on rules offers great opportunity to citizens in the countries that are involved. We do not want Canadian producers, innovators, researchers and workers left at a competitive disadvantage by virtue of the fact that Colombia is striking free trade agreements with other nations.

We want the hopes and dreams of working people in Canada who have ideas, inventions and products they want to sell abroad materialize. We want the reality of an idea that goes into a product, its production and finally its sale, that chain of events to happen, along with the supply chain that goes with it. We want to see that happen, quite frankly, for Colombians also, and it can happen within the context of a free trade agreement like this one.

We open up the debate on this. I look forward to a good exchange as we go through the various readings of this bill. I look forward especially to increased prosperity for Canadians and the good people of Colombia.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, why has the government not responded to the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade on the Canada-Colombia FTA? That report was provided to the House a year ago. Will the government respond thoroughly to that report? Specifically, will the government provide a full independent human rights assessment to the House before Bill C-23 is brought forward for a vote to send this bill to committee?

We as parliamentarians want to be constructive, but it requires that the government respect Parliament. It would benefit the debate if the government were to provide that assessment and that reply to what was a very thorough report before the vote on Bill C-23.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned assessment. We believe we have provided a thorough assessment, and it will be ongoing, of the human rights situation in Colombia. We will continue to do that as needed and as we should. If the member is talking about an assessment process similar to an environmental impact assessment, that is not something I see in the offing.

We need to do a day-by-day assessment of what the reality is in Colombia and also what the actual bill says. Articles 1603 and 1604 in the agreement are related to the labour side and talk about the fact that it is not just ILO standards, but we expect that Colombia, as it has indicated it will do, will live up to the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the labour standards included there. We have done an assessment on this. It covers everything from the right to association to free and collective bargaining, and rights related to health and safety in the workplace. Everything that would be expected of a nation that purports to live up to ILO standards is being assessed and has been assessed. Colombia's ambition and commitment to do it are there. Colombia is willing to sign a free trade agreement to show that it is doing it.

We will work with my colleague across the way and any other members in terms of continually assessing the situation related to human rights. We see it as a much improved one even over the last few years and we expect that to continue.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps telling us that the human rights situation has improved, yet we know that so far, in 2009 alone, 17 union members have been killed. In 2008, the death toll was 46, and in 2007, it was 39. The numbers have clearly been going up, as the International Trade Union Confederation has confirmed. I asked the minister about this a few weeks ago. He keeps saying that things have improved, but we know that prominent government critics were under electronic surveillance. Not only have human rights taken a beating, but so have democratic rights.

As we all know, the U.S. government postponed signing this free trade agreement and did not endorse it. Earlier, the minister suggested that he could trust independent groups. That is exactly what the committee recommended: setting up an independent group and making a decision once human rights have been assessed. This agreement could be used to make things better. We should not sign it or bring it into force right away. We have to be sure that changes will happen in terms of human rights and that those changes will be long term.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, in my opinion, there is no doubt this bill will improve the human rights situation. The Government of Colombia signed the agreement. It has said that it wants to respect the agreement, despite the situation described by my colleague. Of course, murders are committed everywhere around the world. It is very tragic anytime anyone is killed, regardless of whether they are a union member. We hope that the countries in question will bring forward sanctions against such individuals.

I would like to briefly add one other point. When we asked union leaders themselves questions about whether the agreement will damage or negatively affect the work environment, they said no and specifically indicated their support for the agreement. They said such an agreement would improve the situation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister just said is utter rubbish. The facts are very clear that the number of murders of human rights advocates and trade unionists has climbed over the last three years in Colombia. The number of disappearances, which are often murders where the bodies are never found, has climbed over the last few years. They are now at record levels of forced displacement. The human rights situation is catastrophic in Colombia. Those are the facts and that is why there is not a single reputable human rights organization that supports the government's line. There is not a single one.

In a report that was released just a few years ago, President Uribe was linked by U.S. intelligence as one of the most important Colombian narco-traffickers. There has been recent testimony stating that when President Uribe was governor, he was involved in planning a slaughter in the northern department of Antioquia.

Just last week there were allegations that secret police in Colombia spied on supreme court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists. These revelations come on top of an influence-peddling scandal involving the president's two sons and a widening probe of the links between Uribe's allies in congress and right-wing paramilitary death squads.

This information is available to the minister. It is absurd that we are pushing forward with this agreement. What is next, a trade agreement with the Hells Angels?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, it is this type of hysterical hyperbole, for which the member has a reputation, that causes any kind of intellectual discussion to spiral down into rants and rambling.

The member read something that had come to light last week and the week before, and I think his colleague before him also mentioned it, on some internal intelligence issues and eavesdropping and things like that. That all took place, but in fairness, all I have asked for is balance in the debate. The member did not read the rest of that article, which said that the president not only had a number of people arrested for these offences but had publicly committed to absolutely dealing with those types of violations of privacy and other issues.

Now, whether he believes the president will follow through on that is up to him. It is interesting that he only brings out the narrow ideological positions, saying we should not have a free trade agreement because wrong things happen.

I recall in British Columbia, the province from which I come, when the NDP government was taken to task for scandal related to stealing money from people playing bingo charities. As much as we were opposed to that, at no time did we suggest that Canada should suspend all its free trade agreements because we had some of the NDP stealing from bingo charities in B.C.

We are not supporting any wrongdoing that is going on in any country. We are saying we have a lever here to push back wrongdoing through this trade agreement.

I wish the member opposite would be honest when he is bringing forward his shabby examples.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement implementation act.

The fact is that a year ago the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade tabled its report on the free trade agreement with Colombia, and the government ought to have responded to this report from the trade committee out of respect to Parliament. It ought to have addressed some of the concerns from the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade and responded specifically to the recommendation to have an independent, impartial and comprehensive human rights impact assessment. That would be out of respect for Conservative members of Parliament who serve on that committee, out of respect to New Democrat, Bloc and Liberal members who serve on that committee, and most importantly out of respect to the Canadians who have chosen this Parliament.

We believe that a full independent human rights assessment, as recommended by the committee, should be provided by the government to Parliament before we vote again on Bill C-23.

As we know, Colombia is a country that has faced years of internal conflict, where violence and human rights abuses have been perpetrated by paramilitary groups in the ongoing battles between the paramilitaries and guerrilla organizations. These battles have been funded largely by the narco-economy, by drug money.

In the last several years, the Colombian government has made significant progress under President Uribe towards achieving security for the Colombia people. There have been significant reductions in violence and human rights abuses, the general murder rate has fallen dramatically, and the International Crisis Group has noted, “since 2003 Colombia has witnessed a substantial decline in violence and kidnappings”.

This increase in security has helped pave the way for a stronger Colombian economy. From 2002 to 2007, the Colombian economy has grown an average 5.3% per year.

Canada has benefited greatly from this economic growth. Our exports to Colombia have increased by an average of 14% per year during this period.

However, still the violence in Colombia and its root causes, poverty, the paramilitary groups and the illicit drug trade, remain a significant problem. It is a problem that in our trade and aid policy with Colombia Canada has a responsibility to engage and to partner with the Colombian government to address.

The recent progress has been impressive in many ways, but it is incomplete and fragile. If Colombia is to achieve sustainable progress in the areas of human rights going forward, it must expand its legitimate economy. A strong legitimate economy is required to fund the social infrastructure required to address these root causes of violence and to wean the Colombian people off the narco-economy.

Advancements and institution building must carry on, whether at the political, judicial or administrative levels. On this front we are concerned about the suggestion that President Uribe may seek a constitutional amendment to secure an unprecedented third consecutive term as president.

In its May 14 issue, The Economist magazine's article entitled “Uribe edges towards autocracy” noted that opponents to a third term argue:

...that the checks and balances in the constitution are designed for a four-year presidential term and that an erosion of the separation of powers under Mr Uribe would be aggravated by a third term.

The Economist magazine has in fact recognized President Uribe's accomplishments in the past, including that:

Many Colombians credit Mr Uribe with transforming their homeland from a near-failed state to a buoyant, if still violent, place.

The magazine concluded that:

If he doesn’t quit while he is still ahead, history may judge that Mr Uribe began to undo his own achievement.

This is important, because this constitutional amendment is of great concern to us. It is of great concern globally, in terms of governance in Colombia. Respect for the constitution is paramount for any democratic state, any country, so we are greatly concerned with this.

The stakes are too high to allow the recent progress under President Uribe to be undone. Paramilitary groups must continue to be demobilized. The living standards of the poor, particularly the rural poor, must be increased. Lasting progress cannot be made without legitimate economic opportunity or jobs for the impoverished Colombians, whose only opportunity sometimes will be the narco-economy and the paramilitary groups. Our efforts to improve the quality of life in Colombia must never lose sight of the need to grow Colombia's legitimate economy. We recognize that a growing economy requires trade and investment, and the right free trade agreement could help the people of Colombia diversify and strengthen their economy and their society.

Two-way Canada-Colombia merchandise trade in 2008 was valued at $1.35 billion. Approximately half of that were exports, so Canada and Columbia are not exactly each other's biggest trading partners. However, by putting in place a free trade agreement with Columbia, one that has strong investment protection measures, our FTA could act as an international signal that Colombia can attract and leverage legitimate foreign investment from all over the world. It is a significant agreement to the people of Colombia, and it is important that we are sending the right signal.

With the right FTA, increased international economic engagement with Colombia and the potential for increased political pressure that comes with it could have the capacity to incentivize the Colombian government to pursue further reforms in support of increased security, human rights and economic growth. In other words, the right free trade agreement can help the Colombian government promote peace, stability and the rule of law.

As we are discussing the ratification of this FTA, it is important that we recognize what the role of Parliament is and what it is not in terms of trade agreements. It is our responsibility, as parliamentarians, to determine whether or not Bill C-23 does in fact represent a solid and sound free trade agreement. Does this agreement adequately address the legitimate concerns of Canadians regarding human rights abuses, labour laws and environmental standards? Are these measures relative to labour and the side agreements on labour and the environment robust enough?

We know, for example, that the labour co-operation agreement requires that each country protects the right of freedom to association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination. We know that this agreement includes a complaint and dispute resolution process. Would this process be legitimate and accountable? That is an important question that we need to consider as a parliament.

The government states that this process would, for example, allow a member of the public to file a complaint or to request an investigation if Canada or Colombia failed to, or were purported to have failed to, live up to the agreement. Furthermore, the agreement would create an independent review panel that could impose fines on the offending country of up to $15 million. Whether these provisions are sufficient is a question that we, as parliamentarians, have to ask and analyze thoroughly.

As we study this legislation, we ought to hear from recognized experts in these fields in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the labour and environmental provisions in this FTA and its side agreement.

The Government of Canada, not the Parliament of Canada, negotiates trade agreements. The Government of Canada, not the Parliament of Canada, has negotiated this specific free trade agreement. It is not the role of parliamentarians to sit down with other countries to negotiate FTAs. Trade negotiations are a function of the government and our public officials, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. However, our job as parliamentarians is to carefully consider the trade agreements before us and to determine whether or not they are in our national interest and whether or not the trade agreement as written reflects our values.

Therefore, is the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement as the government has presented it, and which we are considering through Bill C-23, in Canada's best interest? Does it reflect our shared values, particularly in areas of human rights? Will it achieve greater peace, prosperity and security for Colombians? Will it help us, as Canadians, partner with the Colombian people to develop and build their economy?

The U.S., our largest trading partner, has yet to ratify their FTA with Colombia. It may in fact seek a renegotiation. The Obama administration has indicated an openness to a free trade agreement with Colombia, but that may require a renegotiation and more robust agreements on labour and the environment. How would this impact our trade position vis-à-vis Colombia and the U.S.? Should this affect the timing of our consideration of Bill C-23?

These are questions that must guide our deliberations during this debate today. The Conservative government has still not formally responded to the report of June 2008, a year ago, of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade. I repeat what I said earlier to the minister, and in my remarks, that out of respect for all members of Parliament on that committee the government should respond before it expects us to vote on this.

The issue of violence in Colombia merits special attention and using the resources available to us, and we parliamentarians ought to consider and assess the expected impact of this FTA on the human rights situation in Colombia. Proponents say it could help, that in fact weaning the Colombian people off the narco-economy with real economic opportunities is essential to moving forward.

Some of the opponents, including some of the human rights organizations, say that it will not help and that it could make the situation worse. We have a responsibility to drill down on the facts and not be guided by either the ideology that free trade at all costs is the word of the day or that every FTA is bad, which the position sometimes taken by the New Democrats. We must be guided by the real concerns expressed to us by the human rights community, the labour movement and others, and the concerns and support from people in the agricultural community and the business community who see this as being an important opportunity for Canada.

Given recent developments, the trade committee should go to Colombia, see the situation on the ground first-hand, meet with the Colombian government and have these discussions. We should be expressing ourselves clearly on the matter of the proposed constitutional amendment that is being discussed now to extend President Uribe's government to a third term.

As parliamentarians, we must be satisfied that this FTA and its side agreement will enable and not hinder progress on human rights, labour rights and the environment before we can support its ratification. As we proceed with our deliberations, we must be very careful not to confound the issues of commercial trade with development aid. As parliamentarians, we must be clear that pursuing free trade with Colombia would not reduce the Government of Canada's responsibility to provide development aid to that country. We also need to continue through CIDA to invest in and help the Colombian people. Therefore, a combination of trade policy and aid policy is important. Trade does not reduce the importance of aid to the people of Colombia.

CIDA has an important record in Colombia in terms of building institutions and providing access to basic social services for internally displaced persons and supporting efforts to promote human rights, particularly for children. These activities must be supported and continued.

Canadians are frustrated and I share their frustration with recent changes to CIDA's aid program in which Canada's Conservative government has blatantly tying aid dollars to its economic and political goals. It offends our shared values as Canadians that the Conservative government is in the process of withdrawing development aid from some of the poorest countries in Africa in order to redirect these moneys to more developed economies in Latin America. It offends us because it is contrary to the belief that the primary purpose of development aid is to help the poorest of the poor and to build their economies and societies.

However, as I said before, we must not confuse commercial trade with development aid. Increased economic engagement can play an important role in helping developing nations achieve greater and lasting prosperity but trade alone is not enough. It can and does usually play a positive role but it is not enough.

As parliamentarians, we can challenge this change and policy at CIDA but we must be careful not to take aim at the wrong target. Misplaced development aid is not a reason to oppose an increase in trade relations. As parliamentarians, we must oppose any attempt by our colleagues to evaluate this trade agreement purely on the basis of narrow partisan or ideological reasons. It is just too important a signal for the people of Colombia. We must take this very seriously and put aside partisan and ideological differences and ensure we are considering the facts and the views of the experts. We need to take the time to do this.

In the U.S., the Obama administration has moved toward a certain level of openness toward a free trade agreement but with the potential to renegotiate and to exact stronger and more robust conditions around labour and the environment. We need to ensure we are in communication with our largest trading partner, the Americans, to understand fully where they are going on this and to ensure that any FTA we negotiate with Colombia is at least as robust on the issues of human rights and the environment as ultimately the potential agreement between Colombia and the Americans.

The Liberal Party believes in the principles of free trade. We believe in economic engagement as potentially strengthening the engagement on human rights. It was the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau that opened up, strengthened and deepened economic relations with China. The only thing that Prime Minister Trudeau and Richard Nixon agreed on was the opening up of China. It was the Trudeau government, Mr. Chrétien's government and Mr. Martin's government particularly that deepened economic ties with China.

It has been the Conservative government that has damaged those ties with China, supposedly on the basis of human rights, but because of the Conservatives' mismanagement of our relationship with China, we actually have less influence on Chinese human rights now than we did four years ago and have also lost significant economic opportunities, particularly on energy and clean energy trade. We need to be consistent and the Conservatives have not been consistent in terms of economic engagement with China. They are taking a completely different approach with Colombia.

We will ask the tough questions on human rights when it comes to the FTA with Colombia. We will carefully examine this legislation to ensure this FTA or any FTA that we support with the Government of Colombia will protect and strengthen the human rights of the people of Colombia and help protect their environment.

We will do that as a responsible party. The Liberal Party of Canada believes in economic engagement and believes in defending environmental protection and fundamental human rights.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. I thought it was very measured and I appreciate the comments of the hon. member who is the critic for trade matters in his party. I want some clarification on two things he mentioned.

First, he suggested that the committee might visit Colombia as a further discussion on the free trade agreement. I think the member is familiar with the fact that the committee did visit Colombia about six months ago and tabled a report following that.

He also talked about the report that was tabled and wondered why there was not a follow-up in the House and why the government minister was not asked to respond to that report. I want to note that at the time of the tabling of that report, each party that was a signatory to that report filed a dissenting report, which is why it was not responded to at the time. It was not retabled in the House in this session.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of issues were raised by the chairman of the House of Commons international trade committee.

First, in terms of the failure of the government to respond to the report, I do believe the government ought to respond to all the points raised by all the parties in that report and it has not done that. In particular, the government has not provided the independent assessment of human rights requested in that report and that should be done.

In terms of engaging the Government of Colombia and potentially going to Colombia, we have an international trade committee that has a new set of members. I was not on the international trade committee when it went to Colombia the last time. In fact, most of the members of the international trade committee who are being asked to consider this FTA now were not with the group that went to Colombia the last time. Therefore, for us to deliberate effectively, I think that is important.

We also have the issue of President Uribe's potential constitutional amendment to provide himself with a third term. We do have concerns about that and what it would do to the reputation of his government internationally and to governance in Colombia.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Liberal member of one of the recommendations made in the report that the Liberal Party voted for:

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada draw on the work of the organization Rights and Democracy to give an independent body the mandate to conduct studies regarding the impact on rights and the environment when it is negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, as in the case of the agreement with Colombia.

The committee also recommended the creation of an independent body to evaluate the agreement. It also recommended that no free trade agreements be signed or implemented until all the recommendations are implemented.

From what the critic for international trade has said, am I to understand that the Liberal Party wants to ignore the recommendations that they supported when the report was tabled?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister this question and I asked why the government refused to respond to this report and to ask for an independent assessment because it is very important to our committee and to our members.

Therefore, I agree with the member.

I do not understand why the government has not taken that report seriously and replied. That is why I asked the minister if he would provide that assessment to the House before we have a vote on this. We would benefit from that and it would be out of respect for Parliament. The international trade committee made that recommendation and the government has not only failed to respond to the report but has failed to provide the independent assessment.

I believe the government ought to do that out of respect for Parliament and it should ensure that these concerns are addressed fully.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was roundly condemned for saying that he would support the Canada-Colombia trade deal for all the reasons that have been cited so far in the House.

I listened very carefully to my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, and he appeared to be saying that the government needed to table a response. However, thousands of Canadians have written to the Leader of the Opposition saying that the Liberal Party should not rubber stamp the Conservatives' approach to a trade agreement with Colombia given the appalling human rights situation there.

Is the member for Kings—Hants saying that if the government does not step back and allow for that independent and impartial human rights assessment to take place before there is any further movement on this trade deal that the Liberal caucus will be voting against the trade deal at second reading?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is we will be asking the hard questions of the government. We will be defending the human rights and labour rights of the people of Colombia.

My party and my leader are absolutely committed to defending human rights. In fact, the Liberal leader has spent a lifetime defending human rights and takes these issues very seriously. Naturally, we will be demanding the answers to the questions we have for the Colombian government. We will be pushing the government to provide that independent assessment. That is exactly what I said. We will continue to push the government to take these human rights issues seriously and to ensure that the impact of this FTA will ultimately strengthen the rights and economy of the Colombian people through economic engagement.

We will ensure that the government does not ignore these rights issues. Later this week, we will be meeting with the foreign minister for the government of Colombia and President Uribe's administration. We will be making it very clear that we want the tough questions answered before we are willing to support the agreement. We certainly will not be rubber-stamping anything.

Unlike the NDP, we are potentially able to form a Government of Canada. As such, we do not rubber-stamp things. We ask the tough questions in opposition and take a responsible position because we can form a government, unlike the globophobic socialist Luddites in the New Democratic Party. They are opposed to every free trade agreement, anywhere at any time, because they do not know how to manage an economy.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his defence. Contrary to what the member said, New Democrats are in favour of fair trade.

Given the track record of the Conservatives on human rights and the fact that they refuse to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, what confidence does the member have that the Conservatives will actually take a stand on human rights? We need to take this prior to signing the agreement.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what I find appalling is the inconsistency of the Conservatives on trade and human rights issues and the relationship between economic engagement and human rights. They have completely damaged and destroyed the Canada-China economic relationship, supposedly on the basis of human rights. However, they have not been as assiduous with Colombia.

The fact is we have to be consistent with all of our trade agreements. We have to defend human rights. We have to ensure that economic engagement goes hand in hand with environmental and human rights engagement.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are now debating Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

I would like to go back a year to when we had just returned from Colombia. The entire committee went to Colombia. We were able to meet with government representatives, members of civil society, unions and human rights advocates. We were able to determine that there was a significant problem in terms of human rights. People on site, including Canadian entrepreneurs, flogged their own interests, if I may put it that way, in order to do more business in Colombia.

There is no denying it. When we jumped on the globalization bandwagon, everyone wanted to go global. Everyone wants access to foreign markets and foreigners want access to our market. The reason for this mad dash in recent years was to take advantage of conditions that are less stringent than those in their country of origin. Such conditions may also exist in Colombia. There is an enormous difference in the economic, social and working conditions, which has an impact on what it costs businesses to produce goods there as opposed to here.

Obviously, the main goal in entering into a free trade agreement is to do business. In a perfect world, when we do business with people, the idea is to reach an agreement that is favourable to all parties. This economic agreement is ideal in that everyone can benefit from a free trade agreement. In this instance, trade is clearly not the main concern, because it is on the rise and the agreement is not even in effect yet.

As I said earlier, when we were in Colombia working and hearing testimony, we learned that the government had finished negotiating with Colombia and was ready to sign this agreement. The committee had not even completed its trip, which had been organized so that the members could get a clearer picture of the situation and come up with recommendations for the government, and already the government was taking an undemocratic, disrespectful attitude toward the committee.

What could we do at the time? We carried on with our work and returned from Colombia. We tabled a report, analyzed it, amended it and submitted very clear recommendations that were also endorsed by the Liberal Party. Now we get the feeling that the Liberals want to back away from those recommendations.

Earlier, the Liberal member was talking as though he aspires to power. That is the difference. When we do not aspire to power, we at least have the power to defend our values, and we can defend them all around the world as well as at home. The Liberals seem to want to change their behaviour because they aspire to power. But believing in human values means standing up for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society and in societies with which we want to sign free trade agreements.

I am confused and wondering quite a bit about the Liberal Party's core values in this context.

We know very well that terrible things are still happening and are not growing less frequent, despite what the international trade minister says. Trade unionists are still being assassinated, and people are still being forcibly displaced. Speaking of forced population movements, we visited a place called Soacha when we were in Colombia and met people who told us about their experiences. It was frightful. People are told they have to go, and if they fail to respond to the threats, some are killed. That has often happened in Colombia.

I have met the Colombian ambassador on several occasions and remember very well what he told us: Colombia is not a post-conflict country. Plainly put, this means that the conflict is virtually never-ending. We found out just a few weeks ago that its secret services were electronically eavesdropping on people opposed to the regime, trade unionists and even judges who had passed sentences on certain individuals, such as paramilitaries or drug traffickers with possible ties to the government. In addition to trampling on human rights, the Uribe government disregards democratic rights as well.

This is what the Canadian government wants to put its stamp of approval on. It is appalling that a possible free trade agreement is not being used as a lever to get the Colombian government not only to say it wants to quickly improve the situation but actually do so. That was one of the recommendations in the report, which wanted an independent body established to assess the situation and determine how human rights and the rights of working people and trade unionists were progressing. This independent assessment was supposed to let the government know when things had actually improved and it could proceed.

I think that trade with Canada could be very good for Colombia and its economy. At present, though, the free trade agreement is still not in force, and what is important to the Canadian government is not improving or increasing our trade. The most important thing in its eyes is investment. Unfortunately, though, the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, which is strangely similar to NAFTA chapter 11, is bad for Colombians. It is pretty obvious why.

As we know, private companies can sue governments. If Canadian investors in Columbia think they might lose money as a result of improvements to working conditions or environmental requirements, they could sue the Government of Columbia. That would automatically put a damper on improvements to working conditions, human rights and the environment. This is what the government is primarily interested in.

The Bloc Québécois says no to this kind of agreement. We have been saying for a long time that we should try to protect the investments our companies make in other countries, but not at the expense of the people who live there.

In this regard, we find the situation deplorable, and the Bloc clearly cannot support this bill. The government should redo its homework in this area and on investment agreements.

A number of aspects are of great concern to us as well. Among other things, there is the way the government conducted itself in formulating the free trade agreement. Earlier, I said that the government had behaved undemocratically, since, to all intents and purposes, it signed an agreement without waiting for the recommendations. They are very clear. All those advising us strongly to put pressure on the government to accept these recommendations are concerned about human rights conditions and want to ensure that everyone wins with this agreement. I have no doubt that this would be possible for men and women of good will. This is why I appeal to the members of the Liberal Party and of the government so all this may improve and tangibly so for the benefit of the Colombian people.

Trade between Canada and Colombia is very limited, as will be the benefits when this agreement is concluded. As I was saying, it is not necessarily just trade that is involved. It is primarily investments and essentially mining investments. Canadian mining companies have no responsibility in this regard, as we well know. We are referring not only to Canadian companies, but to foreign mining companies that register in Canada in order to do business elsewhere, in countries where environmental laws are not so strict and restrictions accordingly are relatively weak. We believe that these companies should be responsible for their actions in environmental terms in the other countries and even that the government could take steps and impose sanctions against them.

I was saying earlier that such provisions on investment in a country whose labour and environmental protection laws are, at best, uncertain are especially dangerous. This is particularly true in that this is still a zone of conflict, as was confirmed in my conversation with the ambassador. This is not yet a post-conflict country. A number of areas of the country have never been developed because of the war. The situation is especially fragile in these areas. In some sectors, large numbers of people have been displaced because of the civil war. Encouraging foreign investment in such violence-ridden areas could set things off, so to speak.

As we know, and it cannot be said often enough, Colombia is the worst catastrophe in the hemisphere in terms of human rights. The country has some four million displaced persons today. This is the worst record in the world after Sudan. Assassinations of union members are legion, and most of them go unpunished. There are many allegations of collusion between the Uribe government and the rightist militia. Many NGOs and witnesses have confirmed that. The Colombian government is responsible for a number of these violations. This is the worst possible time to give up the use of economic means to heighten pressure on the Colombian government.

The government keeps on repeating that this agreement includes a side agreement on labour and another on the environment. However, those agreements are clearly deficient.

We deplore the Liberals' about-face on this issue. Since their new leader took over, the Liberals have gone from a position of prudence and scepticism regarding this agreement to one of blind support for it. If the Liberals really want to restore Canada's image abroad and restore our reputation as a champion of human rights, they must act consistently with their claims and reject this agreement.

The Liberal reasoning for supporting this agreement is at best misleading and hypocritical. Based on Liberal logic, Canada should engage in free trade with all countries that are known to violate human rights in order to be able to influence them. When so many credible human rights organizations are asking us to reject the agreement, this should raise red flags for all responsible parliamentarians.

I therefore call on all parliamentarians to vote against Bill C-23 and reject the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia. I think this is a matter of human dignity.

I would now like to propose an amendment to Bill C-23. I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House refuse to give second reading to 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 because the government concluded the agreement while the Standing Committee on International Trade was considering the matter, thereby demonstrating its disrespect for democratic institutions.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Bloc Québécois colleagues a question.

I am surprised that they do not wish to support Bill C-23 because this bill would help Canadians and Colombians.

Free trade was a force in Canada's creation. In 1867, and even before that, Canadian entrepreneurs were not prevented by any country from exporting their goods throughout the world. Canada became rich through free trade. We now want to tear down barriers and allow our entrepreneurs to continue to sell their goods throughout the world, in Colombia in this instance. We also want Colombians to benefit from free trade because it has been proven over the years that countries that engage in free trade are generally more prosperous and peaceful. In fact, free trade enables people from different nations to travel to different countries, to come to know one another and to live in a better world.

Why do our Bloc Québécois friends want to prevent companies such as Bombardier or SNC-Lavalin from creating jobs in Quebec and Canada? Why do they wish to prevent Colombians from prospering in a better world?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member considers Bloc Québécois members to be his friends, but quite frankly, no friend of mine would support this kind of free trade agreement.

I believe that Quebeckers have good business sense. They are business people and they know how to do business. Some are already doing business with Colombia. But this free trade agreement also seeks to legitimize an investment agreement that bears a striking resemblance to chapter 11 and gives certain irresponsible companies the right to do business in Colombia and take advantage of labour rights, human rights and environmental rights, then take risks if ever the Colombian government tries to improve things with respect to human, labour or environmental rights.

There are a number of irresponsible Canadian companies doing business in Colombia. I am not saying that they are all irresponsible, but some of them are. We know that globalization has made it possible to produce items more cheaply elsewhere than at home. We have nothing against trade—it is happening already. People can continue to negotiate and make deals. However, this free trade agreement could have been a meaningful tool to help the Colombian government make progress on various fronts: human, labour and environmental rights. As the committee recommended in its report, we should not go forward with an official relationship with Colombia until we see continued improvement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Sherbrooke. I totally agree with him. That is not often the case, but today it is. He spoke very well.

I have two questions for him. First, we just had an incredibly complicated explanation from the Liberal Party. What it proposed to do was not clear. We do not know if they will vote yes or no. We know that it very clearly stated in public that it wants to vote in favour of the agreement. Does it not make sense that, if we accept what the member from Kings—Hants just said, all Liberal members should vote in favour of the amendment just proposed by the member from Sherbrooke?

Second, considering all the murders and killings in Colombia as well as the very close ties between the administration and paramilitary forces, is signing this agreement not tantamount to giving a stamp of approval to the Uribe government?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe so. It is obviously giving the government free reign. It is like telling the Uribe government that we will complain a bit in public about what it is doing, but we will still say that things are improving. Clearly, things have been done. But as the International Trade Union Confederation said again recently, there has been no improvement despite the figures that have been released. We have only to look at the number of trade unionists who have been assassinated. Seventeen have been killed this year to date. In 2007, there were 39. In 2008, there were 46. Is this what we would call an improvement?

It is too bad about the Liberal Party. As I said earlier, and as the Liberal critic for international trade made clear, they are close to power. When they were clearly in opposition and had no hope of coming to power, the Liberals were able to promote human values and stand up for human rights.

Is it because the Liberal Party is close to power that these values have become negotiable? Does that mean that if you want to be in power, you have to be mean and nasty? It is just the opposite. People in power should be good and should ensure that human rights, workers' rights and environmental rights are respected. I believe that people who aspire to power should have these core values and should say no to this agreement. They should not vote for Bill C-23, but should try instead to improve it and to implement the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on International Trade.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague from Sherbrooke think that the Liberal Party will go back to the initial position it took within the Standing Committee on International Trade under the former Liberal leader? Like the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals took the position that we should not go ahead with this agreement until there had been a full, independent assessment of the human rights situation in Colombia. That was the situation under the former leader. The new leader has really shifted the Liberal Party to the right.

Does the member for Sherbrooke think that the Liberal Party should go back to its initial position and vote for the amendment he has proposed?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Liberal Party will not only return to its senses but also to its better self in regard to what is happening. Absolutely nothing has changed since last year at this time when we were in Colombia. The Liberal members saw with their own eyes that it makes absolutely no sense to support the Colombian government and what it is doing through a free trade agreement.

I hope that parliamentarians and the Liberal members will return to their better selves. I do not think that the prospect of returning to power soon should change the basic values of members. I hope that they will return to their senses and, as the NDP member said, that they will support our amendment to Bill C-23.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment on behalf of the New Democratic Party and our leader.

The amendment presented by the Bloc today would simply stop the process around the bill. There is no doubt the House should not endorse in any way what has gone on in Colombia.

Over the next few minutes, I will talk about some of the myths that have been put forward by the Conservatives and their Liberal supporters around the situation in Colombia, citing some of what is actually going on and about which Canadians need to know. A lot of Canadians are already aware of this, which is why thousands of letters, emails and phone calls have gone to the Liberal leader's office since he announced he would support the Conservatives, propping them up, on the bill.

Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade act, has been characterized by some people as the Hell's Angels trade act. That is not too far from the truth when we look at the links between the administration and the president with murderous paramilitary thugs and drug traffickers, going back many years, which is a matter of public record. I will come back to that in a moment.

The minister rose in the House and said that he wanted a fact-based discussion. Over 20 minutes, he did not present a single fact to back up his argument. In fact, he made the ludicrous argument that somehow labour leaders supported this agreement. That is absolutely absurd. There is not a legitimate trade union in Colombia or a single trade union in Canada that supports this deal. All reputable human rights organizations have clearly said that this is a very bad idea.

It is hard to have a debate when only one side presents the facts. The NDP will present the facts as will members of the Bloc. The other side provides personal attacks and personal invective from the minister and the Liberal opposition to the people oppose to this agreement, but they have not brought forward a single fact or argument.

Let us start dealing with the facts.

We heard the minister say that somehow things were getting better in Colombia. He clearly has not been addressing the facts or looking at the evidence.

As my colleague from Sherbrooke just mentioned, the number of killings of human rights advocates, trade unionists, people simply working for a better quality of life for themselves and their co-workers, has climbed over the last three years. That is an undeniable fact.

There has been an increase in forced displacements. Forced displacement is when armed paramilitary thugs force poor peasant farmers off the land to take refuge in barrios and shanty towns elsewhere in Colombia. That property is then taken over by those murderous paramilitary thugs and they can sell off the land.

A special report was presented recently by the Center for Popular Research, Education and Policy on the number of extrajudicial killings. The report says that in 2008 there were 580 victims of extrajudicial executions. Members of the army are allegedly responsible for 165 of those executions, which essentially means cold-blooded murders, and 372 were the responsibility of paramilitary groups. This study shows that the number of extrajudicial executions has doubled over the last three years.

We have seen an increase in the number of murders of human rights advocates and trade unionists. We have seen an increase in forced displacement, violent displacement, the robbery of land from poor peasants. I imagine the Conservative government is not too concerned about that as long as they are poor.

We see a doubling of extrajudicial executions. We also have substantial increases in the number of disappearances. That has been profiled by many journalists. Those disappearances are really murders, but they never find the bodies. There has been a steady and undeniable increase in the number of murders, disappearances, executions, cold-blooded murder, and forced displacement. That is undeniable.

The idea that somehow things are getting better in Colombia can only be put forward by people who do not have a hand on the facts or who simply do not pay attention. If they are not paying attention, then they very clearly do not have an understanding of the situation on the ground in Colombia.

We then have to look at what human rights groups are saying. I can cite report after report. I only have 20 minutes today, but I know my colleagues in the NDP caucus, as we do our homework, will be bring forward citations and quotes from the many human rights organization that have condemned this. Unfortunately the minister, who I like personally, simply did not bring forward a single useful fact or argument to back up his case today,

I will cite the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, in its recent report entitled, “Making a Bad Situation Worse: An Analysis of the Text of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement”, said:

Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement....The terms of the trade agreement also raise serious human rights concerns for vulnerable populations in the context of Colombia’s conflict economy. The FTA will hit small-scale farmers with low-price competition, and may further expose indigenous people, Afro-Colombians and rural dwellers to land grabs by Canadian mining companies equipped with powerful new investor rights, but no binding responsibilities. Introducing such provisions into this troubled context will chill democratic dissent and tilt the scales further against already disadvantaged and victimized groups.

We have talked a bit about the forced displacement, and this is exactly to what this report from very reputable Canadian organizations is referring.

It goes on to state:

The side agreements on Labour and the Environment do not address these threats; to the contrary the latter creates perverse incentives for weak regulation. The agreement makes a bad situation worse.

So much for the pretension from the Liberals that somehow this makes the situation better. So much for the pretension from the Conservatives that somehow they actually care about human rights.

Very clearly this report contradicts both of them. Unfortunately I cannot cite all of it, although I wish I could. However, I will read parts of it into the record because Canadians need to know what those who understand the situation in Colombia on the ground have said. It states:

Importantly, the Colombian government is mired in a growing political scandal for its close links to paramilitary death squads that have terrorized the countryside and even threatened Canada’s embassy in Bogotá. Increasing numbers of President Uribe’s close political allies, including the chief of security, personal advisors, and members of Congress have been tied to paramilitary activities. The Colombian government is, thus, looking for international backing.

The Conservatives, because they are ideologically great friends of right-wingers, wherever they may be on the planet, are tying in Canada's so-called trade objectives into trying to endorse the Uribe government.

What are they endorsing? Earlier when the minister was in the House, I started to talk a bit about some of the reports that have come out, the evidence and testimony, which are available to the minister and any Conservative member of Parliament. They talk about what has gone on and what have been the past links and the current links with President Uribe.

I read into the record at that time part of an article from the Washington Post, and the minister then said that I should have read further. He pretended somehow that President Uribe was concerned about the revelations that secret police in Colombia had spied on supreme court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists. The latest revelations on top of that are the influence peddling scandal involving the president's two sons, Tomás and Jerónimo, and a widening probe of the links between Uribe's allies in congress and right-wing paramilitary death squads, these murderous thugs who the Conservatives seem to want to be hand in hand with.

If we read further on in this Washington Post article, we actually get the response of the president, and it is not at all what the minister pretended, again either because he has not read the article, does not know his facts or has not done his homework. I am not sure why.

However, for whatever reason, he neglected to see that what actually happened is that the president has called these investigations politically motivated. In other words, far from this idea that President Uribe has stepped forward and wants to make things clean with the influence peddling scandals involving his sons, the links with his top aides and paramilitary organizations, no, it is quite the contrary. President Uribe has actually denounced the few prosecutors who are still trying, making a real effort, to maintain the rule of law in Colombia.

This is what opposition leader Rafael Pardo said about the Uribe regime:

This is a regime that uses intelligence to co-opt political rights. How can you have political guarantees when the intelligence service is following politicians during their campaigns?

That is the responsive Uribe regime.

However, it goes back much further than just last week, when these latest scandals erupted. We have had testimony and evidence presented about President Uribe's involvement with paramilitaries well before that, going back to articles that came out in February:

In testimony presented last February before the Office of the Attorney General of Colombia, the ex paramilitary member Francisco Enrique Villalba Hernández claimed that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and his brother, Santiago, participated in the planning of a massacre which took place in the northern part of the region of Antioquia, according to a copy of the testimony obtained by El Nuevo Herald.

Part of this confession was used by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to condemn Colombia for the slaughter which occurred in the village of El Aro in 1997.

These are allegations, evidence, testimony that have come forward just in the last few months that the Conservatives could have looked at in regard to what the standing committee has already said, which is we cannot move further on this. We have to have a comprehensive human rights assessment of what is going on in Colombia. This is public domain. It is not rocket science. We just do our homework.

Perhaps most telling of all, and this goes back a few years, is evidence that has been presented to date. Because President Uribe has not gone to trial yet, there has not been, through that process, a determination of his exact involvement.

However, this is from U.S. intelligence. The Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States in Colombia produced a list of the most important Colombian narco-traffickers. This was in 1991. This list was forced out through access to information just a few years ago, but that information would be available to any Conservative who had actually decided to look into whether or not this makes any sense at all, namely proceeding with a trade agreement with Colombia.

The report lists Alvaro Uribe as 82 on the list of the top 100 Colombian narco-traffickers. I should say that this report, which was declassified, was verified by other agencies. So it is the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States but also verified with other agency information. It refers to Alvaro Uribe as a Colombian politician and senator dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cartel at high government levels. It states that Uribe was linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the U.S. It goes on to say that Uribe had worked for the Medellin cartel and was a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar.

Now, many people who have followed the appalling careers of drug traffickers know the name Pablo Escobar. I am sure many of the Conservative MPs would know this, as well, had they done their homework, and had they done their research.

It continues on to state that, and this is President Uribe, he had participated in Escobar's political campaign to win the position of assistant parliamentarian to Jorge Ortega. Uribe had been one of the politicians from the senate who had attacked all forms of the extradition treaty.

When this information came out, it could have been available to any Conservative. The Colombian government tried to do a full court press. It has a very slick public relations machine, but when checking facts we can look beyond the public relations machine. But it is very interesting that the public relations machine has never addressed the issue of President Uribe's very clear links with Pablo Escobar and the Medellin cartel. However, it is out there. This is evidence in testimony.

We should not be signing a trade agreement with Colombia. We should be bringing President Uribe to trial. That evidence should be weighed by a competent judge. These are the kinds of things we should be doing. Conservatives say they are against murderers and drug traffickers, but as long as they are in another country, Conservatives are willing to line up for photo ops with them, cut ribbons with them, and sign a trade agreement with them. It is absolutely appalling that with this body of evidence we would see the Conservatives trying to push through this agreement. This is absolutely appalling.

Where does it leave us? We have an amendment now coming forward. The Liberals, to be consistent to their position under their former leader, should be voting for the amendment to kill this agreement because there is no doubt that this is not in the interest of Canada. It is not even in the interest of Colombia for the reasons I cited earlier. The report of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation is very clear what the impact would be on rural Colombians.

The NDP has been calling for increased development aid because quite frankly, CIDA's work in Colombia, which I have seen firsthand, has actually helped to address some of those needs that have come forward. Development aid obviously is something that we need to continue to do. It is beyond the control of the Uribe regime, but it is important work that does address the dire needs of many of the refugees who are in shanty towns and bidonvilles across Colombia.

The idea that somehow this is tied to Canadian prosperity again shows to what extent the Conservatives simply have not done their homework. Most of the bilateral agreements we have signed have actually led to a reduction in exports. Following the signatures of these trade agreements, exports fall. Now why would that happen? It is because unlike every other country in the world, around our export-driven economy, we do not invest to provide any sort of product promotional support. The NDP has been calling for this for some time. The amounts that we provide in supports to our exports compared to that of other major countries is ridiculously small. As a result of that there is simply no economic argument that could be made.

The human rights argument, the labour rights argument, and the argument of those in rural areas of Colombia who will bear the brunt if Canada provides a rubber stamp for a regime that is scandal-ridden and a regime where there is very clear evidence and testimony of links between the paramilitaries and of the Uribe administration is something obviously that this Parliament has to look at and has to then evaluate.

Finally, I would like to read a brief quotation from Stephen Dudley's book about paramilitary violence. This is what is said about one of the many massacres. I cited some of the evidence of the connection between the regime and the paramilitaries. Just one paragraph from this book will show Canadians what is actually going on in Colombia:

After they killed my father and my brothers, they kept going. In another house, they killed a couple that was watching TV. One guy who went outside to ask about his son was also killed. A little boy who was carrying some food to his dad got it as well. A couple of girls that were in the street were also murdered. Everyone they saw they killed.

The NDP is saying no to this trade agreement because we believe the regime has blood on its hands and Canada deserves better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on his speech.

I would like to ask him to outline some of the transgressions that have been taking place with respect to the ELN and the other paramilitaries, and the relationship between the government of Colombia, the ELN and the paramilitaries, as well as the remaining members of FARC that are still in existence.

I would also like the member to talk about the issue of drugs. Drugs fueled the narco-terrorist state that Colombia became, and still is, to some extent. Do we not need to have a change here at home? Does the west not need to change also? If there were not a demand, there would not be a supply.

We make demands on countries such as Colombia, Central American countries and Mexico, but do we not also need to change our demand here in Canada? The federal government should start adopting harm reduction strategies that work, which would reduce demand here and have a positive impact upon improving social conditions in countries such as Colombia.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has been in favour of harm reduction strategies for some time. We have been the foremost promoter in the House on that issue, so that answers the second question.

As far as his first question is concerned, the ELN and FARC are guerrilla organizations in western Colombia. No one in their right mind suggests signing a trade agreement with FARC or ELN guerrillas. They have kidnapped and murdered many people, so why would the Conservatives recommend signing a trade agreement with paramilitaries on the other side who murder and trade in drugs? It makes absolutely no sense.

At home they say that if somebody murders or traffics in hard drugs, they should pay the time, but abroad, the Conservatives are all saying, “That is fine. That is a great activity. We will sign a trade agreement with you”. It is disgusting. It is inappropriate. The links are very clear and the Conservatives should be ashamed of what they are trying to put forward in the House today.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the following of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who was there last year in Colombia.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

You see, Mr. Speaker, he is really listening. I ask him a question and you have to call him to order.

I want to ask the following of the NDP member, who is always true to form and gave an excellent speech.

He was there when we went to Colombia to meet people in companies, trade unions and human rights organizations. What was his reaction when he heard the government had finished its negotiations and for all practical purposes had reached an agreement with Colombia that was ready to be signed. This was obviously bad for the work the committee was doing. I would like to know what he thought and especially how he reacted at that point to the Conservative government.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question.

We did go to Colombia and met trade unionists and human rights advocates. These are very brave people who have often received death threats. Occasionally there have been attempts to kill them or members of their families. They all said that this would do nothing to improve the situation in Colombia. As I said earlier, it will only make things worse. That is crystal clear.

Insofar as government assistance is concerned, CIDA is doing good work with limited resources, as we saw in Soacha. If the government is sincere and really wants to improve things for Colombia’s poor, it should increase CIDA’s current funding for refugees, people who have been driven from their land and find themselves absolutely destitute in shanty towns all across Colombia.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for his courage in bringing forward our message of opposition, as New Democrats in the House and outside with Canadians from all sorts of organizations and directions, and that we stand for human rights and fair trade that looks at not just the well-being of Canadians but the well-being of those in the country with which we are trading.

What we are hearing here today is the extent to which the Colombian situation is so different from any other country, which is something that Canadians from coast to coast recognize. I have received numerous letters expressing opposition to this free trade agreement, as have so many others in the House.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I did not get one. You are making it up.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I am hearing all sorts of heckling. I am sensing a real feeling of defensiveness from both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I wonder if it is because they know they are on the wrong side of this debate. Is it because they know that by voting for this free trade agreement, they will be voting against human rights? That is what I would like to hear about.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill, who is one of the bright new members of our Parliament, is absolutely right. We have a united NDP caucus fighting this and members of the Bloc are also fighting this. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians have written to the Leader of the Opposition to say that it is completely wrong-headed of him to endorse this agreement.

I understand the Liberals are now under a lot of pressure. I hope Canadians at large will keep the pressure on and keep those thousands of emails and letters coming in to Liberal members of Parliament and the Leader of the Opposition because the Liberals are wrong on this bill. Through public pressure, they can be forced to do what is right, which is to vote down this bill.

The Conservatives will be getting letters on this. Once it comes out in Conservative ridings that they are doing deals with regimes linked to drug trafficking and paramilitary, I do not think Conservative supporters will be too happy at all.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster for elevating the standard of debate over this particular free trade deal.

The one thing he points out that we should all be cognizant of is the whole myth associated with the globalization of capital, which was that globalization would somehow elevate the standards of labour and environmental conditions in the countries with which we trade, even though they are unwilling to ever put labour or environmental standards in those trade agreements.

In fact, the inverse has been true. The only way we will get countries like Colombia to elevate their standards of labour and human rights is by not allowing them to play in that sandbox of globalized capital trade, et cetera, unless they do come up to some minimum standards of decency.

I have a question for my colleague. I remember when Dick Martin, the head of ORIT, the labour organization associated with the Organization of American States, came back to Canada and sounded the alarm that they were killing trade unionists in the streets. The head of the teachers' union, the head of the nurses' union and the head of the miners' union were summarily executed in the driveways in front of their homes. Does my colleague remember the warning that Dick Martin sounded in this place a number of years ago?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do. We have had abundant evidence coming from previous years and from human rights organizations now. There is no doubt that Parliament should be voting thumbs down on this agreement. We certainly hope the Liberals will stop propping up the Conservatives on this. I think public pressure will succeed in changing the Liberals' minds.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, free trade is something we support as a whole in general but this bill is not to be taken lightly. Some very serious questions need to be answered.

When I was the minister of the Canadian International Development Agency with trade agreements especially that we were working on at the time in the Central America areas, we always took into consideration the developmental aspect of the region. One of the things we do not want to do is end up with a free trade agreement that benefits us or the elite of Colombia but that it does the exact opposite of what our development program is trying to do.

In that case, I would want to know, because I have not as yet seen anything, whether in this case CIDA has had a say and whether the minister for CIDA has signed off on this trade agreement arrangement and was part of the discussion and negotiations to see how this agreement impacts on the poor people of Colombia.

Ultimately, we would be totally remiss, to say the least, if we were to make agreements with Colombia, or any other country for that matter, where we are providing assistance and have an agreement that would be contrary to what our system is trying to do. Therefore, this is a very important issue.

We know that in the last several years, the Colombia government has made significant progress under President Uribe toward achieving security for the Colombian people. There have been significant reductions in violence and human rights abuses. The general murder rate has fallen dramatically and the International Crisis Group has noted that since 2003 Colombia has witnessed a substantial decline in violence and kidnappings. That sounds very positive.

I would like to ask the Minister of International Trade to let us have information as to what impact, if an impact assessment has been done, this agreement would have on the poverty levels in Colombia.That is a very critical and very important because the two must go hand in hand.

This is not a bill that one can take lightly. Some serious questions need to be asked as a result of what we are looking at.

Part of the Conservative government's plan is to focus on the Americas while abandoning Africa. It has decided to make our hemisphere or Central and South America a priority because it is best for our economic situation. I am not suggesting that we should not focus on the Americas. We need to focus on the Americas because they are part of our hemisphere. However, to do that and, at the same time, abandon Africa and any other commitments we have and to focus solely on what is in Canada's economic best interest when we do development is absolutely not acceptable.

I would like to see the assessment done by CIDA to see whether this agreement benefits Canada and perhaps the elite of Colombia but does not benefit the poor of Colombia. If that is the case, I would have some serious problems with this trade agreement and we would need to very clearly look at it.

I must say that I have serious problems with a government that premises its development on whether or not it benefits its economic security and benefits it economically. That is not the basis for development because that is tied to aid. The basis of development--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I apologize but I must interrupt the member at this time. She will have 16 minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Beaches—East York had the floor. There are 16 minutes remaining in the time allotted for her remarks.

I call upon the hon. member for Beaches—East York for the conclusion of her remarks.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before question period started, this bill cannot be taken lightly and serious questions need to be answered.

One cannot discuss this bill without talking about, for instance, the human rights issue in Colombia. We all know that in the last number of years three million persons have been internally displaced. This figure is astronomical; it is only second to that of Sudan. We see Sudan on the television much more regularly, but we do not see Colombia as often. We see the drug lords, the paramilitary and all that, but we do not really understand when we do not see the three million people who have been displaced.

Who are these people? These are poor people, farmers, people who are being abused. In the first half of 2008 alone, 270,000 people were displaced. This is the highest rate in the past 23 years. This is not a positive trend. It is something that should concern us a great deal.

Again, as in all conflicts around the world, women in particular are vulnerable to the displacement. Women and children always bear the brunt of any conflict or any instability. This is nothing new, and it is no different in Colombia. We see this again. It shows up in our figures.

This is occurring in areas that are rich in crops, rich in minerals and rich in oil and gas. What does that mean? This is land that has a lot to offer. It means that Canadian companies that may be exploring for gas, for minerals would actually be in this area. The economic development taking place would be in those areas where people have been forced off their lands and sometimes killed.

The people are being displaced by the millions. It is not by a few, but by the millions, not that any would be acceptable. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been watching and monitoring this for some time.

The economic development in these areas would be at the expense of millions of people who would be forced off their lands. Many have already been forced off their lands. This goes very much to a justice issue and to a human rights issue.

Innocent civilians, mostly rural people, are the ones who are paying the price in a different way. As some of us may know, there was a push on the part of the government to identify and kill the paramilitaries and the drug lords. What happened is what we call false positives. Innocent civilians have been killed and are being killed by Colombian military, then they are dressed up as rebels and being used as proof that rebels were killed in combat.

President Uribe from Colombia had initially backed the military saying that none of this was true, but he later announced 27 soldiers and 3 generals were being dismissed as the result of 11 specific killings. This is a horrible situation. In addition to the displacement, innocent people are being killed and dressed up in pretense of the bodies being paramilitary.

It seems that the military is under tremendous pressure to demonstrate that it is actually succeeding and getting rid of the paramilitaries, the drug lords and so on, but killing innocent people and putting them forward as such is not the answer. Again, that is a horrendous human rights abrogation that needs to be 100% stopped, not just in part. There are over 1,000 victims, dating back 2003. Many of these young people from poor areas were actually paraded in such a manner. I think this is totally unacceptable. We need to take these things into consideration when we look at this trade bill.

For years, President Uribe publicly denied that the problem even existed. However, as we have seen, he fired members of his own military when he was forced to deal with the fact that it is happening, and it continues to happen to this day, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Corruption is another critical area. Politicians and military being linked to paramilitaries and drug lords is a common discussion. Again, both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International continue to talk about this and continue to mention the crises in this area.

Because of this, it is essential that the government does a human rights impact assessment before any free trade agreement is implemented or passed in the House. A human rights impact assessment is absolutely critical to ascertain what is happening, to what extent innocent people are being killed, abducted and removed every day for the sake of economic progress.

These recommendations are not new and they are not new to the government. In fact, all the government members supported it. The recommendations from the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade entitled “Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia” stated that improvements needed with regard to displacement, labour laws and accountability for crime have to happen before a bill goes through and that government must show a more constructive attitude to human rights groups in the country, again, before any bill goes through.

This again was supported by all members on all sides of the House. None of these recommendations were considered before an agreement was signed in November 2008, before the report was even tabled in the House. I find that very disturbing. The reason the standing committee did all that work was to address these issues. They need to be addressed in this instance; otherwise, we will be an accomplice, in a sense, to what is going on.

Let us look for a moment at labour. Colombia has led the world in the killing of trade unionists. Some 2,600 people have died since 1986. Just imagine, 2,600 unionists, union leaders, trade leaders have died since 1986. If that were to happen anywhere else in the world, we would be appalled. This is what is happening in Colombia. Mostly this has been attributed to paramilitary groups who have deliberately targeted unionists who have been getting in the way, by giving people rights, employment rights. The paramilitary does not want any of that.

More than 400 of them were killed under Uribe's government. So the killings go on. While it has come down somewhat, it is still going on, and 60% of all trade union related deaths in the world occurred in Colombia last year. That is a huge number.

As a result of pressure, some changes have happened in Colombia. Some of the pressure has come from the United States. Violence has been the major roadblock for the U.S. government signing the FTA with Colombia, so Colombia has made some efforts to deal with the problems of impunity and in the justice system. That has brought down some of the problem, but it has not resolved it.

In response, again to the U.S. Congress, Colombia was prompted to work with international labour organizations to improve the situation of trade unionists being killed or abducted. All this activity has resulted in the appointment of specialized staff for a prosecutor's office to effectively prosecute those responsible for assassination of union members.

That is a good move, obviously, and some things are beginning to change. However, when we look at the statistics, in 97% of the cases there have been no convictions. The convictions were consistently low under Uribe, but they jumped to 43% in 2007, and 53% as of October, resulting from pressure from the U.S. Again, the lack of convictions was high in the early parts of Uribe's administration and they have jumped up. With the insistence and with pressure from the United States and others, we can see that is having some impact.

The labour side agreement that is part of the bill is not as strong as the NAFTA labour agreement and the government is subject to a fine to a maximum of $15 million but this does not help labour in any way. Labour does not have a say. Labour is not part of the dispute mechanism and therefore it does not improve the situation in any way. Again, not only does the labour agreement need to be stronger than NAFTA but not weaker. That needs to have a proper assessment. It needs to be looked at and it needs to be assessed.

The tribunal that has been set up for disputes I do not think will be very effective. As I said, it does not have legal representation on the tribunal. We cannot have a situation where money is fined but the government makes the decisions and labour is not part of it. Labour is an intrinsic part of this. What has been happening to the labour movement in Colombia is absolutely atrocious. It is an issue of human rights. In order to protect the labour movement, it needs to be part and parcel of the decision and the side deal needs to be strengthened. Otherwise, it will be meaningless.

President Uribe indicated more recently that he wants to amend the constitution to run for a third time, which is another troublesome part of this whole area. He now has a popular rating approval of 70% to 80%, so this is not out of the realm of possibility that he will actually do this. However, this would have serious implications for democracy if this were to move forward. Yes, he has support of 70% to 80% because to some degree violence has come down, but it does not address the large number of issues that I just mentioned before in regard to the large number of people who have been displaced, the labour movement and corruption.

It is very troublesome when a government comes to the end of its term and then decides to amend the constitution to give itself more time. That is not the mark of a strong democracy nor will it help to stabilize the situation in Colombia.

In several instances Uribe has denied problems existed but then has only acted under pressure from the U.S. when it found that in fact there was a problem and he had to hold the assassins of the trade unionists accountable.

I can give other examples. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have pointed out that an arrangement was made with the United States to extradite drug lords to the U.S. to be tried only for drug trafficking and not for the human rights atrocities and for the killings and murders that they committed in Colombia. Some of them have been convicted for up to 20 years in jail but are not facing war criminal charges.

Again, the international community should be concerned about this. By extraditing them to the U.S. to be tried under drug laws is serious, but it is almost nothing compared to what they should be getting. They should be tried in the proper courts for crimes against humanity. This is something that needs to be looked at and discussed. Serious human rights implications must be addressed and are not being addressed. This is why an independent human rights impact assessment is needed before any document is signed. It is needed badly. As I said at the outset, the Conservative government is moving toward tied aid. This is an area that really bothers me to no end tremendously.

If a South American country wants aid, then it had better sign a free trade agreement, it seems. This what the government seems essentially to be saying. If there is a free trade agreement, then there will be aid. Aid should not be tied to a free trade agreement and should not be tied to Canada's economic success. It should be untied aid. Otherwise, we are being total hypocrites and we might as well shut down the Canadian International Development Agency completely. This is totally unacceptable.

That is why the government is abandoning Africa. Again, it goes back to that. We do not hear any economic bilateral agreement in any of the discussion with Africa.

We must ask a number of questions. Tied aid is unacceptable. Tying our economic success to free trade is not acceptable. We should be working for the benefit of the country. That is what international aid is about.

The government should slow the bill down and do a human rights impact assessment immediately because that has a social impact as well. A stronger labour side agreement needs to happen. What we have now is not good enough.

A CIDA assessment needs to be done. The House is owed a report from the minister responsible for CIDA telling us what kind of development assessment CIDA has done and what it has to say about how this trade agreement would impact the poor people of Colombia. Is it going to hurt them or is it going to benefit them? If the balance of the trade agreement is negative for the poor people of Colombia, then the government and Parliament has no business approving this document.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is Colombia is a country facing ongoing challenges.

I had the opportunity to travel there last May with several members of the committee and I saw firsthand the challenges it is facing. I also saw some of the great advances it has made, especially within Bogota, which has a population of approximately seven million people. It is a very progressive city with a university. There is excitement and enthusiasm on the part of the younger generation who see opportunities with the advancement of trade. They hope to learn from countries such as Canada.

We had an opportunity to see firsthand some of the Canadian companies. They act as role models with their social-corporate responsibility and are providing proper human rights and labour standards for other countries to follow. As a matter of fact, Connie Watson, who is a Latin American correspondent for CBC News, followed us around.

A leader of the trade committee asked local officials if the free trade deal would help the situation or not and the overwhelming response was yes. They welcome investment, especially with respect to roads, schools and jobs for the displaced people, 40% of whom cannot find work in the city.

If we exclude this agreement and just leave Colombia to the status quo, how would that advance the cause of human rights and the economic opportunities that the Colombians see through a free trade agreement?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that nothing is going right in Colombia, that there are not some good things happening. I mentioned them in my speech.

I do believe that human rights issues are not automatically resolved by the signing of a free trade agreement. As we have seen in some other parts of the world, trade agreements tend to help those who are already well off and those who are poor tend to be left behind.

In and of itself, Colombia does not address human rights situations. Colombia has a specific huge humanitarian problem with displacement and the forcing of people off their lands, which are very rich in minerals and oil. It also has a problem with the killings and so on.

As a result of the unique situation in Colombia, it is important that we do a human rights impact assessment and that we include in the body of the agreement human rights, social and labour issues. They need to be part of the agreement, otherwise it will make matters worse.

I am not suggesting that everything in Colombia is bad, but when we look at the whole picture, the situation is far too serious. Human rights abrogations are far too serious. Instability is still far too serious. The activities of the paramilitary and the drug lords are still far too aggressive and are still going on in parts of the country. People are still being displaced and pushed off their lands. Human rights abrogations are going on every day. We need to ensure that this agreement deals with those assessments before it is signed.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would truly like the member to tell us whether or not the Liberal Party will support Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I believe she said that an independent body must monitor the evolution of human and labour rights and environmental standards. That was one of the committee's recommendations that the Liberal Party supported at the time. According to the Liberal critic for international trade, and despite the Liberal platitudes about an independent body to monitor and, above all, guarantee ongoing improvement in human rights, it seems that the Liberal Party will support Bill C-23 even before the committee's recommendations are considered and implemented.

What is the real position of the Liberal Party on Bill C-23? Will it vote for implementation of the Colombia free trade agreement?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill needs to be changed, that the standing committee report needs to be taken into consideration, and that there is time for the government to take another look at this bill, to take into consideration the standing committee report which addresses the issue of human rights along with the labour and environmental side deals. We are asking, as many other members have already mentioned, that there be an environmental impact assessment done.

I am personally also saying, because of my own work in this area, that the minister responsible for CIDA should also come forward with some recommendations and an assessment to show the benefits or lack thereof that this bill would in fact provide for the vulnerable people of Colombia.

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

Mr. Speaker, pardon me for being astounded. The Liberal member for Beaches—East York spoke for 20 minutes against the Colombia trade deal and I will guarantee, because I have seen it before, that when it comes to a vote, even without all the human rights and environmental amendments she talked about, the Liberal Party is going to vote for this trade deal. Does anyone know why? It is because the leader of the Liberal Party rejected the letter that was signed by 50 prominent Canadians, including Naomi Klein and Stephen Lewis, telling members not to vote in favour of this deal. Yet, he rejected it.

It reminded me of a previous Liberal leader who spent lots of energy talking about the Liberal Party being against NAFTA, against free trade with the U.S., but immediately after the election, after the party came to power, guess what, free trade and NAFTA continued. We know that this trade deal has very similar wording, such as chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows big corporations to sue local, provincial and even Canadian governments if they deem it. They have the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environmental, labour and social protections.

I want a yes or no answer. Without these kinds of amendments, will the member stand in the House and vote against this trade deal?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not need any lessons from the hon. member and I do not accept her premise of what I said in the House.

I did not say that I supported or did not support the bill. What I have said is I am not against free trade per se, but this bill in particular needs to be reviewed and needs to be changed. I thought we were here to debate this and to decide what happens from here.

Some changes need to be made to the bill and I ask the government, in the process of this debate, to take the bill back and at least go through the recommendation made by the standing committee to do a proper human rights assessment and then come back to the House with it. The government may choose not to do that, but I am spending my time here today because I feel we need to be having an open debate and discussion on what is going on and improving some things if possible.

I have identified a number of areas where I believe the bill could use a tremendous amount of improvement and further study. I suggest that some of those are the human rights impact, definitely the labour side deal because it is not strong enough and does not even meet the NAFTA standards, as well as the environmental aspects. As well, the CIDA minister needs to come up with a recommendation.

The bill needs a great deal of work done to it. Some of these things need to be done. I ask the government, at this stage, to take a look at some of the suggestions that have been made in the House and hopefully decide to bring to bear the kinds of things about which we have talked.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of Bill C-23. I will start by giving the main reasons why we are opposed to this bill, and then I will explain some of those reasons.

It seems to us that the federal government's main motivation in entering into this free trade agreement is not trade—members will see why we say that—but investment, because the agreement contains a chapter on investment protection. The agreement will therefore make things easier for Canadian investors, especially in the mining sector, and we know that there is considerable interest in investing in Colombia.

That is the main motivation, in our opinion, but judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia would be ill conceived.

All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Such clauses are especially dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best. By protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement could delay social and environmental progress in this country, where the need for progress is great. This is serious, and I would like to hear what my Liberal colleague has to say about it.

In fact, Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and certainly in Latin America. To advance human rights around the world, governments—those willing, that is—use a carrot and stick approach. They support efforts to improve respect for human rights and reserve the right to take away privileges if progress slides back.

With this free trade agreement, Canada would forego any ability to bring pressure to bear. In fact, not only would it give up the possibility of using the carrot and stick approach, but it would be surrendering all power to the Colombian government.

To convince us of its good intentions, the government keeps saying that this agreement would come with a companion agreement on labour and another one on the environment. The fact of the matter is that such agreements are notoriously ineffective. Unless they are part of the free trade agreement, which they are not, investors could destroy with impunity Colombia's rich natural environment, displace populations to facilitate mine development or continue murdering unionists. Companion agreements cannot be used against any of this if they are not part of the free trade agreement.

As for the free trade agreement per se, the Bloc Québécois is against trading off the government's ability to press for human rights to provide Canadian corporations with foreign investment opportunities.

We must ask ourselves what is the purpose of a bilateral free trade agreement with Colombia like the one with Peru. I could quote figures, but for the benefit of those listening, I will simply say that statistics do not show a substantial increase in trade, but only a slight one.

This situation is an exception to the usual signing of a free trade agreement, because they are usually made between special trading partners who trade sufficiently to make it worthwhile to lower trade barriers.

The Colombian market and trade with Colombia are not particularly sizeable. The products Canada primarily sells there, such as western grain, can be sold easily elsewhere, especially during this crisis, and Quebec and Canadian exporters will see only limited benefit at best from the conclusion of this agreement.

Some Canadian businesses might be interested, but we fail to see what attraction there might be for people in Quebec and Canada. In fact, from what we can see, this free trade agreement mostly protects Canadian investors and investments in the mining sector. That is of greater interest to Canadian investors and to the government, which is sensitive to their lobbying.

I have to say here that we do not oppose investment agreements, but we oppose bad investment agreements, and this appears to be one.

Indirect foreign investment is growing exponentially. In order to create a predictable environment and ensure that a foreign investor does not end up losing his assets or being nationalized without compensation—this is the example always cited, as happened with oil in some instances—countries conclude treaties to protect investments. We have nothing against that.

The first Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the FTA, which included a section on investment protection, chapter 16, was the first agreement in the world to include a dispute resolution mechanism, which the two countries could use. I emphasize that it was between Canada and the United States, two countries with major trading activities and able to negotiate for their mutual benefit.

There was a dispute resolution mechanism available to the two countries. The agreement worked well. No discriminatory measures were taken against a foreign investor and no case was submitted to the arbitration tribunal. And yet, during the five years the agreement was in force, the value of Canadian investments rose by 41%. So it was not a bad agreement.

However, when it came to negotiating NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, these three countries driving the negotiations wanted to change the agreement on investment because of unreasonable concerns about the risks run by investors in Mexico.

Under chapter 11, foreign investors may apply directly to international tribunals, circumventing the filter of public good provided by the governments. This is not insignificant. It means that companies can apply on their own to international tribunals, whereas under the FTA, governments alone could do so. That is a big difference.

The results can be very different depending on whether companies or countries make such applications.

The word expropriation had a specific meaning in chapter 16 and a different one in chapter 11. It is so broad a concept that any legislation that might have the effect of reducing an investor’s profits can be deemed expropriation and result in a lawsuit. Foreign investors are allowed to go before international tribunals. Moreover, they can interpret the law in such a way that, if the government of a particular country passes legislation that reduces the value of their investments in any way at all, they can equate these losses to expropriation and launch a lawsuit. The amount of the suit is not limited to the value of the investment but includes all possible future profits. It is very abusive.

This chapter was denounced by everyone. If legislation to protect the environment reduces a foreign investor’s profits, the government is exposed to fabulous lawsuits. Despite all that, Ottawa signed several bilateral agreements over the years that are copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA. The criticism reached such a pitch, though, that the Liberals eventually stopped signing these kinds of agreements.

I want to digress a bit. I took part in the election in which Jean Chrétien promised to do all he could about the free trade agreement, the FTA. We know what happened then. Not only did he sign it, but he went on to conclude several others and became the great propagandist of free trade agreements. Under the Conservatives, Ottawa is back on the offensive and negotiating numerous agreements of this kind. In the one with Colombia, the Conservative government cedes to multinationals the right to determine the public interest.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore oppose the bill to implement this free trade agreement because of the clauses it contains that are copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA. 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. We are in favour of free trade, but not under any conditions at all.

We do not want conditions that will make people’s lives worse, especially when the people in question have no other recourse, like the Colombians in this case. They have virtually no individual or trade union rights and are at the mercy of investors whose strong, violent mercenaries will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.

A number of other members and I met with some individuals—trade unionists and people from NGOs—who had been designated by the people in villages under siege from multinationals to come and explain the situation to us.

There are human rights abuses. The Conservatives tell us over and over that things are improving and the situation is less catastrophic than before. The truth is that the human rights situation is quite a bit worse than it used to be. Most violations are committed by paramilitary groups and human rights workers are worried about the ties between these groups and the government.

I have a few statistics. In 2008, the crimes committed by these paramilitary groups increased by 41% in comparison with a 14% increase the previous year. There was a 9% increase in the proportion of crimes committed by government security forces. Even though the number of crimes is rising, the perpetrators remain as immune as ever. Only 3% of crimes end in a conviction. It is impossible to say under these conditions that there is any respect for human rights.

As for workers' rights, we realize this is one of the world's worst places for respecting them. Trade unionists are targeted for their activities. I have met a number of them. They told us they cannot not live freely. They are in hiding constantly. They are afraid of being shot point blank. And their fear is not groundless, because, since 1986, 2,690 trade unionists have been assassinated. It could be said that the number of murders has decreased somewhat, but, in 2007, 39 unionists were murdered—nearly one a week—and, in 2008, 48 were murdered. This is not a situation in which union members can be said to be able to exercise their right to exert pressure. As one union vice-president put it, thousands of people have disappeared, and unions continue to be persecuted.

Population displacement in Colombia is often the result of conflicts opposing government security forces, paramilitary groups and guerrillas. However, economic displacement is increasingly frequent. In most cases, the people displaced receive no compensation. Various means are used to force people from a given location: pressure tactics, threats, murders and land flooding. There are also stories of the many people living in small villages, in clearings near the sites of mines rich in various minerals, being forcibly moved off in all sorts of imaginable and unimaginable ways in order to make room for investors. There is nowhere for them to go. The American State Department and Amnesty International say that another 305,000 persons were displaced in 2007. There had been a lot before then. In 2008, over 380,000 persons had to flee their homes. In fact, since 1985, nearly 4.6 million persons have been forced to leave their homes and their land.

The Conservative government can go on saying that the human rights situation has improved, but Colombia is second only to Sudan in the greatest number of internally displaced persons. That is really something. That is an understatement. Would Canada be prepared to sign a free trade agreement with Sudan?

There may of course be side deals, but I have said such agreements are ineffective. I see no way of improving this agreement without it being changed very significantly.

As we do not see any such improvements appearing, we think that the free trade agreement presented here for implementation will in no way help the people of Colombia, Quebec and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that my hon. colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île made an extremely interesting presentation. She brought up new points that we had not heard so far concerning human rights in Colombia. She has a great deal of experience with free trade, human rights and the various countries involved.

Instead of putting us in front of a fait accompli and a free trade agreement already signed by both countries, would it not have been better if the government had first asked the members of this House for their opinions? It could have made an effort to find out what impact this agreement would have on human rights and inform the members of this House of the real reasons why it was signed.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. Knowledge comes to members as they accumulate age and experience. It is true that, over the years that I have been here, there has been much talk about free trade in the House of Commons.

This topic was discussed when NAFTA was signed, and we pointed out how ridiculous chapter 11 was. It allowed companies to apply directly to international tribunals, thereby depriving states of the opportunity to defend themselves.

I did not get the chance to mention this, but the concept of expropriation under this agreement is such that improved conditions for the citizens could be construed as having a negative impact on the potential for profits and, thus, through great lawyers using fancy words, be considered justification for expropriation. Such is the meaning of this agreement. Therefore, we must be extremely careful.

I come from the labour movement. I know that good negotiations require a good balance of power. This does not mean that the parties are fighting one another, but one party has the opportunity to discuss with the other because the latter cannot impose its will on the former. In this case, the parties are Colombia and Canada. Of course, Canada has the upper hand. All Colombia can “sell” to Canada is mining investments. When we examine the issue from every angle, that is what matters, and unfortunately, these mining investments are what is making life difficult for the people. It could not be any other way.

The Colombian government can say all it wants. While a few benefits here and there may come from this agreement, overall, it will be detrimental to the Colombian people and it will tilt the balance of power toward the government and away from the people.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my hon. colleague's speech. I agree with several of the points she raised. I think, however, that it is important to highlight a few things about that speech.

The situation in Colombia can be said to be mixed. It is true that there are massive population displacements as well as human rights violations. That is terrible. Colombia is not the only country in that part of the world where this happens, though; there are many. It is also important to point out that, in some segments of the population and some parts of the country, the situation has improved.

I clearly recall the situation in Medellin, for instance. There was a time when no one could go out on its streets. Today, the city is undergoing a great deal of development. It has changed dramatically over the past 10 years.

Our colleague said that this agreement cannot do any good for the people of Colombia. But will it make things worse? I am not sure that it will—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to interrupt the hon. member to give the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île enough time to answer.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will have to be brief.

I think that it will because of the provision concerning investments. We must not underestimate what that will entail. These investments are not made in cities, but over large areas, in the forests and savannahs where the people live.

Think of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the massive mining investments made in that country and the resulting loss of quality of life for the people. Those who live in a village may not have much to eat, but they can live from agriculture and gathering. It is a living.

However, when a mining company moves in and starts digging, putting up buildings, sending dust flying in the air or using chemicals in processing the minerals extracted, the people's lives are turned upside down. They have no control over that and know nothing about those things. In addition, without unions—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to interrupt the hon. member so that another question can be asked.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île had to say. I know she has a lot of experience in the union movement and with human rights.

The Conservatives, through the minister, claimed earlier that trade unionists are in favour of this agreement. He said all the unions support the agreement, even though that is absurd.

The Liberals claim that human rights associations support the agreement. That is just a way of justifying—a little— the fact that both the Conservatives and the Liberals are in favour of the agreement.

So far as the hon. member knows, is there a single organization with a good reputation on human rights or a single real union that supports this agreement?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people I know from these groups are utterly opposed to the agreement, not for what I would call futile reasons but for reasons they can justify.

When social conditions and human rights are like those in Colombia, the logic behind free trade agreements means that they cannot have any other result than to reinforce the power of the government and rich people and ensure that the underground resources benefit foreigners much more than Colombians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Willowdale, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Government Spending; the hon. member for Sudbury, Financial Institutions.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-23 today, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, we join with other nations and their leaders as they ponder the issue of free trade in general and free trade with Colombia specifically. With the current turmoil we find in the global economic system and within major economies across the world, including our own, there is a natural inclination to pause with respect to trade agreements like the one we debate today.

While there is a temptation to close the doors and shutter down during the economic storm, for countries like Canada trade is at the very core of our prosperity. We are a trading nation and we rely on the success of our trade relationships for economic growth and continued prosperity.

In times like these it is tempting to show reluctance for open trade and in its place to seek protectionist policies. However, we only need to look to the 1930s and the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff act in the United States that was protectionist in nature and that clearly contributed to the further collapse of the world economic system.

My point is simply that trade for a country like ours is essential and must be encouraged.

Free trade relationships can be of significant advantage for Canada and for emerging economies with which we sign agreements as they continue their development process.

The question at hand today is not only the beneficial effects of free trade relationships but the ancillary issues that we must consider when entering into such agreements.

Colombia is certainly a nation that has struggled almost since its inception as the Republic of Colombia in 1886, We note that what is now modern day Panama seceded from Colombia in 1903. From the point of arrival of Spanish explorers in 1499 through to independence of 1819 and the departure of Gran Colombia, as it was known then by the current nations of Venezuela and Ecuador, Colombia has known periods of considerable instability.

In more modern times, we also reflect sadly upon the tumultuous 40-year civil conflict that has claimed between 70,000 and 100,000 lives. Through it all, Colombia has struggled to grow economically, socially and politically.

Despite internal conflicts that affect Colombia, for a period of almost 30 years, beginning in 1970, the country's gross domestic products grew at an average rate of 4% per year. A recessionary period in 1999 consumed the nation for several years but into the new century growth was steady and in 2007 it was 8.2% of GDP.

The International Monetary Fund reported Colombia's GDP at $202 billion U.S. dollars in 2007. This was the fourth largest economy in South America. It must be conceded, however, that while these numbers are impressive, much of the wealth has remained concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the country's population and this must be addressed in the future.

While a seemingly chronic issue for developing nations, it is something we must keep in mind as we debate Bill C-23 and the potential benefits that we hope will accrue to the general population of Colombia.

Colombia's economy has strong areas of growth and interesting aspects to it. For example, the massive United States market is supplied with 70% of its imported flowers from the nation of Colombia alone. In 2007, the American publication Business Week magazine named Colombia the “most extreme emerging economy on earth”.

Colombia's modern history was significantly altered with the election of the current president in August 2002. President Alvaro Uribe Velez has certainly changed the political landscape of Colombia. His administration has been marked by reform, significant progress on the internal conflict that has ravaged Colombia and a more practical approach to the economic challenges that have faced his country.

It is important to note that the presidency is set to change in 2010 when President Uribe reaches the constitutional limits and, therefore, cannot seek re-election. However, if a referendum recently approved by the Colombian Senate proceeds, he will have the opportunity to seek a third term. Most people will, of course, hope that reform and continuing economic growth will continue regardless of this political reality.

This abbreviated picture of Colombia's political and economic status is important as we consider Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that is before this House today. While economics and politics are enormous, when considering the approval of the free trade agreement with any nation so, too, are issues of social justice and civility.

Significant concerns have been expressed by various groups and individuals as the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is being debated not only in this House but across Canada. Just yesterday in The Toronto Star, the editorial board of the newspaper bluntly stated, in reference to Bill C-23, that “the bill deserves closer scrutiny”.

While we in Canada debate this free trade agreement, we are joined in such deliberations by the United States officials, most notably in the senate where ratification of the treaty signed by the previous administration in 2006 proceeds quite slowly.

The new president, Barack Obama, has enunciated his support of the United States-Colombia free trade agreement. However, there are concerns within the senate with respect to the situation in Colombia that could result in considerable delay in the passage of this treaty in the United States. President Obama's trade representative, Ron Kirk, is currently working with senators to “find a way forward”.

With our largest trading partner, the United States, looking closely at its treaty, we can all be assured that what we do here in Canada will at least have some impact upon the American lawmakers. It is unlikely that should the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement pass here, the United States advocates of their treaty would not point out the possibility of putting their business at a disadvantage to their Canadian counterparts if the United States senate delayed too long.

With that in mind, we must look closely at the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, both from the perspective of our own country and the potential benefits to the average Colombian who might stand to benefit from improved trade relations.

In terms of Canada's economic interests, we export goods valued at approximately $703 million per year. Colombia exports approximately $643 million worth of goods to Canada. In context, Canada's 2008 gross domestic product was nearly $1.5 trillion. Canadian companies have approximately $750 million invested in Colombia.

The reality is simply that while Colombia is creating an emerging nation in South America and one of importance, current trade between Canada and Colombia remains relatively small. However, a ratified free trade agreement with Canada is significant both in terms of potential investment and trade but also more indirectly in terms of the statement it makes both domestically here in Canada and internationally with nations across the world considering similar arrangements.

In that context, what are some of the concerns that are being expressed by groups and individuals here in Canada and in other parts of the world? Human rights concerns are at the forefront of the statements being made by the various groups.

By way of example, today the lower house in Switzerland has received a letter signed by 33 non-governmental organizations asking that their country delay ratification of a European Union-Colombia free trade arrangement until their concerns are addressed with respect to human rights in Colombia. The letter speaks of what they call “serious and systematic” human rights violations.

Only a few days ago, the Reverend David Giuliano, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada, wrote that he “believed our trade needs to be restricted by ethical, environmental and moral considerations”.

One source of the concerns with respect to Bill C-23 originated with the labour movement both in Canada and in other nations. Indeed, the national director of the United Steelworkers in Canada has announced it will host Colombia lawyer Yessika Hoyos Morales in Ottawa this week, as it enunciates its position with respect to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Ms. Hoyos Morales is the daughter of the trade unionist who was murdered in Colombia eight years ago.

Many international human rights groups continue to express their concern about the arbitrary action with respect to labour leaders and labour movement activities in Colombia. Labour leaders across Canada and around the world report that over 2,700 labour leaders have been killed in Colombia over the past 10 years.

The issue of human rights is also a concern outside the labour movement in Colombia. The civil war and the conduct of paramilitary organizations is of grave concern to many observers throughout the world. For much of the most troubling period of the civil war in Colombia the loss of innocent lives at the hands of paramilitary organizations was characteristic of a seriously troubled nation.

A further area of concern centres on the ongoing problem of the illegal narcotics trade that has so troubled Colombia and the nations in which these drugs create incomprehensible social problems, including the criminal activities associated with the importation of illegal drugs.

It is reported that the Colombian drug cartels continue to supply virtually all the cocaine that is used illegally in the United States and is the most significant supplier to other nations in the world.

The effects of this problem is of course not only to be found in the United States, but also in Canada and within Colombia itself.

This ongoing problem must be addressed is there is to be any long-term stability for Colombia and if the country is to take its place in the world as a truly emerging economy, particularly within the context of the South American region.

These issues clearly need to be addressed and which we, as legislators, must take into consideration balanced, of course, by the significant progress that has been made over the last number of years, particularly by President Uribe's administration.

Many will argue quite legitimately that by engaging nations like Colombia in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements we are likely to encourage them to participate more fully within the world community. In so doing we can help them with many of the concerns that are raised both on a national and international level.

It is important and absolutely essential that as we debate Bill C-23, we weigh these issues against what is widely recognized as profound and significant progress that has taken place in Colombia over the past few years.

President Uribe is generally recognized to have a high level of support among Colombians as a result of his success in creating greater stability in the country and as a result a more vibrant and progressive economy.

The many successes of recent years against the FARC rebels has spread hope among Colombians that even greater stability can be achieved and therefore economic progress that would normally follows.

While much of the success that has been achieved in this area by the Colombian government fails to garner international headlines, we periodically witness profound success in this conflict.

In 2008 we witnessed the spectacular freeing of the former presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, after having been held captive by rebels for almost six and a half years.

Kidnappings, a chronic problem in Colombia, have decreased in recent years, under President Uribe's leadership, to a 20 year low. Similarly the actions of paramilitary groups on the right have long been a terrible part of Colombia's modern history.

The Colombian government in recent years, through negotiations and enforcement action, has succeeded in reducing the action of these right-wing groups.

While there continues to be challenges that are certainly significant and the recently discovered involvement by some political figures is troubling, we must encourage the government to ensure that these individuals are being held to account. It is important that progress, however difficult, is indeed taking place.

In the area of criminal and civil strife, it is reported that homicides in Colombia have been reduced by 49% since 2002. Kidnappings, as noted before, are down by a percentage in the range of 85%.

We should also be concerned with respect to the displacement of people affected by the conflict within Colombia. It has been reported that over the course of the conflict, over three million Colombians have been displaced. These numbers are of course disturbing in a country with a population currently in the range of 45 million people. However, it is also important to note that from 2002 to the present, it has been reported that displacements of people have been significantly reduced.

Since 2002, the Colombian government has worked to improve health care for its citizens and infrastructure, particularly roads projects which are essential to improved domestic and international trade.

In terms if the illicit narcotics trade, progress has been made in the area as well. It has been reported that the amount of planting of illegal narcotics has in fact been reduced by 18% this past year after several years of increases.

My objective today has been to present both the legitimate concerns of many groups and individuals and also the points that have been put forward to support free trade and thus greater progress for Colombia.

As legislators, we are obliged to consider all aspects of the realities facing Colombia, its difficulties and successes as we move forward. We will always want to encourage Colombia to create an environment that helps all Colombians to achieve their fullest potential, live in safety and security and participate more fully in their country's political, economic and social life.

I encourage members to consider in a fair and balanced way all the issues associated with the debate on free trade with Colombia as we consider this issue both in the House and across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Davenport, with whom I have worked on various committees. He generally knows his files very thoroughly.

He said right at the beginning of his speech that we should not be reluctant to liberalize trade and that trade was essential for Canada. We all certainly know that. The question we need to ask, though, is at what price. What if the price is the uprooting of people? Should we just close our eyes to what is going on in Colombia, things that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International decry as infringements on human rights? Should we just close our eyes despite what several organizations came and told us at the round tables we held on the issue of Canadian mines, for example, and what they do in foreign countries?

We should not forget that Colombia is one of Canada’s smallest trading partners. Our trade is hardly comparable. For example, Canada’s grain exports could have the effect of swamping all of Colombia’s small producers.

Our colleague stated some facts and explained a situation, but I did not really understand what his position is. Can he tell us? Is he for this agreement or against it?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her question.

In my remarks, I simply pointed out that certain things were occurring in Colombia, especially failures to respect human rights. It is terrible, it is true.

I am not opposed to the position of the Bloc and the NDP, which are critical of the terrible situations in this country in which human rights are not respected. However, some things have improved in this country over the years. It cannot be said that the situation is worsening year after year.

I know Colombia well. I do not know whether my colleague has visited Colombia, but I know it well. I have been there a number of times. In addition, I have Colombian friends familiar with the situation in their country. It has changed completely in recent years, particularly in some cities. I mentioned Medellin, for example. Ten years ago, it was nearly impossible to walk down the street. Today, people can go out, and there is a level of security that did not previously exist.

So, we can see certain changes, although the problems with the paramilitary continue. It is true. The situation is a very difficult one for the government. I would not like to be a member of the Colombian government right now, because the situation there is terrible. There are factions in the country—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Davenport, but I must give time to the other members to ask their questions.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not deal with labour rights protection and it fails to have any environmental protection. The investor chapter is modelled under chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows foreign companies to sue Canadian governments, whether it is on the environmental, labour or social front.

Colombia has the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere and is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists.

I do not quite understand whether the member for Davenport will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. If so, how would he justify the human rights violations and the environmental problems facing Colombia? The bill, as it is drafted right now, does not give any labour rights protection.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certain steps need to be taken. I am a member of trade committee and one of the first things we have to do is call for a human rights assessment. That needs to be done.

The second thing is to ensure that all those who want to speak to the issue, both from the human rights community and the business community, get an opportunity to speak before committee. It is important that we allow those individuals to come forward to give a wholesome view of what is taking place in Colombia. It is important to hear also from the people of Colombia. There is a possibility that trade committee might also visit Colombia.

The member might be surprised. I see issues of concern. I quite agree that there are a lot of human rights concerns. I have witnessed and heard about a lot of scary moments in Colombia. At the same time, I do not buy into the argument that by supporting this one could also be making the situation worse in Colombia. I want to hear the arguments before committee and then I will decide whether I will support it. That still needs to be fully debated.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite fascinated to hear the member for Davenport making such remarks. I would think I were listening to a Conservative member of this House when he says that the situation has improved in Colombia, that he does not know whether he should support the agreement or not and that he would like to hear witnesses in committee. The facts are there. The situation has not improved that much. For example, nearly 90% of the trade unionists murdered in the world are murdered in Colombia.

How can the member for Davenport claim in this House that the situation has improved in Colombia when 90% of the trade unionists murdered in the world are murdered in Colombia? How can he make such contradictory statements?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague has had occasion to visit Colombia to see the situation there. It has improved in certain sectors, but it is true that this is not the case in all sectors. It is true, as he has said, that the situation for trade unionists in Colombia continues to be terrible. I do not argue with his position on the subject. But it is not the case in all sectors. Some have improved, but not all. I know Colombia well and have been there a number of times. The situation is not the same today as it was 10 years ago.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in opposition to this bill. From the very good work the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done, we know 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, is deeply flawed.

We have heard members in the House say that New Democrats are against trade. That is simply not the case. What New Democrats have consistently called for is fair trade. When we are talking about fair trade, it is important to talk about the fact that fair trade includes rules and agreements that promote sustainable practices, domestic job creation and healthy working conditions while allowing us to manage a supply of goods, promote democratic rights abroad and maintain democratic sovereignty at home.

Healthy working conditions include human rights. That is the aspect of this particular set of agreements that I want to focus on today. We have heard members say a number of times in the House that things have improved. I want to quote from a number of different reports which state that that is simply not the case. “Making a Bad Situation Worse: An Analysis of the Text of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement” is an extensive report that looks at many aspects, including labour rights, the labour side of the agreement, the “Investment” chapter in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, market access in agriculture and the environmental side of the agreement.

I want to focus on the human rights aspect. I want to quote from that report, because the people behind the report are the ones who have done the work. They are the people who can speak with credibility to what is happening in Colombia right now. They state in that report:

Trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows states, who are willing, to promote developmental outcomes and protect the environment. But neither the political conditions in Colombia nor the terms of the Canada-Colombia FTA provide these reassurances. Indeed, while Canadians were promised that this agreement had been tailored to take account of human rights concerns, in fact the agreement turns out to be a standard “market-access” oriented trade deal, with ineffectual side agreements on labour and the environment.

Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement.

Ratification of this deal provides Canadian political support to a regime in Colombia that is deeply implicated in gross violations of human rights and immersed in a spiralling political scandal for links to paramilitary death squads. Canada’s own process is marked by secrecy and a disregard for the deliberations of parliament....

The FTA will hit small-scale farmers with low-price competition, and may further expose indigenous people, Afro-Colombians and rural dwellers to land grabs by Canadian mining companies equipped with powerful new investor rights, but no binding responsibilities.

In their executive summary conclusion, they state:

In 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT) concluded that the FTA with Colombia should not proceed without further improvements in the human rights situation in Colombia and without a comprehensive and independent human rights impact assessment (HRIA). It also called for legislated provisions on corporate social responsibility to address the implementation of universal human rights standards by Canadian entities investing in Colombia.

What we have heard so far in the House, particularly from the Liberals, is that we should go ahead with this agreement and trust that human rights will happen as a result of it. This is despite the fact that the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that there be a human rights assessment. I would argue that that human rights assessment needs to be done in advance of signing any agreement, because we know what happens when there are signed agreements. There are often very few enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure that those kinds of side agreements, whether they are about human rights, environment or agriculture, are actually implemented and enforced.

I want to touch on a couple of key areas of the agreement. It is stated in “Making a Bad Situation Worse”:

Substantive labour rights protections remain in a side agreement rather than in the body of the agreement. Enforcement of these rights is entirely at the discretion of the signatory governments.

Unlike the provisions for investors’ rights, the agreement offers no trade sanctions, such as the imposition of countervailing duties or the abrogation of preferential trade status, in the event that a Party fails to adhere to the labour rights provisions.

The CCFTA investment chapter pays mere lip service to corporate social responsibility, with “best-efforts” provisions, which are purely voluntary and completely unenforceable.

We have heard members in this House say that somehow these trade agreements are going to make everything fine, yet we know that the enforcement and compliance provisions are very weak. Why would we trust that the side agreements would actually be implemented?

In the document, “Background to the Canada-Colombia Trade Agreement”, there is a chapter titled, “A Human Rights Crisis—Crimes Against Humanity”. It states that independent Colombian and international human rights organizations are unequivocal that human rights violations in Colombia remain rampant. In the last few years, some numbers have gone down, for example kidnappings, while others have gone up, for example, extrajudicial executions, forced displacements and disappearances. There was a sharp rise in killings of trade unionists in 2008, last year. Overall the level of impunity in violations is egregiously high.

A number of independent bodies have examined what is happening in Colombia. International human rights organizations and Colombian human rights organizations talk about the continuing egregious violations of human rights, yet we are being asked to support this agreement in principle.

We have talked about corporate social responsibility. There have been private members' bills that have asked the House to implement corporate social responsibility internationally. It is stated in the document:

The investment chapter pays mere lip service to corporate social responsibility. Article 816 observes that each party “should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies.” This is a “best efforts” provision—purely voluntary and completely unenforceable. Similar ineffectual language on corporate social responsibility is also found in the agreement’s preamble.

Once again we have voluntary provisions, unenforceable best efforts. That simply is not good enough. If Canada is signing on to free trade agreements, we need to ensure that, as we talk about fair trade, we are not in a race to the bottom, but that we are looking at environmental, social and human rights standards that we would like to see across the board. Simply putting in place non-enforceable voluntary provisions is not good enough.

I want to touch for one moment on the report, “Forever Solidarity: A public sector trade union report on Colombia union report on Colombia”. In 2008 a number of trade union leaders went to Colombia for an up-close look at what was going on. I want to focus for one moment on the indigenous aspects of this.

We have been asked to trust that the Conservatives would negotiate an agreement that would take into consideration human rights. I want to turn for one moment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Conservative government refused to have Canada sign on to this declaration. There are many articles that would directly apply to indigenous people in Colombia, but I want to reference article 18, which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision making institutions.

Elsewhere in the declaration it talks about free prior and informed consent.

The Conservative government refused to sign on to the UN declaration. We know that there are gross human rights violations in Colombia against indigenous people. We are supposed to accept in good faith that the Conservative government, which does not support that UN declaration, will work toward making sure human rights are implemented through a free trade agreement.

This is what the trade union leaders found with respect to indigenous people:

We met with the poorest of the poor families displaced from their homes by paramilitary groups to benefit transnational companies, some of them Canadian, wanting to expand agriculture production, mining and other business interests. We were told that more than 4 million people, 10 per cent of the population, have been displaced without reparations.

We sat with single mothers and grandmothers who have no drinkable water, no sewage, no electricity, little money for food, and no chance of their children ever going to school. These citizens, largely from rural areas, must beg for a living on city streets.

The Permanent Peoples' Tribunal had two years of hearings, in six sectors of the Colombian economy, including the public sector, and it came out with a report. This is some of what that report talked about:

In the extraordinary case of indigenous peoples, the report cited widespread acts of cultural and community genocide. Twenty-eight indigenous groups are in “imminent danger of physical and cultural extinction” and 18 of the communities have less than ten members. They “are suspended between life and death.” The report went on to cite a horrifying list of human and labour rights abuses that is shocking the world.

Under the “indigenous peoples described displacement process”, in the same report, the president of the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia described the struggle of indigenous peoples in the Colombia socio-political context. “Neither pro-government nor pro-guerilla”, he asserted the claims of indigenous people to their ancestral land and their right to development. It goes on to talk about the fact that indigenous peoples have been chased away from their lands by the colonizers and that they have been fighting for their survival ever since.

Nowadays, there is a speeding up of the process. The indigenous peoples constitute 4% of the population but 8% of the displaced people. Every means are used to expel them: pressures, threats and murder. It is clear that neo-colonialism is firmly entrenched in Colombia.

The labour leaders heard presentations about the relation between transnational corporations and the displacement of indigenous groups. The Uribe government is handing over protected lands and parks to the international tourist trade to set up so-called eco-tourist sites, causing wide displacement of aboriginal peoples.

I could go on. This report has case after case of indigenous peoples being displaced from their lands. There has been no compensation, no consultation, no consideration of the protection of their culture, language and rights.

We are expected to believe that this free trade agreement is going to be good for the human rights of people in Colombia, for the residents of Colombia and the indigenous peoples of Colombia. Why would we trust that when the current Conservative government refused to sign on to the UN declaration of indigenous rights? I would argue that based on much of the information we have seen, there is no reason to trust that human rights will be protected or enhanced under this free trade agreement.

I want to briefly touch on more of the track record of human rights. I touched on the indigenous issue. I want to talk about the falsos positivos, that is, the false-positives. These are cases reported by units of the armed forces as positive results in their action against illegal armed groups that are reported in official reports as deaths under combat of insurgent actors and by other legitimate actions, according to the IHL. Later, given the denouncements of social organizations and human rights defenders, direct victims or their families, or by the local and international media, they have been revealed to be actions against non-combatant civilian populations, constituting serious violations against human rights and international human law.

The actions tracked by our databank have three main motives: political persecution, social intolerance, and abuse or excessive authority. The specific modalities of victimization in which our database categorizes human rights violations are, among others, extrajudicial executions, intentional homicide of protected persons, torture, injuries, individual or collective threats, disappearances and use of civilians as human shields.

This is a report that comes from the Center for Popular Research, Education and Policy. It is a special report on the balance of the second semester of 2008, and it was issued in April 2009. This report implies a decrease in 149 cases that occurred in 2007, but an increase in relationship to the 68 cases registered in 2006. It goes on to say that “according to denouncements made by families of victims and social organizations, the degree of influence that the official forces have had in these crimes against humanity seriously undermines the legitimacy of the military and police forces across the country”.

It goes on to talk about the fact that the military and police forces are complicit in misrepresenting the data about disappearances, about murders. These are well-documented cases.

I want to quickly refer to one other report called “Baseless Prosecutions of Human Rights Defenders in Colombia: In the Dock and Under the Gun”. This report has page after page of cases where people have been arrested or detained and then cites that either the judiciary, the police or the armed forces were simply wrong in what they had done.

I want to quote a case. This was in 2008. The president of the Permanent Committee of Human Rights was detained along with 15 other union and social leaders. They were detained by the National Police and a number of other forces. The signs of defects in the investigation cited that this person's detention, Sandoval, appeared related to his human rights advocacy, because he criticized the government's human rights record, especially on such issues as arbitrary detention, forced displacement and extrajudicial executions.

That is just one case. There are many more. I want to talk about a couple of the defects in the investigations because it shows how widespread and serious they are. We have heard members in this House talk about the fact that things are getting better, but this was in 2008.

We had other cases, in 2007, where the report says, “recklessly and with bad faith in trying to lead the proceedings, disrespecting her authority”. They were talking about the tribunal in this case. They went on to dismiss the complaints.

In another case, the former president of the Association of Displaced People, it said, “the only evidence against him was reintegrated witness testimony, which alleged that Torres gave information to the guerrilla resulting in the death of two people”. However, one of the people who supposedly died subsequently came forward to testify. Unless one can do that from the grave, I am sure we have a case of manipulated witness testimony.

I want to talk about other signs of defects in investigations. This was from members of the Civilian Community for Life and Peace, a group of displaced citizens working to reclaim their land without intervention by members of the armed conflict. They were arrested in 2006. They were detained after there was wiretapping to start an investigation for kidnapping. The person arrested was found innocent because the judge found that evidence was insufficient and that Perdomo had merely provided personal gifts to her sister, which did not constitute criminal activity. Furthermore, the judge questioned the credibility and expertise of the author of the intelligence report.

A lawyer and professor at the university was arrested in 2006 for the crime of rebellion, but it was allegedly rescinded before being executed. When they looked at the investigation, they found the prosecution did not notify Ramirez of the ongoing investigation against him until his arrest. The existence of the investigation was allegedly denied by judicial authorities in meetings with the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights.

I could go on and on about the human rights violations, about the improper and inadequate investigations, about the plight of indigenous people in Colombia. Over the last 20 minutes, I have talked about the egregious human rights violations that continue in Colombia to this very day.

Canada has an opportunity, if we are interested in pursuing some sort of trade agreement with Colombia, to talk up front about the human rights piece that needs to be in place to protect people in Colombia from disappearances, from kidnappings, from murder.

Canada often touts itself on the international stage as being a proud defender of human rights. This is an example where we could use some of that Canadian pride in human rights to insist that when we look at an agreement we make sure human rights are enshrined.

Therefore, I want to move an amendment to the amendment.

I move:

That the amendment be further amended by inserting after the word “matter” the following “, including having heard vocal opposition to the accord from human rights organizations”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The subamendment is in order, so we will move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan. She is always extremely effective in the House, and it was no different today. She comes from British Columbia, which has had a lot of problems, as she is well aware, of murderous thugs in drug trafficking gangs. I would like her to comment.

The Uribe regime has been linked to murderous thugs in drug trafficking gangs in Colombia, yet B.C. Conservatives are joining Conservatives from elsewhere in the country to hang a medal on these folks.

In declassified documents that were available a few years ago, the Defense Intelligence Agency in the United States described President Uribe in the following way. He was described as one of the most important Colombian narco-traffickers and that he is a Colombian politician dedicated to collaboration with the Medellín Cartel at high government levels. This is the drug trafficking cartel that has provided a very lucrative trade in hard drugs across North America. He is further described as a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar, who is one of the most notorious drug traffickers.

We have a direct tie with President Uribe, and there is much more evidence to come, yet B.C. Conservatives are saying it is okay. They can murder people and deal drugs and the Conservatives will cut a ribbon and sign a free trade agreement with them. How does the member think people in British Columbia are going to react when they find out?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reference a story in the Washington Post on May 17. The headline is “Scandals Surround Colombian Leader Top Aides Suspected in Secret Police Case”. The article states:

For weeks after the news broke, Colombians knew only that the secret police had spied on Supreme Court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists. Suspicions swirled that the orders for the wiretapping, as well as general surveillance, had come from the presidential palace.

Then on Friday, the inspector general's office announced an investigation against three of President Álvaro Uribe's closest advisers and three former officials of the Department of Administrative Security, or DAS, the intelligence service that answers to the president. Inspector General Alejandro Ordoñez investigates malfeasance in government agencies, and his findings can be used in criminal prosecutions.

The latest revelations have come on top of an influence-peddling scandal involving the president's two sons...

This is from the Washington Post. I assume that it did its homework.

Our government is attempting to align us with a regime that has serious corruption problems. In terms of the other testimony from people living in the country about the murders, kidnappings and disappearances, I have to question why we would expect the Conservative government to lead us into this kind of trade affiliation. We need to use this as a lever prior to signing any agreement. We need to look at the human rights record and enforceable provisions. An independent human rights assessment is one of the things that industry and trade committee called for.

I would argue that we need to look at trade agreements that enshrine human rights with enforceable mechanisms.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech, which I found very interesting.

Like her, no doubt, I have many Colombian political refugees in my riding of Drummond. These people were beaten and sentenced to death. Most come here suffering horrible after-effects. They were tortured, shot in the face and so on. I would not say I see them every day in my office, but several times a year, I see serious cases.

We often hear the government on the other side talk about law and order. It seems that they always use those words to describe what they would like to do in Canada.

I want to ask my colleague a question. Does she not think that when it comes to other countries, instead of talking about law and order here in the House, the government could be quicker to get involved and try to address problems?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, far too many members of the House have had dealings with Colombians who have had to flee their country. I know of a heartbreaking case where one of my constituents simply did not know if his family was still alive. It took many weeks to get some communication to find out that the family was alive, although one of the family members had been detained. We were fortunate in this case that the family was able to come to Canada.

I know there are many cases where family members are not reunited. We encourage those kinds of human rights. We are well placed on the international stage to talk about human rights but this kind of agreement does not support that.

We are talking about negotiating with a government that is under siege by people in its own country because of its alleged corrupt practices and alleged involvement in interfering in a process with opposition politicians and supreme court judges. I wonder what it is that is pushing the Conservatives into pursuing an agreement that clearly has other members, like the United States, backing away from it.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to hear the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan talk about issues that are so important to our country and our communities.

My city of Sudbury is well-known for its activism with trade unionists. According to the International Labour Organization, over the last 10 years 60% of all trade unionists murdered in the world were in Colombia. That is so unfortunate and I am sure the people in Sudbury would be up in arms to know that we are even considering this type of trade agreement.

I looked at the travel advisories that the government puts out in relation to Colombia. We have been hearing how great things are in Colombia and how things are turning around. However, in looking at the website, it says that people should avoid all unnecessary travel to an area that is killing its own citizens for issues that are basic human rights. How can the government say that it wants to trade with a place that we do not even want to send our own citizens to? It seems hypocritical in some sense and I would like to hear your comments on that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to remind the hon. member for Sudbury to address comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury raises a very good point around the fact that the Canada government is encouraging Canadians not to travel to Colombia. That says something about what is happening in the country.

However, I want to come back to the labour issue for a moment. The substantive labour rights protection remains in a side agreement and the enforcement of these rights is entirely at the discretion of the signatory government. The Conservative government is prepared to sign a free trade agreement that sidelines labour rights. It puts them in a side agreement that is not enforceable. I am not sure what that says about our commitment to workers' rights, both in this country and internationally.

The member for Sudbury raises a very valid issue. We know that the trade union movement in Canada has been very active in trying to raise awareness around what is happening in Colombia. In the report, “Making a Bad Situation Worse”, prepared partly by the Canadian Labour Congress but also with other partners, the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The labour movement in Canada has been working quite closely with the trade union movement in Colombia to attempt to highlight the egregious human rights violations that are happening in Colombia. I would urge members of the House to vote no to this free trade agreement with Colombia.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

People might be inclined to think that the purpose of this agreement is basically to facilitate trade between Canada and Colombia. As with all trade accords, it should have been signed first and foremost for the purposes of trade. The fact of the matter is though—and I will explain why a little later—this agreement is intended more to protect big Canadian mining companies and shield them in various ways.

Discussions were started in 2002 with various Latin American and Andean countries: Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. It was not just yesterday, therefore, that the negotiations were undertaken with these countries to facilitate trade and sign a free trade agreement. Canada recently decided to focus on two of the countries, Peru and Colombia. More formal discussions were held, leading to negotiations in 2007 with these two countries. On November 21, 2008 the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement was finally signed.

As I was saying, people might think that Canada signed this agreement in order to reduce tariffs and facilitate trade between our two countries. If we look a bit more closely, though, at the wording of the agreement, we soon realize that it is intended more to protect big multinationals and ensure they can continue to make profits while disregarding the basic rules of democratic societies, such as human rights, workers’ rights, and the protection of the environment.

First of all, the agreement contains a chapter on protecting investment that is basically intended to facilitate the lives of Canadians who invest in Colombia, especially in the mining sector. This finds concrete expression in the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

We should remember that the so-called mining codes were overhauled more than 10 years ago in order to give a lot of tax and regulatory breaks to the foreign companies that came and set up operations in developing countries. That was all funded several years ago by various international organizations, including CIDA and the World Bank. So Canada did not wait until 2008 to give tax breaks to its companies. It used its international tentacles—the World Bank but CIDA as well—to finance the changes to the codes and therefore to the laws that these countries were passing.

Whether in Africa or Colombia, Canadian tax dollars were used to help revise their domestic legislation, reduce environmental protections, and provide major tax breaks to the companies that came to explore for and exploit the mines.

The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia has one major advantage therefore: it facilitates the lives of Canadian investors who decide to put their money into the Colombian mining sector.

The most regrettable aspect of this agreement is the fact that the chapter on investment protection is drawn right from chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which aims to protect major investors and enables them to circumvent legislation approved by parliaments to protect workers and the environment. This is what is wrong with this agreement. It does not aim to improve trade between two countries, but rather to protect investors and multinationals. It gives them the right to take to court governments that have decided to introduce environmental legislation or laws to protect workers. That is unacceptable.

The Bloc has always advocated promoting international trade agreements to facilitate trade between countries, but never to the detriment of workers' rights, environmental protection or human rights.

However, this is not what this government has done. It should have drawn on certain chapters in the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the FTA, such as chapter 16, which did two or three things while protecting investments.

First off, this chapter provided for the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism. We have seen the results. No case has gone to an arbitration tribunal. Chapter 16 of the FTA, which the government might have drawn on in the agreement between Canada and Colombia, is not included. However, this chapter of the FTA led to a 41% increase in Canadian investment in the United States. This shows that there is a way to protect investments while providing guarantees in international trade agreements.

The government, in Bill C-23 and the agreement between Canada and Colombia, decided instead to draw right from chapter 11 of NAFTA. It did so in order to take advantage of Colombia's unimaginable resources. The mining and energy resources are considerable and include gold, nickel and coal. Thirty-one per cent of our imports from Colombia come from natural and energy resources. So the government tried to extract resources from a country with a unstable social situation in order to enrich the multinationals. Nothing is more irresponsible in social terms at a time when corporate social responsibility is increasingly a topic of discussion.

This agreement is unacceptable. Unacceptable too is the government's use of chapter 11, which among other things provides that, when legislation cuts into investors' profits, the government of this country is at risk of being sued. So, environmental and worker protection are scaled down. The constant violation of human rights is condoned. In the case of Colombia, the government is supporting the argument that paramilitaries or organized groups can be in collusion with a government that exploits rural populations where natural resources are found.

As a political party, we cannot accept this. And it is one reason we oppose this agreement. We oppose this agreement, which socially destabilizes a people already socially destabilized.

In 2006, 47% of the population was under the poverty line and 12% of the population and 68% of that poverty were found in rural areas. Why is it so important to talk about poverty in rural areas? It is because that is where the natural resources are and where Canadian companies, particularly mining companies, will go. Poverty is endemic in rural areas. Organized groups expropriate land and drive out local people, who have tried many times to get guarantees when the mining code was amended. We are now telling Canadian companies to go there and that we will condone bad social behaviour. That increases poverty, violence, and inequalities when here, in this House, we should talk about responsible and fair trade. We must conclude that the government does not understand what fair trade means.

Human rights are fundamental. We must remember that in July of 2007, the Prime Minister visited Latin America. Just before he left, unions, the CLC and Amnesty International too, clearly asked him not to forget that an agreement was under negotiation between Canada and Colombia and that he should not sign it if that agreement lead to an erosion of human rights. The Prime Minister went there nonetheless. He ignored the demands of workers and groups that work in developing countries. He decided nonetheless to visit Latin America and later, in 2008, he decided to sign the agreement that in the end will penalize the most destitute peoples, who are also victims of violence.

As we know, in 2008, crimes were committed by paramilitary groups, the ones I was talking about, which were in collusion with the government in place, those that pushed, forced and threatened rural populations to leave their traditional homelands to make way for the development, exploration and extraction of natural resources. In 1988, the crimes committed against such populations by paramilitary groups rose to 41% from 14% the previous year. Earlier, the hon. member for Davenport said that the situation had changed in Colombia, that that was no longer the case, that there was no longer any violence, that everything was fine and the situation has improved. In one year, the crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased to 41%, from just 14% the previous year. How is that an improvement? More violence, more human rights violations. Worse still, the rights of workers are increasingly being affected.

Since 1991, over 2,000 union leaders have been killed. Some 90% of all union leaders in the world who are assassinated are killed in Colombia. The Liberal member for Davenport tells us that the situation has improved, that everything is fine and that we should take this agreement, and study it in committee and sub-committee. I think the numbers speak for themselves. We do not need to go to Colombia, as my colleague has said, to see that human rights are being violated. There is no need to study this agreement any further. We have seen the proof: these human rights violations, workers' rights violations and violations of environmental laws are taking place in Colombia.

These mining advantages are significant, since, as I said, the mining code has been reformed in recent years. What purpose did those reforms serve? Basically, the reforms were meant to create more favourable conditions for mining companies.

The legislation from 1991 was looked at and revised in order to improve conditions for Canadian companies so they could go to those countries in order to explore for and exploit nickel, coal and gold deposits, all at the expense of rural populations. Canadian taxpayers' money was used. The Colombian government received assistance through CIDA and the World Bank. It was given money to help change its environmental legislation in order to be more accommodating and more favourable for mining companies.

How? First of all, the legislation was revised, making it possible to grant a mining company a single permit to allow for both exploration for and exploitation of a mineral deposit. Second, mining companies were giving a timeline of 50 years and that timeline is even renewable. How was that done? I urge the members to read a very interesting case study completed by the Halifax Initiative. It states:

Through its Energy, Mining and Environmental Project, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) provided technical and financial support to redraft Colombian mining legislation. The revised 2001 Mining Code..., which was adopted without consulting with potentially-affected indigenous communities, created investment conditions that are extremely favourable to foreign companies. The Code weakened a number of existing environmental and social safeguards and created significant financial incentives including dramatically reduced mining royalty and tax rates.

Indigenous groups in Colombia argue that the lack of consultation on this new legislation contravened International Labour Organization Convention 169, which was ratified by Colombia and formally adopted into national legislation in 1991. They argue that the Code places limitations on the concept of indigenous territory that violate the Colombian Constitution. Moreover, the legislation eliminates prior requirements that local communities receive economic benefits deriving from mining activity.

What does this mean? It means that Canada started redrafting legislation and, with public money through CIDA, funded revisions to legislation and mining codes before signing the Canada-Colombia agreement.

Now, after amending the legislation, they have created fiscal and regulatory benefits for the mining companies in place by making sure that, I repeat, “ the legislation eliminates prior requirements that local communities receive economic benefits deriving from mining activity”.

Local communities and indigenous peoples are having their land expropriated and are being told that they cannot receive royalties for mining activity. The government changed the codes and regulations using public money and, to top it all off, signed a Canada-Colombia agreement to protect investors and even enable them to go to court and challenge regulatory amendments that would protect the environment, human rights and workers.

The Canadian government quite simply conspired with the mining companies to create an iron-clad system at the expense of the local people.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie's remarks on the agreement very interesting. It looks as though the Conservatives and the Liberals can no longer defend their positions on this issue because they have not risen in the House to defend themselves in quite some time. I hope that they are giving the matter some serious thought and that they are beginning to understand what saying yes to this blood-stained regime would mean.

The member is familiar with the motorcycle gang and drug dealer problems in Quebec. The Colombian regime has very close connections with drug dealers, drug lords, and people who kill other innocent people, such as opposition party members, human rights organization members, and union members.

How would the people of Quebec react to seeing the Conservatives and the Liberals go ahead with an agreement with such a blood-stained regime?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, Quebec is a progressive nation. Clearly, Quebeckers will not stand for the Canadian government signing an agreement that could undermine human rights and workers' rights.

I want to point out to both the House and the people of this country that even though the Conservative government signed the agreement, the mining code, which was amended to benefit those investing in mining, was ratified and supported by the Liberal Party. It is as though the Liberal Party started the job and the Conservatives finished it. That is why the member for Davenport hesitated, expressed uncertainty, and had no clear position. It is pretty obvious. In this case, the Liberals started the job, and the Conservatives finished it. They are all cut from the same cloth.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right in saying that it is all the same and that these two parties have concocted it, if you will. My colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie gave a brilliant speech on the specifics of this bill.

My colleague knows perfectly well that in developing countries such as Colombia, where the people are poor but the country is rich, the only way for the people to have real power and development is through their government institutions, their government and the people they elect.

By signing the free trade agreement with Colombia, by including a provision similar to NAFTA's chapter 11—which gives real power not to the people, not to the government institutions, not to the public representatives but first and foremost to investors—and by allowing investors to go back to the government at any time to obtain financial compensation, the Canadian government will weaken the government in power to such an extent that we can truly speak of exploitation and colonization.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. The power of governments must not be eroded, especially by trade agreements. We must ensure that governments have complete freedom of movement in order to pass legislation. That is the problem with chapter 11. But some Liberals and Conservatives will say that side deals on the environment have been signed that, they believe, supposedly have as much weight as the trade clauses of NAFTA. That is nonsense.

We must guarantee that governments will be able to introduce legislation and regulations when they believe that the well-being of their people is at risk. In this case, we must ensure, as I mentioned earlier, that the Colombian government will have guarantees and that it will be able to enact labour and environmental legislation. That is not necessarily the case with this agreement because it allows major multinationals to challenge future labour and environmental regulations in court.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speeches given by my colleagues from Quebec and British Columbia. I agree: we must consider the well-being of the people of Colombia. There is no question.

As a lawyer, I received a letter from a lawyer from Colombia a few years ago. He said he was afraid of appearing in court and that it was dangerous because of the inequalities, problems and conflicts in Colombia.

I have a question for my colleague from Quebec. What should we do? If we do not make a commitment to the people of another country, we will not have the opportunity to improve the situation. I know there have been many improvements in Colombia.

Between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings have decreased by 87% and homicide rates have dropped by 44%.

I am convinced that we must look at the situation not through a still camera, but through a video camera. Things are improving and we must encourage the people of Colombia.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear. We are not against international trade agreements. We are not against globalization.

But when we sign international agreements on human rights and International Labour Organization conventions, international trade agreements should take them into account.

The same is true of the environment. We have nothing against the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States or other countries, but we must take into consideration the international protocols we have ratified, such as the Kyoto protocol. Conventions on biosafety have been signed, and other agreements have been signed at the International Labour Organization. When we sign trade agreements with other countries, we have to recognize the value of these conventions with respect to the environment, human rights and labour rights.

Otherwise, what happens? We sign international agreements, such as the convention on the rights of the child, that carry less weight than trade agreements, including the one between Canada and Colombia. We need to ensure that these agreements that have been signed with a view to protecting our children, the environment and workers' rights not only can have a benefit, but are at least as valuable as the trade agreements being signed.

The problem at present is that even though the biosafety protocol and the Kyoto protocol exist, these international protocols do not carry any weight with the courts when a complaint is filed with the WTO, for example.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased speak to Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

I have a number of people who are concerned about this agreement, therefore I think a bit of historical information is important.

A year ago the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade tabled its report on the free trade agreement with Colombia. Out of respect for Parliament, the government ought to have responded to this. Concerns were expressed by the Standing Committee on International Trade, specifically the recommendation which asked for an independent comprehensive rights impact assessment. I believe a full independent human rights assessment, as recommended by the committee, should be provided by the government to Parliament before we vote on Bill C-23.

Colombia has faced years of internal conflict, where violence and human rights abuses have been perpetrated by paramilitary groups in the ongoing battles between the paramilitary and the gorilla organizations. These battles have been funded largely by the narco-economy, that is drug money.

In the last several years the Colombian government has made significant progress under President Uribe towards achieving security for the Colombian people. There have been significant reductions in violence and human rights abuses. The general murder rate has fallen dramatically and the International Crisis Group has noted, “since 2003 Colombia has witnessed a substantial decline in violence and kidnappings”.

This increase in security has helped pave the way for a stronger Colombian economy. From 2002 to 2007, the Colombian economy has grown an average of 5.3% per annum. However, we know there are still significant problems in Colombia, for example, violence and its root causes, poverty, the paramilitary groups and the illicit drug trade still remain.

It is a problem that in our trade and our aid policy with Colombia, Canada has a responsibility to engage and to work in partnership with the Colombian government to address these issues.

The recent economic progress that Colombia has achieved has been impressive in many ways, but it is incomplete and fragile. It is fragile for the basic reason that it still relies heavily on narco-economy. If Colombia is to achieve sustainable progress in human rights, it must expand its legitimate economy. A strong legitimate economy is required to fund social infrastructure, which will help to address the root causes of violence and to wean the Colombian people off the narco-economy.

Advancements in institutional building must carry on, whether at the political, judicial or administrative levels. On this front, concerns have been expressed regarding the suggestion that President Uribe may seek a constitutional amendment to secure an unprecedented third consecutive term as president.

In its May 14 issue, The Economist magazine ran an article entitled “Uribe edges towards autocracy”. The opponents of the third term extension argue that checks and balances in the constitution are designed for a four year presidential term and that an erosion of the separation of powers under Mr. Uribe would be aggravated by a third term.

The same article also recognizes President Uribe's accomplishments in the past, including the fact that, “Many Colombians credit Mr. Uribe with transforming their homeland from a near-failed state to a buoyant, if still violent, place”. The magazine concludes that, “If he doesn’t quit while he is still ahead, history may judge that Mr. Uribe began to undo his own achievement”.

It is important to ensure that there be no erosion in the progress that has been made so far, that there be no constitutional amendment. Respect for the constitution is paramount for any democratic state.

There has been progress made. There has been movement to demobilize the paramilitary, the economy has improved and people are themselves stating that President Uribe has transformed Colombia from a near failed state to a buoyant place, though not as non-violent as they would have expected.

As we move forward with Bill C-23, we should ensure we emphasize that this free trade agreement helps improve the living standards of the poor, particularly in the rural areas. To ensure lasting progress, Colombia must ensure that its economic opportunities and jobs are there for impoverished Colombians. If it does not happen, then the only jobs they might get are through the narco-economy or paramilitary. We have seen classic examples of this in Afghanistan.

To help the legal economy grow, we need to think of a broader range and a free trade agreement is an important aspect. Trade and investment and the right free trade agreement could help the people of Colombia diversify and strengthen its economy and society.

If we look at Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, for example, we have realized that development is one way of getting that economy out of its dependency on the poppy trade and the Taliban. Two-way Canada-Colombia merchandise trade in 2008 was valued at $1.35 billion. Approximately half of it was exports.

Canada and Colombia are not exactly each other's biggest trading partners. However, by putting in place a free trade agreement with Colombia, one has strong investment protection measures. A free trade agreement could act as an international signal that Colombia could attract and leverage legitimate foreign investment from all over the world. Therefore, it is a significant agreement to the people of Colombia and it is important that we send the right signals.

Increased international economic engagement with Colombia and the potential for increased political pressure that comes with it could have the capacity, with the right free trade agreement, to incentivize the Colombian government to pursue further reforms in support of increased security, human rights and economic growth. In other words, the right free trade agreement can help the Colombian government promote peace, stability and the rule of law.

As we discuss the ratification of this free trade agreement, we should recognize what role Parliament plays and what is not in the terms of trade agreements. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to determine whether Bill C-23 in fact represents a solid, sound free trade agreement. Does this agreement adequately address the legitimate concerns of Canadians regarding human rights abuses, labour laws and environmental standards? Are these measures relative to the side agreements on labour and the environment robust enough?

We know, for example, that the labour co-operation agreement requires that each country protect its right of freedom to association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination. We know that this agreement includes a complaint and dispute resolution process.

Would this process be legitimate and accountable? Those are the types of questions that we need to consider as a Parliament.

The government states that this process would, for example, allow a member of the public to file a complaint or request an investigation if Canada or Colombia failed to or was purported to have failed to live up to the agreement. Furthermore, the agreement would create an independent review panel that could impose fines on the offending country of up to $15 million.

The question we need to ask is this. Are these provisions sufficient? We need to as parliamentarians review and thoroughly analyze this.

As we study the legislation, we ask to call before committee recognized experts in these fields in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the labour and environmental provisions in this free trade agreement and its side agreements.

The Government of Canada, not the Parliament of Canada, negotiates trade agreements. The Government of Canada, not the Parliament of Canada, has negotiated this specific free trade agreement. It is not the role of parliamentarians to sit down with other countries to negotiate the free trade agreements. Trade negotiations are a function of the government and our public officials, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

However, our job as parliamentarians is to carefully consider the trade agreements before us and to determine whether or not they are in our national interest and whether or not the trade agreement, as written, reflects our values.

Therefore, the questions to ask are these. Is the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as the government has presented, which we are considering through Bill C-23, in Canada's best interest? Does it reflect our shared values, particularly in the areas of human rights? Will it achieve greater peace, prosperity and security for Colombians? Will it help us, as Canadians, partner with the Colombian people to develop and build their economy?

The U.S., our largest trading partner, has yet to ratify its free trade agreement with Colombia. It may in fact seek a renegotiation. The Obama administration has indicated an openness to a free trade agreement with Colombia but that may require a renegotiation and more robust agreements on labour and the environment.

How would this impact our position vis-à-vis Colombia and the U.S.? Should this affect the timing of our consideration of Bill C-23? These are the questions that must guide our deliberations during the debate today.

The Conservative government has still not formally responded to the report of June 2008, a year ago, of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade. It is important that the government respond to the recommendations of the standing committee's report before it expects Parliament to vote on this out of respect for all parliamentarians.

The issue of violence in Colombia merits special attention and the resources available to the international trade committee ought to consider and assess the expected impact of this free trade agreement on the human rights situation in Colombia.

Proponents say that it would help, that in fact weaning the Colombian people off the narcotic economy with real economic opportunities is essential to moving forward. Some of the opponents, including some of the human rights organizations, say it will not help. In fact, it would make the situation worse.

We have a responsibility to drill down on the facts and to not be guided by ideology, either the ideology that free trade at all costs is the word of the day or the position sometimes taken by others that every free trade agreement is bad. We have to be guided not by ideology but by the real concerns expressed to us by the human rights community, the labour movement and others, and the concerns and support from people such as the agriculture and business communities, who see this as being an important opportunity for Canada.

Given recent developments, it would be important for the Standing Committee on International Trade to perhaps go to Colombia and see the situation on the ground firsthand, meet with the Colombian government and have these discussions. We need to have clearer discussions regarding the constitutional amendments. As parliamentarians, we must be able to satisfy that this free trade agreement and its side agreements will enable and not hinder progress on human rights, labour rights and the environment before we can support its ratification and send this legislation to the other place.

As we proceed with our deliberations, we must be very careful not to confound the issues of commercial trade with development aid. As parliamentarians, we must be clear that pursuing free trade with Colombia does not reduce the Government of Canada's responsibility to provide development aid to that country. We have to continue through CIDA to invest in and help the people of Colombia. A combination of trade policy and aid policy is important.

Canada is a country of great freedoms. The citizens are protected by laws that many governments do not extend. While we strive to protect the individual rights of Canadians at home, our efforts abroad are limited to leading by example. In order for us to engage Colombia on human rights issues, we need to do it through dialogue. Globally, Canada's experience has been that it is through a broader dialogue that human rights can be inculcated in those countries and their civil societies.

We in the Liberal Party have built our foundation on social justice and equality. This ethos is ingrained in our party, the party that is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As members of Parliament, we must look at these broader terms of engagement before we make our decision.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the comments made by the member for Don Valley East, it is obvious that she is prepared to support our amendment.

When we were in Colombia and the committee was working on the possible free trade agreement, the government practically accepted and endorsed the principle of this agreement. Hence, the committee was not able to complete its work. Even if the member wanted to make changes to the agreement it would not be possible because it has been signed. We are now considering the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Therefore, we do not need to refer the implementation bill. We can simply stop the process, have the government go back to the drawing board and include, in the next revised version, those elements that have led to disagreement in this House with respect to the free trade agreement.

There are parallel agreements but the fact is that they are mutually exclusive. New free trade agreements should cover all aspects of human rights, labour rights and environmental law.

Based on her speech, I presume that the member will support the amendment we have presented today.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I looked at the history behind this trade agreement, I understood that the government did not do its due diligence and did not respond to the recommendations made by the committee, specifically that there be an independent, comprehensive rights impact assessment. I agree with the frustration that is being faced by many members as they look at this agreement because human rights are critical.

Labour movements are quite upset over this issue. However, in order for us to move forward globally, we need to look at what other avenues are available. Countries such as China and India used to have human rights violations. We opened up trade with them. We did it with Mozambique and South Africa. Remember the Frelimo fighters? We need to ensure that we move in a logical direction. I would be willing to look at the amendments before I make any comment on them.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Liberal Party position that somehow this is like trading with South Africa is that in this case it would be like trading with South Africa under the apartheid regime. We are well aware of the criminal nature of the Uribe regime. We know of the evidence and the testimony and every single legitimate, reputable human rights organization in Colombia and Canada have denounced this agreement.

The CCIC said that the agreement makes a bad situation worse. Colombian civil society human rights organizations have all been very clear and so has the leader of the Liberal Party. The leader of the Liberal Party said the Liberals are going to prop up the Conservatives and support this agreement. So, it is disingenuous for Liberals to stand in the House and say that their leader is supporting this agreement with whatever, we do not care about the ramifications for Colombia, we are just going to help the Conservatives ram this through, and then have Liberal members try to pretend that they have not made that decision.

Can the member confirm that the leader of the Liberal Party said very clearly that he is propping up the Conservatives and supporting this agreement?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, President Uribe was democratically elected and I do not interfere in that country's democracy and the way it chooses its president.

When I do a comparison of the narco-economics and the poppy trade of Afghanistan, and I look at the similarities that are taking place of the reliance of the Afghans on the Taliban, because that is the only way they can get money, it is important that we open up the venue of legitimate trade. Yes, we have problems. This is not a perfect agreement. There are many issues, but we cannot teach human rights to anyone without leading by example. Opening up the door, allowing the Colombians to have dialogue with us on a broader base will slowly but surely address some of the issues.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about comparing Colombia to other countries where we have seen human rights violations. I believe that the argument can be made that since we engaged in trade, by no means have these human rights violations ended. As Canadians, we should be looking at some of the human rights violations against first nations and people within our own country before we start talking about how our free trade agreement somehow put an end to human rights violations in other countries.

I would like the member to comment on the catastrophically unique situation that Colombia finds itself in. On so many markers of human rights abuse, Colombia ranks number one, number one in terms of the attack on trade unionists, the murders of trade unionists, and the disappearance of trade unionists. And such egregious violations for what? For the right to organize, for the right to stand up and call for fair wages, for equality for workers, something that we take for granted and benefit from here in Canada, and looking to internal displacement. The UNHCR has said on numerous occasions that Colombia ranks extremely high as a country with such a high number of internally displaced refugees.

When we are talking about comparing Colombia to other countries, I would like the member to note some recognition or give some thought to the fact that Colombia is a very different country than the other ones we are dealing with and that is why Canada's position has to be very clear. The Government of Canada cannot allow such human rights abuses to go under the watch of our agreements. We hope that the Liberals will recognize that a stand on human rights means voting against this free trade agreement.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a citizen of the world. I was born in Africa of Indian parentage. I have lived in Britain. I now live in Canada. I think I know the world a lot better and I know where human rights violations are taking place. I know that we have traded with them and it has helped those countries.

The member mentioned the important aspect of the aboriginal communities in Canada, that we have to talk about them before we talk about human rights. It was the member's party that went to bed with the Conservative government and killed the Kelowna accord. The member cannot speak from two sides of her mouth. The member either believes in one thing or she does not.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member must be aware of the evidence and testimony regarding President Uribe's connections with paramilitaries, his role in the massacres in the Antioquia province and his direct ties with the Medellin drug cartel and Pablo Escobar.

Given all of that evidence and testimony and the fact that the Conservatives seem to think it is okay to do business with people linked with the drug trade and the Medellin cartel, does it not make the hon. member just a little uneasy to prop up the Conservatives on this issue?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in wearing blinders or hiding my head in the sand. I also do not believe in hypocrisy. There are governments in the world, powerful governments, that have done exactly what he has described and Colombia is no different.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that does not justify the member's course of action nor the course of this House of Commons. Just because evil is propagated against others and that should justify us entering into an agreement where clearly there are significant problems with human rights activity and there is an organized, orchestrated campaign to intimidate those of the citizenry population who want to better their society and have done so in an open and accountable way, which has led to much suffering. Having had a chance to question some of the Colombian delegation at committee, I have not been satisfied with their response.

I mentioned four specific cases of civil liberty union organizers. They were not, for example, from the mines where we would expect some activism or from the farming community where there have been issues with the drug cartels. I mentioned the cases of the school teacher's union, the nursing association and the universities where even in Bogota and other places like that where there is that type of structure, those citizens who had become union organizers to defend the interests of their neighbours, their friends and their families were killed.

The response I got from the people at the Colombian embassy was rather unique. The vast majority of those cases were never brought to trial in Colombia, which they admitted and claimed that they were all crimes of passion. What they meant by crimes of passion was that those individuals were in relationships that somehow did not work out and the spouses, partners or people in their lives had killed them because of that dispute.

I found that response a condemnation of justice. It was a condemnation of a parliamentary committee trying to get to the bare bones of things and investigate things. It is a very dismissive approach that those cases would not be respected. I could not believe that was the response they gave.

However, we need to step back from some of this, from our side here in Canada, and hear from some of the individuals from Colombia. I have an interesting quote from an individual who states:

“If Canada were to assess the real impact of a trade deal on the lives of Colombians, I believe it would change its mind on the advisability of continuing negotiations,” says Bishop Juan Alberto Cardona, leader of the Methodist Church of Colombia.

Because the government is using it to justify its approach and to gain credibility in the international community, he goes on to say:

“So, naturally, the government is desperate for a deal with Canada. It’s like a stamp of approval,” says Bishop Cardona. “But we say, stop the killing of innocent Colombians, disarm the paramilitaries, and protect human rights before any deals are made.”

Given the massive investment by the United States government and of Canada through CIDA in other types of trade, which are actually occurring, surely the situation has not gotten to the point where we should just give it a free ride. It is important to note that we are trading with Colombia and were trading with Colombia during a time of record assassinations of its citizens.

What we are saying is that this free trade deal right now is wrong and we need to have that independent analysis that the committee has requested. The reasonable approach here is to ask whether it has been able to bridge the gap successfully to allow these issues to be part of an overall structure and plan, not side deals. Side deals on the environment and on human rights abuses are just that. They show the real fact, which is that they do not matter because if they really mattered they would be in the deal to begin with and they would be conditions to which we could actually hold the government accountable, and we could ensure that those people with whom we are supposed to be growing a relationship will get the natural defence and the rule of law applied to them and their families. Those are the ones we are talking about.

The Methodist bishop from Colombia was quite right when he pointed out that the interests of this deal were really thrust upon an elite group of citizens and the corporate agenda of large corporations that would benefit from it.

The least we can do in this respect is to pursue accountability through our actions. We need the independent assessment report that we are calling for right now and which we have been calling for for over a year.

I do not want to be too hard on my Liberal friends but the Conservatives continue to rub their noses into the ground on this. They have totally dismissed this approach as a reasonable way to come to a resolution here in the House on a Colombia free trade deal. They cannot even provide that element to the Liberal Party and yet the Liberals will support them without having that report completed. This shows the contempt that the Conservatives have for the issue of human rights, which is a priority for Canadians and important for our trading relationship. It is not a hard thing for the government to deliver. The assessment has been validated by a number of organizations, including Amnesty International.

I want to point out that there is some motivation and we saw that today in a press clipping on the Hill entitled, “Colombia may accept beef”. The Minister of Agriculture is pushing hard for Colombia to open its markets. In 2003, Colombia shut down the beef market because of mad cow disease, thereby shutting down Canadian access. The government sees this agreement as a portal to getting beef products back into that country. Interestingly enough, that would not happen until the summer, so Colombia is watching whether or not this deal happens. Maybe the deal is a sell-off for this Parliament.

There is no doubt that we all want trade but there is nothing wrong with following through on the will of Parliament through the committee to have that independent assessment.

The minister talked about a science based approach. If that were the case, then it would have opened the market a long time ago because nothing has changed since 2003 with regard to the science around this issue.

I want to touch on how things really matter in the House of Commons and in committee. Amnesty International pointed out this serious issue in a letter to the Minister of International Trade. I want to read from that letter because it tells us how real this issue is and how we can take either positive action or negative action.

People who came from Colombia to appear before committee put their lives at stake by coming forward but they wanted to make changes for themselves, their families and their communities.

In the letter to the Minister of International Trade dated March 27, 2009, Amnesty International stated:

Ten years ago, Canadian MPs heard compelling testimony about the devastating impact of a hydroelectric project that received US$18.2 million of Canadian financing assistance from the Export Development Corporation, in support of work on the project by a Canadian corporation. Embera Katio Indigenous leader Kimy Pernia Domico told a Canadian parliamentary hearing that members of his community, whose access to food and to a healthy environment was negatively impacted by construction of the dam, had never been consulted about the project in violation of their rights under the Colombian constitution. Kimy was subsequently disappeared by army-backed paramilitaries. His people continue to live in fear. Other communities do too. Last month, a delegation of human rights defenders from Colombia met with you and testified about the fear generated by the arrival of scores of soldiers in an area of Indigenous opposition to a foreign mining project.

Minister, Canada owes it to the memory of Kimy Pernia Domico, to his family, his community and to all Colombians to ensure that this deal will not exacerbate the already deeply troubling human rights situation in Colombia.

It is important to note that people like Kimy who came forward and testified here in these halls about the issue paid the price for that testimony.

Once again, all we are asking for is an independent assessment on the field.

The interesting thing about this case is it is not just a single one-off; a historic pattern has evolved. The current president, President Uribe, has been part of this problem in many respects, as has been noted by many in the international community.

Back in 2007, Jairo Giraldo, of the national fruit-workers union, and Leonidas Silva Castro, of the teachers union, were murdered in separate incidents. Jairo was part of an organized trade union that had to deal with the land property conflict with the drug trade. We do not know much about the situation involving Leonidas, except that he was murdered at his home. He was a member of the teachers union. That is important to note, because it is not just about those who have conflicts with the drug cartel. There is compelling evidence that connects the Government of Colombia, in the past and in the present, with the cartel and some of the problems they have had with cocaine and other types of commodities.

I find it interesting that we would be soft on those individuals yet in our country, the jargon out there is that we are tough on crime. However, it seems that it is okay if it is in somebody else's backyard.

With regard to the teachers union, it is disturbing that union leaders of civil society organizations end up being killed because they represent the workers of those organizations. Nurses associations and others have been affected by that.

Groups and organizations, not just from the Parliament of Canada but also the United States Congress, have travelled to Colombia, and have challenged the Colombian government on these issues. Despite that, there are murders to this day. Last year was a bad year. The pressure has been mounting. According to the February 2008 Reuters news article, “USW Delegation Visits Colombia to Meet Union, Political Leaders”, 40 Colombian trade unionists were murdered last year, more than all the union activists killed in all of the countries of the world combined.

It is incredible, in looking at the small geography of Colombia and looking at the other nations of the world where there have been active attacks on trade unionists, that there would be that concentration of murders. We should be talking about the mere fact that Colombia would actually be allowed to have a privileged trade agreement. Let us define this. That is what we are talking about today. We are not talking about ending all trade to Colombia. We are not talking about reducing trade to Colombia. We are not talking about the fact that Canada is trying to increase its trade to Colombia. We are talking about a privileged state of trade that Canada would want to enter into with the Colombian government that has a history of corruption, a number of issues tied to cartels and a number of issues related to killings where the government has not gone after those individuals to any significant success rate. We have not put any type of markers in this trade deal to deal with that.

In fact the issues that have been raised consistently are that of the environment and labour. It is critical to note the environment is also connected to the land conflict uses that could destroy communities and the people who have lived there for generations. They are side agreements.

We are talking about entering into a privileged trade relationship, and we would do so with a country that continues to have that type of record. The Reuters article states:

In the meantime, death threats against trade unionists in Colombia persist, with more than 200 occurring last year, and one union with which the USW works closely in Colombia, Sinaltrainal, received numerous death threats against its leadership last year from the extremely violent “Black Eagles” of the AUC paramilitaries.

Not only are individuals being slaughtered for representing their family members, friends and community members, we also have another series of intimidations. Let us be clear about this. When 40 people, trade unionists, at that point, basically half the year, in Colombia have been killed, we can imagine the level of severity and concern the 200 death threats that were recorded would actually have. These are not small things.

I wrap up—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt the member at this point. He will have five minutes remaining when we return to this matter.

The House resumed from May 25 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Windsor West had five minutes remaining in his speech the last time the bill was before the House so he can pick up right where he left off and finish his allocated time.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from the very moment the House resumed, the Conservatives began heckling, so some things do not change. Unfortunately, Bill C-23 has re-emerged as well, which is of concern. The bill would bring in a trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

The bill is about providing a privileged trade agreement to Colombia. It is not about the issue of fear of trade in general and free trade. It is about providing privileged access to the Canadian markets as well as Canada entering into another deeper relationship with Colombia. On the surface, there is no doubt that we should pursue trade agreements. However, what is disturbing about the bill is we are doing so with a country that has had significant problems such as murder and crime. As well, a series of problems related to civil society and the economics of its nation have not yet been addressed. Sadly, since the last time I spoke, approximately 27 more trade unionists have been killed in Colombia.

I had an opportunity to discuss this at committee. I questioned the Colombian representatives about the number of leaders who had been assassinated in their state. We were not talking about union activists from forestry or mining. We were talking about people who were part of their civil society, leaders of their nursing, teachers and university associations. I asked about specific cases. Interestingly enough everything was a crime of passion, assassinations of people who were fighting for basic human and worker rights. A continuation of the explanation was that these were personal problems, people being assassinated in their homes, in the streets, at work or somewhere else. That is unacceptable.

That is why I am surprised we have come back to this bill at this point. I know the Liberals vacillated on this issue. At first they were very supportive of the bill, supporting the government in moving it forward. Then at the same time there was a big push back. Thousands of Canadians have petitioned against this deal, saying that we need to have some further resolve of the Colombian government's protection of its citizens before we even entertain this type of deeper relationship. Once again, it is a privileged relationship and would be different than we do for most nations.

Interestingly then the LIberals apparently changed their position because it was supposed to be a confidence matter. I guess they are showing more confidence in the government again. I do not understand how this place works any more. It seems every day there is a different story.

It appears the Liberals are going to support this measure and that is disturbing. We would rather see a resolution of some of these problems so the trade organizations, civil society members and the Colombian people can be supported. Then the government can be rewarded by a trade agreement, but not before it resolves these very serious issues.

Some of the names may not mean much to some people, but Tique Adolfo was murdered recently. Arango Alberto, Pinto Alexander, Carreno Armando, Franco Franco Victor and Rodriguez Pablo were murdered as well. It is interesting to note that Rodriguez Pablo was a teacher.

This is what really disturbs me about the way we are approaching this. I am glad I had a chance to read some of the names into the record because at least they will be remembered in that way and in the that context. It disturbs me that my country would enter a privileged trading relationship with a government that continues to allow people in its civil society, including teachers, to be murdered because of the beliefs and values for which they stand.

If we want to have an open and free democratic society and we want to have a fair trade agreement with Columbia, it is time to say no to its government until it clean up its house, get things in order, ensures that people in its civil society and working class can do the necessary work to advance the country. Let us not reward Colombia first. We need to stand strong right now.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, why does the NDP continue to use very misleading language when it addressed the crime problem in Colombia? In a very inflammatory way, the member said that the Colombia government allowed murder. Would he be willing to retract that statement? It is a very serious statement to say that a government is allowing murder when the record is very clear that it is being very aggressive on prosecutions, following up, arrests and successful convictions.

Will he apologize and change his language? He has made a very serious statement about another government. He has said that a government is allowing and permitting murder. Would he clarify that and perhaps apologize?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to apologize for or clarify. The nation has been too well versed in history in understanding the seriousness of the nature of the problems there. There has been a continuation of public policy that has not protected people who stand for ordinary citizens.

I am ashamed that Canada would defend that type of approach. It is extremely important for our country to stand strong. We are not just talking about mining and different types of industries that have had historical conflict. We are talking about people who are teachers and who organize society. The government is supposed to support them, yet they continue to have problems. I simply cannot stand by, witness that and pretend, by a distance, that it is not something serious. It needs to be addressed.

We should send a much stronger language back to Colombia to show that if it is to have a privileged trade agreement with Canada, it will come with conditions. We have trade agreements with them, but this is a privileged trade agreement that comes with conditions, which is the people in its society are to be protected.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade obviously has not looked at the facts coming out from human rights organizations in Colombia.

A report was issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which named President Uribe, more than a decade ago, as 82nd on the list of the top 100 Colombian narco-traffickers. The Defense Intelligence Agency said that now-President Uribe was “a Colombian politician...dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cartel at high government levels” and that he was a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar, the notorious drug lord.

The Defense Intelligence Agency is tying them in with narco-traffickers. Given that human rights organizations have already shown direct links between the Uribe administration and murderous parliamentary thugs, how can the Conservatives say, with any credibility, that they are opposed to drug trafficking and crimes when they want to give a privileged trading relationship to that regime?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is shocking. We have obvious evidence of drug cartels tied with those who are part of the governing body. It is something that needs further examination.

It should not be one from which the minister distances himself. He should be further delving into that relationship and doing the work necessary to ensure that things are going to be approached in a very professional and appropriate manner. However, what we have is an ideological drive by the Conservatives to bring in a trade agreement with Colombia.

Once again, this is a privileged trade agreement. Nothing right now would affect the trade agreements that we have and the trade that is happening between our two countries. This is a privileged trade agreement. Why would we not be working with other nations and have them progressing on human rights and moving forward in ways that are open for democracy versus rewarding a country and then hoping later on that it is going to do something?

In this privileged trade agreement, we have sidebar issues for the environment, multinationals and trade unionism. That clouds the issue and provides a greater cover for those who do not want to follow the rules to break them and not have consequences. It is beyond me why we would want to structure our agreement to a regime of that nature and has those connections. It just shows how weak the Conservatives truly are on the drug issue.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted the comment made by the hon. member referencing the sidebar agreement. One of the regrettable aspects to NAFTA was that environment and labour rights were sidebarred. Since then, there has been a lot of discussion that we should go further and we should strengthen that.

We heard a lot of worries during the American election that they might get serious about opening up NAFTA, not necessarily for protectionism but to make sure that the environmental and labour provisions were actually included in any future trade agreements, potentially opening up the one that we have with the United States and Mexico.

The hon. member mentioned these sidebar agreements. Does he think we have actually progressed in Canada by still sidebarring and not making binding on the parties matters related to workers' rights and protection of the environment of their communities?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting things about the NAFTA agreement and our trade agreement with the United States is that we have actually seen on their side of the border a progression to understanding that, for us to compete in a global economy, often the environment, as well as labour and other types of issues, are used against us. They are used against us because other countries are able to exploit the environment, exploit workers, exploit women and children. We have seen a progression in the United States to identify that, if we are to compete in the world market, other countries have to raise their levels. To be able to ship into and dump into our markets when they are exploiting children or exploiting labour, whether it be women, the activists or the environment, is something we should contest. There should be a voice raised against this, because we are not doing ourselves or those countries any good by allowing those conditions.

That is important, because our country still seems stuck in a rut that, if we deregulate everything and have no standards, we will actually do better. The reality is that deregulation is allowed, not just in terms of the poisoning of our food, but we have lost companies because of that. They have gone to other districts where there is fair competition, as opposed to those companies that want to use the environment or labour practices as a subsidy, and they do well. Other companies have moved away from that.

It is really important that there be an understanding that the North American market has to shift. Once again, there needs to be more scrutiny on those products and services that not only come from here, but also those that are shipped and dumped into our markets, such that they will have standards to them. If we do not do that, we are not even helping the people from those countries. All we are doing is allowing the continuation of abuse and a pattern of behaviour that will not sustain this planet and will not sustain the workers and keep many people out of poverty.

So I say to the Canadian government, let us use this as an example to Colombia. The carrot-and-stick approach is one thing we can do. If they raise their standards, if they solve these issues, if they work on them and we monitor them and put them on an approach that will take these concerns away, then we can move into a privileged trade agreement. Why give them a privileged trade agreement right now when we know the abuses are still there? They are historic enough in this century and are significant beyond even just Canada; they are international. Why would we do that? Why would we send the message to the rest of the world that we are willing to do business under the terms and conditions of these regimes versus what we should be doing? Canada is doing the exact opposite.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is, with Colombia having been torn apart by civil war over the last 40 years, with much of that warfare being fueled by the narco-economy, recognizing the fact that Canada already has a commercial relationship with Colombia without a rules-based structure around it, how can providing legitimate economic opportunity to the people of Colombia with a rules-based structure with the most robust labour and environmental standards of any trade agreement Canada has ever signed and providing legitimate economic opportunity to wean them away from the narco-economy make the situation worse?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, in a sense. We are entering into an agreement with a narco-economy. That is it. That is what we are asking our country to do right now. I oppose that. I think other provisions are needed. There has been some work done to help Colombia progress to a better position, but it has not yet worked.

So why would we enter into a trade agreement with a narco-economy? I ask the Liberal member, why would we want to engage in a narco-economy?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, in a few moments I will get into the substance, thin as it is, of the questions from the member for Windsor West, but the record will clearly show that he did not answer my question, which asked him to clarify his statement where he says another government is allowing wholesale slaughter and murders. He did not address that.

He has responded to a question about a report from his colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, who is always using the most horrifically misleading information related to this particular agreement. The report that was quoted in fact was denounced by the very people who commissioned it in the last decade, so not only is he totally out of date, he does not have the foggiest idea of the absolute unqualified nature of that support.

Canada is as prosperous as it is because we have always been a trading nation. We have realized since our very beginning that we can produce more than we can consume, so we trade with other nations. It is one of the reasons we are as prosperous as we are.

In any nation with whom we have entered a trading agreement, the results have been a corresponding increase in industry, jobs, GDP and trade back and forth between those two nations. I am not saying freedom of trade is the answer or the panacea to every single problem we face. It clearly is not, but in every case where a free trade agreement has been struck, the standard of living goes up, jobs increase, and trade increases in every situation.

We believe in the World Trade Organization, the WTO. We are a partner to that. There are over 150 countries in that particular organization. So as members can well imagine, completing a round of negotiations is difficult at the best of times, and the present Doha round is emblematic of that. We are committed, though, to seeing ongoing changes at the WTO. We think we can see those, and we are committed to that organization.

Meanwhile, because we realize that sometimes that organization can move slowly just because of its sheer size, we also engage in a positive way with other countries in bilateral agreements, sometimes multilateral within a particular region or an organization. So it is that we have been engaging with Colombia, as our record also shows.

I will be speaking tonight at a reception at the Peruvian embassy, where we will be celebrating the fact that we have completed a free trade agreement with Peru. We have one with Costa Rica. We can list quite a significant number of agreements.

I was in Jordan at the end of June and early July and signed a free trade agreement there. The Prime Minister signed off on the final negotiations on a free trade agreement with Panama. Of course, we have a free trade agreement as well with the United States and Mexico, and on and on it goes.

Therefore, following that pathway of prosperity, we continue to want to see a conclusion here in Parliament of the discussions and a ratification of the trade deal with Colombia.

It is important when we are looking at countries with whom we deal that we do not take a snapshot in time, one that is maybe 20 years old, which the NDP seems to dwell on with its old black-and-white Polaroids, drawing out relics from the past. We need to ask, in which direction is a government moving; in which direction is the country moving?

I would just reflect on some data. This is not our data. This is data that is internationally confirmed in terms of a number of indicators in Colombia that would speak to us about whether that country is seeing improvement or movement in the right direction at all.

Between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings decreased by 87%. Do they still happen? Yes, they do. They still happen in Canada, too.

Homicide rates have dropped by 44%. Are people still being murdered in that country? Yes, they are. They are still being murdered in Canada also, not at the same rate, thankfully, but the rates are dropping because of the vigorous pursuit and the prosecution of people involved in those murders.

The median poverty line has fallen from 55% to 45%. Colombia has attained coverage of 94% in basic education and 31% in higher education.

Right now, 90.4% of the population enjoys some form of health care. Is it as high a percentage as in Canada? No, but some form of health care is available to 90.4% of the population. The goal that Colombia seems about to reach is universal health coverage by 2010—and just to inform the NDP, which is still hopelessly trapped in its past rhetoric, the year is 2009.

More than 350,000 internally displaced persons have now received comprehensive protection and access to basic social services.

Training programs for more than 12,000 civil servants have taken place on the new Colombian law on children and adolescents.

There has been a reintegration of 80,000 children and adolescents into the community through education and community-based services. These 80,000 children are among those who were frightfully exposed to a country that was for too long devastated by the effects of the narcotics trade and severe revolutionary actions, some of the left-wing revolutionary movement, that devastated so much of that country. Many of these situations have been improved on, resulting in the reintegration, thankfully, of some 80,000 children. There is more to do, but Colombia is moving in the right direction.

More than 900 community justice officials have now been trained in terms of how to resolve conflicts at the local level. They have a record of some 45,000 of those conflicts having been resolved at the local community level.

Aid has supported environmentally sustainable agriculture products for more than 4,500 farmers, giving them alternatives to illicit crops. They were previously at the mercy of the narcotics dealers and revolutionary groups, and now they have alternatives. That has benefited more than 30,000 people.

Our own labour projects have provided technical assistance in Colombia, including $400,000 for the modernization of labour administration and $644,000 for the enforcement of labour rights.

Is it perfect in Colombia? No, but it is certainly moving in the right direction.

We have seen news releases as recently as today from labour organizations in Canada that say we are moving precipitously. They say we are rushing into this particular agreement and ask why we are doing that. I would like to quote some timelines that are important.

It was over seven years ago that the former federal Liberal government began to enter into informal discussions with the Andean community. Formal negotiations began June 7, 2007, with the government itself, in a formal way.

The Standing Committee on International Trade completed its study on the Canada-Colombia FTA in June 2008. That committee brought in many witnesses from all sides of the equation.

I have met with leaders of civil society groups in Colombia, including those who, at great risk to themselves, staged marches and protests in that country about the things that matter most to them. These people are very much concerned about the people they represent.

The FTA itself and the side agreements were signed on November 21, 2008. We are well into 2009 and approaching 2010. Since 2008, the full text has been available on the Internet and at the request of any individual. Yet, with all of this, the NDP and a few labour leaders are saying this is being rushed into.

We have taken a very prudent path in pursuing this particular agreement. It is something that is totally dismissed, time and again, by the NDP and certain others who are ideologically opposed. We should be clear about that. They are plainly and simply ideologically opposed to the notion of free and fair trade with other countries. They might make notions or motions in another direction, but I understand it is an ideological problem they have.

With the recent difficult times we are having with the United States on the buy-American provisions, what has been the NDP response? Those members want us to build walls around the country. They want us to build walls so that we just sell stuff to each other. That has been the NDP response, and historically, of course, that has proven to be devastating not just to economies but to workers.

So here we are with this free trade agreement that has been signed but quite rightly needs to be ratified.

I would ask that the NDP consider something here. I wonder why its members were mute, why they were silent while Colombia signed free trade agreements with European countries that do not even have the high-grade labour and environmental provisions that we have in our agreement. The NDP was silent on that. There was no opposition. Why are its members silent today when just last Friday the United States indicated that it is going to release the funding that goes before it moves toward ratification of a free trade agreement? The U.S. has been withholding certain funding based on its concerns about the situation in Colombia, has done a thorough review of that situation, has now attested also to the improvements it has seen, and has released important funding that it has been holding back until now. I wonder why the NDP did not comment on that.

It is very disturbing to me that the NDP has no problem at all with Canadian farmers, workers, producers now being at an economic disadvantage when it comes to dealing with Colombia because Colombia has signed deals with European countries. I say congratulations to them for that and well done to the countries that have signed agreements with them. However, in these cases, now Canadian producers, Canadian workers who want to sell their product into Colombia are at a serious disadvantage because the tariffs on those products, which our workers face, have been removed by European countries, and, I would dare say, at some point soon if we do not get moving on this, we will also be at a disadvantage with the United States. However, it does not seem to be of any concern to the NDP that our Canadian workers are at a disadvantage because of free trade deals Colombia has signed with European countries, which the NDP did not protest against at all, and here we are with a labour side accord and environmental accords which the European agreements with the Colombians do not even contain.

We are committed, and now, by signing, Colombia is committed, to the declarations of the International Labour Organization, declarations that cover everything from child labour laws to occupational health and safety laws, and that have to do with minimum wage, the workday itself and hours of work. Colombia is committed to the same guidelines Canada faces in terms of environmental protection.

I would submit that this is the highest-grade free trade agreement between Colombia and any other country.

The NDP members continue to say they are embarrassed about Canada. We hear that at regular intervals and, frankly, it is disheartening to hear that, but they regularly say how embarrassed they are about Canada.

I am proud of this free trade agreement.

They will not be able to produce a higher-grade free trade agreement than the one we have with Colombia right now. However, they are content to see our workers lose jobs because our produce and our products and the innovation of our hard-working labourers here in Canada are at a distinct disadvantage. When we sign this, if we get this through, 84% of all the tariffs on agricultural goods, which our producers face right now, will be removed and it will open up more doors of opportunity for workers in Colombia.

Not every problem in Colombia has been settled. Nor has every social problem in Canada been settled. However, this agreement would hold not just the current government in Colombia but any future government to account with guidelines that are transparent, that are provable and that have sanctions, such as fines of up to $15 million for violations of either the labour or environmental designations in this particular free trade agreement.

I ask the NDP members to address these questions directly, and I would ask them to stick to the facts.

We still have not had an apology from the member of Parliament for Burnaby—New Westminster who, on a number of occasions, has stood and said that the new trade agreement in Canada -- and usually it is said that in debate it is folly even to repeat the ridiculous comments that are made which would be camouflaged as true debate by our opposition, but I have to expose the ludicrous nature and the panicked state into which the NDP has fallen. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster continues to say that someone who commits murder in Colombia is subject to a fine, and that is a result of the free trade agreement. My respect for him will increase marginally the day he apologizes for using utterly false information.

It would be far better for NDP members to stand and say they are ideologically opposed to this and most free trade agreements, and that they do not like it, and to maintain that position. I respect that, but then they should allow the vote to take place, because members have looked at this now for years. They have heard from their constituents. They have heard a variety of things. They have heard that some constituents are for it and some are against it. There probably are not too many more members whose minds will be changed on this, so I would ask members of the NDP to at least allow the democratic thing to happen now on something that has been discussed as far back as 2002, to allow the vote to come to the House of Commons. Do not hold back the working people in Colombia who want to see this move ahead. Do not hold back Canadian workers who have products and services to sell that are the best and most competitive in the world and that are being held back because of this. NDP members should stand and say they do not like the deal, that they think it is bad, and continue on with their misleading rhetoric if they want. But I would ask that they do the democratic thing and allow it to come to a vote .

When I was in Colombia a number of years ago I was standing in a tourist area marketplace. I was trying to exchange my money at a cash machine and it was not working. Two young women who were probably in their twenties told me that the machines in the tourist area did not work but there was one in the commercial area a few blocks away which they offered to take me to. I have to say there was a tinge of suspicion. I thought maybe they would want a tip for their work, and that I would be leaving that particular area and going into the commercial area. However, they looked trustworthy and they took me a few blocks away to a local bank and showed me the machine and helped with the instructions which of course were not in English. They stood back while I put my card in so they could not read my PIN number. I got my cash. I offered them some money for their help and they refused but asked if I could find my way back to the area I had just left. I said I thought I could. They said that I was probably wondering why they did this. I said to be honest I thought they would want some money for giving me directions and I would have been pleased to give them that. They asked if I was from the United States. I said that actually I was from Canada. They said that probably did not make any difference. They said that I had probably heard about all of the narcotics and the devastating revolutionary activity in Colombia. I said that of course I had. They wanted me to know that most Colombians are decent, hard-working people who just want a chance to prove themselves and move ahead, and that is the message they left with me.

I do not know who those two university students are. I did not get their names, but I would say they are two ambassadors for Colombia who did a very effective job. I would ask the NDP and others to simply let the majority of decent, hard-working people who live in Colombia have a chance to move ahead. That is what we are asking for today.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the minister back in the House. I will be charitable and say he must be somewhat disoriented after being away for a few months because in his entire speech he was not able to get any facts right at all. As human rights organizations have indicated, the death rate in Colombia is going up, not going down. In fact there were 18% more murders of trade unionists last year than there were in the previous year.

My colleague from Windsor West mentioned the number of murders that have taken place this year. It is not just the number of murders that is so worrying. It is the number of false positives by the Colombian military and the number of disappearances as the murder rate has climbed and also the number of disappearances of the Colombian union leaders and teachers who simply disappear and are never found again.

The second point that is important to mention is what is actually happening around the world. The minister spoke very vaguely about some indications of perhaps some agreements happening somewhere. As minister, he should know full well that the United States Congress has refused to ratify the Colombia trade deal. It has simply said “no”. In Norway the government pulled back and said it does not want to be seen as implicitly endorsing Uribe's government. Britain has stopped providing training and support to government security forces. These governments are doing the responsible thing.

Why are the Conservatives endorsing murder by trying to push this trade deal through?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has clearly been caught in the headlights of his own glaringly ridiculous rhetoric. He is still trying to avoid the fact that he continues to say, and I quote him as saying this, that if you murder someone in Colombia, the free trade agreement says you will be fined for that. The member has not yet apologized for that. He has not yet said, “Okay, I got a little carried away. Sorry, it does not say that”. Until he does that, I will question everything he brings forward.

It is one thing to feel passionate about something, as the member does. It is one thing to vigorously debate, albeit with false information, but when the president of Colombia was here and in an unprecedented way went to that committee to answer questions, the member brought out this horrifically misleading information. President Uribe asked just one thing. He asked the member, if, simply out of respect, he would look him in the eye when he brought forward those false allegations.

The member could not even look him in the eye. Would he please look us in our collective eyes, look Canadians in the eye and say, “Hey, that thing I said about the free trade agreement having a fine for murderers was not fine for me to say.” I wish he would just say that.

Then I could possibly look at his other information as possibly having a modicum of correctness to it.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for raising those issues that are very important to Canadians.

I was in Colombia when the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster was there. We raised the issues that the minister has raised about Colombia. I can say that they have made great progress on that front, and we are looking forward to this particular treaty.

For the past many years, we have not signed a single agreement with Asia or Asia-Pacific nations. What steps are being taken by the minister to make sure that we make some progress on that front as well?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the debate on free trade agreements, my colleague has asked a pertinent question. I appreciate that.

There are tremendous opportunities throughout Asia. We are doing a number of things to pursue those opportunities. We are working hard on expanded trade agreements, for instance in China and India.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, just presided over the opening of yet another trade office in India about a week ago and also represented Canada very well at WTO discussions going on there.

It is my hope, and I say that carefully because we do not know what is going to happen here in the next couple of weeks, that should I be able to be in India about two weeks from now, we will be opening yet another trade office there.

We are working on a foreign investment protection agreement with India. We are getting closer. It has gone back and forth a number of times. We are working on a nuclear cooperation agreement with China. We are also pursuing similar initiatives.

I will use one example and then I will close on this. The former minister of trade in India expressed India's concern about their agriculture which is mostly subsistence-level farming competing against an industrialized country like Canada which has a very mature and sophisticated agricultural industry. India does not want to embark on a full and formal free trade agreement. They are open to enhanced trade.

We look at the areas where we can improve, and though a free trade agreement may not be imminent we are able to expand our trade opportunities with many of these Asian countries.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me in this discussion of the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

I feel that this debate is very important because we do not all agree by any means with this treaty, neither the members of the House nor the people of Canada and Colombia. The government will not change its mind as a result of this debate, but at least it will not be able to pretend it did not know what parliamentarians really think.

We are still wondering whether the government is paying any attention to what we say. Even though I was not yet in the House a year ago, I know that the international trade committee submitted a report on the free trade agreement with a number of recommendations. As a member of this committee now, I would like some assurances that the government read the report and responded to it. But that still has not been done.

It seems, unfortunately, that the Conservative government has turned a deaf ear and wants to proceed with this agreement even though there is a total lack of conditions conducive to it.

We tried in vain to find some valid reasons for signing such an agreement. There are none. The Conservatives and Liberals alike have only one argument to make: free trade brings prosperity.

No one is against prosperity, of course, but it is wrong to think it can be achieved by signing bilateral agreements without any serious criteria.

Whenever we enter bilateral trade agreements, we should familiarize ourselves with the realities of the countries with which we are dealing. We should take the time to assess the consequences of our decisions, both within Canada and within our partner, and not just from a commercial point of view.

In the case of Colombia, it turns out that the effect on trade between our two countries will be negligible in comparison with the damage that could be done to Colombia’s ability to defend the interests of its own people. Even the prosperity argument collapses if we take a close look at who will really benefit from an increase in exports.

The connection between free trade and the common weal has never proved completely true. Any positive impact of an increase in exports on the standard of living and human rights in Colombia is debatable. Some Colombian organizations tell us that their country’s auditor general stated just a few years ago that half of the arable land belonged directly to the paramilitary and drug traffickers.

We need, therefore, to be aware of the current situation in Colombia and take it into consideration. In addition to the opinions of some of my colleagues, who went personally to see the conditions there, we also have the stories of many eye witnesses, Colombian citizens, who have told us about their experiences. Their stories are very troubling and very moving. These people have to deal every day with the violence, the lack of freedom of speech, and the absence of the most basic of human rights.

As a farmer myself with a background in the farm movement, a shiver runs down my back at the thought that at this very moment, trade unionists in Colombia are being attacked and are targeted simply because they continue to assert the rights of working people. There are still people today in Colombia who pay with their lives for their determination to fight for their rights.

We must remember that armed conflicts often occur in rural areas, in more remote areas where the inhabitants are often dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. In these regions, the conflict consists of armed struggles for control over the land and the resources and its severity has led to the displacement of populations. Currently, there are four million displaced people in the country. Many people are forced to abandon their homes and land and arrive in the city without work and destined to live a precarious life.

Contrary to what some may think, free trade is not always welcomed by the agricultural sector. For small farmers in Colombia, an increase in trade also means an increase in imports. The free trade agreement with Canada, which provides for the immediate elimination of duties on wheat, peas, lentils and barley, among others, would be devastating for Colombian agriculture, which accounts for 11.4% of GDP and 22% of employment in Colombia.

Some organizations, such as the Canadian Council for International Co-operation maintain that, as a result of the free trade agreement with Canada,“12,000 livelihoods will be undermined by Canada’s industrially-produced wheat and barley exports” and that “the value of domestic wheat production in Colombia is expected to drop by 32%, leading to losses of 44% in employment levels and wages”. That is the real situation.

Another potential consequence of the competition and the progressive loss of market share is that it will favour the establishment of coca plantations because coca is becoming the only product with a strong export market which, unfortunately, remains profitable.

The sale of coca, and consequently drug trafficking, guerillas, paramilitary forces, the ties to power, corruption and so forth, this is a cycle that is difficult to break and one that victimizes the innocent. Colombia must adopt the means to break this cycle and Canada can help. However, in our opinion, a free trade agreement is not the route to go.

The agreement before us has some serious shortcomings and goes beyond a decrease in customs tariffs. This agreement reproduces the chapter on protection of investments from NAFTA. The many lawsuits that have been filed by investors against governments should have taught us that this chapter should be revised, or even withdrawn from NAFTA, or at least should not be reused in other trade agreements. But with this, various foreign investors will have a number of advantages and the state's power to legislate for the well-being of its people will suffer as a result. Thus, in the current context of systematic violations of human, labour and environmental rights, the investors will have powers that will only serve to make certain already disadvantaged groups even weaker, and will eventually eat away at democracy.

It can obviously be interesting for Canada to have this investment protection provision. In fact, Canadian businesses operating in Colombia will benefit from strong protection of their investments through this free trade agreement. This agreement will allow Canadian companies involved in mining, for instance, and whose human rights record is less than stellar to sue the Colombian government, should it ever implement legislation that affects their profits. Substantial compensation is provided for in the event of nationalization or expropriation. In other words, the power to legislate as it sees fit within its jurisdiction is taken away from the state.

In Quebec, we now have a fine example of a company abusing power that is suing the Government of Quebec, because the government decided to prohibit a type of pesticide in an effort to protect the health of Quebeckers. I think this is an inconceivable situation. In regards to the agreement with Colombia, what would Canadian mining companies do if the Colombian government decided to improve some national labour standards? Would they sue the Colombian government because the implementation of this law would cost the company money and would decrease profits? This could happen. The Canadian government has the means to better regulate the activities of Canadian companies operating abroad, but it does not do so.

Once again, it is clear that the government has chosen to ignore everyone else's recommendations. Plenty of recommendations arose from the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries, but the government's response has fallen short of the mark. When asked to adopt mandatory social responsibility standards for Canadian mining companies abroad, the government decided to adopt voluntary standards instead. When asked to create an independent ombudsman who could conduct impartial investigations to validate complaints, the government created the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, who reports directly to the minister and investigates only if authorized by the mining company. In other words, the government chose to ignore all of the recommendations it received.

The Canadian government wasted a perfectly good opportunity to truly improve the living conditions of Colombian workers. This same government says that it can help Colombians prosper simply by selling them more goods at better prices.

Of course the Colombian government is perfectly capable of passing its own laws governing mining companies operating within its territory, but enforcing such laws is something else entirely. Enforcement requires the kind of resources, infrastructure and territorial control that Colombia does not necessarily have.

We have to bear in mind that Colombia is a developing country and that it is very hard to sign trade agreements between countries as different as Canada and Colombia.

Every time we talk to people involved in social movements in Colombia, we are amazed by the stories of brave men and women who carry on fighting despite the threat of assassination. Last February, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I met with the coalition of Colombian social movements and organizations, which includes several human rights protection organizations operating at various levels. It took a lot of courage for members of the coalition to come to Canada, hoping to raise awareness of their plight among Quebec and Canadian MPs.

Closer to me, last week, at my constituency office, I personally met with six Colombians, including a couple who had left four of their children behind in Colombia and lost track of them. They were crying and asking what I could do to help them find out what happened to them and bring them to Canada so that they can have some kind of family life.

That is the sort of thing Colombians are going through, as I have learned firsthand in recent weeks. My meeting with these people was both absolutely amazing and incredibly depressing. I think that, as members of Parliament and parliamentarians, we have to do everything in our power to lend them a helping hand, so that humanitarians conditions in a country like Colombia can improve.

Mark my words. These people who have every interest in seeing life improve in Colombia came to us, asking that we not support that free trade agreement. Canada's stand on this issue is of great importance, not so much commercially as morally, to them who are very interested in and affected by it.

Everyone in this House should clearly understand that, with our vote for or against this bill, we will send a message to Colombia and to the rest of the world as well.

It is clear in the Bloc Québécois's mind that this message should be: we will not sign any preferential trade agreement when there is a risk of making an already precarious situation, in terms of working conditions and the environment, deteriorate further and when there is not a minimum level of respect for human rights.

That is the least Canada should require of its trading partners.

To all those who say that our approach would isolate rather than help Colombia, we say that, on the contrary, trade between these two countries will continue and that even without a free trade agreement, the flow of trade between the two countries has increased. So why is the government bound, bent and determined to make Colombia a preferred trade partner? The figures show fairly limited trade between the two countries. Quebec and Canada do business with a number of other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that would be better placed than Colombia to become a preferred partner. Why Colombia? Why stubbornly go ahead with a proposal that is causing so much controversy here and elsewhere?

The only possible answer we can see is that the Government of Canada is determined to protect its investors abroad, at the expense of the local population's well-being.

Another factor we must not overlook is the environmental impact. The environmental side agreement falls far short of the expectations of those who are concerned about meeting environmental standards. This agreement does not provide for any sanctions for non-compliance with the most minimal requirements and could ultimately cause Colombia not to go ahead with adopting new environmental protection measures. The report of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation states “The ESA not only fails to provide a credible vehicle for enhancing and enforcing environmental laws and regulations, but it also fails to mitigate the corrosive pressures the CCFTA will exert on existing environmental and conservation measures and may in fact provide a further disincentive for environmental law reform.” That is deeply concerning.

Given all this information and all these concerns about the signing of this free trade agreement, we are opposed to it.

In addition, the Conservative government's approach in negotiating with Colombia showed contempt for our democratic institutions and this Parliament. At the time when the agreement was made public, a study on the subject matter was under way at the Standing Committee on International Trade. The opinion of elected parliamentarians was never taken into consideration as part of the discussions between our two countries.

This prompted the Bloc Québécois to introduce in this House a motion asking that “ the House refuse to give second reading to 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, because the government concluded the agreement while the Standing Committee on International Trade was considering the matter, thereby demonstrating its disrespect for democratic institutions”.

Unfortunately, in spite of all the points we raised and all the evidence suggesting that this trade agreement is not a desirable one, it would seem that the Liberal members are still unable to state clearly what position they will take on the issue. Based on what we heard Liberal members of the Standing Committee on International Trade say, however, we would think that they are aware of many problems in Colombia that such an agreement might make worse. They even expressed concerns about President Uribe's plans to change the country's Constitution to secure a third mandate as president. I wonder what more they need to check before finally opposing this agreement. The facts speak for themselves. Refusing to accept them will not make them any less true.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Listening to the debate there is obviously a divergence of views in the chamber. The minister made an important point that is worth repeating and which I will probably repeat a couple of times in my intervention today.

It is worth repeating that this is not a brand new agreement. It is not an agreement that was just tabled before the House and laid in front of all the members. This agreement has been in the informal stages of negotiations since 2002-03 and has been a formal agreement since 2007. It passed through the chamber. The committee actually went to Colombia and heard first-hand from Colombians in all parts of the country. Whether they were people involved in commercial businesses or government organizations, whether they were NGOs or they represented the International Labour Organization, we heard from dozens and dozens of Colombians.

We walked the streets of Bogota, Colombia which a few years ago would have been unsafe. I think Colombia has made great strides and that a good portion of that forward momentum is the direct result of increased trading links with the rest of the world.

However, for some reason or another, we have two parties in the chamber that want to condemn the Colombians for actually moving forward and advancing their own country.

This agreement is an important part of our Conservative government's strategy to make the Canadian economy stronger. In these difficult economic times, it is important to keep doors open in the region and around the world for our producers and our exporters. Our government has provided leadership internationally in encouraging free trade and open markets and discouraging protectionism. Our government knows that trade and investment agreements play a critical role in creating new opportunities for companies and helping the global economy recover.

That is why we are committed to an aggressive trade agenda in the Americas and beyond. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, along with the related agreements on the environment and labour co-operation, is an important part of this broader trade agenda.

Canada currently has long-standing free trade agreements in force with the United States and Mexico under the NAFTA agreement, as well as agreements with Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. Under this government, we have very recently implemented new free trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association and Peru on July 1 and August 1 respectively.

Earlier this year, Canada also signed a free trade agree with Jordan and, of course, this free trade agreement that we are currently debating here in the House of Commons with Colombia.

On August 11 our government successfully concluded free trade negotiations with Panama. At the announcement of the conclusion of these negotiations, the Prime Minister emphasized our government's commitment to strong trading relationships and partnerships.

We are also looking ahead to other important partners around the world. At the Canada-European Union summit in May our government launched negotiations toward a comprehensive economic and trade agreement and on Friday the Minister of International Trade met with a group of trade ministers from the Caribbean communities to discuss the way forward for our trade negotiations with them.

Those are yet further examples of how hard this government is working to pursue bilateral and multilateral trading relationships that work for Canadians.

We also remain dedicated to advancing our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners, including South Korea, Singapore, Central American countries and the Dominican Republic.

Our trade agenda will continue to be ambitious. We have started exploring deeper ties with India and Morocco and are currently involved in technical discussions with Japan.

What does this very active trade agenda mean for Canada? To be more concrete, let us take a look in more detail at just some of what we have achieved so far this year.

The bottom line of what this ambitious trade agenda means is jobs, opportunity, more exports, more products for Canadians and more choice for consumers. It would not only help Canadians but it would help other nations that become our closer trading partners.

The Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement is a first generation agreement with an emphasis on tariff elimination. Implementing this agreement, the first free trade agreement Canada has ever completed with European countries, will open more doors for Canadian producers and exporters by increasing their access to these wealthy and sophisticated European markets.

Canada's producers and exporters will benefit immediately from the elimination of duties on all Canadian non-agriculture merchandise exports upon the coming into force of the free trade agreement. Tariffs will also be eliminated or reduced on selected Canadian agricultural exports such as durum wheat, frozen french fries, beer and crude canola oil. As well, Canadian companies will be able to access innovative technologies and other inputs from EFTA markets, including through the importation of machinery and scientific and precision instruments.

With the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement, there are also considerable benefits for Canadians. Canadian producers will benefit from Peru's immediate elimination of tariffs on 95% of current Canadian exports, with most remaining tariffs to be eliminated over a five to ten year period. Products that will receive immediate duty-free access to Peru include wheat, barley, lentils, peas and selected boneless beef cuts, a variety of paper products, and machinery and equipment.

This agreement also provides enhanced market access in service sectors that are of interest to Canada, including mining, energy and professional services. Canada's banking, insurance and security sector will also benefit from the greater access to the Peruvian marketplace.

The free trade, labour co-operation and environment agreements signed with Jordan in June of this year are not yet in force but the legislation will be forthcoming. We can still look at what the free trade agreement will offer Canadian producers once implemented.

The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement would eliminate tariffs on over 99% of recent Canadian exports by value to Jordan, directly benefiting Canadian producers and exporters. Key Canadian sectors that would benefit from this immediate duty-free access include forestry, manufacturing and agriculture and agri-food sectors in which Canadian companies are global leaders.

The free trade agreement with Jordan would improve market access for both agricultural and industrial goods and help to ensure a level playing field for Canadian exporters vis-à-vis competitors that currently benefit from preferential access to Jordan's market. The parallel labour and environmental agreements would help to ensure progress on labour rights and environmental protection.

It is simple: By bringing down barriers to trade and investment, the Conservative government will help Canada's business compete in an ever more competitive world and stimulate the Canadian economy.

A closer economic partnership with Colombia would similarly reduce tariffs for Canadian exporters. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would also expand opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers. This agreement would also help Colombia build a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy, a democracy that can contribute to growth and economic stability in the region.

From the start of the global economic downturn, our message has been clear. Ensuring free and open trade is vital to the international effort of strengthening the global economy. Canadians can count on their government to lead these efforts and to take every opportunity to oppose protectionism and defend free and open trade on the world stage. They can also depend upon our efforts to help Canadians through and beyond the current economic difficulties.

Protectionism is not the answer and it has never been the answer. Partnerships and reaching out in a broader trading agenda are at least part of that answer. This is why I ask for the support of all hon. members for the Colombia-Canada free trade agreement.

I have a bit of time left and there are a couple of things that have been hinted at in debate. Some of them were discussed in a little more detail, but it is important for all members of this House to take a look at the Uribe government.

When we were in Colombia with the committee, we were granted an audience with President Uribe and his entire cabinet. Those audiences seldom ever occur, even when free trade agreements are being negotiated. We had a very open, frank discussion about politics, free trade and the challenges Colombia is facing.

I would ask all members to take a look at President Uribe's cabinet and the president's own background. They face formidable obstacles and challenges in Colombia, but everything that has occurred in Colombia under President Uribe's watch has been positive. I know some will take exception to that statement, but it has been extremely positive.

The president witnessed violence first-hand as a young child. Many of his cabinet members have been kidnapped by FARC and some were held for a year and a half or three years. Others have been kidnapped by the right-wing paramilitaries. His cabinet is not made up of right-wing ideologues, which the opposition continually wants us to believe. That is far from the truth. He actually was able to reach into Colombian society and draw people from all over the political spectrum to his party and his cause. That is an accomplishment that not many people can match.

The reason is very clear and simple: Colombians wanted to get out of the dire straits they saw their country in. They wanted to have personal safety and the ability to travel throughout the country. The roads were not safe. They wanted to have some type of police presence that would avoid the continuing kidnappings; not that they do not still occur, because they do still occur, but there are markedly fewer than there were even a few years ago.

The politically motivated murders have decreased, not increased. We have seen better labour standards brought into place because of that government. We have seen a better adherence to the justice system because of that government. There are safer streets and highways and freedom of travel in Colombia that did not exist 10 years ago. It was absolutely impossible to travel between communities and cities in Colombia without jeopardizing one's life.

Why did Canada negotiate a free trade agreement with Colombia? It will open new markets and export opportunities for Canadian companies and will supply Canadian jobs. We have to do that because other countries are already ahead of us. As the minister said, we believe that the United States will be opening up its agreement very quickly to deal with the Colombians. The EFTA countries have signed an agreement with Colombia. The European Union is looking at signing an agreement with Colombia.

It should be noted that none of these agreements have the same level of labour and environmental parallel clauses that our Canadian agreement has. Ours is far superior and far more protective of labour and the environment than any free trade agreement by any other country in the world. It is important.

Even though our present level of bilateral trade with Colombia is fairly low at around $1.2 billion, that trade is growing exponentially. We have tremendous opportunity not just in Colombia but throughout South America, Central America and the Caribbean.

When our government came to power in 2006, we had a time of opportunity in this country with a very robust trading arrangement with the United States of America and Mexico in the NAFTA agreement that allowed for good times. That trading agreement is under more pressure today because of the worldwide economic downturn. That trading agreement has been threatened from all sides.

What was our government's answer? We looked beyond our immediate borders and, quite frankly, we followed the money. Canadian foreign direct investment in the Americas was already there ahead of us. Canadian companies, whether in the extractive sector, whether in agriculture, whether in manufacturing, were already in South America, Central America and the Caribbean with a tremendous amount of Canadian foreign direct investment. We followed that investment.

We are seeking not just opportunities. I do not want this to sound callous and that it is simply about Canada. It is absolutely about Canada, but there are also tremendous benefits for the countries with which we are signing these agreements.

Why would we not look at the Americas, our neighbours, those in the same hemisphere and the same time zones? Why would we not look for enhanced trading relationships in Central America?

Why would we not look at the opportunities for growth and the opportunities that our political cousins in the Americas are facing in Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras? These countries have huge, growing economies. They have huge populations. They have great challenges. They have tremendous poverty. The only way for them to move forward is to trade with the rest of the world. They have to seek beneficial, comprehensive trading agreements.

The Liberal critic asked a question earlier about rules based trading. It is a very simple concept. Rules are in place that apply both to Canada and to the country being traded with for the benefit of both, for the protection of investment by both countries.

There are a number of issues and a number of them have already been spoken about. The extractive sector continually comes up in the discussion on free trade with Colombia. For a few moments I would like to talk about the Canadian extractive sector.

Our extractive sector is absolutely a world leader. Canada represents about 40% of the mining business around the world. Canadian companies operate in 148 countries. We are the preferred operator.

I was privileged to be at the WTO in India and I spoke to the minister of trade from Ecuador. The first comment was that Ecuador wants to work with Canada.

We have a big extractive sector. Canadians respect the environment, respect the rules and respect labour. We have great companies doing great work. We continually hear negative comments. We continually hear NGOs saying that none of this occurs. We should be extremely proud of the work that our companies are doing around the globe. There are companies from every province in Canada and they are doing good work.

We should be reaching out beyond our closest neighbours and outside the NAFTA agreement. We should be looking at the European Union and places like India and China and places in our own hemisphere such as South America, Central America and the Caribbean where there are tremendous opportunities for Canadian trade, for Canadian jobs, and for Canadian security. At the same time we will benefit our neighbours and our trading partners who desperately need the foreign currency and the market.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my Conservative colleague. As always, the Conservatives—and I find this terrible and extremely dangerous—present only part of the facts to try to sell their proposal.

My colleague is singing the praise of the Uribe government in Colombia when it is clear that crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased by 41% in 2008, compared to 14% in 2007. Over 30 members of Congress are currently under arrest, and they are generally close to the president. Crimes committed by the country's security forces have increased by more than 9%. Since 1990, 2,690 trade unionists have died, including 39 in 2007 and 46 in 2008. According to the U.S. State Department, nearly 3,500 people will be displaced.

I would like my colleague to comment on those figures.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question because it is particularly important, when talking about numbers and facts, that one has all of the numbers and facts.

Without question, Colombia is still a dangerous country. It still has tremendous challenges. It takes a different point of view to see where it was 10 years ago, 5 years ago or 2 years ago. Without question, Colombia is headed in the right direction.

Between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings decreased by 87%. The 13% that are still occurring are unacceptable, but kidnappings have decreased by 87%. That country is moving in the right direction. Homicide rates have dropped by 44%.

Does Colombia still have a lot of violence in the country? Absolutely, it does. Is it diminishing? Yes, it is. Moderate poverty has fallen from 55% to 45%. All of the signals are headed in the right direction. Life and security are improving for Colombians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's realizes what his comments sound like when he says that we should be embarking on a free trade agreement with Colombia because Colombians are killing people with less frequency, speed and rapidity than they used to.

My good friend and colleague, Dick Martin, who is no relation, was the president of the United Steelworkers Local 6166 in Thompson, Manitoba. He became the head of the Federation of Labour in Manitoba and then became the head of ORIT, which is the organization of trade unions for Central and South America.

Dick Martin went to Colombia a number of times and came back with firsthand reports of the wholesale mass assassination of trade union leaders in that country. The total figure, and I am not exaggerating, was 3,200 murders: the head of the teachers' union, the head of the carpenters' union, the head of the steelworkers' union, the head of the miners' union, and on and on. These people were shot in their driveways as they left their homes by government-sponsored hit squads. And the Conservatives want to enter into a trade agreement with that country.

Trade with Canada is not a right, it is a privilege. Colombia has to deserve the privilege to be in a free trade agreement with this country. Its behaviour, the experience and empirical evidence is such that we should be boycotting Colombia, never mind entering into a free trade agreement with that country.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, after that outburst, I am almost at a loss for words.

The first answer is quite simple. The NDP is not supporting this free trade agreement. It has never supported any free trade agreement. The NDP has no intention of ever supporting a free trade agreement. It is as simple as that.

The NDP will take whatever numbers, statistics and facts it can find along the way and twist them into some type of a warped little package to support what its members are saying. I really do take exception to that because I know exactly what I am talking about and exactly why we should be moving forward on trade with Colombia and other nations around the globe.

The member talked about labour rights. This specific agreement is accompanied by the labour co-operation agreement, which commits all parties to respect and enforce standards such as the freedom of association, the right to bargain collectively and the elimination of child labour. It commits parties to provide protections for occupational safety and health, employment standards such as minimum wages, overtime pay, and non-discrimination. It goes on and on.

It is supported, by the way, by the International Labour Organization, which has an office open in Colombia today. It has a full-time presence in Colombia. It is constantly inspecting the agreement.

We have promoted labour rights and environmental rights. Is the situation in Colombia perfect? No one is saying that. No one is attempting to say that. Is the situation improving and headed in the right direction and will we end up with a better Colombia down the road because of this agreement? I truly believe we will.

It is embarrassing that the NDP cannot separate the wheat from the chaff in this agreement and agree with the good things that will come out of it.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that legal provisions be added to the agreement to force Canadian companies working there—mining companies—to act responsibly towards local populations with respect to human rights, the environment and sustainable development.

The government's response to the national roundtable recommendations is inadequate. At present, complaints are only filed with the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor if the mining company agrees to such a request.

Could my colleague on the other side of the floor talk about this and explain how the government would proceed if there were a problem in a remote area in Colombia?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a totally separate debate from this discussion, but the part of the debate in which the member wants to engage is a whole question about extraterritoriality.

The Canadian government is not the sovereign government in Colombia or in any other country with which we do business, nor should it be. We deal professionally with political governments around the world. Our mining companies, as I said earlier, have some of the highest standards of corporate social responsibility of any group in the extractive sector. They are the companies that most countries want to attract, because of those standards of corporate social responsibility.

We encourage our extractive sector and Canadian business community in the development and implementation of corporate social responsibility initiatives, including involving local labour unions and local NGOs. We support the extractive industry's transparency initiative, which supports governance and transparency in developing countries through the full publication and verification of company payments and government revenues for oil, gas and mining industries.

We have put a number of checks and balances in place to make sure not only that Canadian companies quite frankly talk the talk, but that they also walk the walk, respecting the full political rights of other countries. We would not want some other country telling Canada what to do, nor do we want to be in the position of telling them what they should be doing.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this debate should not be about ideology, it should be about people: the people of Colombia whose lives have been ripped apart and turned upside down by civil war and narcopolitics. The good, decent and proud people of Colombia deserve a better future and the kind of economic opportunities provided by legitimate trade.

Colombia has made real economic, social and security progress in recent years, but it is a fragile progress, under the constant threat of FARC terrorists, drug gangsters and hostile attacks from the Chavez regime in Venezuela.

Colombia's external trade has helped real people piece their lives back together despite these threats. These are people I met, like Valentina, who lived on her family's farm until 10 years ago when FARC murdered her brother and drove her family off the farm. Valentina now works in the flower trade and helps to provide food and a home for her family.

I met Maria who was pregnant with her first baby 14 years ago when FARC murdered her brother and mother and took their farm. Maria and her three children and husband now live in a house they own because of exports and a housing subsidy from her Colombian employer. Maria dreams of her children getting the education that war and narcoterrorism have denied her.

Carlos became a member of the paramilitary because it was the only clear economic opportunity he had as a youth. His violent life in the paramilitary fuelled by drug money was cut short when an ambush attack rendered him a paraplegic. Today, as part of the Uribe government's paramilitary demobilization efforts, Carlos is now involved in peace and reconciliation and he is getting an education.

Carlos told me he believes the FTA agreement with Canada is needed to give young Colombians legitimate economic opportunities, which he was denied, to save them from the violence of the narco-economy.

It is about people like Gerardo Sánchez, Luis Fernando, Walter Navarro, Colombian union leaders who support the FTA with Canada and believe it will be good for Canada, good for Colombia and good for their union members.

Colombia is a country with good people, tremendous natural beauty and resources. It is a good country where things have gone terribly wrong for over 40 years. It has been paralyzed and divided by a civil war that began along ideological lines, but it has more recently evolved to a narcowar with no ideological fault lines, only greed, desperation and violence.

Since 2002, there has been tremendous progress. Progress has been made particularly in terms of security. Eight years ago people were afraid to walk the streets of Bogotá and 400 municipalities were controlled by FARC.

There needs to be more progress, but the progress has been steady. The Uribe government's progress on security is one of the reasons it enjoys a 60% approval rating. Success is not where one is at, it is how far one has gone from where one started. Based on any reasonable analysis, the Uribe government has made progress.

Still, more needs to be done in Colombia, and they need our help. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, evil flourishes when good people do nothing.

If we refuse to engage a country like Colombia that is making progress, where civil society leaders, unions and government and victims of both paramilitary and FARC guerilla violence are all trying to move forward, and if we isolate Colombia in the Andean region and leave Colombia exposed and vulnerable to the unilateral and ideological attacks of Chavez's Venezuela, we will be allowing evil to flourish.

Canadians, as good people, cannot morally justify doing nothing. If any member of Parliament or any Canadian is concerned about human rights in Colombia, we have an obligation to engage Colombia more deeply.

The FTA establishes an ongoing rules-based system to monitor and help govern and improve labour rights, human rights and environmental progress in Colombia. Labour rights and labour rights issues in Colombia have occurred in the absence of a free trade agreement. There is already a commercial relationship between Canada and Colombia, but there is little in terms of a rules-based system to guide that relationship.

SNC-Lavalin just opened up an office in Bogota. Brookfield Asset Management recently established a $500 million fund to invest in Colombia. Again, this is occurring outside of a robust rules-based trade agreement.

The question we must ask ourselves as Canadians is how a new free trade agreement, with the most robust labour and environmental provisions of any trade agreement that Canada has ever signed, can do anything but strengthen our capacity to positively influence human rights and labour rights in Colombia.

In late August the member for Toronto Centre and I completed a four-day visit to Colombia. We met with civil society groups, union leaders, trade industry representatives, UN and OAS officials. We met with senators, economists, think tanks, as well as President Uribe and members of his cabinet. We visited a flower production facility and a project supported by MAPP-OAS, Mission to Support the Peace Process, an OAS organization in Medellin. We met with both supporters and opponents of the free trade agreement, and we sought out both sides of the debate.

On balance, most individuals and groups, including human rights NGOs, believe in the ratification of the free trade agreement with Canada. They do not believe this agreement would have a negative impact on economic or human rights conditions in Colombia. Many believe the agreement could in fact improve Canada's monitoring of labour and indigenous rights through its rules-based framework and the two side agreements on labour and the environment.

We saw first-hand the challenges faced by the Uribe government in its fight against drug production and trafficking, the FARC and emerging criminal gangs.

We met with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights representative, Christian Salazar. We discussed with Mr. Salazar cases of false positives or extrajudicial executions. He told us how the UNHCHR is working with the ministry of defence towards establishing an independent monitoring system to help uncover other possible cases and prevent future ones. He told us how violence against trade unionists has decreased significantly over the last three years with the demobilization of paramilitary groups. In his view the Colombian government has made progress in its fight against impunity by increasing the number of cases being investigated. At the same time he cautioned us about former paramilitary members regrouping into criminal groups. He welcomes the Colombian government's recent invitation to participate in the investigation of these criminal groups.

We met with members of the second commission on international affairs of the senate. Some senators were in favour and some were against the FTA, which frankly demonstrates that Colombia has a well-functioning democracy.

We heard from Senator Pinaque. He occupies one of the senate seats reserved under the constitution for indigenous representatives, which is more than we do in Canada for indigenous peoples. He expressed concerns that he has not seen economic progress for indigenous people in Colombia. The concerns he expressed were legitimate, the same concerns we hear in Canada from aboriginal and first nations people: the need to ensure that economic progress comes with equitable distribution. These are the kinds of concerns we are dealing with in Canada as we ensure that first nations and aboriginal communities are full partners in developing resources in Canada. Frankly the challenges we face in Canada around economic engagement of our aboriginal and first nations communities are the kinds of co-operation and dialogue that could benefit both Colombia and Canada. We both face similar challenges on how to ensure that economic growth happens equitably and is shared with our first nations people.

The majority of the senators we met with expressed confidence that the FTA with Canada would help create jobs and prosperity for Colombians. The agreement would help Colombian producers who export to Canada while lowering import costs for all producers, especially the manufacturing sector.

One senator from Cúcuta on the Venezuelan border stressed the need for Colombia to diversify its trade relationships beyond Venezuela and Ecuador in order to mitigate the risk, particularly from Venezuela and the Chavez regime, of shutting its borders unilaterally and ideologically to Colombian exports. Canada faces a similar need to diversify our trade relationships, but for different reasons. We simply cannot isolate Colombia in the Andean region with the Chavez regime being as dangerous as it is.

Most of the senators felt that the FTA would improve labour conditions in Colombia through increased investment and economic engagement with Canada. They see Canada as a positive force. They believe that Canadian companies have been strong practitioners of corporate social responsibility, and they believe there has been progress in the protection of unionized workers and their leaders. Eighteen hundred union leaders are currently under special protection, full-time security provided by the Government of Colombia.

There has been progress in the disarming of paramilitary groups. There has been a reduction in violence overall and specifically violence toward trade unionists. The senators also spoke to us about the tripartite commission in Colombia that is made up of government, unions and employers. This commission, under the supervision of the ILO, is helping Colombia comply with its international labour the ILO commitments. At the 2009 annual meeting of the ILO, the ILO noted that progress is being made in Colombia.

Finally and most importantly, most senators acknowledged that a FTA with Canada would strengthen and improve living conditions in Colombia. It would help reduce poverty, prevent the resurgence of illegal armed groups, and help prevent more Colombians from entering the narco-economy.

We met with a group of Colombian economists who spoke in favour of a rules-based free trade agreement with Canada. They emphasized Colombia's need to move forward with this FTA, particularly now that countries like Chile and Peru have successfully ratified FTAs with key trading partners of Colombia including Canada. They stressed the importance for Colombia to diversify its trade relationships, again away from countries like Hugo Chavez' Venezuela. The Chavez threat to Colombia was a common theme repeated to us throughout our meetings in Colombia. We also learned that FARC guerrillas are increasingly being based in Venezuela, that they are being harboured by the Chavez regime to continue their attacks on Colombia and on companies and individuals in Colombia.

The labour movement is supported, in fact, by several private sector unions in Colombia. The labour movement in Colombia represents 6% of the workforce and the opposition to this agreement largely comes from the public sector components of that labour movement. As such, these public sector union members in Colombia have nothing to lose in pursuing an ideologically rigid anti-free trade position, but those who have the most to gain from the FTA are the workers currently in the informal economy which represents 56% of the labour force. These Colombians may be able to join the formal economy if Colombia's exports and foreign direct investment continue to grow.

There is general agreement among the economists that the security situation in Colombia has improved dramatically under the Uribe government and that the demobilization of paramilitaries is on track. During our trip to Colombia, we met with civil society groups focused on human rights. We heard concerns about former paramilitary members in Colombia now reorganizing as criminal gangs involved in the drug trade. We met with a representative from Colombia's national indigenous organization who spoke about the need for greater consultation with indigenous communities over investment and free trade, and the protection of biodiversity.

Human rights groups told us that Canada's FTA with Colombia needs to be robust in areas of labour rights. During our trip, we met with union leaders and industry representatives. We learned that much of the narco-trafficking is in large cause because in poor parts of Colombia, particularly in rural communities, there is no other opportunity but the narco-economy and that legitimate trade opportunity is required. Many Colombians feel that the FTAs will lead to work in the legal economy, that trade is the best way to move Colombia forward. They believe that FTAs will not only lead to increased protection of Canadian investment but also increase protection for Colombian workers.

We met with Canadian private sector firms regarding corporate social responsibility. They view the FTA with Colombia as not just protecting Canadian investment but in improving their capacity to effect positive change as Canadian practitioners of corporate social responsibility in Colombia. Our mining and extraction companies in Colombia are guided by strong principles of corporate social responsibility. Canadian companies like Enbridge have won labour safety awards. Enbridge has been recognized for human rights training that is has provided to security personnel which are required to protect its investments and its workers against FARC.

During our trip, we heard repeatedly how the involvement of Canadian corporations in the Colombian economy has raised corporate social responsibility standards in Colombia. Canadian entrepreneurs in Colombia are making a real difference in ensuring that Colombian labour standards continue to progress. The fact remains that labour laws in Colombia are actually stronger in many areas than they are in Canada.

The challenge is around enforcement. Colombia needs more inspectors. There are only 430 labour inspectors in the entire country, but the Canadian government is providing funding to significantly increase the number of inspectors and that needs to be a priority for us.

Unlike other countries in the region, in Colombia 85% of royalties paid by the Canadian extractive firms go back to local communities. These royalties help these communities pay for social investments like health, education, and infrastructure like roads and safe drinking water.

We met with think tanks in Colombia to discuss the challenges on peace, security and human rights including labour rights. Again, it was felt that Canada could help as a bridge builder, that there is a toxic relationship now between governments and many of the unions, organizations and the NGOs, and that Canada could in fact be a very positive bridge builder between these groups by being a responsible corporate social citizen in Colombia.

Outside Medellin we met with flower cultivation factory workers, 500 workers in fact. As part of Asocolflores, the national flower production association, this flower factory has made a huge difference in providing employment to people who need it, people who were displaced from their lands by the drug trade, people who did not have any other legitimate opportunities until this company provided them, through trade, with the opportunity to improve their living conditions and those of their families and to strengthen their security.

We met with union leaders from the private sector and public sector in Medellin. A majority of them in fact supported the FTA and viewed it as being essential to strengthening Colombia's standard of living. They characterized their views as not ideological but pragmatic, recognizing that globalization is unavoidable and a rules-based FTA such as this one with Canada can be beneficial.

We participated in a session convened by the OAS-MAPP, Mission in Support of the Peace Process with victims, ex-combatants and local institutions. We discussed the need and the important role of the OAS and Canada's support in terms of the reintegration process in Colombia. Victims and ex-combatants talked about the challenges they face in returning to their communities.

Now is the time for Canadians who are sincerely concerned about the well-being of the Colombian people to economically engage them, not ideologically abandon them. Evil flourishes where good people do nothing. Legitimate trade can help the people of Colombia replace the forces of evil with the forces of hope. Now is the time for the good people of Canada to reach out to the good people of Colombia, to help them build a more peaceful, more prosperous and fairer future.

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When question period started, the hon. member for Kings—Hants had just concluded his remarks, so we will move on to the 10-minute question and comment period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sense from the member for Kings—Hants almost a fervent conversion over there to supporting a narco-regime, one of the worst and most corrupt governments in the world.

There is one thing that comes to my mind. I come from Hamilton, which is one of the centres of labour activism in Canada where people know and understand their rights. When I was in various coffee shops, people would ask me how in the world Canada could get into bed with Colombia.

Bishop Juan Alberto Cardona from the Methodist Church of Colombia visited us this year and he was very concerned about the fact that this agreement seemed to mask or at least offer a substitute for real labour reform in that country. Within the terms of this free trade agreement, the labour rights that are being touted in this room as progressive are actually side agreements. One thing I learned a long time ago is that letters of intent are not worth the paper they are written on, especially with a government like this.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is in the interest of Canadians and in the interest of Colombians that we partner with them to provide Colombians with real opportunities outside of the narco-economy.

While I understand the intent of the hon. member in terms of citing the real danger of the narco-economy, I do not understand the logic of preventing the people of Colombia from having legitimate economic opportunities. The fact is if we really want to help reduce the size of the narco-economy, we ought to engage in legitimate economic engagement.

The hon. member's arguments against free trade are consistent with that of his party on every free trade agreement. They are largely ideological. In fact, the member for Toronto Centre and I met with union representatives in Colombia, representing textile workers, professionals and engineers, and other union organizations that support the free trade agreement.

The fact is there is a significant level of support among workers and among labour unions in Colombia representing private sector employees, people who want to have opportunities outside of the narco-economy.

If he is, as he has stated, opposed to the narco-economy in Colombia, then he ought to support measures that provide legitimate economic opportunities to the people of Colombia and economically engage them as opposed to ideologically abandoning them.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer given by the member for Kings—Hants. We have heard a lot of this in the debate.

Also, during the member's speech, he made several references to those benefits to Colombia and to the people of Colombia, particularly those who had previously been employed in the narco-economy.

Does the member feel as strongly about what is good in this for Canada?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this agreement does provide significant investor protection for Canadian companies doing business in Colombia. We already have a fairly significant level of trade and investment between our countries, without the additional benefits of a rules-based approach in governance to labour and the environment that is afforded by this treaty, the most robust provisions on labour and the environment of any trade agreement we have signed.

Again, the member for Toronto Centre and I met with Canadian companies doing business in Colombia. Canadian companies are recognized in Colombia as being strong and responsible practitioners of corporate social responsibility and have received recognition and awards for environmental and human rights practices. In fact, they represent great ambassadors for our values in Colombia. Even before this trade agreement, we have seen in recent weeks Brookfield Asset Management announce a $500 million fund to invest in Colombia. We have seen recently SNC-Lavalin open an office in Bogota.

Canadian companies are investing. We just want to ensure there is a rules-based system to strengthen labour and environmental provisions, which can only improve the situation for the people of Colombia.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the labour issue seems to be the most controversial part of this.

In his speech on May 25, the minister indicated to the House that we had signed a labour accord with Colombia that insisted on both countries following the International Labour Organization rules, regulations and obligations related to trade and labour, which Canada already does.

It would appear there needs to be a bridging of the need to address labour difficulties in order to further justify the sound arguments that bilateral trade for Canada is always a good thing, but this labour issue really has to be addressed.

Could the member give some assurances that there is a plan on how we can strengthen the arguments, vis-à-vis labour regulations?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right that labour rights and environmental protection both have to be a strong part of any trade agreement that Canada signs. This agreement does have the most robust measures we have ever agreed to in of our trade agreements. In its annual report, the ILO has recognized that Colombia has made progress.

Obviously a country like Colombia, that has emerged from 40 years of internal strife and civil war largely fuelled by the narco-economy, has a long way to go. Our presence in Colombia has been overwhelmingly positive for the workers and for the people of Colombia, so a rules-based system around our presence and strengthening and fortifying our presence in labour areas has the potential to improve. However, this is quite a robust agreement on labour rights. When we compare this with some of the other ones Colombia signed, it is actually more robust.

With regard to the issue of whether a side agreement is less robust than a full chapter treatment, I have talked with some trade lawyers who believe that either can work and that they are equally strong and enforceable, but it depends on the chapter or the side agreement. However, either can work and can be enforceable. Many trade lawyers feel this approach is a reasonable one and sufficiently robust.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party certainly is not listening to human rights organizations. It certainly is not listening to civil society groups. It certainly is not listening to labour representatives. We have seen case after case of the escalating, the rising rate of killings of human rights advocates and trade union members. Those are indisputable facts, and the Liberals just seem to want to go along, once again, I guess for the 80th time, with the Conservatives.

However, the question that is of real concern is that there is simply nothing in this agreement that would protect those labour activists and those human rights advocates.

According to the comptroller general of Colombia, it is estimated that drug traffickers and paramilitaries now “own” about half of the agricultural land in Colombia. Quite simply, they are pushing off indigenous peoples, African Colombians, from their land and forcing them to be displaced people, four million of them.

How can the Liberals reconcile a trade agreement that would not protect those people and, in fact, would enforce and enhance corporation rights at the expense of individual human rights that only the NDP seems to be advocating?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto Centre and I met with the UN High Commission on Human Rights representative, Christian Salazar, in Colombia. The UNHCHR is working closely with the minister of defence and with other ministers, ensuring that there is a co-operative and legitimate approach to the issues of rights and labour rights, the issues of impugnity, demobilization of paramilitary groups. All these issues are important to the people of Colombia, and the UN is actively involved in that. In fact, Mr. Salazar indicated to us that there had been significant progress by—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The first five hours of debate on this bill have expired. We will move on now to the next round, where speeches will be 10 minutes and questions and comments will be 5 minutes.

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House with my colleagues. It is especially an honour to speak again on this important Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that has been in the House for many months. We want to ensure that we have a good fulsome discussion and debate and have the facts presented as it is an important agreement for Canada and Colombia as we move forward in the global commerce village.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants who had a chance to travel to Colombia this summer. The trade committee went last May, but he was not on the committee at that time. He and his colleague from Toronto Centre had a chance to see first-hand the fantastic city of Bogota and the opportunities for Canada and Colombia as we move forward with this agreement.

As we continue to expand markets worldwide, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the Minister of International Trade, the member from Okanagan—Coquihalla, who is also my adjacent neighbour. I know how busy he is and how far around the globe he has travelled to open markets for Canadian businesses. He has been away from home for many days trying to look after our community. Ministers have a difficult task ensuring their constituents are looked after as well as facing the demands of our country. I thank the minister for his continued time and dedication to our community and our country.

We continue to open doors and create new opportunities to strengthen Canada's economy in the face of the current economic downturn. We all know these are challenging times. We have heard from our constituents the fact that for so many years Canada has been reliant on the United States for our free trade. It is a great neighbour to the south and we want to continue to foster that relationship.

If individuals put 80% or 85% of their investments in one portfolio and the market crashes, they soon realize that it is good to diversify. This is one thing that Canada has not done. The previous international trade minister, Mr. Emerson, and now the Minister of International Trade, the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, continues to expand part of the Conservative government's global commerce strategy.

Colombia is already a significant trading partner with Canada. We saw that first-hand when our committee was there last May. We had a chance to meet with individuals and several companies from Colombia as well as Canadian companies doing business there, bringing the corporate social responsibility model forward.

Colombia is an important destination for exporters and producers. Over the last five years, Canadian exports have doubled, reaching over $704 million in 2008.

The Colombian market is an exciting one, with approximately 47 million people who are very educated, skilled and an innovative workforce. They want to expand and share their skills and their products and services with us and we want to do the same, and there is no better way than to move this free trade agreement forward.

By eliminating tariffs on a range of products, Canadian exporters and producers will benefit and become more competitive against those in other nations that are also trading with Colombia.

A free trade agreement would mean the removal of barriers that limit Canadian participation in growing markets and the elimination of tariffs on Canadian exports to help make Canadian goods more competitive in a range of sectors including mining, agriculture and agri-food products.

It would mean a level playing field for Canadian businesses vis-à-vis their competitors that are benefiting from preferential market access terms. Basically we are levelling the playing field.

It would enhance market access for Canadian service providers in areas such as financial, professional, engineering, environmental, mining, oil and gas and construction services, just to name a few.

It would also secure and have a predictable environment for investors. That stability is important to ensure that people have the confidence to invest in foreign countries.

It would also lower prices and improve choice for consumers. We all like to have a greater variety of selection and more choice, which generally means a more competitive market and better prices for Canadian consumers as well.

The bottom line is results for Canadians: a new partnership; new customers; new investors; new links in supply and product chains; and new choices for consumers. In short, Canada would benefit from this agreement.

Sometimes it is difficult to take in the whole picture of how an agreement like this would benefit individual regions or provinces, so this afternoon I will focus my remarks on the benefits of this agreement to specific regions and provinces across the country.

As I mentioned, Canada is already an established and growing market for Canadian exporters in many different sectors, including wheat, pulses, machinery, mining equipment and paper products. Once this new agreement is in place, we expect even more businesses and communities across the country to benefit. The agreement will also help us to sharpen our competitive edge relative to competitors like the EU and the U.S. which have similar negotiations in progress with Colombia.

Our Conservative government knows that Canadian business can compete with the best in the world and we have shown that with other agreements we spoke about earlier today. The minister has been to China and India recently. The Minister of Finance was there as well this summer to expand our Asian market, including Jordan. We are looking at new opportunities throughout the globe to continue to open doors. In today's tough economic times this agreement gives us market access and the level playing field to do it.

Let us start with the benefits of this agreement to Atlantic Canada. Last year, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador exported about $129 million worth of exports to Colombia, directly benefiting such core sectors as oil, paper, paperboard and fertilizers. These sectors will benefit enormously from freer trade with Colombia.

What about machinery and industrial goods? It is no secret that Canadian manufacturers, especially in Canada's industrial heartland in Ontario and Quebec, are facing tough times these days. They need all the opportunities they can get to ride out this economic storm. That means opening doors in markets like Colombia. This is especially beneficial for dump trucks which is one of the biggest machines exported from Canada.

With this agreement, Colombian tariffs on most machinery and industrial goods would be eliminated. This is especially significant for Canadian manufacturers of mining equipment centred in Ontario and Quebec. This agreement is very important for the Province of Quebec. After all, 17% of Canada's exports to Colombia were from Quebec, almost a full fifth. Quebeckers employed in sectors like the paper and paperboard industry, copper and machinery, will benefit significantly from free trade with Colombia.

The prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will also benefit greatly from this agreement. The immediate removal of Colombian tariffs from such cornerstone crops as wheat and pulses will make these products from the Canadian Prairies even more competitive in the global market, and the Colombian market will add that much more opportunity for these businesses to expand.

Prairie producers are a cornerstone of our economy. They will see clear benefits from free trade with Colombia. I should also point out that Alberta enjoys a significant investment presence in the Colombian market thanks to companies like Enbridge, Talisman, Petrobank and Nexen. We had the opportunity to meet with some of those business leaders as our trade committee travelled around Colombia.

As oil and gas projects continue developing in the Andes we fully expect this presence to deepen. Our free trade agreement with Colombia will help secure Canadian investments in the region by providing greater predictability and protection for investors. These investment provisions will directly benefit those Alberta firms which are investing in Colombia.

Madam Speaker, like yourself coming from British Columbia, I have the honour of representing the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country in the Okanagan. Our province also stands to greatly benefit from this agreement, especially British Columbia's mechanical, machinery and paper industries. In fact, many B.C. companies have told us they are looking to expand trade with Colombia, including Greystar Resources and IMW Industries of Chilliwack. With these kinds of benefits across Canada, it is no wonder that Canadian businesses, investors and producers alike have been calling for closer commercial ties with Colombia for some time now. The time to act is now.

Colombia has an ambitious and aggressive free trade agreement that includes some key competitors for Canada, competitors like the United States and the European Union. Time is of the essence. Our Conservative government knows that we need to take steps sooner rather than later to ensure that Canadian exporters, investors and producers, and regions and provinces across the country are not put at a disadvantage relative to our competitors. They can compete with the best in the world. Let us give them the opportunity to do so, to ride out the current economic storm, and emerge on the other side stronger and more competitive than before.

In closing, that is why I ask all hon. members in the House to support the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, a free and fair trade agreement that gives hope and opportunity for individuals and businesses in Canada and Columbia, and help us take that next step in building a more globally competitive Canada for the future.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country for his speech and his commitment to free and fair trade agreements. The member mentioned that this is going to help British Columbia. We have raised the issues of human rights and labour laws in Colombia that are negatively affecting the viewpoint of the people in British Columbia.

Can the member tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that those issues are taken care of so that people in British Columbia are not upset when this agreement goes through?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia for his passion to expand opportunities for our British Columbia businesses across the globe.

As was alluded to earlier by previous speakers, there are two side agreements, both for labour and the environment, to ensure those concerns are addressed. The additional one with regard to human rights in particular is making its efforts to strengthen the economy.

We believe that engagement rather than isolation is the best way to address this aspect. I would use the analogy from the ambassadors who presented to our committee, as well as the president of the country. I think it is the first time a president of a country has addressed a committee. The analogy was that if we see somebody drowning, do we contemplate and say, “Well, we do not think we should look after that person”, or do we rush out. Human nature is that we want to help each other. A rising tide lifts all boats and that is our desire.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. The member believes in competitiveness. The government believes in competitiveness. The International Energy Agency has told countries worldwide that the path out of this global recession is the new green economy and investment in the new green economy.

If the government, as a member of the International Energy Agency, truly embraces a path to come out of this recession, truly embraces the new path of competitiveness, truly believes in proper development and exchange with other nations of the world, why has the government chosen to formulate and agree to an agreement that sidebars human rights and sustainable development?

Surely, we have learned through the past two decades that it is necessary to incorporate that within trade. Surely, they are not being side-barred.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that, as has been alluded to previously, human rights is a concern of all of us in this room. Nobody has the franchise on caring and compassion. Each individual has a responsibility to do the best we can to help others.

We were there firsthand with one of the member's hon. colleagues. We visited two school rooms that are funded through CIDA. The fact is it is a helping hand rather than just stepping aside.

Connie Watson, a CBC reporter, presented the fact that we are giving opportunities. The fact is that economic opportunities go hand in hand with human rights and sustainability.

One B.C. business that was there, a forest company from Vancouver Island, was teaching sustainability and corporate social responsibility with human rights and employment standards, so that we can raise the bar and lead by example.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, could the member follow up on those human rights abuses he was talking about, and the steps Colombia has taken to deal with them?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, just quickly, on the human rights situation since President Uribe took office, the violence has decreased by 40%, murders have decreased by 50%, kidnappings are down by 90%, and over 45,000 paramilitaries have been demobilized. The fact is that there is a continued focus on human rights, economic development and looking after people, giving them hope, opportunity and chance. That is what we are doing.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-23, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

Anyone who has been following the debate so far will not be surprised to learn that I will be speaking in opposition to this bill. All members of the NDP caucus are deeply committed to using all means possible to expose the truth about this deeply flawed agreement. We have grave concerns about the agreement's absolutely unacceptable content and the complete injustice of signing such an agreement while the human rights situation in Colombia continues to deteriorate.

This is a question of fundamental human rights and no compromise can be made. The prevailing assessment by the Canadian and Colombian governments, which suggests that all of Colombia's problems have been taken care of and that the country is ready and open for business, simply lacks credibility. The Uribe Colombian government has one of the worst human rights records in the world.

Let me paint a statistical picture. There are 3.8 million internally displaced people, 57% of whom are women. The UN calls this the worst humanitarian disaster in the western hemisphere and it is growing. Some 955 cases of extrajudicial executions by the army over the last five years have been documented. The numbers are rising. Colombian soldiers are accused of executing peasants in rural areas and passing them off as leftist rebels killed in combat, a practice known as “false positives”.

Sixty-two Mafia-like, ex-paramilitary, drug-trafficking criminal networks control economic activities and political institutions in 23 of the 31 provinces and are vying with guerrilla groups for control of the drug trade. Despite the demobilization of over 31,000 paramilitary death squad members, abuse and insecurity prevail in the countryside.

Over 60 lawmakers, including senators, governors and mayors representing the president's political coalition, are under investigation by the country's attorney general and supreme court for alleged relationships with paramilitary chiefs, labeled as terrorists by Canada, and collusion in elections fraud. Seventeen are in jail together with Uribe's former head of secret services, campaign manager and high-ranking military officials.

These facts do not just suggest but prove that the Canadian government is wrong when it says that the problems in Colombia have been redressed. It is not just New Democrats who are pointing that out. We are joined by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, Colombian trade unions, the Canadian Labour Congress, human rights advocates, victims of violence, Colombian judges, prosecutors, government oversight staff, journalists, legislators and Afro-Colombian, indigenous and other community leaders.

All of these groups have called for caution in initiating free trade with the Colombian government, at least until there are demonstrable improvements in its record on human rights and an end to the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of these human rights violations.

Trade can contribute to a country's social and economic development, but only if trade policy supports not undermines human rights and development policy goals. Experts have concluded, given the context of violence against trade unionists and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of peasants from their resource-rich land, that the trade measures in the Colombia FTA will exacerbate the human rights crisis while the labour rights and environmental provisions in the deal are ineffectual.

It is these two aspects of the deal that I would like to focus on in the few remaining minutes I have left to speak on this trade agreement in the House today. As the NDP's labour critic, let me begin by addressing the labour side agreement. Contrary to the Conservatives' contention that by some magical trickle-down effect free trade agreements will inevitably bring an end to human rights abuses, the labour side agreement to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does nothing to guarantee the protection of labour rights.

The shocking reality is that, in the event of the murder of a trade unionist in Colombia, labour protection simply means that the Colombian government would have to pay money into a development fund. Kill a trade unionist, pay a fine. Over 2,200 labour activists have been murdered since 1991 and the hunt for trade unionists in Colombia will go on if the price is right. Such is the Conservative government's concept of labour protection.

The penalty for killing a trade unionist was capped at $15 million in any one year, paid by the Colombian government into a development fund. To put this into perspective, one year's maximum payment of $15 million equates to $5,628 per trade unionist already killed.

How would Canadians feel if the Prime Minister agreed to do the same kind of treatment to those here who intentionally set out to kill labour organizers within our own borders? This is an outrageous lack of appreciation of human life and it is no labour protection at all.

It is impossible to separate human rights from international trade, and negotiating a free trade agreement with Colombia is no exception.

Before ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia, we must development and implement a human rights impact assessment to ensure there are binding and enforceable protections for labour and human rights within the framework of fair trade. In fact both the Canadian and Colombian governments should welcome such an independent and impartial assessment. They claim that conditions have improved and human rights violations have decreased already, but in reality they know the situation in Colombia would never pass such scrutiny.

That brings me to the agreement on the environment. As I outlined, we know that paramilitary terror and massacres have been used to try to dismantle indigenous Afro-Colombian and other social movements and vulnerable groups in order to take over their resource rich territories for the benefit of the mostly multinational extractive industries and agriculture, such as African palm oil. Few controls exist to ensure that extractive companies behave responsibly.

Let us be honest: the Colombian market is hardly a top-tier market for Canada. Only 0.15% of Canadian exports actually go to Colombia. As Glen Hodgson, vice-president and chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada has pointed out:

Our annual trade with Colombia is about the same level as that with South Dakota and is actually smaller than that with Delaware or Rhode Island. Compared to other markets much closer, Colombia is not really a major player. Eighty per cent of Colombia’s imports to Canada are actually duty free already. The gains from free trade are probably not as great as they would be in other cases.

So why is this free trade deal such a priority for Canada? It has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with investments. Since this agreement would contain investment protection provisions, it would help Canadian investors in Colombia, particularly in the mining sector. If past agreements are any indication, the investment protection provisions in the Canada-Colombia agreement would contain provisions that would allow investors to directly sue a foreign government if it adopts regulations that diminish the output of their investments.

That means that progress on environmental and labour laws would be actively constrained by the very language of the free trade deal. It puts the interests of Canadian investors ahead of any improvements in the Colombian standard of living. So much for the Conservative government's contention that this trade deal will actually encourage and facilitate improvements to human rights and environmental and labour standards.

If I am right that this deal has much less to do with trade than with protecting the interests of investors, then it all comes down to politics. However, I would like to remind the government that concerned citizens in Canada far outnumber Canadian mining operators in Colombia. Those citizens have made their opposition a clarion call to action.

The Prime Minister should be well aware of the thousands of postcards he has received from the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. I am proud to have a particularly active chapter in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. It has gathered signatures from petitioners of all ages calling on the government to live up to its commitment on corporate social responsibility. They want to see the recommendations of the national round table implemented now.

Standing with the people of the global south, they insist that the Prime Minister and the government develop legal mechanisms to hold Canadian mining companies accountable for their actions abroad. The line in their petition that the Prime Minister really needs to hear is that they are not going away.

That is the real political message. Faith groups, labour groups, environmental groups, indigenous groups and human rights groups are all not going away, and neither are New Democrats. We are united in our opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and we will continue to do everything in our power to seek justice for the citizens of Colombia by stopping this irresponsible deal.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for outlining some of the issues we have already raised in the House.

There are a couple of other issues that have arisen since we last discussed this in the House in the spring when the NDP forced the Conservative government to pull this bad deal off the order paper. The first is that a drug lord imprisoned in the U.S. has said that he and his illegal paramilitary army funded the 2002 election of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. This particular drug lord was the successor of drug lord Pablo Escobar, in the city of Medellin, and was already linked in the past to President Uribe. We also have very clear information from the Washington Post that the Colombian presidential palace had ordered wiretapping and general surveillance of supreme court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists.

When we add that to the question of the ties of this administration to murderous paramilitary thugs, my question for the member for Hamilton Mountain is how Conservative members can say they are opposed to the drug trade, criminality, brutal thugs, then try to give a preferential trade agreement to an administration that has its hands soaked in blood.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has given me the terribly difficult task of trying to get into the heads of the Conservatives. Clearly anybody who has been following the debate closely will know their position makes absolutely no sense.

The points raised by my hon. colleague are obviously spot on. This is not an agreement that anybody in the House should be able to support. In fact the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has taken a leadership role in rallying people, not just in the House but right across this country, and indeed internationally, in opposition to this trade agreement.

Let me remind members of the House why that is. It is because they all agree with New Democrats that there is a failure on labour rights protection and environment protection. The investor chapter should scare anybody who has taken even a moment to read the bill before the House today.

I cannot get into the minds of the Conservatives; I cannot explain their position to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. But frankly I cannot explain the position of the official opposition on the bill either. It makes no sense. We should all be united in our opposition to Bill C-23.

I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his leadership in trying to persuade as many Canadians as possible to join us in this important cause of fighting for human rights, not just in Canada but around the globe.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the member for Hamilton Mountain cannot get into the head of a Conservative MP, nor would she want to, and nor would any of us want to.

We have Conservatives who are purporting in their ridings locally that they are fighting against the drug trade and drug gangs in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, which has been particularly subject to the murders and violence that come with the drug trade. Yet they are endorsing an administration that was elected on drug trade money, an administration that according to the Defence Intelligence Agency was actually built on the backs of the drug trade.

How does the hon. member think the constituents of those Conservative MPs would react to that information?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, my constituents would react in the same way the constituents for Burnaby—New Westminster would. They would be shocked and outraged, and I think they would find the hypocrisy in the two positions unbelievable.

This is a corrupt regime. Our government should have no truck nor trade with that regime, and all of us in the House need to stand up in opposition to this free trade agreement. New Democrats can be counted on, to a person, to oppose this deal. I only wish that members on the other sides of the House would join us in this fight.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak about the important impact the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would have, especially on the youngest citizens of that country.

In the speech preceding mine, the NDP said we should not enter into an agreement because violence is out of control. Its position is to develop an assessment.

Our position is to take action to advance the plight of the most vulnerable. We note that the Government of Colombia has taken steps that demonstrate a real effort to curb violence against workers; bring the people responsible for such crimes to justice; promote security, peace and human rights and establish the rule of law.

Nevertheless, children are still being hit hard by the ongoing conflict in Colombia. For the past 50 years Colombia has been experiencing an internal armed conflict involving the army, guerrilla groups and paramilitary organizations. For many Colombians this conflict has translated into decades of economic turbulence and poverty, constant risk of losing their homes and inequality and human rights abuses.

The most vulnerable often pay the highest price. The children and youth of Colombia pay the highest price. Not only are they subject to losing their homes and families, many live in remote rural areas with almost no social support. Young people are often the targets for sexual exploitation. Thousands of children have been taken from their families and forced into fighting as child soldiers. Approximately 11,000 children are recruited as child soldiers, sex slaves or spies. Twenty-five per cent of the people involved with the paramilitary organizations are under 18 years of age, and thousands of children are killed and maimed each year by small arms and land mines.

Children and youth make up 42% of Colombia's total population, but tragically they are also 57% of the country's poor. For these children economic growth represents hope for the future and a chance to come out of conflict, suffering and poverty.

Trade will produce the economy that will provide them with an education, sustainable livelihoods and the ability to contribute to their families and communities. It will give them the opportunity to rise out of the current tragedy and enjoy a better tomorrow.

That is why approving Canada's free trade agreement with Colombia is so important, not only to strengthen our existing trade relationship but to better the lives of Colombia's youngest generation. Our government recognizes that the future of Colombia hinges on its children growing up to be healthy, strong and active participants of society. The way to a brighter tomorrow is to free them from the current situation. Supporting economic development in Colombia will not only reduce poverty and inequality, it will also break the cycle of violence that has slowed Colombia's development. It t will prepare future generations to build a better society to call their own.

As a strong defender and advocate for children's rights, this government believes it is Canada's duty to help improve the lives of Colombia's youngest and most vulnerable: the children. We are working closely with Colombia to make that happen. Our government encourages peace and democracy, a stronger bilateral economic relationship, an open and frank dialogue on human rights, close co-operation on security and humanitarian issues, co-operating to keep drugs off our streets and cleaning up dangerous land mines in Colombia.

Canada is the biggest contributor to children's rights and protection in Colombia. Our government's international development programs are working with Colombians to protect children from violence, preventing the recruitment of child soldiers and helping them regain the place they can call home.

Over the last five years we have contributed over $64 million to development programs in Colombia. Almost 25% went toward strengthening the rights of children and youth as well as projects to protect them from the aftermath of violence and conflict.

In May the Minister of International Cooperation announced our government's clear intention to place children and youth as one of our priorities for international aid. This is reflected in many of CIDA's bilateral development projects in which children and youth are a clear focus.

For example, together with PLAN International Canada, our government is developing ways to help prevent teenagers from being sucked into violence in Colombia and instead encourage them to become key participants in the conflict resolution process. We have contributed $17 million over five years to UNICEF's program to bring education and humanitarian assistance to at-risk children in Colombia's 11 most vulnerable provinces.

We are also working with Save the Children Canada and the Norwegian Refugee Council on a program that delivers alternative education opportunities for out of school indigenous, Afro-Colombian, homeless and vulnerable children, youth and adults.

Through a local fund for children's rights and protection, our government is helping to increase the ability of Colombian officials to come through on commitments regarding the rights of children and increase the awareness of children's rights among the general public.

The results of these programs speak for themselves. Recently our efforts on the ground prevented the recruitment of 15,000 children and youth into armed forces and assisted in the reintegration of 260 former child soldiers into their old home communities. Through our efforts, 70% of all demobilized children and youth will now receive enhanced health, education, protection and reintegration services.

More than 6,000 adolescents have developed skills to assist in conflict resolution as well as other life skills within their schools with the help of 400 peers trained as youth leaders. Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1612, Canada encouraged the government of Colombia to establish the monitoring and reporting mechanism for children in armed conflict.

Our support led to the implementation of regional and national government policies and programs to protect the rights of children, youth and other vulnerable groups. More than 12,000 civil servants are trained in a new Colombian law on children and youth.

My fellow members in the House should be pleased to know that this government's programs are getting results at every stage, reversing the fortunes of children who have become involved in the conflict and preventing many others from sharing the same fate.

This government's programs support reintegration of demobilized children and youth through family reunions, education to allow them to catch up to the level of their peers, and job search skills that will help them take advantage of local employment opportunities.

Colombian children and youth are being shown how to lead more fulfilling lives so that they will not fall prey to the financial temptations of joining illegal armed groups and engaging in various illegal activities. Thousands of youth are trained in conflict resolution and taught how to take control of their futures. With improved access to formal and informal education and safe schools, they are able to grow within productive learning environments. And by working with the government of Colombia, Canada is helping to strengthen policies and programs and services that protect children and guarantee their rights.

Overall, I believe Canadians can be proud of the results we have already achieved through our development programs in cooperation with the government of Colombia and local Canadian NGOs and multilateral organizations. Where the NDP would stop this action, stop helping the disadvantaged, I am proud to stand here and say that the Canadian government on behalf of the people of Canada is working in all these productive ways. This bill is part of that resolution.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am drawn to ask this question of the member because of the huge interest that he has taken with respect to economic development and trade ties not only with the Latin and South American countries but also with the countries of the Caribbean. The Prime Minister visited the CARICOM countries and talked about the kinds of issues that the member has addressed through his discussion of the bill before us.

Can the member outline for the House that there is a broader policy paradigm around which these free trade agreements are being developed? He has concentrated on the value added to children and families in Colombia, but is the government working with labour organizations, trade organizations? He mentioned non-governmental organizations, which are extremely critical to effective reciprocal agreements under this free trade umbrella. Could he outline what the government's rationale is in general terms and what the specifics are with respect to working with trade organizations and labour organizations that are fundamental to the advantages and added value that he alluded to in his remarks?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a very good question. I say it was a very good question because we have to take a look at each individual free trade agreement. In other words, in the case of Colombia, as I have outlined, because Colombia and Bolivia are two of our countries of focus in South America, some of the comments I made about this agreement are going to be different from comments that we would be making about a free trade agreement with another jurisdiction, another country.

However, in broad-brush terms, from my own personal experience, having had the responsibility and privilege of being the member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia for 16 years now, I can say that I have worked very closely with the trade organizations and have a tremendous amount of respect, and I know that our government has a tremendous amount of respect and wants to make sure that these are balanced agreements.

In the 10 minutes that I had, I focused my speech specifically on children and youth at risk. There are many other aspects to this. I am sure that when further comments are made by my colleagues about this agreement, they will be able to fill in some of the blanks. Suffice it to say that, yes, that is definitely a part of our consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to our Conservative colleague say that when we trade with a country and that country's revenues increase, ultimately the lives of people who face hunger or other problems are improved. I disagree, because often it is not the wealthiest countries that take the best care of their people.

How can we trust a country that is assassinating union members and displacing whole populations?

I travelled to Colombia and found that many people are being displaced from their farms so that certain mining companies can take over the land.

How can the government think that with increased revenues, this country will better redistribute wealth to the poor? I do not believe it.

I was looking at the statistics recently, and they show that—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member to give the Parliamentary Secretary a chance to respond.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think if we take a look at the first comments I made in my speech, we will see that the Government of Canada believes the government of Colombia has taken real steps that demonstrate a real effort to curb violence against workers, bring justice to the people responsible for such crimes, promote security, peace and human rights, and establish the rule of law.

Is the job finished? No. It probably has a long way to go. Should we do what the NDP would do, just throw up our hands and leave them? No, I do not think so.

We are committed to working closely with the people of the Colombia as represented by their government to get this kind of an agreement moving forward so they can have useful, productive employment that they can go to so they can generate the wealth required to be able to do the things the member is referring to.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that the House is currently debating an NDP subamendment to a previously proposed Bloc Québécois amendment.

The Bloc amendment referred to the Conservatives' disdain for the democratic process with respect to the review of this free trade agreement. We were in Colombia from May 11 to 14, 2008, where we met with people, groups, civilians, unions, business people and displaced people resettled in small towns. They all told us their stories. The subamendment conveys the Bloc Québécois and the NDP's opposition to this agreement, a position shared by human rights defence organizations.

The Conservatives, and even some Liberals, have said the most absurd things. Basically, they say that doing business with countries whose social conditions, labour conditions and environmental conditions are not up to par will automatically make things better. But it will be anything but automatic. In many cases, as in this free trade agreement, it is not about trade per se, but about protecting the investments of Canadian corporations, particularly mining corporations with underdeveloped senses of responsibility operating in those countries.

The parliamentary secretary for international trade recently said that about 100 Canadian mining companies are involved in some 200 projects, many of them in Colombia. Let us not forget that we have talked about social responsibility and mining companies right here in the House. There can be no doubt that most of the mining companies claiming to be Canadian are actually foreign companies operating through Canada because this country does not hold its mining companies accountable for their activities abroad. This free trade agreement is much more about protecting investments, and we all know that protecting investments, chapter 11 style, means placing companies' interests ahead of people's interests.

The Conservatives are saying that everyone agrees with this free trade agreement. Perhaps they are not following what is really going on. Just look at all the groups that oppose this free trade agreement. In Canada alone, many civil society associations oppose this agreement, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the FTQ, Development and Peace, the Public Service Alliance, Lawyers Without Borders, communications unions, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

Many stakeholders from Colombian civil society also oppose this agreement. Three of my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I met with the Coalition of Social Movements and Organizations of Colombia, a meeting that was arranged by that organization. I would remind the House that that organization is made up of the National Organization of Indigenous People in Colombia, the Popular Women’s Organization, the National Agrarian Coordinator, Christians for Peace with Justice and Dignity, and the National Movement for Health and Social Security.

We were able to personally meet many stakeholders during our travels to Colombia in May 2008.

While we were in Colombia, the government said it had signed this agreement in principle with Colombia. We had not even completed our consultations. We had not yet submitted our report or made any recommendations, which were supported by the opposition parties and clearly said that an independent organization needed to be formed, one that would be able to assess any progress made over time in the area of human rights and able to say if there had been any real improvements significant enough to allow us to officially sign the free trade agreement.

The Liberals agreed. They have since changed their position. They are leaning more heavily in favour of economic development, perhaps to the detriment of other social, labour or environmental considerations.

Not everyone in Colombia is in favour of this. I mentioned the organizations from civil society. Some Colombian senators are also against this free trade agreement. Senator Robledo, among others, is against it. He says straight out that Colombia’s experience so far with free trade has been damaging and has led to a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich, the impoverishment of many Colombians, and the denationalization of the country. He says that its free trade agreement with the United States amounts to an imperialist re-colonization reminiscent of Colombia’s historic relations with Spain.

He takes a similar view of the agreement between Canada and Colombia. In a CBC documentary broadcast in March 2008, Senator Robledo expressed his opposition to the free trade agreement, which in his view gives multinational corporations the same rights as Colombians, and even greater rights.

He has also criticized some of the direct foreign investments in his country, including gold mines operated by Canadian corporations. In January 2009, he published an article on the behaviour of Colombia Goldfields, a Canadian transnational corporation that opened and then abandoned a mine in Marmato, Colombia. There is no need to tell the House that the environmental effects were still evident. So there was no corporate social responsibility.

This free trade agreement exists more, therefore, to protect corporate investments. The Conservatives have just told us that we had to get there first, before the United States, or we would lose market share. I do not know where they get their figures, because our trade with Colombia has increased. Since 1999, Colombia has become a larger trading partner, especially as a market for Canadian exports. Over five years, exports of Canadian goods to Colombia increased by an average of 18% a year, while the general average growth rate was 4.9%. Without a free trade agreement, merchants and business people are able to do well in Colombia on a company or individual basis, without affecting human rights, labour rights or environmental rights.

The Conservative member said that a lot of money was being invested. We know. The Conservative Party is greatly reducing our international aid, in Africa for example. It is turning to the South American countries and encouraging them to sign free trade agreements with Canada.

The Conservative government’s position is therefore very self-interested. We should have proof of continual, lasting improvement. Last June at an international labour union conference, we were told that it was a snow job. The Colombian government has conducted a huge marketing campaign, probably with the indirect assistance of the Government of Canada, to give the impression that things are improving. Nothing is more misleading, though, than when they say here that the number of assassinations of union leaders has decreased.

I do not recall any such assassinations in Canada.

Even here though, as a result of the Conservatives’ lack of effort, our social programs also leave something to be desired sometimes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

As previous government speakers have emphasized, it is an enormously important agreement for Canadian businesses and for investors alike. It opens up new doors and new opportunities for them during a very uncertain time in this global economy.

As was previously noted, trade and investment can help a nation such as Colombia move through troubled times and create new opportunities for people and communities to thrive and to prosper. At the same time, these nations look to countries like Canada for support in addressing a range of serious concerns that have a direct human impact.

Colombia is one of the oldest democracies in Latin America. It has a strong tradition of democratic institutions. Decades of internal conflict have put Colombia under severe pressure, but in recent years, personal security has definitely improved. Indeed, this is recognized by the global community and by international organizations present in Colombia.

Illegal armed groups, including paramilitaries and rebel groups, have been weakened. The formal demobilization of over 30,000 paramilitaries and the weakening of the two primary guerrilla groups are key developments in Colombia's efforts to break the cycle of violence.

Colombia has a justice and peace law that, although not perfect, provides a legal framework for truth, justice, and reparations. With the support of the international community, government authorities and civil society have undertaken a series of actions that contribute to a momentum towards truth, justice, the rule of law, and the fight against impunity.

It is vital for Canada and other countries to pursue policies of engagement and support for peace in Colombia. Canadians can be very proud of our role in assisting our Colombian partners along this path. Canada's engagement in Colombia includes support for Colombia's peace process, co-operation on land mine action and counter-narcotics, and assistance to address inequality, to reduce poverty, and to meet the needs of vulnerable populations.

In the last five years alone, Canada has disbursed more than $64 million in Colombia through the Canadian International Development Agency. CIDA's projects on children and youth have allowed the development of policies and programs that take the rights of children and youth into consideration and help protect these children from violence. Projects have also prevented the recruitment of children into illegal armed groups and ensured their reintegration into their community.

As well, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada's global peace and security fund has disbursed $14.5 million since 2006. We are also one of the largest supporters of the mission of the Organization of American States to support the peace process in Colombia.

This is critical work to support peace and to monitor the demobilization of illegal paramilitary groups in that country. This year, Canada is also contributing to an independent evaluation of this mission's work, to ensure it better fulfills its mandate and responds to newly emerging dynamics in Colombia.

Canada's global peace and security fund also provides vital support to protect the rights of vulnerable groups, including women, indigenous peoples, and Afro-Colombians. In addition, Canada actively engages multilaterally and bilaterally on human rights in Colombia, including through the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Labour Organization in Geneva. Our statement on the UN Human Rights Council's universal periodic review process was very explicit in underlining the areas of progress and those areas where further work is required.

Canada continues to be an active member of the Group of Twenty-Four, a group of countries that encourages and facilitates dialogue between the government of Colombia and international and national civil society organizations working in the country. Our embassy in Colombia has also been very active on many fronts to support efforts in that country for the promotion of human rights.

During my visit to Colombia in March, Canada and Colombia established formal, senior-level consultations on human rights. I am happy to say that a successful first round of these consultations took place in Bogota in July. These consultations allow for a further exchange of views on domestic human rights issues, as well as discussions on multilateral human rights initiatives.

For a country like Colombia, free trade can open up new avenues for success. It can create jobs in communities where opportunities now are scarce or nonexistent; it can provide a solid foundation for families to build for the future; and it offers an alternative to the protectionist, isolationist thinking that we see in some parts of the world that since the beginning of the economic downturn our Prime Minister has made clear is not the answer. This growth can help solidify efforts by the Government of Colombia to create a more prosperous, more equitable, and more secure democracy.

Rules-based trade can also contribute to a domestic environment where good governance, transparency, and the rule of law are respected.

In other words, we believe that economic opportunity goes hand in hand with democracy, peace, and security. In fact, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, this balanced, responsible approach is guiding Canada's policy of engagement--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to remind the hon. minister to refrain from mentioning the name of sitting members.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Absolutely. My apologies, Madam Speaker.

Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, this balanced, responsible approach is guiding Canada's policy of engagement with our many friends and partners throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

We firmly believe that economic opportunities can reinforce these objectives. That is why we are committed to being a helpful and open partner for nations throughout the hemisphere, with nations such as Colombia.

In many ways, when we look at this free trade agreement, we are looking at a lot more than lowering tariffs and providing investor protection. We are also clearing a path for prosperity and giving Canadians and Colombians alike new opportunities to prosper, improve their lives, and contribute to their communities.

Canada has always been a strong and active voice of global co-operation and the open-doors approach to international trade.

This free trade agreement would certainly benefit Canadian businesses and investors, but let us remember that it would also benefit Colombians. It would give them new opportunities to prosper and to thrive in the global economy. That is why I ask for the support of all honourable members for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, the public who are watching this debate today, particularly the thousands of Canadians who have written to Conservatives and Liberals asking them not to do this appalling bad deal and try to force it through the House, can see a real shift in the Conservative approach. The Conservatives are now not talking about the trade deal, and of course, they cannot because the trade deal is so egregiously bad, but they are talking about the Canadian International Development Agency.

The NDP is on record as saying we need to increase funding to CIDA, because a lot of the programs it runs, including those in Colombia, help to benefit the Colombian population. It gets around what is an appalling corrupt and murderous regime.

The problem is the regime itself. The regime is not subject to rules. The regime has paramilitary ties. As the BBC recently exposed, and as Diego Murillo, the successor to Pablo Escobar in the Medellin cartel, stated quite recently, President Uribe's successful election campaign was funded with drug lord money. Uribe has very clear ties to murderous paramilitary thugs, including the AUC, which was born in his province, flourished and spread under his governorship, and led to the deaths of more than 100,000 Colombians.

How can that member stand in the House and defend the indefensible, a regime that has committed human rights violations and is tied to drug lords and murderous paramilitary thugs?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not where to start given the confection of anachronistic stereotypes, disinformation and gross inaccuracies. I will work backward from the accusations, which we heard earlier today, regarding the legitimacy and the courage of President Uribe whose government has been commended for significant progress over the past six years, both in terms of disbanding the paramilitaries and working toward reconciliation, despite the unhelpful performance of two neighbouring countries that provide sanctuary for terrorist groups and continue to displace innocent civilians and indigenous peoples.

I would suggest that the hon. member go to Colombia himself and acquaint himself --

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I've been. I've been.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Then the member was there with his eyes closed.

The member raised the matter of whether Canada was alone in this matter. I would ask the hon. member to ask why the European Free Trade Association, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein have conducted free trade negotiations with Colombia, as have the United States and the European Union. All of these countries are as sensitive as Canada is to issues of human rights and ethics in government.

I must say that the NDP is dealing with, as I said, stereotypes from the eighties.

I would also disagree with the point made by the member about thousands of letters protesting this agreement. In fact, when I was there, as were two other members, the member for Kings—Hants and the member Toronto Centre, we were impressed by the fact that the private sector unions welcomed this free trade agreement as a way of improving conditions for their workers, for the growth of their individual companies and for new opportunities.

I would also suggest, and I hesitate to do it while the member is not in the House, that a member of his own party, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, travelled with me and I can tell the member that he was impressed from our meetings with civil society, with trade unions, with the church, with victims--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

He's going again.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Whether or not he--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask members not to engage in debate directly. I will move to another quick question.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member did not address it but I wonder if he would like to.

The concept of a rules-based trade agreement also has regional implications with respect to what is happening in Venezuela. I think that international peace is also a corollary to developing these kinds of rules-based trade agreements.

Is there hope that that kind of road would also follow a regional path that would be in the interest of international peace?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The minister for a very brief response.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I regret that I cannot give my hon. colleague the answer that his worthy question deserves. However, I can assure him that Canada is open to free trade discussions for foreign investment protection agreements with countries throughout our hemisphere. We do believe that by engaging we do have the ability to leverage--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Malpeque, Health.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say hello to the people I represent in Terrebonne—Blainville and Ste-Anne-des-Plaines as Parliament resumes.

We are here today to discuss Bill C-23 at second reading. This bill concerns the implementation of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill for various extremely important reasons.

When two countries sign a free trade agreement, it is because they are preferred trading partners and the volume of trade makes it worthwhile to reduce trade barriers. But the Colombian market is a small and not particularly lucrative market for Canada. Canada has limited trade with Colombia. Of course, we export western grain there, but when the whole world needs grain, we are not going to export the most grain to Colombia.

Colombian investment in Canada amounts to $1 million, while Canadian investment in Colombia totals roughly $1.058 billion, which can essentially be attributed to the extractive industry.

The Colombian subsoil is extremely rich. Ore and energy resources such as coal account for 31% of Canadian imports. Colombia is therefore extremely attractive to Canadian extractive companies. It is also rich in natural resources.

In concluding this free trade agreement, the government is motivated not by trade, but by investments and the mining sector. This agreement will make it easier to protect Canadian investments in Colombia.

The Bloc Québécois is not against protecting Canadian investments in another country, but we want the agreements protecting those investments to be fair and equitable and take into account the common good. This is not true of this Canada-Colombia agreement.

The current agreement contains many clauses based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. This chapter had favourable results at least a decade ago, but for some time now, it has been misused, because it allows foreign investors to turn to international courts when a country wants to amend and improve its laws.

It is also possible under chapter 11 to use the threat of court action to prevent a government from improving people's living conditions. Lawsuits can be for an unlimited amount.

First, Colombia is not on an equal footing with Canada in terms of living conditions. Second, the proposed agreement uses chapter 11 of NAFTA, a chapter that has been roundly criticized everywhere and poses problems everywhere.

As I was saying earlier, free trade agreements are generally signed by states with similar economies. The economies of Canada and Colombia are completely different. Colombia is an extremely poor country. It is estimated that 47% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2006.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, poverty is most prevalent in rural areas and affects 68% of the population. In addition, the current unemployment rate is one of the highest in Latin America. In view of this fact, what is the value of a free trade agreement that benefits mining companies and that will not necessarily improve the standard of living for the country's population given that they must work for the mining companies? We know what these companies do. I will come back to that later on.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. In June 2009, witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade and told us that the worst humanitarian crisis was unfolding in Colombia.

The impunity prevailing in Colombia has led human rights groups to believe that there is collusion between the Colombian political class and paramilitary groups.

Colombia is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to workers' rights. We know that union activists are assassinated and that thousands of people have disappeared. People are displaced because small farmers and miners sometimes own land that is coveted by big mining companies. In most cases, these people receive no compensation.

There is a great deal of opposition to this free trade agreement. Canadian civil society is opposed to this agreement, Colombian civil society is opposed to this agreement and many organizations in Quebec are also opposed to this agreement. A committee called the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive industry in Developing Countries was created in 2007. This committee made recommendations to the government. What did the government do? It rejected them outright. It did nothing and did not implement any of the roundtables' recommendations.

Recently, members of this House who sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade also wrote a report based on their deliberations, their trip to Colombia and their meetings with witnesses. This report reproduced some of the conclusions of the famous round tables.

What did the government do? It rejected the report out of hand and gave us a slap in the face, saying that it had signed this agreement and asked only that we vote for it. That is irresponsible, and it shows disrespect for the members who sit in this House and the companies that sounded the alarm and warned the government that the situation in Colombia was not exactly what the government thought.

But we know that this government protects major investors, and this agreement protects Canadian investors abroad who will not be punished for the crimes they commit against the Colombian people and Colombian companies.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement and speak out publicly against it.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She cares deeply about human rights, and when it comes to foreign affairs, she puts a lot of emphasis on international development assistance.

Earlier, in my speech, I spoke about a Conservative member who mentioned that in Colombia, international assistance was very important, and was improving the situation in the country, and that this free trade agreement would make things even better.

Even when it comes to international assistance, Canada acts with its own interests in mind. Since there are not many investments or investors in Africa, Canada has taken this money and sent it to South American countries so that South American countries, Colombia in this case, will be tempted to sign such agreements, since the government is providing international assistance as well as protection for investors in Colombia.

I would like to know whether this is how my colleague sees this.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the government-supported relationship between international development and corporations is a bad one. Allow me to explain: twice during the time I was a member of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development, Canadian companies received funding through CIDA. They used money distributed through CIDA to get paramilitary staff on the company payroll. They gave CIDA money to military employees. That money was used to pay hired guns, not to help the people. I sure hope that CIDA has solved that problem, particularly with regard to TVI and TVI Pacific Inc.

According to the documents, there can be no doubt: at one point, CIDA disbursed $14,000. That is not a lot of money here, but in Colombia, it might be worth $100,000. TVI used that $14,000 to pay professional soldiers to protect company assets and prevent people from using the only remaining source of drinking water because it had contaminated every other source around the site. That was an abominable practice that I hope is no longer happening.

Perhaps my colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, who travelled to Colombia, and who hosted Colombian envoys, can tell us whether this is still going on or whether the government has put a stop to it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the last questioner said, we have actually doubled our aid to Africa. We have not withdrawn money from Africa at all.

If Canadian civil society is arguing against the FTA, I am not hearing it, and the people in Edmonton Centre are certainly part of civil society.

My colleagues seem to suggest we should just do free trade agreements with comparable economies, but I would suggest there would not be that many free trade agreements we could pursue because most economies are not comparable to Canada.

Does my hon. colleague not think that trade and free trade agreements are a good opportunity to increase employment? She talked about concerns regarding employment and prosperity for the people of Colombia. Is giving them opportunities not a good way to increase employment and increase their prosperity?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member needs to review his notes. On the contrary, aid to Africa has been cut, but there have been some transfers. It may not look like it, but aid to Africa has been cut. I would like my hon. colleague to check his figures.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, as chair of the House of Commons international trade committee, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Despite what members may have just heard, it is an exciting agreement for many reasons, especially during this time of global economic uncertainty.

From the earliest days of this global crisis, our Conservative government's message has been clear. This is not the time to turn inward and protectionist; rather it is the time to open doors to cooperation with key partners around the world, partners like Colombia.

Through this free trade agreement, Canadian investors and businesses in a wide range of sectors stand to benefit from better access to the growing Colombian marketplace. While the agreement opens up a wide range of exciting new commercial possibilities for Canadian business and investors alike, it is significant for another reason as well. It includes a side agreement on the environment, an agreement that includes key provisions that will help ensure that our two countries pursue the highest possible levels of environmental protection as we intensify our commercial relationship.

Our Conservative government is committed to protecting the environment. It is a commitment we can see reflected in all our policies. Moreover, our government believes that trade liberalization and environmental protection can be, and indeed must be, mutually supportive goals. They go hand in hand. This agreement proves it.

Our environment agreement commits both parties to maintain the highest levels of environmental protection, and to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws. Our agreement reaffirms commitments our two nations made under the United Nations convention on biological diversity, a convention to strengthen biodiversity and to respect, preserve and maintain a traditional knowledge of indigenous communities in that respect.

Colombia has one of the most diverse biological resources of anywhere in the world. Canada is committed to working with our Colombian partners to help preserve these resources in a manner that takes into account the interests of indigenous peoples. We are also working closely with Colombia to help Colombia build new partnerships and promote best practices in environmental stewardship. Canada is a world leader in this regard.

As a member from Alberta, I can say that this is especially true in the resource sector when it comes to environmental stewardship and environmental impact assessments. We can offer a lot to our Colombian partners in terms of expertise and best practices. Indeed, Canadian companies are leaders in corporate social responsibility in minimizing the impact of their activities on the environment.

When the trade committee visited Colombia, we heard great praise for the corporate social responsibility of Canadian companies working in Colombia, companies like Petrobank, Nexen and Enbridge, for not just providing safe, secure jobs but investing in the Colombian people, in human rights training, social investments in health and education and in infrastructure. In fact, they are already a deep presence in Colombia, which not only speaks to corporate social responsibility and the economic opportunities of our relationship, but also to our shared commitment to sustainable development and environmental responsibility.

We heard from dozens of witnesses, over and over, during the visit of the international trade committee to Colombia about the corporate social responsibility and leadership of Canadian companies, their treatment of workers and the benefits to their workers.

Once again, with the side agreement on labour, our goal is to ensure that our intensified relationship with Colombia is a responsible one for workers and also for the environment. As our government continues moving forward on opening doors for Canadian businesses abroad, including in markets like Colombia, we want to ensure that our presence is a positive and helpful one.

We believe that free trade can play a positive role around the world. The environmental agreement with Colombia is a great example and a clear indication of our government's principled approach to free trade and to our global partners.

I ask hon. members for their support of this agreement, of our many efforts to help Canada thrive through the global economy, and of our continued commitment to environmental sustainability and responsible business practices.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member, who is a past chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment. I am not surprised that his remarks were coming around to sustainable development and the tremendous concerns that have been expressed for biodiversity in the Amazon Basin and in various regions of Latin America and South America.

If we accept that the objectives as he has outlined in this agreement are worthy of signing, and while he has said that Canadian companies have been sensitive to their social responsibilities, there are many international companies that are not subscribing to those same values. What mechanisms exist in our international trade agreements and in this free trade agreement to make sure that the government of Colombia will be accountable to making sure those objectives he has talked about, and they are very worthy, are achieved?

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, one of the bases of this side agreement is the enforcement of environmental protection laws and rules and also made clear under the United Nations convention on biological diversity. These conditions, rules and regulations have been accepted by both parties to the agreement, broadly.

During the course of our debate in committee, we heard about the progress the Uribe government, which is six or seven years old, has made broadly in accepting this modernizing and reaching out to people to help them get out of poverty. This is just one of the reasons to diversify away from the drug climate and help to provide decent jobs to people so they can break the trend of having to work on drugs.

One of the Canadian Wheat Board members appeared before the committee and said:

[A] Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction in Colombia.

Reforms introduced over the past decade have served Colombians well.

As recently as 2006-07 the World Bank listed Colombia as one of the world's top ten economic reformers, not performers but reformers, and last year the economy grew by 6.5%. This is just part of how Colombia is getting control over the economy and helping the people.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the side agreements will ensure the highest level in environmental standards for Colombia and Canada if we sign this agreement. Could he please advise the House what penalties could be imposed if Colombia or Canada does not meet the highest level in environmental standards?

Did the Government of Canada consult with Canada's first nations and environmental organizations prior to going to Colombia? In openness and transparency, did the government include them in its delegation?

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been amused throughout the debate listening to the questions, comments and debate provided by the socialist party on my left.

We had these same arguments when we began the free trade discussions with the United States some 20 years ago, that we were going to lose jobs, lose our pensions, lose our water and become hewers of wood and drawers of water.

The facts are quite different from that. Canada is a leading performer in the G8 . It has the highest employment generation in the G8 and the highest increase in values of exports to the U.S. This is what it has done for Canada. This is what it will also do for Colombia to help Colombians.

Dozens of witnesses across the demographic field in Canada and also in Colombia praised it. Certainly, we heard the disgruntled views of the socialists.

Sometimes I wish that more people in the country had an opportunity to listen to these debates, because if they listened to this stuff, they would know the dangers of a coalition with the socialists.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak against this agreement. Having spent 35 years as an environmental professional, I feel it is my obligation to speak against it for the specific reason that our trade agreements in this country have regressed over the last 20 years.

Almost 20 years ago, we entered into the North American free trade agreement. Regrettably, at that time, environmental and labour issues were sidebarred. I would have hoped that two decades later, when we have a government that claims a strong commitment to environmental protection, human rights and labour standards, it would finally take the next step and actually put environmental protection and indigenous rights on the same level as investors' rights. Regrettably, the side agreement to the trade agreement with Colombia is a complete backward step from the agreement we at least had on the environment under NAFTA.

I looked with great interest at the side agreement. I think I am like anyone else in the House in considering it a privilege to work for the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which was established according to the side agreement to the NAFTA. I commend the governments at the time for coming forward with a very detailed side agreement, regardless of the fact that it was not binding, with penalties if the parties did not effectively enforce their environmental laws.

We see the opposite. We see complete regression in trade agreement after trade agreement that the current government has negotiated. It is embarrassing. We are supposed to be showing the best face for the environment and the way that development should occur. The government has stood in the House time after time, talking about its commitment to sustainable development, its commitment to address climate change and its commitment to environment. Yet here we have solid evidence in this free trade agreement. There is absolutely no commitment to real action on environment.

There are a lot of words. I looked at the agreement very carefully. At the very minimum, I would presume that we would take the agreement that was negotiated with the United States and Mexico and build on that. We have learned a lot in two decades. We have had many independent reviews of the work of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. What has happened? We have thrown those learnings out and simply looked at this with blinders.

I ask a simple question for the member who spoke before me. What penalties will arise if either of the parties, Canada or Colombia, fail to implement strong environmental standards? There is absolutely no recourse. There are no penalties in the side agreement of the Colombia-Canada agreement. That is absolutely reprehensible.

I can go through every aspect of the agreement and indicate where it has failed most critically. Under the NAFTA side agreement, we form a commission similar to the European commission, a wonderful model that shows the government is genuinely committed to ensuring that we have sustainable development when we enter into trade with another country. There is no council. Under the agreement with Canada, the United States and Mexico, we establish a council of highest-level environment ministers.

Under the North American agreement for free trade, we also establish an independent secretariat, employing professionals from all three countries. We have no council or secretariat. Under the agreement with the United States and Mexico, there was at least an advisory council of representatives of business and the public to those three ministers. We have no such council under this agreement.

We are stepping backward very fast. The side agreement is basically non-existent. It is simply paper. There is nothing to it. There are vague references to corporate social responsibility. If a government manages to pass an environmental law, it should enforce it. However, there is no independent watchdog.

Unlike the North American agreement, where citizens of any of the three countries, Mexico, the United States or Canada, can file a complaint of failure to effectively enforce the law and that complaint will be reviewed by an independent secretariat and reported back to the council, there is no such independent review. It is to be undertaken by somebody within the bureaucracies of one of the two countries.

I fail to see any positive aspect to this agreement. I am looking forward to the government explaining to me what it sees wrong with the North American side agreements.

I know that over time the Government of Canada backed off on commitment to the North American agreement, which I find regrettable. It is a fantastic institution. I had the privilege of being the first head of law enforcement co-operation and as a result helped to form, with the enforcement agencies of Mexico, United States and Canada, the first regional network on effective environmental enforcement, two effective networks: one enforcement of wildlife laws and one for pollution control. There are no such measures under this side agreement.

Most important, the part of the NAFTA side agreement that the Government of Canada brags about time after time is the commitment to transparency and participation in law making. In the North American agreement every new law and policy must undergo advance scrutiny and participation. Under this agreement, there is no such provision.

I could go on and on about the failings of this agreement. I am frankly completely amazed. Given the expertise that we have under the Chilean agreement, under the North American agreement, why have we decided to be so regressive in environmental matters? When we are talking about a country like Colombia, a developing nation, we cannot divide environment from human rights. They are one and the same. Where we have a major development coming in that is displacing a community and in particular an indigenous community, we are talking about violations of human rights. It is absolutely critical that this be a solid, binding agreement and that we hold that country accountable if it does not live up to those obligations, particularly where there are Canadian investors.

I do not think it appropriate that the Government of Canada pass over that responsibility simply to a Canadian investor. Were I a Canadian investor I would not want to have to be fulfilling that complete role. It is the obligation of the parties to the agreement that should be ensuring that the trade is fair, sustainable and it observes our basic human rights and environmental protections, the very conditions and obligations commitments we have signed on to time after time with the United Nations.

The government should withdraw this agreement, go back and revisit it. Let us have the same kind of strong requirements that are in the North American agreement and let us step it up a notch. Let us ensure that we have very clear penalties if the governments of Colombia or Canada do not live up to their environmental obligations.

The environmental provision is very critical, but on the transparency and participation, we absolutely must improve the provisions in this agreement, particularly given what we have heard in the House today and heard previously about what may or may not be going on Colombia. Absolutely we need to have an independent entity that is reviewing what is going on with environment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, having been a member of the trade committee and having taken a great deal of interest in this free trade agreement previously, I have appreciated hearing the commentary of the various members. Environmental issues were the primary area of discussion and question that I brought forward, including the CEC and the side agreements environmentally.

Has the member been listening to the people of Colombia? I was part of a delegation that went to Colombia with the trade committee. We met for extensive hours for many days with labour, social justice, the United Nations, environmental groups and individuals, indigenous communities, refugees as well as business and government representatives. I can assure the member that out of all of those meetings every time I posed the question of whether it would be better or worse for the people of Colombia to have a free trade agreement with Canada, with the exception of one meeting with one set of people, every other group said, “We would be better off with a free trade agreement”. That includes the environmental groups.

Therefore, what would the member say to the environmental groups that were very clear with us that they believed the scrutiny, profile and investment that came with a free trade agreement would be better for them and their concerns and their constituents than not having that agreement?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken clearly. I have worked for 35 years with organizations that represent indigenous peoples. I have worked with public interest environmental legal organizations in South America. They are asking for exactly what I am asking. It is not a question of whether there should be fair trade between countries. The point is they are that saying they would like to have the benefits that come with it. There are no benefits. There is no open right to scrutiny. There are no safeguards. There are no penalities to protect their interests in this agreement. Until those provisions are added in, we should not bring forward this agreement to be signed.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I beg to contradict the member for Vancouver Quadra. She obviously was not listening to the people in the labour movement, the people of human rights advocacy organizations and environmental organizations. Those who were not affiliated with the government in some way were very clear in saying that this was not in the interests of the Colombian people. That was very clear from the trade committee hearings.

The government threw up all kinds of consultants, people tied with the government formally or looking for other ties with the business community and the Colombian government, but the impartial observers, those who were on the Colombian scene were very clearly opposed to this agreement. I do not want the record to leave Canadians with a false impression of what the trade committee hearings in Colombia were like. It is exactly the opposite to what the member for Vancouver Quadra contended.

I have referenced the fact before that President Uribe has clear ties with the drug trade and was elected with drug trade money as the BBC reported. How does the member for Edmonton—Strathcona think that kind of tie would play with Albertans who, like everyone else, are opposed to any sort of privileged relationship with an administration that was built on the drug trade?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, actually that was one thing I immediately looked to the agreement, whether the provinces would be bound. I am proud to say my province was the first one to step up to the plate to sign on to the NAFTA side agreement on environment. I do not know what the position of the Alberta government is. I look forward to hearing what the government will tell us.

Most of the resource activity in mining, oil and gas is regulated by the provinces. I would like to learn from the government about what the position of the provinces is and what the position is on the adequacy of the side agreement on environment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to participate in the debate, as many members have, simply because so many constituents have responded to Bill C-23 about the free trade deal with Colombia. I wanted to share with the House, though members have probably heard these arguments before, that the issue here for those who are opposed to this bill is human rights. That is the issue.

If I may put some context into the background, I have a letter which states:

Contrary to claims that “respect for human rights has improved under President Uribe” and that “engaging Colombia through free trade will give Canada more leverage to influence the Colombian Government in the area of human rights” the situation has not significantly improved and the premise that free trade will lead to greater influence is tenuous at best.

That is an interesting assessment. We have seen this before in discussions on trade arrangements with other countries. A number of members have raised labour law issues and the fact that labour leaders have been targeted. Indeed there have been some serious questions that have also been raised by the committee that studied this.

It would appear to me that the questions still have not been fully resolved. For that reason, I really believe that this bill is not being advanced by speculation about whether a side deal is as good as a clause in the agreement itself. One member referred to it being equally robust, and that is fine.

We have had experience in this before and the issue of side deals has come up many times before. That goes maybe to the heart of it. If the basis for the bill is that the side deal is going to provide the tools necessary to ensure that progress is being made on some of the issues of concern to many Canadians, it should be understood and accepted by virtually all who have the facts. That does not seem to be the case in the House, and the issue of human rights has been raised.

The parliamentary committee recommendation was that the deal not proceed in its current form. A big part of that argument was because of the uncertainty and questionable assertions with regard to the human rights conditions in Colombia right now.

The letter states:

...international human rights organizations continue to denounce the daily horrors in Colombia.

I would think that the history of Colombia, in terms of the characterization of the problems that the country has, is generally known. It is a country in fact that has a population of some 46 million people. Its population is 50% larger than that of Canada, but our trade is about the same. We have a balanced trade position with them.

The assertion that somehow this trade deal is going to put us in a position where we will be able to influence the human rights situation of Colombia is, to me, a stretch. I think it is better that we are certainly at the table and able to demonstrate and work with the UN and other parties, but even the U.K. has recently backed off in its support for Colombia.

It is extremely important for the House to assess these questions and to make an informed decision not only on whether this is going to be an instrument that is going to provide the opportunity for an improved trade situation, because to the extent that Colombia enters into trade arrangements with other countries, there will be situations established in which Canadian exports will not be competitive, and we will lose the work.

Everybody wants Canada's economy to do better, but at what price? That is the question being asked by many members. What comes first, or can we have it both ways, and can we have assurances that somehow we can have a situation in which Canada, in fact, can play a meaningful role in improving the human rights situation in Colombia?

As I indicated, there are other countries that, as a consequence of the current facts in Colombia, are revoking their support for the Colombian regime. That is serious. The U.K. ended its military aid to Colombia because of the systemic crimes committed against the Colombian people. When the U.K. makes that kind of move, we have to question whether there is a fundamental soundness to the argument. This is not known and it is not accepted.

I do not have the other background material, but as I read through some of the other assertions, there is a reference to the practice by the Colombian army of dressing up thousands of murdered civilians as guerillas in the government's rush to show results in the country's conflict. That is very plausible. These are the kinds of things that happen in countries where there is oppression of other human beings.

Burma is another example, one that our colleague from the Yukon is very involved in. He has helped the House become more aware of the plight of civilians, and in this case labour leaders, who have been systemically dealt with in a way with which we would not want to be involved, quite frankly.

There is a question as to whether our investments in Colombia will contribute to improving human rights. That is a question. We say we hope it will. We hope it is because we are at the table, and we hope it is because we have the ability to communicate and discuss in a bilateral way some of these issues, but I am not sure whether Canada is in a position to tell another country what to do. I am not sure what influence Canada can bring.

Historically, Canada has had an excellent reputation for being a model of a proud, generous, tolerant nation that has a history of peacekeeping, conflict resolution and all those good things, but that reputation has been strained under the current government, quite frankly. There is the suggestion that we have to do this because Colombia is making deals with others. There has to be a balanced approach.

The assertions of the minister in his speech on May 25 painted quite a rosy picture about the significant progress that has been made. I have read about some of the allegations of complicity by some with the Colombian government and about the fact that there have been systemic murders of people. These are the kinds of things that make it absolutely necessary for us to have the necessary tools to have the influence we would like to have and still have this deal. I understand that trade is important, but at what price? The issue of side deals is also of concern to me.

Quite frankly, after listening to the debate today, I am of the view that this matter should go back to the committee. There are still some open questions and they are not going to be resolved by people asking their questions and giving their answers in this place without getting more facts or the facts. Somebody has to be accountable for this. It is time for Parliament to be accountable, and I believe that getting information and testimony from expert witnesses on the key questions raised by hon. members today will help this process enormously.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was certainly by far the best speech I have heard from Liberals and Conservatives today. I thank the member for Mississauga South for bringing a voice of sanity to that corner of the House. His comments were extremely appropriate.

He talked about the fact that the United Kingdom has suspended its military programs with the Colombian military because of the widespread and persistent massacres and human rights violations taking place by the Colombian military.

The member spoke about there being nothing in this agreement that would actually reinforce human rights, but quite the contrary. The fact that the human rights situation is deteriorating in Colombia is something that should pull Liberals and Conservatives back from the brink.

My colleague did not mention the issue of the drug trade and the fact that the drug trade fuelled President Uribe's election, but that is something we will be asking Conservatives about when they stand to speak in the House.

The member for Kings—Hants stood up and basically endorsed the government's position without even bothering to actually read the agreement. Does the member for Mississauga South feel that the Liberal caucus needs to have a real discussion about this so that Liberals who are opposed to this agreement can stand up and be counted as being for human rights and against this agreement?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I read the speeches of all four of the parties on May 25. I can assure the member that if he looks at them he will see that those issues have been directly addressed by all of the parties. Those concerns are there and have been acknowledged. Even the minister acknowledged them. He did not duck the question of human rights.

It is the minister's view that there is a venue in which we can participate in a beneficial bilateral free trade arrangement with Colombia while at the same time introducing an element that would allow us to more fully participate in enhancing improvements in the human rights situation.

I cannot speak for the member for Kings—Hants but I think he would agree that the House should not proceed with the bill without getting the facts straight, and that may require sending it back to committee.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member will know that there is a great concern among Canadians about corporate social responsibility. I am sure that he has been receiving lots of letters about the responsibility of Canadian corporations when operating in the extractive sector.

We have in this Colombia free trade agreement an opportunity to put Canadian companies to a world class standard of corporate social responsibility. This would ensure that when Canadian companies are operating in Colombia and elsewhere, they operate to the highest environmental standards, to the highest human rights standards, et cetera.

It seems to me that if Canada had a legislated corporate social responsibility standard for Canadian corporations operating abroad, a lot of legitimate concerns raised by folks would be somewhat alleviated. May I suggest Bill C-300? I would be interested in the hon. member's comments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has convinced the House many times over that for every complex problem there is a simple solution, and that is wrong. There has to be a comprehensive solution.

His private member's bill on corporate responsibility and saying that a company is going to qualify for aid and support from its own government if it is an ethical investor and does the rights things are really about rewarding good behaviour. I guess that is what we are always talking about.

This bill is troubling to me in a greater sense from the standpoint that we seem to be moving toward having one party saying that we have an opportunity for a trade deal that is going to be beneficial to Canadian business, and it is pretty convinced that the human rights things are going to improve, but they are not there yet. The arguments are not there. The evidence appears to be mounting that the human rights situation is not getting better, and that is what we have to deal with.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I would like to clear the air. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has again been quite vocal with his wild accusations about President Uribe of Colombia. He has oft accused the president of being involved in the drug trade and of encouraging paramilitary action throughout Colombia. He accused him of murder and many other human rights violations.

In a very precedent-setting event, President Uribe of Colombia came to the international trade committee where he spent almost two hours answering questions from members of that committee. In particular, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had a whole armoury of questions to ask the president and he asked them sometimes in a very rude and obnoxious manner. He accused the president of using drug money to get elected and he accused him of murder and other atrocities. Every time the President of Colombia answered him in a very direct and factual manner and refuted whatever the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had said.

What type of audience did the member for Burnaby—New Westminster give the President of Colombia when he was answering the questions that were posed to him? He ignored him and talked to his colleagues on the same side of the committee. He did not want to hear the responses from the President of Colombia because they were in opposition to his thoughts, his opinion and his philosophy. The fact is that it is probably more about a socialist in our Parliament having a diabolical philosophical direct opposite with the President of Colombia and his government. It is more about that than this free trade agreement which would help commerce between Colombia and Canada.

We need to remember one important thing. Those folks in the New Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves for some of the things they have said. In the last election in Colombia, President Uribe, then candidate Uribe for president, and his party ran on a campaign that included free trade with Canada and other countries. They ran on a free trade policy and received a huge majority in their win.

Is that good enough for the NDP? No. A democratic event that takes place and elects a government is not good enough for the NDP members because they simply do not agree with that.

A question needs to be asked. Why are the NDP members so afraid of democracy? I say shame on them for trying to undermine a democratic event that took place in Colombia and which elected a president by due process, simply because they do not agree with the philosophy of that government. That is what it is all about.

The wild accusations by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster that go on and on forever, notwithstanding any responses, which he obviously does not hear at any time, are simply because of the NDP's fundamental opposition to the government and its philosophy.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

They're drug lords.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Now he is calling the president a drug lord. Now is that not the most disrespectful thing we could ever hear? I congratulate the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for once again showing his complete lack of respect for the office of the President of Colombia.

I want to talk about this agreement. The previous government speaker outlined the various benefits of this agreement to a number of key Canadian sectors, from agriculture, to paper, to machinery.

I would like to take the opportunity to look at our relationship with Colombia through two different lenses, the lens of trade and services and the lens of investment. I will begin with the benefit of the free trade agreement to Canadian service providers.

As we know, our services sector plays a huge part in the engine that runs our economy: financial services, legal services, engineering, architecture, high technology, and the list goes on and on. In total it is responsible for 69% of our GDP and three in four Canadian jobs, something for which the NDP seems to think it is the champion. However, when we want to create Canadian jobs through free trade agreements, it is opposed to it. The NDP would shut down the softwood lumber agreement tomorrow if it had a chance.

One can imagine the rejoicing that would go on in the southeastern U.S. softwood lumber mills to not have a softwood lumber agreement. We can imagine the kind of tariffs, duties, penalties and fees that would be added on to Canadian lumber going into the States. That is what the NDP want. It wants to shut down free trade agreements, Canadian business and Canadian jobs, the same way it is threatening to shut down the economic stimulus package by voting against the government and calling for an election.

Where does the NDP stand? It is not the champion of Canadian workers. It is the champion of continuing the recession we are in. That is what the NDP is championing.

I am pleased to see that our free trade agreement with Colombia opens up many new doors for the Canadian services sector. Canadian service providers already have a substantial presence in the Colombia market, something the NDP does not recognize or would possibly like to shut down, which would mean the loss of more Canadian jobs. Our services export is in the area of about $40 million to $50 million a year. It is not small change. It is not our biggest export but it is part of our economy.

Driving these numbers are Canadian financial, mining, engineering and petroleum extraction sectors. Sectors like these stand to benefit greatly from the new free trade agreement and we will expand it. Our Canadian companies will do better. They will expand and create more jobs for this country and will help our economy. It is things like that that do not seem to be important to the NDP.

The agreement stands to give our Canadian companies greater access to the Colombian marketplace than ever before, creating jobs, expanding our Canadian businesses and growing our economy, things that are important to most Canadians but not the NDP. It also would give Canadian service providers an added measure of confidence. Under this agreement, they will enjoy a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment.

Moreover, our two countries have agreed to begin discussions on mutual recognition agreements, starting with engineering, that would allow for standards and qualifications to be recognized in each other's countries. It would be pretty effective to have something like that brought in. This would save service providers in both nations time and money and would let them get to work more quickly in each other's markets, creating jobs, helping the Colombian economy and helping the Canadian economy. Does that matter to the NDP? I do not think so. The NDP is not happy when things are good and when the economy is buoyant.

The NDP cannot go and tickle the ears of those who are having a tough time in a poor economy and make them all kinds of promises that it cannot ever fulfill. It cannot do that when things are good. Therefore, it does not like buoyant economies, good economies and surpluses. It does not like business.

This free trade agreement with Colombia is one of many that we want to develop with South American countries. We are working with Peru, Brazil and Colombia. We will search out new opportunities with countries with which we can have free trade agreements because it is good for the Canadian economy and it is good for the Canadian workers. It is good for the economy of the countries with which we sign free trade agreements because it helps their country. It brings Canadian technology into a country that was maybe lacking that. Without a free trade agreement that technology would never go to Colombia, Peru or Brazil.

This is a good thing. I wish the NDP would get onboard like the members of the Liberal Party who sit on the international trade committee have gotten onboard.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the member for Cariboo—Prince George took my name in vain throughout his entire speech, it is only fair that I get a rebuttal. That was from a member who never bothered to read the softwood sellout before he voted for it in the House that has cost hundreds of jobs in his riding, thousands of jobs across British Columbia and tens of thousands of jobs across the country. He says that is okay despite the fact that we now need to pay $68 million in additional penalties. The penalties are imposed because of the softwood sellout, not because we might change or get rid of the softwood sellout. The penalties are in now and taxpayers are paying now.

However, I will come back to Canada-Colombia because that is the most important thing. The BBC reports that Diego Murillo, the successor to Pablo Escobar, said very clearly just four months ago that he contributed large sums of money to the campaign of President Uribe in 2002. This is someone who has also been connected with paramilitary organizations.

My question is very simple. The people of Cariboo—Prince George are honest, hard-working people who oppose the drug trade. Why does the member betray his constituents by endorsing an administration that was elected with drug lord money? This was reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation, the most respected news gathering organization in the world. How can he possibly justify links to drug lords that are tied to the administration and the ties to paramilitary organizations that have massacred 100,000 Colombians? Those are very simple questions.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I do not turn to the BBC every time I want to find something out or be informed of some information. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster posed that question directly to the President of Colombia when he was here. The President of Colombia answered it very clearly. Would that member accept that? Of course not. He would not accept that because he does not like the President of Colombia in the first place nor does he like the government. Therefore, no response that would show that the so-called BBC report was in error or that it did not have the information correct would satisfy him because he fundamentally does not like the government of Colombia nor the President of Colombia. That is my response to that question.

Just because he has gathered something from the BBC, which I do not know much about, maybe it is like the CBC, I do not know--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Washington Post, tons of stuff.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he knows very well that the people of Cariboo—Prince George have been well-served by their member of Parliament for the last 16 years and 6 elections. They put a lot of trust in the things that I do in the House and the things that I say. I have thanked them in every election that they voted for me. The last time was a record number. The people of Prince George know where I stand on crime and punishment and the nonsense that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has spoken about.

I must say that lot of people in Prince George and the central interior are working in the forest industry because of the softwood lumber agreement. If the NDP members had their way, every softwood lumber mill in the province would be shut down. No one would be working and there would not be a stick of lumber going south of the line at any price because the softwood lumber companies in southeastern U.S. would see to it that there were duties, tariffs and penalties imposed on every stick of lumber that went there. That would shut the industry down. Is that what they want? The industry supports the softwood lumber agreement. He does not. We are right. He is wrong.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in saying that I do not support 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.

Knowing Colombia's current social situation in terms of human rights and politics, one can understand why the Bloc Québécois does not support the Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia. It is crucial that we analyze the impact and repercussions that the terms of this agreement will have on the people of Colombia, for there will be many. We must ensure that the rights of Colombians are respected and that their opinions will be taken into account before we ratify this agreement.

Civil society and the people of Colombia are opposed to a free trade agreement that enhances the rights of foreign investors and exporters, but does nothing to take into account local issues in terms of development and human rights. Yes, trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows those states that are willing to promote development and protect the environment as well. At present, the uproar against this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is only growing in strength, in Canada and in Colombia.

According to the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the two side agreements—one on labour rights and the other on the environment—will only exacerbate the problem of human rights violations, and the legislative provisions meant to guarantee those rights and protect the environment will not work.

We cannot enter into a free trade agreement with Colombia without looking at the human rights situation in that country. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to life, security of the person, freedom of expression and freedom of association. It is therefore incomprehensible that the Canadian government should ratify a free trade agreement, given the Colombian government's deplorable record of violating human and workers' rights and the thousands of assassinations of union delegates for which it is responsible.

I wonder whether the Canadian people, who consider themselves a democratic society and stand up for workers' rights, can sanction a free trade agreement with a country where people put their lives at risk just by demonstrating or wanting to join a union. It is regrettable that the Canadian government is supporting a regime that is heavily involved in human rights violations and mired in a huge political scandal because of its ties to paramilitary groups.

There seems to have been a major governance problem in Colombia and a questioning of the government's legitimacy since the parapolitics scandal broke in 2006. I am not here to judge Colombia's domestic politics, but we have to be honest. A number of politicians were arrested for having ties with the paramilitary forces responsible for carrying out thousands of assassinations, imposing a regime of terror and expropriating land. In addition, those responsible for the crimes against union officials and civilians are very seldom found guilty in court. Impunity remains in Colombia. Only 3% of the crimes committed led to a conviction.

In the meantime, the paramilitaries are reasserting control over the territory, and the government is doing nothing to stop them. Anti-union culture prevails in Colombia, and human rights violations and violence towards unionized workers are common. This is a serious problem. It is very risky to be unionized in Colombia. Union members are terrorized, as are activists who are trying to form a union, to join one, or to engage in collective bargaining, taking part in labour disputes or fighting privatization. Since 1986, 2,690 union members have been killed in Colombia. This number increased by 18% in one year, going from 39 homicides in 2007 to 46 in 2008, not counting the activists who are threatened or kidnapped. Most assassinations are carried out by paramilitaries. Anti-union laws, along with the violence and terror, have helped keep the rate of unionization below 5%.

The serious human and labour rights violations are not the only problem in Colombia. The effects of the introduction of the extractive industry are damaging the way of life of Colombians and often forcing them to leave their land.

The free trade agreement has a chapter on investment. It tends to give greater protection to Canadian companies that invest in the mining sector and exploit resources. The Bloc Québécois worries that these investment protection measures give far more protection to Canadian investors than to the local population and the environment.

According to the CCIC, this chapter is nothing more than wishful thinking when it comes to corporate social responsibility. In fact, the provisions simply require companies to give it their best shot. They are purely voluntary and are absolutely impossible to enforce.

Extraction companies have a social responsibility toward the people of Colombia. Canadian investments in Colombia, which are primarily in the oil, gas and mining sectors, total $3 billion, and will probably reach $5 billion within two years.

Canadian mining companies have to be careful not to become complicit in human rights violations or cause forced displacement of any populations, since regions that are rich in minerals tend to become theatres of violence, paramilitary control and displacements. A few Colombians have been killed after they opposed the Colombian government's concessions to a Canadian industry to begin mining operations.

In Colombia's current environment, in which the state cannot seem to guarantee the security of its territory, the Colombian government and security forces are unlikely to be capable of maintaining proper control of the foreign companies that are exploiting resources there.

According to the KAIROS group, Mexico's experience with NAFTA demonstrates how free trade agreements favour corporations to the detriment of the rights of individuals and communities. Foreign investments based on NAFTA's chapter 11 rules often fail to recognize aboriginal peoples' right to be free, informed and willing participants in the activities that take place on their territory.

According to Amnesty International, over 60% of the three million displaced people in Colombia have been forced from their homes and lands in areas of mineral, agricultural or other economic importance.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported the adoption of mandatory standards and accountability measures with respect to the activities of mining companies abroad.

The Bloc Québécois agreed with the national roundtable advisory group when it called for the adoption of mandatory corporate social responsibility standards for mining companies operating abroad, for punitive measures for offending companies, and for the creation of an independent ombudsman to conduct impartial investigations to validate complaints.

However, the Minister of International Trade chose to reject most of the national roundtables' recommendations and implement voluntary standards. The Conservative government is not doing anything to compel Canadian companies to implement socially responsible practices when investing abroad.

In its June 2008 report to the House, the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended creating an independent organization to assess the impact on rights and the environment when negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, like Colombia. But Canada carried out no such assessment. Or if it did, it did not make the results public.

The Bloc Québécois is open to trade, as long as it is fair. Trade agreements must include clauses mandating compliance with international standards for labour rights, human rights and the environment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the thoughtful remarks of the member who just spoke, unlike the member for Cariboo—Prince George whose ideological tirade appeared to have absolutely no concern for humanitarian or environmental issues in Colombia whatsoever, and also unlike the comments from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who either has forgotten or is completely misrepresenting the testimony that I was present for during the visit of the international trade committee in the spring of 2008.

I will note that many of the witnesses were personally brought forward by the NDP and that member. We saw and heard from hundreds of people. With the exception of a very small handful of people, those witnesses acknowledged the serious shortcomings in Colombia regarding human rights, the environment, and security, yet confirmed their belief that this imperfect free trade agreement would be a benefit compared with no free trade agreement.

My question for the member would be, is the issue whether this is a perfect free trade agreement or not, and I agree with her that it is not, or that having this free trade agreement would be beneficial to the lives of Colombians compared with having no free trade agreement?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

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

I would like to take this opportunity to say that we have to tell it like it is: Canada and Colombia are simply not major trading partners. One of Canada's primary exports is western grain, and we have no trouble finding takers for that, particularly during this time of economic crisis. Canada mainly exports cars and grain, which represented about 23% and 19%, respectively, of our 2007 exports.

The government's primary motivation for signing this free trade agreement is investment, not trade. Most Canadian investments in Colombia are in the mining industry. These industries typically operate in rural and remote regions, regions that contain most of the country's natural resources and where, coincidentally, there is the most violence. These regions have experienced 87% of all forced population displacements, 82% of all human rights and international humanitarian rights abuses, and 83% of all union leader assassinations.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her speech. As usual, it was very incisive.

We know that first nations organizations, Colombian aboriginal groups, Afro-Colombians and women's groups are opposed to this free trade agreement for the simple fact that it contributes nothing to the well-being of these peoples. On the contrary, the violence experienced by these groups at the hands of paramilitary operatives is related to the fact that the latter can do whatever they want in order to take over the land of the indigenous peoples.

Does the member believe that it is mainly because of the reaction of first nations groups, women's groups, Afro-Colombian groups that all members in this House should oppose this agreement?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my NDP colleague that that is key. In light of the outcry, we have a moral duty, as the government, as elected members of this House, to scrap this agreement. Who has not met, in their office, NGOs and individuals who have spoken out against the violations of human rights that occur in Colombia?

In my opinion, the government should show moral responsibility before ratifying or adopting this agreement given that all opposition members are against it. We must ask ourselves if we can take a different approach to helping that country.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is not just an agreement with a country a great distance away; it is an issue that will make a very real difference to the people in my constituency, in the oil and gas industry and to my neighbours and friends who are farmers.

I have listened to members from the New Democratic Party in particular. I do not think they have spoken in favour of any free trade agreement, certainly not in the 16 years I have been here, and I do not expect they will start now. Members from the Bloc tend to oppose free trade as well.

However, I have been quite surprised by members of the Liberal Party speaking against this agreement, and for reasons I simply do not believe are legitimate. I think it shows they have not studied the agreement and they have not paid attention to the testimony presented at the international trade committee. That is a sad thing.

I have farmers in my neighbourhood, but also right across Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba who have just started a very late harvest. It has been a very small harvest in many parts of Alberta and western Saskatchewan. There was a terrible drought in those areas. The choices they have to market their goods makes a difference to them. If they have more choices, there is more demand as more markets are opened up and the prices tend to increase.

Particularly in a year like this where a drought has had such a negative impact, it is critical that they get every penny out of every bushel or tonne of the commodities they grow. For cattlemen this agreement could have a very important positive impact, and it is the same in many sectors.

I would encourage all members of the House when they are speaking about the bill to see it as something that does touch us directly, because it does touch me, my friends, my neighbours, farmers, people in the oil and gas sector and many other people in a very real way.

It also affects the people of Colombia in a very positive way. When we can have a win-win situation, why on earth would one be against the agreement? In sitting here listening to the debate today, quite frankly I am wondering how members of those parties can be against the agreement.

I would like to talk about some of the other things. The positives are easy to see: the new markets, the higher price for commodities are easy to see. This agreement demonstrates this government's commitment to help Canadians move through the economic times in the positive way I talked about, but it includes parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment as well.

I heard my colleague, the chair of the international trade committee, speak very eloquently earlier about how it will benefit the environment. I think that argument seemed to be well accepted by the House. In fact I do not believe I heard any argument against that. If I did, it was probably from the member who is against every aspect of the agreement it seems, but I do not remember hearing that.

I want to make the point that we have a strong and comprehensive labour cooperation agreement that will help improve labour standards for Colombian workers in many different sectors.

I have heard some hon. members raise concerns about the potential impact of free trade agreements on workers. It is an important concern for this government. Let me assure the House that this government believes that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights. We are simply not going there.

That is why the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement is such an important part of the overall agreement. It commits both countries to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration on the fundamental principles and rights at work.

The International Labour Organization declaration covers a wide range of workers' rights and obligations, including the right to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, which is something we all work towards, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination in the workforce.

Our agreement with Colombia goes even further than the International Labour Organization declaration. It goes further in at least three ways. First, it commits both countries to provide acceptable protection for occupational health and safety. Second, migrant workers will now enjoy the same legal protection as nationals in terms of working conditions. That is more important in a world where workers move around more freely and more often. Third, it has minimum employment standards covering such things as minimum wages and overtime pay. However, as members can appreciate, these commitments are only as strong as the dispute resolution mechanisms and penalties backing them up.

We have a much more comprehensive agreement when it comes to labour, but it is critical and the agreement also focuses on enforcing those standards. That is why I am pleased that the agreement includes appropriate penalties for not living up to these commitments.

To ensure the highest possible compliance, the agreement provides for an open and transparent complaints and dispute resolution process. As part of this, members of the general public can submit complaints to either government concerning non-compliance of labour laws and the provisions under the ILO declaration.

If the matter cannot be resolved through this process, an independent panel review process kicks in that may require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a cooperation fund to be used to resolve the matter identified through the dispute resolution mechanism. Through the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement, Canadians will have a unique tool at their disposal to ensure the Colombian government continues to demonstrate the political will and provide the necessary resources to improve the labour situation.

At the same time we clearly recognize the challenges that nations like Colombia face in complying with each standard set out in the agreement. It is difficult for us to meet these standards, but it is much more difficult for a country like Colombia, which is sincerely trying to move ahead to get away from some of the wrongs of the past.

That is why our agreement will be complemented with a $1 million, labour-related technical cooperation agreement, which has started to implement projects in Colombia to promote and enforce internationally recognized labour standards, particularly in areas of labour inspection, tripartite consultation, and enforcement of labour rights and occupational safety and health, a program that will help Colombia enforce its domestic laws and meet very high standards established by this agreement.

Canada is committed to helping our Colombian partners make the most of our new free trade agreement. That includes ensuring better protection for Colombian workers, in particular trade unionists.

The Conservative government is re-engaging with our partners in the Americas and promoting the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity. This agreement helps add to that effort on our part.

I will conclude by reiterating that this agreement is important to me personally. It is important to my neighbours and friends, to farmers, people in the oil and gas industry and to many other Canadians across this country. It is not some idea that does not make a real impact.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's presentation. Of course he would have more credibility on the agricultural file if his government were not seeking to actually undermine prices that farmers can get through the Canadian Wheat Board. If the government were not trying to undermine those prices, he would have credibility on the issue.

However, I do want to get back to the comments made by the member for Cariboo—Prince George. When I asked him about the links between President Uribe, highly documented by The Washington Post, the BBC and a lot of other organizations, and about drug lords such as Pablo Escobar, the member for Cariboo—Prince George said that it is okay because President Uribe said he was not guilty.

I would like to ask the member if he agrees with the member for Cariboo—Prince George that one can simply say, “I am not guilty”, and that is enough, despite the preponderant level of evidence that is there from very reputable human rights organizations, journalists, et cetera.

Suppose somebody dealt in drugs in the member's riding or killed somebody, and the person just said that he or she was not guilty and got off scot-free. Would the member support the approach that a person could simply say that he or she is not guilty? Would that be good enough for a Conservative member?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member brought this question up again, because I listened to his question to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George and I heard what he gave as background for his question.

The expert he referred to was a drug lord himself who indicated that he had given money to Uribe. If I were balancing the testimony of the president against the testimony of a drug lord, I would tend to come down on the side of the president. The member can choose to weigh his evidence in any way he sees fit, but I think he is wrong on this.

In terms of the issue he brought up about how I would deal with drug dealers, I would deal very toughly with them.

This will help move Colombia further along the path that it has started down. It has a long way to go, but it has made a lot of progress. It will help move it further down the path, where it relies less on the drug trade and more on trade in legitimate goods. That can only be good for the people of Colombia, and it can only be good for people right around the world.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that certainly begs a response, because we have not just the testimony of one drug lord but evidence from a variety of sources, evidence that has been provided to members of the trade committee and information that is available to members of this House.

Therefore the question really is why the Conservatives did not bother to do their due diligence on this and see the many citations and evidence of the background of President Uribe, his rise in Medellin, his ties to Pablo Escobar as confirmed by the American government, and his more recent ties to drug lord money and paramilitary gangs.

The evidence is all there. It is just that no Conservative or Liberal member actually chose to do their due diligence and do their homework.

My question for the member, whom I like personally but with whom I disagree strongly on this issue, is why he did not do his due diligence. Why did he not actually look at the evidence? Why did he not go beyond the speaking notes that come from the Minister of International Trade which are clearly inadequate for what Canadians are calling for?

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to go beyond the rhetoric of a president who says “I am not guilty” and find out the truth. Why did the Conservatives not do that?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been very careful and really diligent in looking at the exact information the member is talking about, and we have come to the conclusion, as have most people who have looked at this agreement, that this agreement will help move Colombia down the road to becoming more productive, with more law-abiding citizens within the country. It will be a positive thing for the people of Colombia, and it will be a positive thing for the people of Canada.

I think the member is wrong on this, quite frankly.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Colbert has a word for Republicans in the United States basically making up facts. The word he uses is “truthiness”. What Colbert has said in The Colbert Report is, “Truthiness is just feeling something in the gut, rather than doing your do diligence and looking at your facts”. That is what the NDP has actually done. It has looked at the facts and done its due diligence and not relied on truthiness, which is what we have seen from the Conservatives in this debate so far on Canada-Colombia.

I know many Canadians have written to the leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister. Thousands of letters have gone to the Leader of the Opposition's office because so many Canadians deplore how the Liberals have sold out human rights on the issue of Canada-Colombia. Those thousands of Canadians have been watching the debate and what they have seen is one side simply presenting whatever emotional poll it has and another side presenting the facts.

Because the NDP effort is fact based, what I will do is talk about the facts of Colombia and this trade agreement. Hopefully I will have enough time, though not a lot of time, to talk a bit about the NDP approach on fair trade. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP is the only party that actually does public consultations on trade policy.

We believe Canadians need to be engaged on trade issues. We believe Canadians actually need to discuss trade, that trade has implications and that bad trade policy can have as negative implications as good trade policy can have positive. Unfortunately, under the Liberals and Conservatives, we have seen very little good trade policy.

The first fact to talk about is what is actually happening in Colombia. The most important thing to look at is what has happened since these negotiations started with Canada-Colombia. What has happened over the last three years?

The Centre for Popular Education and Research, and that is citing a study rather than just saying things are better in Colombia, has shown that over the last three years there has been a marked increase in paramilitary killings, extrajudicial executions and the so-called false positives by the Colombian military. That has been cited. As we well know, the false positives are why the United Kingdom pulled out of its military arrangement with Colombia.

While the Canadian government is trying to push forward, other governments, like Norway and the United Kingdom, and even the U.S. Congress have pulled back. Obviously there is a problem.

The facts are the following. The number of trade unionists killed increased 18% from 2007 to 2008. It is up even higher this year. The number of disappearances has increased. The number of false positives, which is an innocent word that describes a horrible reality, has increased.

I will cite another source because it is important to get real facts out on the table, not just the emotions or the truthiness the Conservatives feel. I know they love President Uribe, but they cannot let their wild, whacky emotions, because he is an ideological soul brother, get in the way of the facts. The reality is that most people I know who even vote Conservative would be absolutely outraged with these ties with paramilitaries and the drug trade that has been fully documented.

Another fact is the comptroller general of Colombia mentioned recently that drug traffickers and paramilitaries now “own” almost half the agricultural land in Colombia. The concentration of land has intensified. Sixty-one per cent of agricultural land is now in the hands of 0.6% of the population.

We are trying to put in place a trade deal that enhances ownership rights of a very small proportion of the population. Changes in land tenure law as well would mean that those who have been forced off the land by the paramilitaries and forced into communities like Soacha, which I visited along with the trade committee a year and a half ago, once they stay away from that land because of fear of death, they lose their ownership rights. There are four million displaced citizens, the largest forced migration on the planet, and our trade agreement would enhance the strategy of paramilitaries and drug lords to run these innocent, hard-working people off their land.

The other thing I want to address is the whole issue of what human rights organizations are actually saying. Organization after organization has denounced this agreement.

Making a Bad Situation Worse: An Analysis of the Text of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement states:

Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement. President Barack Obama has indicated the United States will not proceed with their FTA with Colombia given continued and escalating violence against workers and the impunity with which these crimes are committed. What is Canada doing?

That was asked by an organization which is a coalition of national organizations.

Forever Solidarity: A Public Sector Trade Union Report on Colombia says: “Free trade will hurt, not help Colombians”.

All of this is available to members of Parliament if they choose to do their due diligence, if they choose to do their homework.

One might say the situation has not improved in Colombia and is getting worse, statistically, by every measure. That is very clear. However, that individual might like President Uribe. I understand the Conservatives' love for President Uribe but let us look at the facts.

We have heard testimony about what President Uribe's career has been like. Again, all of this stuff is available to the public domain. The Colombia Journal mentions that young Uribe rose in Medellin, supported by Pablo Escobar. He was removed from office after only three months by a central government embarrassed by his public ties to the drug mafia. When he became governor later on security forces and paramilitary groups enjoyed immunity from prosecution under governor Uribe.

A document that was obtained through Access to Information put out by the Defense Intelligence Agency, and again available to members of Parliament, mentions in terms of the top 100 narco-traffickers Alvaro Uribe Velez, a Colombian politician. It states:

--senator dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cartel at high government levels. Uribe was linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the U.S. His father was murdered in Colombia...Uribe has worked for the Medellin cartel and is a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria. He has participated in Escobar's political campaign to win the position of assistant parliamentarian.

That information was corroborated by other agencies in the U.S. When the information came out, the Bush administration tried to move into high damage control mode, but that information is publicly accessible.

Now we move to the current day. Since the last time we debated this issue, we heard the BBC's breaking news about Diego Murillo, talking about his substantial contributions to the campaign of Mr. Uribe in 2002. Diego Murillo was the successor of drug lord Pablo Escobar in the city of Medellin.

As the Washington Post reported, “Scandals surround Colombian Leader--Top Aides Suspected in Secret Police Case”. I am quoting now from the story on May 16:

For weeks after the news broke, Colombians knew only that the secret police had spied on Supreme Court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists. Suspicions swirled that the orders for the wiretapping, as well as general surveillance, had come from the presidential palace.

This is the situation that Colombia is in. The Conservatives want to give a privileged trading relationship to this president and his administration. This is someone whose political career was tied to drug lords and later on tied to murderous paramilitary thugs who are responsible for the deaths of up to 100,000 people.

Any voters, whether they voted NDP, Bloc, Liberal or Conservative, who have the ability to look at both sides of this issue, would say in the case of that extreme violence, in the case of the impunity with which these crimes have been committed, that we should not give a privileged relationship to an administration that has very clearly fallen short of the fundamental norms and values that Canadians hold. I do not think any Conservative could go back to his or her riding and defend ties to an administration that was elected with drug lord money and has ties with paramilitary thugs. That is why the NDP is opposing this trade agreement.

What are we putting forward? We are saying quite simply that fair trade, something we favour, has to be built on a series of values. We have to respect democracy, respect the environment. We have to look at a fair trade approach that builds social, environmental and labour standards. This is what we put forward.

We also believe in doing our homework on every trade deal, whether it is the softwood sellout, the shipbuilding sellout or this sellout of human rights. We have analyzed and actually looked at the impacts, and that is why we have been able to speak up with such authority. Most Canadians agree and want to see this deal stopped.

The House resumed from September 14 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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster embarked on questions and comments following his remarks. There are five minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments for the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I therefore call on questions and comments.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we start this correctly. Could my colleague outline some of the sidebar agreements this deal has that are very unusual and create some concern? The environment and labour practices in particular, which have been dominant in this agreement, will allow for greater exploitation.

Why would the Government of Canada go into a privileged trading relationship? It is very important that we define that. We currently have trade with Colombia and we will continue to have trade with Colombia, but by agreeing to this type of a deal in the way that it is struck right now, we will be moving to a privileged trading relationship with a government that has had labour and civil society problems that have not been rectified.

Why the government would continue down that road with sidebar agreements is very disturbing, and I would like the member to describe some of those elements.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is inconceivable to me that Conservatives would vote for a privileged trade relationship, as the member for Windsor West mentions, with a government that has such an appalling human rights records.

It has the highest rate of killings of labour activists on the entire planet and a president who was named by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency as 82nd on the list of Colombian narcotraffickers. In the Defense Intelligence Agency's internal memos, he was defined as a Colombian politician dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cocaine cartel at the highest government levels. Conservative MPs want this privileged trading relationship with somebody who is defined by the U.S. as a narcotrafficker. He was 82nd on the list.

The Conservative government tries to defend this by saying it has put in protection side deals. The member for Edmonton—Strathcona spoke very eloquently yesterday about the fact that the environmental side deal offers no environmental protection.

However, the most egregious aspect of the deal is the provision that one can kill a trade unionist and pay a fine. As the killing of labour activists continues, the Colombian government will essentially have to pay a fine to itself. That is the great provision the Conservative government and the Minister of International Trade have provided as a protection for human rights.

Imagine if Conservative MPs were trying to defend the same thing in their ridings, saying that one can kill people but they will have to pay a fine afterwards. That is absolutely appalling. I am glad the member for Windsor West asked that question.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the answer to the question by the member who has been driving the effort to stop this free trade agreement and who has so far been successful in stopping it from getting through the House.

I am surprised that any member in the House would support a free trade agreement with a country that has seen 27 trade unionists killed as well as 60 to 70 extrajudicial murders in 2009 so far. I got these statistics from my local steelworkers. As a country that respects and lives according to democratic principles, why would we want to enter into any agreement of this nature with a country?

Yessika Hoyos Morales, the daughter of one of the trade unionists who was killed, was in my office last year pleading on behalf of the families of trade unionists who are simply exercising a right that we take for granted in this country and so many other jurisdictions around the world. She visited some other members as well. She pleaded that we stop this nonsense and not give credence in any way to a regime that is doing this kind of killing.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, the number of killings has actually escalated. In 2008 there were nearly 600 killings in Colombia by paramilitary groups and the Colombian military, as defined by the Center for Popular Research, Education and Policy.

To those Conservatives who say he had links with the drug lords in the past but he has reformed, I will just mention that recently another drug lord, the successor to Pablo Escobar, said that he financed President Uribe's 2002 presidential campaign.

Shame on Conservatives. Shame on--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Speaker, many of my constituents have sent me letters and emails urging me to vote against the Colombia free trade bill before us today.

I have studied the bill and the current situation in Colombia, so I will have no problem doing as they ask because I feel the same way. I also had the opportunity to meet several Colombians, including refugees and unionists, who told me about the violence that prevails in their country and their complete opposition to Canada signing a trade agreement with the existing regime in Bogota. I would therefore invite my colleagues from all parties to oppose this bill for two main reasons.

First, the agreement will have a minimal effect on trade relations between Canada and Colombia. Colombia is just not one of Canada's more significant trading partners. As many members of the House have already said, the main reason that the Canadian government wants to sign this free trade agreement has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with investments. The chapter on investment protection is the real impetus behind this agreement. Canada-Colombia trade is a minor consideration, but current and projected Canadian investments are consequential, particularly in the mining sector.

I have no doubt that this draft agreement came about because special interests in that sector put pressure on the Canadian government. Judging by all of the investment protection agreements that Canada has signed over the years, this one with Colombia seems neo-liberal to the core. In fact, every previous agreement contains provisions allowing Canadian investors to sue the government of the signatory country in which they invest if that government passes measures that reduce their investment returns. Such provisions are particularly dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are arbitrary at best.

By protecting Canadian investors from requirements meant to improve standards of living in Colombia, this agreement could halt social and environmental progress in a country that desperately needs it. Any attempt the Colombian government might make to improve things would subject it to legal action by Canadian investors.

Second, Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and certainly in Latin America. To improve the human rights situation in the world, western governments, at least those that advocate for justice, generally use the carrot and stick approach. They support efforts to improve human rights and reserve the right to cut rewards if the situation worsens.

If this free trade agreement were signed, Canada would lose any chance of putting pressure on Colombia. In fact, not only would it give up the possibility of using the carrot and stick, but it would essentially hand them over to the Colombian government.

The government keeps telling us that the free trade agreement comes with side agreements on labour and the environment. But these agreements are notoriously ineffective and are not part of the free trade agreement, which means that some investors could destroy the Colombian environment, relocate populations to establish their mines, or continue to have anyone who opposes their project, in particular union members, killed, all with impunity. Since 1986, 2,690 union members have been killed in Colombia.

And we can unfortunately not count on the Colombian authorities to improve the situation.

The Colombian branch of the international organization Transparency International published a report last summer on corruption in Colombia. According to the report, which was the result of a project funded by the British and Dutch governments, only 4 of the 138 state entities in Colombia have a low level of corruption. It is a very detailed report that offers further explanation.

One of the organizations that the study found to have a very high level of corruption was the Colombian Congress itself. According to the report, the Ministry of the Interior and Justice has a high level of corruption.

Anyone who can read Spanish can view the detailed report on the Internet.

The Bloc Québécois is against trading away the Canadian government's ability to press for human rights to provide Canadian corporations with foreign investment opportunities.

Colombian civil society also opposes this agreement. However, because of the repression that exists there, it is harder for Colombian civil society to really get organized and have its say. But on February 11, 2009, four of my colleagues, the hon. members for Sherbrooke, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and Joliette, as well as Paul Crête, met with the Coalition of Social Movements and Organizations of Colombia, or COMOSOC. That meeting was organized by the CCIC. I would remind the House that COMOSOC is made up of the National Organization of Indigenous People in Colombia, the Popular Women’s Organization, the National Agrarian Coordinator, Christians for Peace with Justice and Dignity, the National Movement for Health and Social Security, the Afro-Colombian National Movement, and so on.

The COMOSOC delegation wanted to refute the claims made by the Colombian government and the Canadian government: the human rights situation in Colombia has not improved. Many organizations in Quebec and in Canada have spoken out against this agreement, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Catholic organization Development and Peace, KAIROS, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Lawyers Without Borders, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

As we can see, many people oppose this plan. Once again, I invite all members of the House to vote against this bill.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the international trade committee, I had an opportunity to be in Colombia and meet with the president, as well as some of his other cabinet colleagues. I must say that I am very impressed by the number of witnesses who we were able to hear from and the challenges that country has had to undergo in the last number of years.

Our friends across the aisle talk about the violence and what goes on there. There is no question that country has had its share of challenges, but it is my profound belief that if we do not give it an opportunity to trade with this free trade agreement, we are going to limit the kinds of opportunities that country has moving forward.

I know my friends across the aisle like to comment on all the violence and crimes, and they refer to numbers in 2008-09. What they fail to recognize and acknowledge is that under this president, since 2002 more than 30,000 paramilitary fighters have returned to civilian life. Since 2002, homicides have declined by 40%, kidnappings by 82% and terrorist attacks by 77%.

I would say to my friends across the way that if they are going to quote numbers, let us talk about the historical context. Let us talk about the time since President Uribe has been in government. Let us talk about the time that he has had since 2002.

Does Colombia have challenges? There is no question it does, but I believe that free trade is one of the ways to help Colombia emerge as a stronger country. I also believe that Canada and the leadership that it is playing, because of its rich and diverse connections to that country and to the hemisphere, have made this possible. I realize that Canada has both the opportunity and the responsibility to be active in this hemisphere, and there are critical and important issues to all countries in this region.

I would like to highlight today the key features of our Americas engagement, which reinforces Canada's commitment to deepening its participation in the region. Clearly, as the region addresses the worldwide economic downturn, it is timely to assess how we are all acting and co-operating in bringing solutions.

We have evolved together in this region in the past to address a range of problems, from endemic poverty and inequalities to bolster common security and economic development. Canada has longstanding, rich and diverse connections to countries of the Americas. We have been forging privileged partnerships and commercial ties with the region as a whole for over 100 years, producing results that have been mutually beneficial.

The UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean reported last year that Canada has become the third largest investor in the region. Foreign direct investment from Canada into the Americas, excluding Mexico and Bermuda, now stands at approximately $95 billion. To put that number into perspective, that is about three times the size of Canadian investment in Asia.

While this covers a multitude of sectors, investments in financial services and extractive sectors have been notable. Canadian banks, with a long presence in the Caribbean, now bring stability and much needed credit throughout the Americas. Canadian mining and exploration companies are also on the leading edge of the application of the best practices of corporate social responsibility.

At a time when investment from outside the region is not always as scrupulous in attending to questions such as labour standards or community services and engagement, we are proud that Canadian companies serve as standard bearers to this region.

Up until the recent economic downturn, our commercial relations had been on a steep growth curve. Our trade with the region in 2008 grew by almost 30%. This is due to a combination of factors, including strong demand for Canadian offerings and our competitive price points, but I believe that the strong message that our government has been sending on the importance of bolstering free trade and open markets has played a key role.

Certainly, we have been among the most active free trader in the region. We are building our successful free trade agreements with the United States, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica and a recent free trade agreement with Peru, which entered into force on August 1, 2009.

In 2008, Canada signed a free trade agreement with Colombia and it is now before us for ratification. Canada and Panama also concluded negotiations on August 11, 2009. We have ongoing negotiations with the Dominican Republic, CARICOM and Central American countries.

As for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and its parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, it is part of a suite of instruments Canada uses in its engagement with Colombia. These instruments include bilateral and development co-operation, and the Department of Foreign Affairs global peace and security fund. All of these support Colombia's ongoing efforts toward greater peace, security, prosperity and full respect for human rights.

In the past five years, the Canadian International Development Agency has disbursed over $64 million alone in Colombia. CIDA's programming in that country is focused on children's rights and their protection while supporting initiatives that protect internally displaced people and other vulnerable populations.

I will say that while we were in Colombia, we had a chance to see first-hand some of the great work that CIDA is doing with those projects.

As a country of the Americas, Canada has a vested interest in the progress of countries in the Americas. Our economic success, our profound belief in democracy and the rule of law, and the national and personal security of our citizens, both within and beyond our borders, are all intricately linked with the welfare of our hemispheric neighbours. This recognition is at the core of Canada's engagement in the Americas.

As a committed member of the inter-American system, Canada has both the opportunity and the responsibility to be active on hemispheric issues of critical importance to all countries in the region. Our engagement in the Americas is focusing Canada's efforts on three interrelated and mutually reinforcing objectives: enhancing the prosperity of the citizens in the region; strengthening and reinforcing support for democratic governance throughout the Americas; and building a safe and secure hemisphere.

I will briefly summarize each of these points, beginning with prosperity.

To say the least, prosperity has become more elusive of late for all countries in all hemispheres. Canada is faring better than most countries but Canadians have not been spared from the wretched impacts of the worldwide recession. Despite continued economic uncertainty, most countries in the Americas are arguably better prepared than in the past to weather the global downturn. Since the 1990s, many have worked hard to improve their debt situations. They now have lower total debt ratios, reduced interest rates and increased debt service requirements. In fact, many of these countries enjoy fiscal surpluses.

Thanks to these efforts, many countries will be in a better position to rebound when better days return, and they will if the lure of short-term measures, whether populous or protectionist, can be resisted. In this regard, there does exist a risk that the blame for current market failure will be unfairly attributed to capitalism rather than to the specific capitalists who, in the absence of adequate supervision, contributed to this outcome.

In the region, one can detect the return of antiquated views, favouring import substitution and rejecting globalization. This must be resisted. Realistic solutions need to be identified and addressed.

Finally, we need to resist protectionism in every sense, and here I refer not only to tariff protectionism but also the impact of spending measures and rescue bailouts. Evidently, these must be managed in a way that does not damage market participation in the region.

On security, these effects on the economic crisis cannot be viewed in isolation. They have a clear and identifiable impact on security and governance in the region.

The medium-term implications on reduced remittances, returning migrants, rising unemployment and falling government revenues. Some might call that a perfect storm. What we see is a clear reason to increase our engagement in addressing security problems in the Americas.

As a result, Canada is assisting countries in the region in their efforts to strengthen their law enforcement, judicial system, disaster relief for preparedness and health issues. Working together, we are confident we can reduce the impact of crime, drugs, terrorism, disasters and pandemics on Canadians and citizens of the Americas.

In this vein, DFAIT's global peace and security program has developed over $14.5 million in conflict prevention and peace-building programs in Colombia between 2006 and 2009. This program focuses on truth, justice and confidence-building initiatives, supports political dialogue and enhances security and stability.

I believe there is every reason for optimism, the current economic climate notwithstanding. By pursuing this model of partnership, I have no doubt that together we can strengthen hemispheric co-operation in support of peace, security and development, and produce long-term results that will benefit us all.

For those reasons, I ask all hon. members for their support of this agreement.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member mentioned that the international trade committee visited Colombia. Obviously, it is best to have first-hand knowledge. I am very interested in what happened there because I have not heard about that visit or about what the member heard during that visit. If the member could give us more details, it would be helpful to all members in the House.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we, as a trade committee, found interesting when we went to Colombia was that we heard from a wide range of groups.

One of the things I found particularly interesting was who the president had surrounded himself with. As some may know, President Uribe's father was killed in a kidnapping attempt by the FARC in 1982. Some of the people the president had around him, in terms of cabinet ministers, had also been affected by the violence in Colombia. One of the things that is telling is when Venezuela showed up on the border of Colombia and the U.S. asked Colombia what it required, was it guns or ammunition, the president's response was, “We need a free trade deal.”

What I find impressive about the Colombian government and what I find interesting in talking to people on the ground is that they realize they have had a history of violence, civil war and a problem with a lot of issues. What I find surprising and interesting is that they do not want to continue on that path. They would like to use free trade as a means of trying to improve the quality of life of their citizens, to have more value in their country and to depend less on the drug trade.

One of the things I believe would be helpful is our support for this agreement that would help enable Colombia in that respect.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little flabbergasted with regard to why the Liberals and the Conservatives would want to support such an agreement given the fact that there have been 2,690 trade unionists murdered in Colombia since 1986, 27 of them this year alone.

Do you think we should actually turn a blind eye to workers being murdered?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would remind the hon. member to address her comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is always complaining about how we do not use facts, figures and studies but here is a study called “Colombia FTA: Prosperity & Democracy”. It states that the AFL-CIO repeatedly cites figures of 2,245 labour union members killed in Colombia since 1991 as a central argument for not approving the trade agreement. However, that figure is heavily front-loaded. More than four out of five of those killings took place prior to President Uribe's administration.

Once again I would ask for consistency across the aisle. Those members should not mislead the House in terms of where these situations are coming from and to recognize that there has been a challenge of conflict in this region and to realize that President Uribe is doing his best to reduce the violence. Yes, there is still violence, and we understand that, but, quite clearly, it is labour that wants to brand President Uribe's government with these deaths when these deaths happened before he was actually in government.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to direct the line of questioning to something the member was talking about concerning the importance of trade in this hemisphere and to contrast that with what we have done in the past.

Could the member touch on the impact President Chavez is having on some of the other countries with what he is doing as opposed to what Canada plans to do through free trade?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think what we see happening in Venezuela is more of a protectionist measurement. Colombia wants to reach out, not just to Canada but to other countries in order to be able to trade and rely less on the drug trade and some of the other issues they have had to deal with over time.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate. For purposes of clarity for those who are watching these proceedings on television, we are not actually debating the agreement, the proposal by the minister to send the bill to committee. We are actually debating a subamendment of an amendment. Both the subamendment and the amendment to the motion suggest that the House should not give second reading because the government concluded this agreement while the Standing Committee on International Trade was considering the matter. I will try to understand the position of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party. The subcommittee on international trade was considering this question and, therefore, we should not send the agreement to committee because the committee was already considering the question.

You are looking at me a little confused, Madam Speaker, and I can understand why that is the case. The reason is that it does not make any sense. What we need to recognize is that there are serious issues about this agreement and there are legitimate areas of concern and debate. There is no question that a public hearing and a public discussion with expert witnesses and a reasoned discussion at committee is fully warranted.

In order to anticipate some of the questions, which I know I will get from some members of the House, a recent exchange between the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook was to say that there have been hundreds of killings. We can all argue about the numbers but the question was whether we support the killing of trade unionists in Colombia. The answer to that question is, of course not. The killing of anyone is horrendous. The killing of people who are exercising their democratic rights is an appalling situation.

The question before the House and the question that I personally hope will get to committee at some stage is whether a free trade agreement would contribute to an improvement in the overall human rights and economic situation in Colombia or whether it would cause a deterioration and a worsening of the human rights condition in that country. That is a factual question. There will be lots of debate about it but it is not an ideological question.

To suggest, as was suggested by my colleague from the Bloc in his speech, that Canadian companies are in the business of sanctioning the killing of trade unionists or to suggest that anyone in the House looks with favour upon people living in dangerous and difficult conditions simply shows how quickly we assume the worst motivations on all sides of the House. I have been at this coal face too long to make any such assumption. I assume that everyone here believes that killing other people is a bad thing. I believe very strongly that we are all committed to human rights and the extension of human rights. I will not accuse someone who is in favour of a free trade agreement of being opposed to human rights and being in favour of assassinations. That is just an absurdity. It takes the debate to a level where it is absolutely to have a reasonable and serious discussion.

I will go back to the fundamental question. The government of Colombia decided some time ago that it would try to create an economic strategy that would allow it to get out of the situation in which it found itself. It is a country whose market internally is not big enough. Unlike its neighbour, Venezuela, it cannot rely on the oil and gas reserves that it has in order to generate a huge income for itself. It does not have the luxury of protectionism and, therefore, it was essential for it to engage with the rest of the world economically. This was all part of the strategy that does not simply start with President Uribe but certainly was one that he had a great deal to do with extending.

It is important for members to understand that we are not the only country with which Colombia has either succeeded in concluding a free trade agreement or is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. The member countries of the European Union, the member countries of the European Free Trade Association, which are all democratic countries, which are all countries with a vibrant trade union movement, which are all countries that have a powerful commitment to human rights, countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Britain, France and Germany, are currently negotiating a freer trade arrangement with Colombia. So, of course is the United States of America. Colombia has already concluded free trade agreements with its neighbouring Andean countries.

So, the suggestion that this is some sort of conspiracy that is under way to undermine human rights organizations or to undermine the labour movement in Colombia is not simply far-fetched, it is also a question, frankly, that just does not stand up to real analysis.

Now, there are parties in this House that are ideologically opposed to any free trade agreement that comes before us. If it comes before us with EFTA, they are opposed to the one with EFTA. When we come to discuss the question of the EU, I can guarantee they will be opposed to the one with the European Union.

Those of us who do not have these ideological blinkers on have to look practically at this question. There is a very legitimate concern that has been raised and that will be raised again which is what exactly the impact of this kind of an agreement is going to be on the human rights situation in Colombia.

First, let me just make it clear how I think we need to look at this question.

We are trading today with Colombia. That is to say Canadian companies are doing business in Colombia. It is perfectly legal. It is there. It is happening. There is nothing bad about that, unless it is being suggested by some people that there should be no trade whatsoever with Colombia, that there should be no economic relationship with Colombia and that the rest of the world should boycott Colombia and there should be an international freeze on any investment, any trade, any economic relationship with Colombia. If that is the position that is being put forward by some of my colleagues in the House, I would like to hear them suggest it. I would like to hear them analyze it. However, the fact of the matter is we are trading today. As a country, our businesses are trading with Colombian businesses, and Colombian businesses are trading with us. There are cut flowers in our market. All these things are taking place.

The question then becomes whether we want to try to create a set of rules that will provide for greater certainty with respect to the trading relationship that we are establishing.

Personally, I am a multilateralist at heart. I favour broader multilateral agreements. I would like to see nothing better than for the Doha round to be reignited and to proceed again and for us to try to create a stronger rules-based system for how we trade in the world.

We support the World Trade Organization. I do not hear suggestions from the Bloc or from the NDP that we pull out of the World Trade Organization or that we ask that Colombia be kicked out of the World Trade Organization of which Colombia is currently a member.

So, let us try to understand. Is there a mutual benefit to our two countries to expanding trade? Is there a mutual benefit to our two countries in continuing to monitor and to talk about and to discuss and to try to influence in two sovereign independent countries the human rights situation, in their country and, frankly, in our country?

Is there a good reason why we, as Canadians, want to have a relationship that provides greater guarantee of the security required for investment? Is it a good idea for us to give Colombian companies the opportunity to increase their exports to Canada? There is a great deal of poverty in Colombia and it needs economic development. So, we do want this.

I would say let this matter go when the debate is concluded, whenever that may be. My view is this is a trade agreement that should go to committee. It should be thoroughly studied. Let the international trade committee resume the study that it was doing with respect to the agreement, and let it proceed. I think it would be wrong of us to take a decision today to say that, no, we are not going to let that happen, that we are not even going to consider this question because a group of people say they know better and they know what the outcome is better than anyone else.

I am not sure I have possession of all the facts that would allow me to reach that conclusion, and I simply want this matter to proceed to committee at the appropriate time.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I of course listened with intent to my colleague on the other side, the critic for foreign affairs, on this issue of sending the bill to the committee.

The member is a member of the foreign affairs committee, of which I am also a member, and we discuss many issues.

However, the main question that his party has been talking about is sending it to the committee to see what impact it will have on the larger scale in Colombia regarding human rights and regarding labour standards and all those issues. Those are of course core Canadian values when we do business around the world.

To some degree, I agree with him in talking about the NDP and the Bloc. They will never agree to any free trade agreement in any event. That debate is a totally different issue.

The point is that we have free trade agreements with many countries around the world. There are examples of issues when we do that. So I would ask the hon. member's opinion. The free trade agreements ultimately do result in good labour practices and good human rights, and is that not what all of us want for Colombia?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary. I have to confess that I do not have an all-in ideological answer to that question.

In my view it can be the case that an increase in economic activity, plus an increase in the bilateral relationship in terms of the discussions that we have with the Government of Colombia, and not just the Government of Colombia but the discussions that we have with the people of Colombia and with the institutions--

My colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, and I had a chance to go to Colombia in August. We had an intensive four-day visit. We met with a broad range of people. Most were in favour of the agreement, some were opposed. All of them were very concerned about the impact of the agreement on human rights. I was quite struck by the number, which even included trade unionists.

The private sector trade union people that we met with in Medellin, for example, were fully in favour of the agreement. They understood full well that it gives their factories greater access to the Canadian market. They understood that very easily and very quickly. They see that as improving their conditions and as a chance to improve their particular position.

The largely public-sector-dominated central trade union federation was, not surprisingly, opposed to the free trade agreement, so I asked whether it was in favour of any free trade agreements, and it said no. It has a completely different model of what the Colombian economy could be like. I did not think it was a very realistic model, given the choices that Colombia currently faces.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the member's comments.

While he and his colleague from Kings—Hants were in Colombia as guests of the Colombian government, 12 members of the Awa first nations were massacred by the Colombian military.

The Liberal Party used to stand up for human rights, used to speak out on issues like that. Twelve members of the Awa first nations were massacred by the Colombian military as nearly 600 Colombians have been massacred by the Colombian military and massacred by paramilitaries associated with President Uribe's regime, and the Liberal Party prefers to keep sipping on its wine. It is very sad.

There are provisions in the agreement that basically allow the Colombian government to continue to see the killings of trade unionists, human rights activists and other Colombians, and the only provisions force a fine.

Does the member think it is appropriate that one can kill a trade unionist and pay a fine?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the parliamentary process, but it is very difficult to answer a question that is put in such a fashion.

Basically the member is saying that he knows it is the Colombian government that is responsible for every act of violence that takes place in Colombia. Therefore, any one of us who thinks it is appropriate to continue to have discussions with the Colombian government about improving our economic relationship as well as on the environmental review and the overall review of the political situation in Colombia is somehow condoning violence.

When the member refers to--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member has made his position quite clear.

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to the issue of corporate social responsibility today as it relates to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I agree completely with the Liberal foreign affairs critic when he says that there are those of us who support this agreement. I also agree with his statement that NDP members are talking nonsense when they say that by supporting this agreement we are condoning murder or human rights abuses or the violence that is taking place in Colombia. That is totally misleading and is fearmongering by the NDP, done by the NDP to support the position they always take, which is against this free trade agreement.

Why do they not just say they oppose it because of their ideology? To say that this is directly related to violence is absolutely nonsense. I want to make it very clear that is not the position here.

Today I am standing up to talk about the corporate social responsibility that Canadian companies undergo when they go overseas to do business. The free trade agreement with Colombia would allow a lot of Canadian companies to go there, so social corporate responsibility becomes a key element in the operation of Canadian companies and what Canadians have come to accept.

The Government of Canada undertook a very lengthy in-depth analysis of corporate social responsibility with stakeholders in Canada, with all those involved in corporate social responsibilities, including NGOs, government people, and industrial people. We came up with a voluntary code of conduct which the government has now provided to Parliament in response. This extensive corporate social responsibility analysis done by the Government of Canada and all Canadian stakeholders has laid the foundation for what is expected of Canadian companies when they are in other countries.

I was in Tanzania in April of this year as well as in Zambia where Canadian companies are working. I had the pleasure of talking to the companies to see what they were doing as part of their corporate social responsibility. I was very impressed at the amount of effort Canadian companies are putting toward corporate social responsibilities such as providing fresh water, schools, and little dispensaries which the local government cannot provide. These Canadian companies are providing these basic services on a voluntary basis and giving hope to many.

Canadians should be proud of many of these companies. The majority of companies that operate overseas do a fantastic job with respect to corporate social responsibility. That is why Canadian companies and Canadians in general have such a high reputation around the world.

This is something the NDP should go and see. Those members would never go to countries where progress has taken place. They will always choose countries that are mired in violence and come forward with their ideology to oppose the free trade agreement.

As a result of the in-depth consultation that took place, the Government of Canada will soon be creating a new consular office to help resolve any issue that could arise between Canadian companies and the communities in which they operate. An announcement will be made very shortly. This is one way of ensuring that everyone will voluntarily comply with what is expected, which has come out of the round table conference. The government has taken this strong, positive step to ensure that all stakeholders adhere to the recommendations regarding corporate social responsibility.

The Government of Canada is also going to support a new centre of excellence. This centre of excellence should be outside of the government to develop high quality tools for corporate social responsibility to see what our best practice is. This is a joint venture with the stakeholders. These are some of the positive steps that this government is taking arising out of the consultation process, which is the right way to do things when we talk about this.

This brings me to the question of looking at what the government's approach has been in talking to stakeholders. We have a Liberal member's private member's bill, Bill C-300, which is now before the committee and which has been hastily prepared without stakeholders' input into it. It was badly drafted and would penalize Canadian companies doing business overseas. The bill is one of those bills that has been emotionally created without input from company stakeholders. It just follows an emotional outburst.

This is not how a minority Parliament should work. I would be very much interested to hear the stance of the Liberal trade critic, whose speech I read, and the Liberal foreign affairs critic, who just spoke about how free trade agreements have a potential of helping in this country, on Bill C-300. This is contrary to what they have been talking about. I hope that common sense prevails on the other side and that when it comes before the committee they will kill this bill. This bill has the potential of damaging the great reputations of people doing business overseas.

The intention is good. We all want corporate social responsibility to take place, but the way it was brought forward, the way it was drafted and the way it has lacked consultations and been coached is just using the minority status to push through something that would have serious consequences for Canadian companies, NGOs and everybody else. There is a small minority of NGOs who are supporting this, but I think that overall, under this major exercise that the Government of Canada undertook last year on corporate social responsibility, that is the way the government should be working. That is how we should work on this thing.

I am very happy to state that the Government of Canada is taking corporate social responsibility very seriously. As I have just said, we will be making announcements about our new councillor as well as the centre for excellence. It must be recognized that the free trade agreement, with its side agreements on labour as well as the environment and other issues, will ensure that there is a rules-based system in our dealings with Colombia.

That is what every Canadian wants because that would ensure strong ties between Canada and Colombia. At the same time, we can engage with Colombia on issues of human rights and others.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member, in his speech, complained a lot about Bill C-300. Unfortunately, his government was basically the author of that bill by not reacting to the major exercise he talked about, which was corporate social responsibility.

The Government of Canada-sponsored round table with industry and NGOs came up with solutions and recommendations. This was quite a rare situation where everyone agreed to that extent and came up with some good solutions, yet the government did not react. It sat on it for months and months, even though everyone agreed. Even though the government was a sponsor in part, it did not react.

What the member was complaining about was unfortunately caused by his own government's inaction. Even after Bill C-300, it came up with an inadequate response. It was the government's inaction that inspired Bill C-300 and also the motion by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard to take action on something that industry and NGOs had agreed upon.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, yesterday there was a round table conference. There were recommendations. The government needs to take its due diligence and look at it. In all agreements, all rules are made. This party was the government and its members know how it works, but at the end of the day the government did respond. The government has tabled the response in the House of Commons as well, and I have just announced what the government will be doing.

We must also remember corporate social responsibility by Canadian companies, and I have given the example in Tanzania and Zambia, where they have an excellent record. It is not that we do not have a record. We have a very good record, so henceforth, we are just building to ensure that it will be even stronger, as the member and everybody else wants.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member, given his critique of the New Democratic Party's position and the fact that we--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I do not believe his mike is on.

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

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

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

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

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

The home of Sidney Crosby, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Human Rights Watch:

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is why we cannot support this free trade agreement—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, today we discuss a matter that not only involves Canada's economic and trade policy with Colombia, but is also a general statement of our general orientation of our general foreign policy.

This government has looked out to the world. We are not a government whose foreign policy is inward looking. We are a government that wants to engage and to reach out, to follow-up on the proud Canadian history of reaching out to the entire world. This is entirely appropriate since Canada is made up of individuals and families. Our history comes from all over the world. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is very much a part of that history. It is part of our government's willingness to engage and to reach out.

Under this government, Canada has become, and will continue into the future to be, a large player on the international stage. We do not do that by just reaching out to the high profile missions around the world such as Afghanistan and some of the UN peacekeeping missions. We do that by engaging the entire world, including places such as Latin America, Colombia, Peru, Panama, places where we are reaching out to engage in free trade, to engage with these countries to build Canada's economy, to build their economy, to build closer ties on an economic and cultural basis.

It is entirely appropriate that this government and all Canadian governments continue to build on free trade agreements and to engage in free trade throughout the world.

Canada's history is fundamentally that of a trading nation. We think of the schooners, like the Bluenose from Nova Scotia, that traded with the Caribbean, along the coasts of the Americas and my region of western Canada, the grain basket of the continent. We reach out and we trade with the whole world.

Canadian wheat is well known around the world as are our lumber and our mineral exports. The whole reason that Canada was settled had to do with trade, the fur trade, the Hudson's Bay Company, the courier du bois, the northwesterners. We are a country that was fundamentally built on trade.

To continue our success, to continue our history of prosperity, we need to continue that history of trade. We need to continue that pattern. We need to continue it wherever we go in the world.

When we look at the fundamentals of the trade deal with Colombia, we see opportunities for Canada. Again, concentrating on my region, we can look at some of the agriculture products for which Colombia is looking to Canada. Saskatchewan pulse growers have been very successful marketing to Colombia and they are looking forward to greater success.

One of the things that Colombians are most looking for and reaching out to Canada for is our agriculture technology for its pork industry, which it is looking to expand. Colombia is reaching out for Canada's agriculture technology for its beef and cattle producers. It is looking to have secure Canadian breeding and technology to expand its industries.

We look at the opportunities for Canadian natural resource producers, and not only the mining companies that go there, extract the minerals and bring the profits to Canada after putting in resources, investment and creating jobs down there.

We are also looking to take our natural gas and oil technology to Colombia because Canada has some of the greatest technology in the whole world.

This agreement is not only fundamentally good for Canada, but it is fundamentally good for Colombia. Free trade in and of itself is good everywhere, all the time. It has been an economic principle established throughout history.

As Europe and the broader world began to pull back from mercantilism and progressed onward to capitalism and free trade, we saw the unprecedented growth of prosperity. The industrial revolution was allowed to flourish.

Colombia is looking forward to expanding its exports to Canada. While currently Colombia concentrates on such products as coal and fresh cut flowers, and we all know about Colombian coffee, there are many other areas where the Colombian government and the Colombian people and businesses are looking forward to expanding.

Colombians are particularly looking forward to Canadian investment. They are looking to expand their biofuel industry and other industries that require the ingenuity and technology from other countries. Colombia is looking to do this because it desires a better economy, a better society for its people.

Some members of the House have been criticizing the agreement because of what it will do to the Colombian people, but they should look at some of the elements of the agreement. Colombia has to demonstrate to Canada and improve in certain areas, and there are agreements within the agreement on free association, collective bargaining, labour and labour rights, important things to help raise the standards for the Colombian people.

It should be stated these are not things that are being imposed from the outside. These are things that Colombia itself wants to do. Colombia knows it has had a challenging history and knows it needs to demonstrate to the rest of the world that it is important for Colombians to change perceptions of their country.

Let me deal with some of the questions and comments that have come from the opposition members who are opposed to this, and try to understand their logic and demonstrate why it is not appropriate in this debate. Essentially they are saying that we should not go forward with this agreement because President Uribe and his regime have been opposed to supporting the increase of human rights.

When we look at the statistics and the trend regarding murders, kidnappings and things that have been going on in Colombia, we see the trend is in a positive direction. The government has been doing its best to curb the violence, to solve the civil war. We should also note that it is in the government's and the president's interest to make this agreement work, to have human rights be more successful, because this is an agreement that is not only important for Colombia's relationship with Canada, but it is important for Colombia's relationship with the entire world. This agreement will demonstrate, particularly to the United States, that Colombia has made progress in areas in which it has been criticized. This is important to Colombians for what they can achieve not just with us but with the broader world. Therefore, they are motivated to continue the successes of the last few years.

It should also be remembered that this agreement is not merely with a president who, even if he is re-elected next year as the polls show is very possible, will move on in another five years. This is an agreement that has the support of Colombia's lower house and its senate. It is supported by members of different political parties and, as has been noted here, it is also supported by the private sector trade unions.

Considering the debate in this House has been about protection of labour rights, the protection of union leaders, it is important to note that private sector unions in Colombia have, by and large, been supportive of it.

We should also note that the logic of not pursuing a trade deal because of certain human rights criticisms does not hold, based on history or behaviour, to other nations. The question is not so much: Is everything perfect in a country? We know everything is not perfect in Canada. We know everything is not perfect with many of our trade partners. The question fundamentally should be the direction and desire of the people and the government of the country. The direction and desire of the people of Colombia is to improve their human rights situation, to improve their labour standards to make a better, more peaceful, more prosperous country.

If we applied the same rigorous standard of perfection to Canada, in Canada's history, no one would have had a trade deal with Canada. We have been a country that has been at the forefront of human rights, reaching out to the rest of the world, looking forward to improve and make our own country a better place. But in Canadian history, we have not been perfect; we know that and we understand that. If we desire and demand perfection from other countries, we are effectively saying we are hypocritical in not demanding other countries asking for it from us.

I ask hon. members of the House to support the agreement because it is good for Canada. It will increase our trade. It will increase our prosperity. We ask hon. members to support it because it is good for the people of Colombia. It will increase their trade and their prosperity. If we allow the perfect to be the opponent of the good, we will never progress.

This is an agreement which stands on its own merits. It stands in historical Canadian tradition of promoting human rights, promoting democracy and promoting trade. I am very proud to support it. I am very proud that my government has reached out to enter into this agreement with Colombia. I will be proud to vote for this agreement when it comes to a final vote.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the pride Canada has in its expertise at shipping grain around the world. That is true at the moment, but it is ironic that he would make that point on a day when the Conservatives have put terribly flawed changes to the Canada Grain Act on today's order paper for debate. The changes would reduce inspections and would allow things to get through, which would cause scandals in our grain industry that could affect the great reputation we have around the world. Every member of Parliament, except the Conservatives, has recognized this. There is a hoist motion on this bill because it is such a terrible bill. We have had the terrible experience of the Conservatives' policy of suggesting reduction in inspectors on the floors of meat-packing companies. We know the problem we had with the listeriosis crisis, when Canadians actually died.

I would hope the member would at least stand up in his caucus if he cannot do it publicly and decry that bill. It would reduce inspections on grain and threaten that tremendous reputation we have around the world for our wheat.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what my hon. colleague's question has to do with the debate about Colombia, but let me respond as someone who is proudly the son, grandson and great-grandson of western Canadian grain farmers and as someone who himself has farmed.

I am very proud to support what the government is doing when it comes to changes to the Canadian Grain Commission and its position on the Wheat Board. The member should know that industry tends to be supportive of these changes. The industry is also very aware that the quality of Canadian grain is one of our greatest selling points and it will do nothing to jeopardize the quality or reputation of our grains.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments and the opportunity to have this very important debate here in the House.

I would ask the member if he does not agree with the analysis of what has happened in the last year not only in Canada but worldwide in terms of the economic crisis. Was it not driven primarily by unregulated, unfettered activity by a market that was totally out of control and that nobody seemed able to manage?

We are still trying to work our way through it and come to some understanding of what we need to put in place and how we need to change the way we do business in this country. Members of Parliament have responsibility for their constituents, their constituents' jobs and small companies, and their communities. We still do not completely understand how free trade, which is another term for unfettered, unregulated markets, was the cause of the difficulty we are in now. We have still not figured out how to change that.

Why would the government enter holus-bolus into yet another free trade agreement that we do not quite understand in terms of its impact on Canada, never mind the impact that we know it will have on the people of Colombia?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, my speech on Colombia must have been pretty good, since I am not receiving too many questions on it. The questions seem to be on other matters.

The main premise of the hon. member's question was that free enterprise and free trade caused the economic crisis around the world last year. I would beg to differ. I would say that the American housing sector had been essentially socialized through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, government institutions and distortions through the U.S. tax system, which instead of being free market ended up subsidizing the building of homes.

What the United States engaged in was not socialism for the poor, but socialism for the rich, and it ultimately came back to haunt the Americans. Again, without those massive government interferences and various other aspects engaged in by U.S. political leadership, I do not know if we would have seen the bubble and the collapse in the United States that affected other parts of the world. I fail to see how free trade agreements in any way caused what happened last year.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by welcoming my constituents from the wonderful riding of Laval. They will note that, despite all the rumours circulating, all the MPs in the House of Commons and Parliament are continuing to do their work and will do so until the government falls.

What is most surprising to me about today's discussion on this free trade agreement is that, on the one hand, there seems to be the belief that this government, which has never recognized or respected the rights of people from our own country, the rights of Canadians and Quebeckers who go abroad and find themselves in dangerous situations, will now ensure that the rights of Colombians are respected simply by signing a free trade agreement with them.

The Bloc Québécois is not against free trade agreements or international trade. However, we are against anything that could hurt or be harmful to vulnerable people. We have seen this too often in the past. The fact that the government did not bother to wait for the committee to draft and table its report is even more hurtful and shows again the government's lack of respect in this matter. This is such an obvious lack of respect that it is a wonder my Liberal Party colleagues can nevertheless support sending this bill to committee. It is evident that there is no way of ensuring respect for the rights of Colombians.

This is a free trade agreement in which there is no guarantee for the people who are going to be displaced and who will have to move elsewhere. Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. member earlier, since 2007 there has been an increase in the number of murders and assassinations in Colombia. When I talk about assassinations, I am referring to political murders. There has been an increase in the movement of people who must leave their land because it is too dangerous for them to live there. These are small mine owners who are being displaced by large mining companies, or small-scale farmers who are being displaced by large agribusinesses. When these people are displaced, they move to large cities, such as Bogota for example. We know what happens in big cities when new people arrive with no way to make a living. People find themselves living in shantytowns, as is the case in Brazil, where such slums are a common occurrence and where people are not living, but surviving.

I do not think that when we sign a free trade agreement, these are the results we want to achieve through it. I wonder how one could possibly believe that these mining companies would take it upon themselves to maintain and respect the human rights of Colombians, when they are not subject to any regulations and when nothing forces them to do so.

Every year, for the past number of years, officials from Development and Peace have come to see us to tell us and show us what is already happening with mining companies in other countries. We see that human rights are also being violated in these other countries. How can we believe that these companies will suddenly endorse more progressive and open social values and ensure that the people they are going to displace will at least be relocated to areas where they can live decently? I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe in the good intentions of those businesses, which stand to make billions of dollars.

Colombia has very rich soil. It has a lot of ore. It also has emerald mines. I know that women love emeralds. That country has very rich soil that can generate billions of dollars in profits annually. The only way to stop and to sanction mining companies is to impose on them fines of up to $15 million annually for all offences.

What does $15 million mean when one can get billions of dollars? Absolutely nothing. That amount is meaningless on such a large scale.

If we had really wanted to ensure the whole thing would be done in a fair and equitable fashion, first, we would have waited for the report to be tabled. Second, we would have listened carefully to the Colombians who came to meet with us. Last spring, I met with five Colombian women who urged us not to ratify this free trade agreement.

We should, at the very least, have listened to their concerns, to their pleas, and thus realized that we are actually abusing a whole segment of Colombia's population in order to give a few members of the elite class something they can boast about, namely to have succeeded in reaching an agreement with Canada. It is an agreement that gives more to them than to Colombia's population, even though they have not done anything to deserve it.

Hon. members mentioned President Uribe, who was running again. He would certainly like to run ad infinitum. That does not mean he will necessarily succeed, but if he does unfortunately, what will be the effect on human rights? How can we possibly think there will be more respect for them? I do not think so. As soon as someone starts getting ideas about being a dictator, as this man is apparently doing, the only possible conclusion is that there will be no respect or support for human rights and that nothing will be done to lend credibility to the organizations that fight for them.

Someone said earlier there were reports from reliable, credible organizations that Colombia was on the right track and had made progress. That depends, though, on the organizations we listen to. There are organizations as well on the other side that fight for human rights. Five in particular are telling us that this is not true and that there are actually more and more acts of violence against union organizers, more and more displacements to the cities, more and more marginalized people and more and more disappearances.

If we want to compare these two assessments, we should give greater credibility to the most vulnerable people and be very demanding in what we require when we sign a free trade agreement.

We saw what happened with softwood lumber. If we are negligent and insufficiently attentive about the way these free trade agreements are phrased, we will discover that the results are not necessarily what we expected.

If the government had really wanted to show some respect for the people of Colombia, for Parliament and for the parliamentarians here who worked hard and were exemplary committee members, it would at least have waited until the report was tabled and its recommendations could be considered.

That was not done. I am hardly surprised to see this in a government that does not care about women’s rights here in Canada and the rights of Canadian soldiers. We saw veterans this morning whose means of subsistence had been cut. This is also a government that does not care about the rights of the first nations.

How could a government that acts in this way toward its own citizens be expected to act differently toward the citizens of another country for which it has no respect?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc member for her speech. She certainly made the point that a free trade agreement with Colombia should not move forward, especially because of the atrocities being committed there against unionized workers.

A number of accusations have been made against the Colombian government, including accusations of murder, which is a serious problem and cause for concern. Over the past 10 years, 60% of unionized workers have been killed. I can understand the concern she expressed in her speech.

Should we really turn our backs on these people? These are people who are living in poverty. Should we sign a free trade agreement or should we first protect human rights?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is simple. We must always consider human rights before profits.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech I thought the member mentioned working against problems of safety in other countries. I think she meant that if Canadians travel there. Of course, there is the totally dismal and unacceptable record of the government of treating Canadians differently and not protecting them when they go to other countries.

I have a lot of families in my riding with children, teenagers or young adults who travel overseas. To be afraid that they will not be treated equally by the government if they get in trouble is certainly a big concern for my party. I think it is also a concern for the member but I would ask her to elaborate.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his question. He is a new father, so he knows how important it is to care for the people we love.

The people who are being abandoned by the Canadian government or whose rights are being violated in other countries also have people who love them. They have also left behind families, people who love them, people who miss them, people who would like to be quickly reunited with them, but they are in other countries and are not able to return, or must wait a very long time before they are able to return.

Let us take for example the citizen who was waiting in an embassy for years, and who was billed for the food he ate. I thought it was disgusting that a government would bill someone for food when he is not there of his own free will, but is being forced to stay at the embassy before being sent home.

I understand my colleague's concerns, and I share them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Mauricio Vásquez was a teacher and union activist in Colombia who was killed. It is very disturbing that it is not just the hard industry union activists that are being killed in Colombia, it is civil society like teachers.

Does it deepen my colleague's concerns when civil society, like nurses and teachers who organize for public services, are assassinated in Colombia.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We definitely have good reason to worry about the people of Colombian civil society, considering the climate of terror and fear that has reigned in that country for quite some time. The drug trade is very lucrative in Colombia, and as we know, drug lords will do just about anything to become more powerful.

We know, or at least we think, that paramilitary groups may be affiliated with the current government.

So, yes, I am worried. All those who have died thought they had the right to live and that they had—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Oakville.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this important initiative of free trade with our South American neighbours, the people of Colombia, in Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, and the measures and agreements on the environment and labour co-operation that are part of that agreement.

Canada has always been a trading nation, and a great portion of our economy and wealth historically came from selling goods that are mined, sourced and manufactured in Canada. As far back as the Hudson's Bay company, our historical wealth, which began hundreds of years ago with fish and furs, developed into manufactured goods and a high-tech industry. Canada could always produce more than our people need, because we have the resources and because Canadians are an industrious people.

I think of Daniel Massey, who in 1850 founded the Massey farm implement company in Newcastle, Ontario, and his son Hart, my mother's great-grandfather, a brilliant businessman who took over the family business. Having developed the most advanced farm machinery in the world, for example reapers and threshers that were sold all over Canada, Massey Manufacturing took on the world and won. It became one of the world's largest farm implement companies, and it continued to grow.

Hart Massey was one of the original masters of the corporate takeover. He managed to absorb the Ferguson Tractor Company and later Harris manufacturing company to create the world's largest farm implement company, Massey Harris.

This was accomplished despite the tariffs that existed. One can only imagine how much further Massey Harris might have gone had there been true free trade, as will be accomplished in this agreement.

I also think about one of Canada's leading companies today, Research In Motion, which makes the BlackBerrys that are so ubiquitous on Parliament Hill and business worldwide, a current example of how Canadian entrepreneurs, given a level playing field, can take on the world and win. Those entrepreneurs have always provided thousands of jobs in Canada, and increasingly, value-added high-tech jobs, the jobs of the future.

In so many cases, such as our high-tech industry, software industry and even in mining and resources, it is important for governments to sometimes get out of the way of our most industrious and creative citizens by lowering barriers that are not benefiting the economies of nations with which it should be trading more.

This agreement opens the door, without trade barriers, to Canadian wheat, paper products, mining, oil and gas, engineering and information technology. I think of two of the world's largest engineering firms with head offices in my riding of Oakville: Amec and Acres International. They are already world-beaters. They already engineer projects all over the world, but they will have better access to Colombian business as we move forward and deepen our presence in Latin America.

Trade creates new jobs and new wealth. All one has to do is look at Ontario's auto pact, which has existed since the 1960s. It is one of our earliest free trade agreements. In my riding of Oakville, we make four Ford models currently, including the Ford Edge. Eighty per cent of the cars and sixty per cent of the auto parts manufactured in Ontario are sold in the United States. Thousands of jobs in Ontario depend upon car and car parts sold in the U.S. The auto industry knows what we know, that Canadian workers are reliable, hard-working, well-educated, healthy and productive.

This industry is totally integrated. I have a constituent in Oakville who runs a plant in Brantford, Ontario. They make engine manifolds that go to plants in the United States and Mexico. They are installed on the engines and come back to Oshawa and other parts of Canada where they are installed in cars that are then resold in the United States.

This is how far a free trade agreement can integrate an industry and create wealth. That is why one out of four jobs in Canada today comes from free trade. Canada has prospered mightily from free trade.

Our largest trading partner, the U.S., has been hit hard by this recession. Its debt-to-GDP ratio is more than double that of ours. Many of its financial institutions have failed. The sales of our producers who sell to the U.S. are down. The place that was our greatest source of trading wealth and jobs has now become weaker.

However, we have been overdependent on the U.S. market for years. The U.S. economy will recover, as will ours, but I have always wondered why the previous government, in 13 years, did not pursue more free trade agreements to lower that dependency on our American neighbours.

We now have a leader with a long-term vision for Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and a government that is doing that, working with our democratic allies to open doors --

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member for Oakville to refrain from using proper names of colleagues; it is just ridings or titles.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in November the Prime Minister went to Peru to pursue a free trade agreement with the Peruvians, and we are currently debating free trade with Peru.

We have also concluded a free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Canadian products will now go into these countries without tariff penalties. Lower prices will mean more sales in those countries.

If our American friends are not in a position to buy Canadian goods, for any reason, then perhaps people in Europe or South America will.

The most exciting potential is with the European Union, where there are 27 countries. This government is moving towards a formal negotiation with all of Europe, the world's second largest economy, at over a trillion dollars. With such a trading partner the dependence we have had on trade in the U.S. market will diminish. If the U.S. economy weakens, for any reason, as it has during this worldwide recession--in fact it started in the United States--we will have other avenues for trade. Canada will become more independent by trading with more partners.

There are serious concerns over the human rights record in Colombia, yet its current administration has shown it wants to improve human rights. As people's lives become better in Colombia, that administration will become more stable and it will have the time it needs to improve human rights. For example, it has signed the accord to follow the ILO, International Labour Organization, rules, regulations and obligations regarding trade and labour, as Canada already does. There are sanctions for countries that do not follow these accords.

Perhaps most important, union leaders in Colombia have said that they support this agreement. They have said this agreement would improve the labour situation in Colombia. Who would know better than they?

The most important principle is that people's lives in Colombia and Canada improve over time. By doing business with Colombia, we have good reason to believe they will.

Free trade creates prosperity and jobs. Ongoing trade dialogue and interaction would expose what is best about Canada to the people of Colombia who are in positions of influence in their society. It will take time. However, the people in Canada and Colombia who have ideas and are inventive and produce excellent goods would all benefit from this agreement, as would the people who work in their plants and factories.

Canadian companies will continue to lead the world. I think of Fifth Light Technology, in Oakville, where a brilliant engineer has developed a ballast for fluorescent bulbs and they can dim bulbs by operating computer-based technology in a factory in their large building. They are able to reduce the lighting costs in large facilities by up to 70%. That is conserving energy.

If this technology were to be put in every commercial building, in Ontario, for example, the owners of the company feel we would need one less nuclear reactor.

This company is a world leader. This is the kind of company that could take its technology to Colombia or Europe or anywhere else in the world and be ahead of everyone else, while creating jobs here in Canada.

This is an example of our future as a trading nation, taking what we do best in the world while engaging our trading partners in human rights and principles.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Oakville for his speech when he particularly mentioned that one out of the four jobs are somewhere else.

In fact I was also troubled when he mentioned that the Prime Minister, his leader, had vision when it comes to creating opportunities for engineers. That is not what we are hearing from business leaders.

Last week, our leader, the leader of the official opposition, met with the business people who deal with China and India. I can tell the member that every single one of them said the Prime Minister has failed time and again when it comes to dealing with the Asia-Pacific Rim.

Why has the leader of the member's party not made a single trip to those two emerging world powers, which are where the opportunities for Canadians lie?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Prime Minister is planning a trip to China in the near future. This government understands that China is a tremendous potential trading partner. We do business in China already.

However, there always has to be a balance, as our friends in the NDP have talked about today, between human rights and business. I was very proud when the Prime Minister stood up for Huseyincan Celil, a Canadian citizen who was imprisoned without apparent reason in China. In any discussion we have on trade, with any trading partner, there has to be an open dialogue and discussion about human rights at the same time.

My colleagues on the Liberal side of the floor have talked about human rights as well, so I think they would be pleased with that. There is always a balance between trying to improve other countries' economies and trying to bring countries that do not benefit from the rights that we do into a better position on human rights.

No one thinks there are no injustices in Colombia, for example; there are injustices in every country. But if Canada wants to influence events, the government of Colombia has said it will abide by international labour agreements and pursue better human rights.

We feel, and I think experience shows, that countries are more likely to listen to other countries and institutions if their economy has become at least partially dependent on trading with those countries.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to stop the hon. member there. I know there are other members who would like to ask a question.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised by the description of the auto industry by the member for Oakville. We need to clarify something important. The auto pact that Canada signed with the United States was actually destroyed by our free trade agreement with the United States, and Canada has slipped from fourth in world assembly to tenth. Subsequently we have lost further market share. There is an important distinction to recognize here.

With respect to the member's reference about the jobs to Mexico, they used to be done in Canada. The member might want to talk to the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex about the Navistar international truck plant in his riding, which is closing because the work has been moved to Texas. Even the government is actually procuring a truck deal for $200 million. It decided to allow that to be done in Texas instead of Chatham, sending those workers home. On top of that, some of that work has been moved to Mexico as well. I think that is important.

What does the member believe is going to hold Colombia to account when we have had another 27 union activists killed there, civil society members including teachers, and after we sign this deal we will have no stick to put pressure on the Colombian government for reform?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the simple question is what would happen if our trading partners do not agree and abide by their agreements. It is very important to note the worst case scenario. The annex of the parallel agreement on labour cooperation sets out a maximum fine of $15 million for failing to respect the obligations set out in the agreement, but I believe it is moral persuasion that will work. We have an ongoing relationship with Colombia that we are working on and which this agreement will help to establish. We will have a presence in that country. That is the best way to assess, on a day-to-day basis, the human rights reality in that country.

We can monitor sections 1603 and 1604 of the agreement, which refers to the United Nations universal declaration of human rights and its labour standards. That covers the right to association, free collective bargaining, and rights concerning the health and safety of all workers in the workplace. In fact, this agreement enforces two high standards. Colombia signed a free trade agreement and it is willing to demonstrate it will maintain those standards.

We are happy to support this agreement to make that happen.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-23, a bill that has taken on great importance here in Parliament this week. In many respects, it is a bill that announces to the Canadian people that the most unlikely of alliances may yet come into being. The Conservatives and the NDP are twisting themselves in knots trying to put the best spin on all their flipping and flopping.

Let us talk about the text itself. This bill has its beginnings in the summit meeting that occurred last November in Lima. At that time, the Prime Minister said “...free and open markets are the best way to ensure the global economy can quickly rebound”.

Regardless of what has happened between November and now, I and my colleagues would like to take the Prime Minister at his word and believe that he meant what he said back then. However, for those of us who have been following the government's approach to Asian markets over the last three long years, it could only be seen as an eleventh hour conversion. If the Prime Minister had always believed what he said in Lima, the last three years would have been very different. He would have been aware of other points of focus in international trade, other borders beyond Colombia and the Americas.

This was an issue earlier this month when my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, and I sat down with some of our key stakeholders in the Pacific Rim export markets. The fact is that the last time there was any significant trade negotiations with an Asian country was back in 2001.

In all this time, three governments have completed six free trade agreements with countries in the Americas. These deals were structured much like this one. However, with a little research, we soon discover that the Americas account for only 11% of the world's GDP growth, while Asia accounts for 42% at 2008 purchasing power parity rates. To make things worse, almost twice as many Canadians are from Asia as are from the Americas. Our focus is misplaced considering the strength of our cultural ties.

In economic times like these, we cannot help wondering how much better positioned Canada would be if we had actually engaged in Asian markets over the last three years, never mind the Americas.

Perhaps the Prime Minister was afraid that the more time he spent in Asia he would become less Canadian or maybe someone would run ads saying that he was just visiting his own country.

However, perhaps I should just keep the focus on the bright side. Here we are and the government is doing something at least to open up Canada's markets to the world. If doing something means Colombia, let us get down to it and do it right.

Colombia needs to engage with us. The past 40 years of its history tells of illegal drugs fuelling paramilitary groups in one of the most destructive conflicts in the hemisphere. The conflict caused massive displacements, murders and human rights violations. No member of this House is under any illusion about Colombia's past. Our task now is to shape its future.

Now we see that this the very issue of human rights abuses, the one that Conservatives used to explain their failure on the China file, is not the sticking point it once was. With this Colombia agreement now a part of a confidence vote, it is no longer an issue with our New Democratic friends either. This is quite a flip-flop for them, needless to say.

Just this May, they were saying, “The NDP is standing on the side of millions of Canadians who oppose murder, torture and human rights abuses. We oppose the blood that is on this agreement”.

I guess those millions will hear a different story from them in the coming months or coming days.

They also claim that this deal makes a mockery of human rights. For members of the NDP, I guess it is a better mockery of human rights than the mockery they make of Parliament, lying in bed with the Conservatives at the first opportunity. So much for empty rhetoric. Let us look at the facts.

As a member of the international trade committee, I visited Colombia last year with my colleagues to talk to the people of Colombia. We heard from experts, businesses, NGOs, trade unions and officials. Our committee found that there has been progress in Colombia since President Uribe was elected in 2002: violence and murders are down 50%, kidnappings are down 90%; union member killings are down 70%; displacements are down 75%; tens of thousands are being reincorporated into civil society from demobilized paramilitary groups; 92% of children are in primary school; and 30,000 hectares have been reforested. However, against this progress, paramilitary groups continue to violate human rights, environmental programs lack adequate resources and corruption remains a major problem.

We must ask ourselves how we can build on our progress and engage Colombia on human rights. The Liberal Party has always believed that economic engagement helps build Canadian influence on human rights. People on the ground in Colombia agree.

The United Nations told us in Bogota that Canada can use the agreement to promote dialogue and improve accountability on human rights. Human rights activists in Colombia told the committee that trade agreements are an effective means to pressure Colombia to live up to its international human rights obligations.

To sum up, the Conservative government is squandering the tremendous potential of the Asian market and spending all its time and resources in the Americas.

It is clear that Saskatchewan is the only province in Canada that had a surplus budget last year. The success story is that it is the only province that deals with other countries besides the Americas and that is where its goods and commodities are going. We should all be learning from that province.

With this deal, Canada must support Colombia's efforts to tackle the drug trade, security and corruption. Let us make sure of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with some of what the member has indicated about progressing with free trade in Colombia to address some of these humanitarian issues. However, I take issue with some of the comments made with regard to our attempts to negotiate free trade agreements with India, China and so on.

I have a question for the member. I would like him to take this opportunity to explain and perhaps defend his Liberal Party's position for 13 years where it was only able to negotiate a paltry three free trade agreements, when in four years our Conservative government has “opened doors to Canadian businesses by signing new free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru, Jordan, Panama, the European Free Trade Association states such as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein”. We have opened eight trading offices in India and are about to open six trading offices in China.

I would like to give the member the opportunity to defend the paltry three free trade agreements that were done in 13 years compared to our Conservative record, which stands up very well to whatever it is that he is going to defend.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it was the Liberal Party that started the talks on free trade with the Americas.

The member can go to British Columbia or travel across Canada and business leaders will tell her that it was a Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who took business leaders to those countries to pursue business relationships. It is all about forming relationships.

In the last three long years, the member's leader and Prime Minister of this country has poked China's eye. He has made no positive contribution to develop a relationship. Relationships develop trade and that is where the Prime Minister is lagging.

Instead of asking me this question, the member should be going to her leader and telling him to make progress on that file.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the two parties are fighting over who are the better free traders in the country and in our history, when any analysis of the difficult economy we are in will say, and everyone is agreeing, that it is unfettered, unregulated free trade globally driven by greed that has caused the difficulty we are experiencing now.

The government should be engaged in how we should restructure our economy to focus on the domestic needs of Canadians. Perhaps we should be backing away from this discussion about free trade, getting ourselves organized and encouraging other countries to do the same so we can right this ship and move forward with some confidence so that at the end of the day, no matter what we do, everybody will benefit.

I remember growing up in the little town of Wawa where 1,200 people mined ore and sent it to Sault Ste. Marie where 12,000 people turned it into steel and sent it out to communities across this country where hundreds of thousands of people made buses, cars and boats. It was the advent of free trade that brought a collapse to all of those communities and has given what we see today, which is a very difficult circumstance for many working men and women across this country--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there so the member for Newton—North Delta has time to respond.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not about which party is the leader on free trade. If we look at history, Canada has always been a trading nation. If we look at Canada's economic future, it lies in Asia. If we look at where the positive growth is, it is only in China and India. Those are the two emerging economic powers in the world that we need to--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We will have to move on with debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Canada is one of the great trading nations of the world. For many, many years we as a country have relied on trade to provide us with prosperity and to provide us with a standard of living which is the envy of the rest of the world. During these challenging economic times Canada has to look at how we do business going forward.

Presently, 75% of our trade is with the United States. That is good news, but it is also bad news. By having 75% of our trade with one country we become very dependent on that country's economy. During this recession, we have noticed that when the United States is having serious economic problems, we are feeling the impact of that.

Some time ago the World Trade Organization negotiations for a global agreement on trade fell apart. This provided a new opportunity for Canada to enter into bilateral trade relationships with countries around the world. Not only will these relationships strengthen our economy, but we in turn can have an influence and an impact on other countries that are perhaps developing. We can help them enhance their prosperity.

To that end, our Conservative government has been very aggressive in pursuing bilateral free trade agreements with countries around the world. For example, in the last four years our government has opened doors to Canadian businesses by signing free trade agreements with Colombia, which is the agreement we are debating today, and with Peru, Jordan, Panama, and the European Free Trade Association, which covers the countries of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. But there is much more work to be done.

We have actually engaged with Brazil and opened new trade offices in that country. Brazil is South America's largest economy. Our trade in 2008 totalled some $2.8 billion, which was an increase of 70% over the year before. That is great news for our economy and it is also great news for Brazil.

At the same time our government launched discussions on an economic partnership with two of the world's largest economic groups, the European Union and India.

It is self-evident that Europe provides a huge opportunity for Canada. We have not had a free trade agreement with European countries in the past but have now started negotiations toward that kind of agreement. If we sign a free trade agreement with the European Union, we expect the benefits to Canada to be in the order of $12 billion per year.

We are in the middle of a global recession that is impacting all countries around the world. We have an opportunity right now to buttress ourselves against the impacts of that recession and perhaps future economic challenges that will arise around the world. Twelve billion dollars is the potential from one free trade agreement with the European Union alone.

Of interest to my constituents in Abbotsford would be the country of India. Some 20% to 25% of my residents have Indian origin. Some 25,000 Indo-Canadians live in Abbotsford and they frequently travel to and from India. Many of them are business people who have business relationships spanning the globe.

We have recently launched negotiations with India aimed at the conclusion of a comprehensive economic partnership. Simultaneously, we also have discussions underway which are aimed at the conclusion of a nuclear cooperation agreement between our two countries.

We have also opened up eight new trade offices in India. I had the pleasure of accompanying the citizenship and immigration minister to India in January and we were able to see some of the offices that we opened there.

I can say from personal experience, Indians are open to these new trade relationships. They know that there is a mutual benefit there, not only for them but for Canada to strengthen those relationships.

We have not stopped at just India and Europe. We are also looking at the Middle East. Our government has signed a free trade agreement and foreign investment protection agreement with Jordan. We are also having further discussions with the country of Morocco, with a view to perhaps commencing free trade negotiations with that country.

Of course, I have not even mentioned China, which is the world's largest emerging economy. Most Canadians understand how important China is to our economic prosperity and future. Our government has made impressive gains with our commercial relationship. Quite a number of our government's ministers have travelled to India in recent months and in the last two years. China, believe it or not, is now Canada's second largest trading partner. It has leapfrogged over Japan and is now in second place. We would be remiss if we did not pursue economic and trading opportunities with that country.

To that end, we have recently opened some six new trade offices in various cities in China under our global commerce strategy. Again, this is great news for our country. It is great news for our economic prosperity. In return, of course, we assist China, because that is an emerging economy, one that wants to take its place in the world, wants to modernize, and obviously Canada is willing to cooperate and to become engaged in doing so.

One of the disappointments I recently heard about was that the Liberal Leader of the Opposition had planned to make a trip to China. Because of his focus on trying to win power here in Canada, because of his threats to go to an election, he actually cancelled his trip to China. Here we have opportunities to build these relationships, opportunities to build trading relationships with the largest emerging economy in the world, and the Leader of the Opposition, after making arrangements to travel to China, puts his own political interests ahead of those of Canada by cancelling that visit.

Our Prime Minister is committed to travelling to China in November. He has not cancelled that visit. It surprised me that the Liberal leader would actually do that.

The previous Liberal government, over 13 years, signed a paltry three free trade agreements. In 13 years, only three agreements, which should have strengthened our economy and further cushioned us against things like the current global recession. At this time of global economic downturn, Canadians can count on our Conservative government to oppose protectionism and defend free and open trade on the world's stage. That is why our government has negotiated new free trade agreements with many, many different countries over the last three and a half years, including Colombia. This Colombia free trade agreement will create new jobs for Canadians and Colombians alike, but developing new market opportunities and improving human rights are not mutually exclusive.

Canada has one of the most well-respected human rights records in the world. For us to expect other countries to rise to our level of human rights before we ever engage in trade relationships with them is ridiculous. It is self-evident that if we want to engage with other countries not only on trade but on issues of human rights, it is advisable to link those. That is why the Colombia free trade agreement actually does link those. That free trade agreement has specific provisions addressing labour, human rights and even environmental requirements. There are enforcement provisions in the Colombia free trade agreement as well.

I speak strongly in favour of the government and Parliament moving ahead and finalizing the Colombia free trade agreement. It is good for Canada and it is good for Colombia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to hear members of the governing party speak about the benefits of free trade and how, given that what we are experiencing today in terms of the economic collapse of the world financial system was driven by unfettered, unregulated free trade and greed, we would still be looking with great joy to even more of that as we try to relate and interact with other jurisdictions in the world. That we would not be refocusing on the reorganization of our own domestic economy at this time speaks to me of being somewhat irresponsible, but that is not what I really wanted to ask him a question about.

He raised the issue of human rights at the end of his speech as if it were just a sidebar. Just one trade unionist should be enough, but the 17 trade unionists killed in 2009 alone should be enough to push any reasonable country away from the table, and ask questions and demand better guarantees as we look at this, if we are going to enter into that kind of a free trade agreement at all.

We had a woman here, the daughter of a free trade unionist who was shot in Colombia, asking us to back away, reassess and do an evaluation before we enter into this trade agreement. Why would we not do that?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member takes human rights very seriously and I want to assure him that my reference to human rights in my speech was certainly not a sidebar. I take that very seriously. I anticipated that would be his question because that is the only objection I sense coming from the NDP to signing a free trade agreement with Colombia.

However, I want to remind him that between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings in Colombia decreased by some 87%. Homicide rates have dropped by 44%. Moderate poverty has fallen from 55% to 45% and Colombia has attained coverage of 94% in basic education. The progress that Colombia has already made goes on and on.

As I mentioned in my speech, we are not looking for perfection. We are looking to engage with a country that wants to pull itself out of some of these problems. We want to be partners with them and assist them to do that. That is why some of the collateral agreements to this Colombia free trade agreement address issues such as labour protection, environmental protection and human rights. These are key issues that are indeed addressed in the agreement.

We have general support in the House. We appear to be developing a consensus here. Unfortunately, the NDP does oppose this agreement. However, I also note that the former NDP premier of Ontario, who now sits here as a Liberal, just spoke in favour of this free trade agreement that the NDP members of the House strongly oppose. There appears to be an ideological mix with political partisanship that may be confusing some Canadians.

I would strongly recommend that this member look at the merits and purpose of the agreement, which is to assist Colombia, enhance its human rights record, and at the same time develop a level of prosperity that Colombians themselves are aspiring to.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is one minute left in questions and comments, so I can allow a 30 second question and a 30 second response.

The member for Sault Ste. Marie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's answer. It is certainly not just human rights that we are raising as an issue in terms of this Colombia free trade agreement, although it is certainly central for us.

I made a mistake. Twenty-seven trade unionists have lost their lives. There have been 60 to 70 extrajudicial murders. If that is somehow a reduction, I can only imagine what it was like and where it will go if we enter into this free trade agreement and that kind of opportunity for--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the member there to allow enough time for a response.

The member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend actually referred to a witness who appeared before committee. I happened to be at that committee meeting and heard the witness speak about some of the concerns they have about personal safety in Colombia.

However, I can also say that by happenstance I had a Colombian citizen visit me in my office in Abbotsford. We were not there to discuss free trade agreements; we were there to discuss something else. I took the opportunity to ask her what the security situation was like in Colombia. She said that her safety has improved considerably. She was a member of a religious minority. She said that country is so much safer today than it used to be.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are debating the subamendment put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to amend the amendment presented by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, which basically calls on this House to refuse to give its consent to Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

With this subamendment, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is asking that we consider this refusal, “including having heard vocal opposition to the accord from human rights organizations”. The member is therefore asking this House to refuse to grant its consent based on comments we have received from groups asking us not to support this bill. I must say there are many such groups, both in Canada and in Colombia.

I would like to name a few of those groups: the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the FTQ, Development and Peace, KAIROS, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Lawyers Without Borders, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

These are but a few of the organizations in Canada and Quebec calling on us to not support the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. I must say that, even in Colombia, civil society is trying to mobilize to show its lack of support for this agreement. However, we will agree that it is harder to organize in the rather difficult situation in Colombia.

I would point out that a number of members of our caucus met last February with members of the coalition of social movements and organizations of Colombia, which includes the national indigenous organization of Colombia, the popular women's organization, the national agrarian coordinator, the Christian movement for peace with justice and dignity, the national movement for health and social security, the Afro-American African roots movement and the Black Community Process.

It is extremely important in making a decision to check with a number of the players to see whether there might be a consensus regarding this agreement. Unfortunately, in this matter, I believe a number of voices were raised against the agreement.

In June 2008, here in Parliament, the Standing Committee on International Trade tabled a report entitled Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia. The report made a number of recommendations to the government, recommendations the government did not implement. It decided to have the agreement ratified without considering the very sound recommendations made by the committee, including that Canada not sign the free trade agreement with Colombia until it was confirmed that the improvements in human rights were maintained and continuing.

The government nevertheless decided to proceed with the agreement, even though according to the information available to us, Colombia's record continues to be disastrous.

The committee also recommended that governments mandate an independent body to study the impact on rights and the environment of such an agreement. Canada has not done any study. And if studies have been done, the public has not been informed of them.

As well, the committee recommended that a competent body be established to examine the repercussions on human rights comprehensively, impartially and independently.

All of this is part of the process that would have led Canada to sign this trade agreement with a concern for its potential repercussions on the Colombian people. These recommendations came from parliamentarians. Once again, we note the Conservative government's propensity to ignore majority proposals from the House. We have seen and identified a number of proposals right here in this House during the two mandates of the Conservatives. I have to say that this is not the first time the Standing Committee on International Trade has been rebuffed. Last year, the government decided to categorically reject the committee's report calling on it to exclude water from all trade agreements.

Once again, the government decided to ignore the opinion of the House. As members of Parliament, how are we supposed to support such an anti-democratic attitude? Parliament is the voice of the people. When parliamentarians unite to make recommendations to the government, it seems to me that the government should take note and act accordingly. But ironically, in the case of the free trade agreement with Colombia, the government says that it has to go through with its draft free trade agreement to support democracy in Colombia. How are we supposed to trust the government when it comes to signing a Canada-Colombia free trade agreement when it will not even listen to its own Parliament?

Of course such agreements have to protect investments. We are not opposed to that. However, we must ensure that these agreements respect both partners. The government is calling this a free trade agreement, but free trade agreements are usually negotiated between partners of similar size. In this case, the agreement seems designed to protect investments. In many cases, that makes sense because it creates a predictable environment and ensures that assets belonging to foreign investors will not be taken over in the event of nationalization. In this particular case, we have to ensure that such protection will not be detrimental to the country where the investment is made.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows some investors to initiate legal proceedings against countries that seek to change or improve their human rights or environmental laws. It is clear that the contents of this proposal are not in line with what members of the House called for in committee. The government's refusal to heed the recommendations of civil society groups is appalling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope I may have a moment to read a letter I just received from Brent Mansfield, from Vancouver. My Bloc colleague may have some comments on this.

In the letter, he says:

I myself was in Colombia for the month of August, including a 10 day delegation investigating the effects of free trade with Colombia. We met with unions (sugarcane cutters in Cali, portworkers in Buenaventura), indigenous groups (Nasa/ ACIN), afro-colombian groups (Calima, Naya), a number of displaced groups (from Narino), and victims of state crimes and so-called 'false positives'. I have many concerns about the possibility of a free trade agreement with Colombia, but also with the model of free trade itself and deeply support the logic of a fair trade model that you proposed. This is what Canada--and the world!--needs, and I am saddened by the way the Liberals and Conservatives are so blindly committed to 'more free and open trade'. Please continue to speak up on this issue and to urge the NDP party to work for a more equitable trade model.

That is exactly what we are trying to do. I am certain that my Bloc colleague would like to comment on the fact that it is so important that, after having heard us talk about it, this person decided to write to us immediately.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague just read is along the lines of what I was saying when I mentioned that the government seems to be ignoring and not hearing the opposing views on this free trade agreement.

I must reiterate and also remind this citizen that the Bloc Québécois has always adhered to the principle that international trade must allow for the mutual enrichment and development of the parties. In the comments read by my colleague, it is evident that what this citizen has observed is not based on the principle of mutual enrichment and development. Therefore, it is important, when establishing trade relations, to always ensure that the government, in this case the Canadian government, is always able to keep applying a certain amount of pressure on the Colombian government with respect to improving the economic activities that take place in its territory. We believe that the wording of this free trade agreement will no longer allow the Government of Canada to apply this needed pressure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member on this important piece of public business before us here today.

He mentioned improving the situation. Does he have any definition for us of what that might mean? We heard members from the government side talk about the 27 trade unionists who have been killed so far in 2009 and the 60 to 70 extrajudicial murders as an improvement.

Is that, in the member's view, an improvement? Does he have any details he could share with us in terms of what he would accept as improvement?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to accept that those who defend workers can be killed while carrying out their responsibilities. In my opinion, it is our duty to reject this type of conduct.

Given the numbers provided by my colleague, it is obvious that we cannot accept this type of conduct. We also believe it is important for the government to revise its positions in all trade negotiations to ensure that trade agreements include clauses on the respect for international standards pertaining to labour rights, human rights and the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian International Development Agency has been working with the government of Colombia to bring greater peace and security to Colombia.

Although Colombia is an established democracy with a growing economy, a responsible government, an active civil society and stable institutions, it also suffers from the longest running conflict in the Americas. More than three million people are internally displaced in the country. However, in recent years the global community and international organizations working in Colombia have recognized that the personal security conditions of urban Colombians has improved.

With the support of the international community, government authorities and civil society organizations are taking actions that are contributing to increased peace, security and prosperity. It is important that Canada continue to work toward peaceful change in Colombia and we can be very proud of our track record in supporting this process.

In fact, Canada is the lead donor on children's rights and protection in Colombia. CIDA's programs are protecting children from violence, preventing their recruitment into armed conflict and helping them regain their place in their home communities. We promote environmentally sustainable agriculture and provide individuals who have grown illicit crops with alternative livelihoods that contribute to national food security.

Canada's relationship with Colombia includes support for peace and democracy, a strengthened bilateral economic relationship, a frank dialogue on human rights, close co-operation on security and humanitarian issues, counter-narcotics and landmine action.

In the past five years, CIDA has disbursed over $64 million in Colombia. CIDA programs focus on democratic governance, with an emphasis on the protection and promotion of the human rights of vulnerable people affected by the conflict, especially children, adolescence and internally displaced people.

CIDA has contributed $8.8 million to assist internally displaced people to claim their rights, strengthen Colombia's national policies and programs that respond to the plight of the displaced and help to find durable solutions that will facilitate their return when possible.

This past February, in fact, the Minister of International Cooperation announced that CIDA would focus 80% of its bilateral programming in 20 countries, and Colombia is one of them. Furthermore, DFAIT's global peace and security program provided more than $14.5 million in conflict prevention and peace-building programs between 2006 and 2009. The program centres on justice and confidence-building initiatives, support for political dialogue and enhancing security and stability.

Canada is also one of the largest supporters of the Organization of American States' mission to support the peace process in Colombia. This mission has played a critical role in supporting the government's efforts to demobilize paramilitary forces in Colombia. It also protects the rights of women victims of sexual violence, as well as indigenous conflict victims.

Between 2007 and 2009, Canada provided more than $10 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to protect internally displaced people and refugees in neighbouring countries. CIDA works with its trusted multilateral partners, such as the Red Cross and the World Food Programme to reach these people.

In addition, DFAIT's counterterrorism capacity-building program provides states with training, funding, equipment and technical and legal expertise to help prevent terrorist activity. Since 2005, the program has provided $1.5 million to projects in Colombia.

Canada is also one of the largest donors for mine action in Colombia. From 2003 to 2008, working primarily through the Organization of American States and UNICEF, Canada contributed more than $3.7 million for humanitarian demining, stockpile destruction, victim assistance, mine risk education and mine action coordination. Colombia's efforts to achieve greater peace and security are further aligned with Canadian values and interests.

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

Canada's labour program, through the international program for professional labour administration, is providing $1 million for labour related technical assistance initiatives in Colombia. These initiatives are helping, not harming, the Colombian labour ministry to increase its capacity to train labour leaders and enforce labour legislation. There are still challenges in Colombia and Canada will continue to do its part to support that country's efforts to strengthen peace, security and full respect for human rights, but strides have been made.

Let me take a moment to tell members some of the results of CIDA's development programs in Colombia. CIDA has been working through the office of the high commissioner for human rights to help the government and civil society organizations to work together to develop a national plan of action on human rights. As a result, human rights are being integrated into the activities of Colombian government institutions and an increased number of officials now know and understand international human rights obligations and are able to implement them. In addition, there has been better media coverage of human rights issues and more information has been made available to the public on human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law.

However, illegal armed groups continue to recruit boys and girls and engage in sexual and gender-based violence as a weapon of war. Children's rights and protection are being given prominence among CIDA's programs to mitigate these challenges, and we are getting results. An estimated 15,000 children and youth have been prevented from being recruited in armed forces and 260 demobilized child combatants have been reintegrated into their home communities.

A new law has been passed on children and youth and more than 12,000 civil servants are trained to implement the law. Approximately 6,000 adolescents have developed their conflict resolution and other life skills in schools, with support from 400 peers trained as youth leaders. Some 70% of all demobilized children and youth will receive better health, education, protection and integration services because of CIDA's efforts.

Since Colombia has the second largest population of internally displaced persons in the world, three to four million people, and is the country in the Americas that is the most affected by landmines and explosive remnants of war, CIDA's support is helping improve the lives of a significant number of Colombians.

Colombia now has public policies and programs that protect and guarantee the rights of internally displaced persons, programs that take into account the different needs of women, children and ethnic minorities. CIDA's efforts have also led to protection being provided to 470,000 internally displaced people who did not receive benefits because they were not part of the national registry. More than 100,000 of these displaced people were issued identity documents through the national registry office and are now able to receive the services to which they are entitled.

We believe that Canada's efforts to advance a free trade agreement and to promote and protect human and labour rights in Colombia are mutually re-enforcing and equally important. The economic development that flows from increased trade, in tandem with enforcement of labour rights, will strengthen Colombia's social foundations, reduce violence and bring greater security and prosperity to Colombians.

Colombia is an important strategic trade and investment partner for Canada and Canadian companies are very involved in Colombian mining, oil and gas projects. As I am sure all members are aware, CIDA's mandate is to reduce poverty and foster sustainable development. Economic growth is one of the three themes that the minister has spelled out for all CIDA programs, along with children and youth and food security. In Colombia economic growth through the free trade agreement will not only help to secure the futures of children in adolescence, it is the key to stability, security and environmentally sustainable growth.

I ask my fellow members to consider that the economic growth this agreement will bring can help to solidify the government of Colombia's efforts to create a more prosperous, equitable and sure democracy. I, as a mother of five children, hope that all members think about their own children when they vote. This is an important issue for not only Canadians but for Colombians and their children. Please vote for this. Please support this and make a difference not only in humanitarian issues but in economic issues. I applaud all members who have stood before us today to indicate their support.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

Given our economy and the opportunities provided to us by Colombia, could she tell us, in millions of dollars, the level of our trade with that country? If we are going to engage in free trade, it has to be a profitable venture. Is it indeed profitable, or is our interest more of a political than an economic nature?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I am quite prepared to answer the question relating to money, but I want to be very clear. In my opinion, and in our government's opinion, the two issues are really on a par. Indeed, the economy and the protection of human rights in Colombia are similar issues.

I am going to talk about Quebec, since the hon. member comes from that province.

In 2008 Quebec's total exports to Colombia were valued at $120 million, which represented 17% of Canada's total exports to the country. Quebec's leading exports to Colombia include paper and paperboard, valued at approximately $21.1 million, copper articles, mainly wire, valued at $25.9 million in exports and machinery valued at approximately $32.1 million.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and the government pretend to be tough on crime. However, the member should know that 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008 the number of murders was up by 18% over the previous year. So far this year, 27 trade unionists have been murdered up to September. In fact, the Obama administration in the United States has put a halt on negotiating a free trade deal with Colombia. The British, our other allies, have cut military aid to the country.

Why would the member want to support rewarding a country that has a terrible human rights record? Why do we not sit back, take a look and investigate this issue further before we go ahead holus-bolus and try to sign an agreement with Colombia at this time?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, some of the facts just represented by the member are inaccurate and need some clarification. The United States just recently provided the funding that was being held back. I suggest the member may want to review his facts.

Aside from the United States coming to conclusion that it should provide this funding, I want to clearly state that I stand behind being tough on crime. I believe it is absolutely absurd for the NDP to suggest in any way, shape or form, that our measures and the measures of many other countries in the world, by initiating free trade agreements that help humanitarian issues and help economic growth, would lend to the death of any of those trade unionists. The death of anyone is absolutely horrific. I clearly I do not support anyone in the House who suggests that free trade agreements by many countries in the world lend to the death of union representatives. Our hearts go out to those families equally.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, what effect would signing the agreement have on the CIDA aid she outlined?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it will enhance our position. I am very proud of our government and the work that is being done with CIDA.

As I outlined in my speech and my comments, CIDA has taken initiative in many countries, and Colombia is one country that we are wholly looking at defending and supporting. This agreement would initiate further confidence measures. I believe Canada has been looked upon as a leader in this regard.

I believe that many of the members of the Liberal Party are in support of our measures, thanks to the co-operation and the results we have achieved through CIDA.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a democratic country that respects the rule of law, a country that respects human rights. We must ensure that we support countries that seek these objectives and that work to reach them. That is one of the reasons why Canada must try to sign bilateral trade agreements and to improve economic opportunities for Colombia's businesses. We must reconcile this goal with the responsibility to promote human rights.

We feel that a free trade agreement would encourage the Colombian government to undertake other reforms to promote economic growth, public safety and human rights. Over the past few years, Colombia has made real progress regarding the economy, and also social and public safety programs, but it is a fragile process. FARC terrorists, drug traffickers and attacks from the Chavez regime in Venezuela are all constant threats. Colombia is a beautiful country where honest people live and where natural resources abound. It is a country where the situation has been catastrophic for over 40 years, a country that has been paralyzed and divided by a civil war that began as ideological differences, but turned into a war without any ideological basis between drug traffickers, a war that has generated nothing but greed, despair and violence.

Since 2002, huge progress has been made, particularly with regard to public safety. Eight years ago, people were afraid to walk in the streets of Bogota and 400 towns were still controlled by FARC. This progress must continue, and so far it has been supported.

Some members of civil society have said they are opposed to Bill C-23 for reasons of human rights. There has been corruption and human rights violations in Colombia for years. Human Rights Watch, however, has noted that “under US pressure related to the FTA, Colombia has started to take some positive steps on impunity for anti-union violence”, although these improvements are incomplete.

Progress has been made since 2002, although violence continues. Corruption is also chronic in Colombia: more than 30 members of its Congress were under arrest in 2008 and more than 60 were being investigated on suspicion of ties to the paramilitaries. Despite these investigations, it is important to note that the paramilitaries are financed by Colombian drug trafficking and that they themselves help to perpetuate it. Civil society members agree that Colombia cannot fight effectively against drug trafficking and corruption or make lasting improvements in public safety unless its legitimate economy improves, jobs are created and there are opportunities for marginalized people.

Bill C-23 is opposed by labour unions such as the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress, but they have opposed all of Canada’s free trade agreements. The Canadian unions say that the Colombian government has implicitly encouraged anti-union violence and that the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Colombia signifies that we accept this. Human rights and labour rights groups do not want to see the Government of Colombia “rewarded” with a free trade agreement. Much remains to be accomplished in Colombia. This country needs our help.

If we close the door on a country like Colombia that is making progress, especially at a time when leaders of civil society, labour unions, governments and victims of violence by paramilitary groups and FARC guerrillas are trying to make progress, if we isolate Colombia in the Andes region and leave it exposed and vulnerable to unilateral, ideological attacks from Chavez’s Venezuela, we will just be allowing evil to prosper.

There is no moral justification for Canadians to do nothing. If a single member of Parliament or a single Canadian is concerned about the human rights situation in Colombia, then we must demand more of this country.

The free trade agreement creates a strong, regulated system to monitor the rights of working people, human rights and the environmental progress made in Colombia and to help Colombians manage and improve these rights and this progress.

Workers' rights and the problems in this area occurred without any free trade agreement. Trade links between Canada and Colombia exist already, but no regulated system exists to direct this relationship.

The provisions of this new free trade agreement are the strongest yet with respect to workers and the environment. In fact, none of the agreements signed by Canada to date contain such provisions. Accordingly, as Canadians, we must ask ourselves how such an agreement could do anything but strengthen our ability to influence human rights and workers' rights in Colombia positively.

Overall, most people and groups, including human rights NGOs, support ratification of the free trade agreement with Canada. They do not think this agreement would have a negative impact on the economy or human rights in Colombia. Many even believe that the agreement could increase Canada's oversight of workers' and indigenous rights thanks to its framework, which provides rules, and to the two side agreements in the areas of labour and the environment.

Canada has noted the difficulties faced by the Uribe government in its fight against the production and trafficking of narcotics and against FARC and emerging criminal gangs. Canada has noted as well the progress made in disarming paramilitary groups and reducing violence in general and violence against unionists in particular. The Colombian senators also spoke of a tripartite commission comprising the government, the unions and employers. This commission, under the supervision of the International Labour Organization, is helping Colombia honour its commitments to the ILO. At its annual meeting in 2009, the ILO reported progress in Colombia.

Finally, and this is the most important part, most of the senators that Canada met acknowledged that a free trade agreement with Canada would strengthen and improve living conditions in Colombia. Such an agreement would help to reduce poverty, prevent the resurgence of illegal armed groups and keep more Colombians from becoming dependent on the narco-economy.

The Canadian delegation met a group of Colombian economists who indicated their support for a rules-based free trade agreement with Canada. They pointed out how vital it was for Colombia to conclude this free trade agreement, especially since countries such as Chile and Peru had managed to conclude such agreements with key trading partners, including Canada. They stressed the need for Colombia to diversify its trade relations away from countries such as Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. The threat that Chavez represents for Colombia was a recurrent theme throughout Canada's meetings in Colombia. They said as well that there are increasing numbers of FARC guerrillas in Venezuela, who are protected by the Chavez government so they can continue to launch attacks against Colombia and against companies and individuals there.

A number of unions in the private sector in Colombia support the union movement. There, the union movement represents 6% of the labour force, and opposition to this agreement comes primarily from the public sector within the union movement. The trade unionists in the public sector have nothing to lose by supporting a rigid anti-free trade ideology. Those with the most to gain from the free trade agreement, however, are the workers in the parallel economy, who represent 56% of the labour force.

In conclusion, since I have less than a minute left, I would like to say that now is the time for Canadians who are so concerned about the welfare of Colombians to give them a chance to be a part of the economy and not let them be the victims of an ideology. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Legitimate trading activities can help the people of Colombia replace the forces of evil with the forces of hope. Now is the time for Canadians to reach out to Colombians and help them build a more peaceful, prosperous and just future.

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

Mr. Speaker, this discussion certainly takes it to hear.

The member for Saint Boniface made some comments a few minutes ago. I would like to share this, and maybe the Liberal member could comment.

There are serious issues about what she had indicated, touting the amazing work of CIDA in Colombia. While there is some truth to what she is saying, we were concerned to learn that CIDA played a significant role in helping Colombia rewrite its mining code so as to make it more friendly for transnational investment and, consequently, much more difficult for local artisanal miners. This is all documented in a great book called, The Profits of Extermination: by Francisco Ramirez Cuellar.

How does this represent the poverty reduction and sustainable development that the member for Saint Boniface, with the help of the Liberals, espouses CIDA is so much about?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that some members of the New Democratic Party manage to see only the negative side of an issue like this one. Colombians could integrate themselves into the official economy if exports from Colombia and direct foreign investments continued to grow in that country. Economists agree—I am not talking about members of the NDP—that security in Colombia has improved considerably under the Uribe regime and that the demobilization of paramilitaries is on the right track.

During their trip to Colombia, the delegation met with civil society groups that are concerned about human rights. They talked about their concerns regarding former paramilitary groups in Colombia that have become criminal organizations involved in the drug trade. They met with a representative of the National Organization of Indigenous People of Colombia, who said that more consultation with indigenous communities is needed regarding issues such as investing and free trade, as well as protecting biodiversity.

If we only look for the negative aspects, we will definitely find them. However, if the New Democratic Party would like to show a bit of compassion, if it would like to help Colombian society, I think the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's discussion on this important topic. At one point he mentioned, in a general sense, some of the improvements that have in fact been occurring in Colombia in recent years with respect to crime and security in particular. I wonder if the member could perhaps expand on some of those themes for the House?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question and I would like to talk some more about the advantages, not the disadvantages. Much like his colleague earlier, the hon. member's question gives me the opportunity to continue along the same lines.

The Canadian delegation met with all kinds of people—some with decision-making authority, some opinion leaders and some from the business world. Human rights groups told the delegation that the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia must be firm when it comes to labour rights. During the trip, the delegation met with union leaders and representatives of industry. They told the delegation that narcotics trafficking can largely be attributed to the fact that, in Colombia's poor regions, especially in rural areas, there are no alternatives, and that legitimate trade opportunities must be created.

When there are few opportunities or alternatives in rural areas, of course crime is going to increase and narcotics trafficking will continue. As we all know, where there is a drug trade, people's safety will be jeopardized on a daily basis.

So, once again, we must look at the positive side in order to help Colombian society.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back and opening up our fall session with a discussion, as I said earlier, on a topic that is very important not only to Canada but also to Colombia.

There is no doubt members realize that especially during these economic times brought on by a global economic recession, it is vital for Canada to continue to keep its doors open for business opportunities where investment can grow. I have seen examples of this need right in my own riding of Simcoe North where producers and manufacturers, those involved in supplying key industries that would be able to expand and grow in a market like Colombia, would directly benefit.

It is a great delight to be part of a discussion that is advancing opportunities for investment and for business growth for Canadians.

The Colombia free trade agreement is part of this government's ongoing focus on expanding our interests in trade generally. As was commented on earlier in this debate, Canada has been active on a number of fronts, not just in the Americas but in Europe and Asia as well. All of this is vital in terms of expanding the reach and in turn the prosperity that companies can provide, operating here in Canada and supplying to markets and supply chains active in these new markets for our country.

Looking at our overall progress in the last few years, we need look back no more than four years to see that we have opened up new agreements with not only Colombia but also Peru, Jordan and Panama. Of course we are all familiar with the works that have been concluded in EFTA.

In addition to working on specific bilateral trade agreements, we are continuing to keep more trade offices open in emerging markets and those that we know are vital to our own interests.

We are helping to expand trade. We are opening doors for Canadian business and encouraging investment at a very critical time for our country. Through the Prime Minister's interest in expanding our interest in the Americas, this has been ongoing for close to three years.

I have mentioned some of the markets that we are already expanding into, but the Americas are of particular interest to Canada because of our geographic proximity, being in the same hemisphere.

This is an area where Canada can play an increasingly vital role not just in trade, but also in areas of defence and policies relating to our diplomatic efforts in our part of the world. When events unfold in this hemisphere, Canada's interests are more directly impacted and so our focus on trade and on greater and stronger ties with other nations in the Americas are of tremendous benefit not just to Canada but to all of the member countries that make up this hemisphere.

It should not be lost on members or those who are listening at home that we are not only achieving an economic benefit by these agreements but that we are also helping to reinforce our own national and security interests at the same time.

Let me take a moment to speak a bit more specifically about Colombia in particular.

Members have heard a number of points made on both sides of the questions, both pro and con. It cannot be lost on our audience in the House or on people who are tuning in that these kinds of agreements represent benefits not just for Canadians but also for Colombians.

On the whole issue of advancing human rights and making sure that we are recognizing important labour and environmental standards in the course of these agreements, it should be understood that the interests of advancing human rights and those of advancing economic benefits are not mutually exclusive. That is to say that one can benefit the other. They are indeed complementary activities that we need to be engaged in on both fronts, not just to create an economic upside.

We all recognize that Colombia is still moving along the path of better security at home and better recognition of human rights. Certainly, Canada has been active in advancing those interests. We are not there yet, but something like increased trade with a country like Colombia can move that along at a much quicker pace.

We need to realize that Colombia is not going to make much more progress on human rights if they become isolated by the international community. That is something that is certainly not lost on our interests here in Canada. Indeed, we have seen where Colombia is taking up the same kinds of discussions with the United States, the European Free Trade Association and, in the near term, with the European Union as well.

While we recognize that it is still not perfect there, we need to see that progress is being made and that the continued engagement of Canada and other international partners in Colombia is going to advance and improve the situation on the ground. We have made some terrific progress in the last four to five years.

What are the direct elements of a free trade agreement? I suspect these are items that may have been covered in earlier discussions, but I am delighted to see that this is the kind of free trade agreement that is going to include greater market access for goods, better cross-border trade and services and investment in the financial services sector and in government procurement. In this day and age, we know that in order for businesses in Canada or those in Colombia to be successful, they have to be part of an integrated industrial supply chain that is producing goods and services not just for their own markets but for the world.

The more we open up the doors to investment in other countries, the greater the chance that Canadian companies right here at home are going to be able to participate and supply goods and services to those transactions. It is not like it was a decade or more ago, when we looked for markets in isolated pockets. This is a large and growing global supply chain that our companies can play a greater part in and indeed they are doing so. As we open up more agreements just like this one, the upside for our companies becomes even greater.

I will go back to a point I made earlier with respect to benefits for Colombians themselves. Right off the bat, a free trade agreement like this is going to reduce if not eliminate tariffs for Colombian manufacturers, exporters and producers. They will then be able to increase trade with Canada and probably even expand into North American markets in the near term. More liberalized trade will expand investment and create more job opportunities for Colombians on the ground. However, the same can be said for those businesses that are part of that activity right here in Canada.

I am getting the sign that we are just about out of time here. I would just like to sum up and say that this is exactly the kind of activity that we need to continue to make a part of our priorities on the economic front. It is going to bring great results for us here at home. At the same time, it is going to be advancing security and interests important to that host country as well.

Let us continue to keep on with these kinds of free trade agreements. They are going to make the world a much better place. We know that to be true from our own examples these last few years.

I invite questions from the hon. members.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions.

First, could the member elaborate on the effect that Colombian investment has had in Canada, and vice versa, the effect that Canadian investment has had in Colombia?

Second, as chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, does the member have any comments on the relations between the Colombian government and aboriginal peoples? That matter has been raised earlier in this debate.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that at the moment, there is about $1.1 billion worth of trade between Canada and Colombia now. We know that a good portion of that is in some of the resource industries, in oil and gas and in the mining sector.

We also realize that because those are key industries for us here in Canada, there are a number of businesses that in fact supply that sector. I can think of one in my own neighbourhood that is producing tube and machinery parts and heavy equipment that become part of that trade mechanism. The absence of tariffs allows those industries to be more competitive, expand and grow, and create more jobs.

On the second point, and I appreciate the hon. member pointing this out, there is indeed an indigenous population in Colombia that needs to be just as well engaged as the union sector and other interests in making sure that those--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in my colleague's comments about the impact of this free trade deal on the Colombian people.

It has been shown in this House, through statistics garnered from Statistics Canada and processed by the parliamentary library, that the free trade arrangements we have made with the United States and other countries over the years have actually resulted in a greater disparity between upper-income and lower-income people in Canada.

In Colombia there is tremendous inequality at this time. With a free trade arrangement that is going to open up the potential for agri-businesses to move vast quantities of low-priced agricultural products into an indigenous population, where 22% use subsistence agriculture--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Simcoe North. Order, please.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but in all honesty, I could not disagree more.

The results of our work in expanding free trade have been nothing but positive. We realize and accept that these things do take time, but when trade and commerce can flourish in a market like that, incomes can improve, and as they do, a higher standard of living can be realized for citizens in both countries.

That is the target, and indeed what comes along with that is better security and a better ability to recognize and bring to some kind of balance the societal issues that are equally part of the kinds of difficulties that Colombia has. It is, however, not going to solve those without some ability on the economic side.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Simcoe North for his assistance on this bill and his interventions.

Second, I would like him to comment on the fact that the NDP has been very critical of this bill, but the reality is that it has never supported a free trade agreement that has gone through this House, not one time, ever.

This particular agreement has a labour cooperation agreement that will bring the elimination of child labour, allow for freedom of association and allow for the right to bargain collectively. I cannot understand why the NDP would not support this particular bill.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for making some very critical points that do in fact support the labour agreements that are integral to this.

I am just as confused as to why the New Democratic Party does not support these, because in fact they have a tremendous upside for Canadian workers. A party that purports to represent Canadian families should realize the kinds of benefits that come from an agreement like this.

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, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-23. I join with many of my colleagues in our attempt to deal with an amendment which would deny second reading to the bill at this point because of the failure of the government to follow procedure when it comes to the development of such an important endeavour.

The amendment moved by the Bloc and the subamendment by the NDP speak to the importance of the work of the committee which was engaged in the discussions around a free trade agreement with Colombia.

It is paramount that the issues have full examination. We have heard the debate. We have heard the divergence of views that exist on this issue. This bill is not well understood by the Canadian public. It is not accepted by many people within the Canadian public. Groups and organizations have spoken out vociferously against it. I have been receiving emails for months from individuals who would like this free trade deal stopped. I have received countless letters from my constituents on the subject.

This issue needs much further examination. The minister has pushed this bill forward without proper examination and without proper analysis. The result is that today in the House of Commons we are speaking to an amendment that would block the bill moving forward at second reading.

Why is this amendment important, and why do I support it? We have broken with our democratic practices. We are not fully taking into account the process for examination of significant legislation.

As well, we need to give full weight to evidence from civil society. That will not happen before the committee has completed its work, completed its evidentiary gathering, written its report and presented it to the House of Commons. Those steps are missing. They make up an absence of understanding around this particular bill.

Without that report in front of the government, the government will not be required to do a proper analysis on the legislation regarding the free trade deal. It has not done an analysis on many of the free trade deals that have come before this Parliament over the last year and a half. It is patently absurd that we enter into free trade deals based on ideology. I would like to turn that argument around on the Liberals and Conservatives who keep coming after us saying that we are against free trade and that we are standing up over and over again based on ideology.

The government is supporting free trade based on ideology, not on the analysis of the impact of the deal on the particular sectors that are going to be affected, not on the analysis of free trade arrangements as they have impacted Canadian society. That work has not been done. That work will not be done if the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition continue to support free trade on an ideological basis rather than on a practical and pragmatic basis.

The amendment as it stands is important. It takes away from the government the right to bring this bill forward without the kind of work that needs to be done. That is why NDP members and Bloc members are standing up to speak to this amendment over and over again. We want to see Parliament work correctly. We want to see Parliament work for all Canadians. We want legislators to act with a rational and reasoned approach based on correct analysis rather than a simple ideological commitment to free trade.

I will now turn to the larger issue of the essential elements that would be involved in a free trade arrangement with Colombia. This is something that has occupied much of the debate and I certainly will add to it.

Why does Colombia want a free trade deal? Why is it that Colombia is pushing for a free trade deal with Canada? Is it that the free trade arrangement it was looking for with the United States has been unsuccessful? Is that why the emphasis is on Canada now? Is it hoping to go through the back door to get what it wants? Is that what is going on with this deal? Is that why the emphasis has been on moving ahead with this free trade arrangement rather than taking the appropriate steps, rather than doing the proper analysis? We are creating an opportunity not only for Colombia to move ahead with the free trade deal but put pressure on U.S. legislators right now who, quite clearly, are asking why they would want to support a free trade deal with a country that does not meet the minimum standards of labour and environmental practices, of common decency toward its society. There is a lack of criminal action at the highest level within Colombia. The Colombian government for all intents and purposes has been led by quasi-criminals for the past dozen years. It has an incredibly bad record when it comes to dealing with its citizens. It has a record of turning a blind eye to the most malignant forms of oppression that occur in any part of South America and Central America.

Conservative members have talked about the improvement in the number of people who have been killed in Colombia. They have talked about the improvement in the number of trade union people who have been killed. Do they not think that the wholesale slaughter of trade union members over the past dozen years has led to people taking their own steps to avoid repression, to avoid being killed? That government in Colombia and its leadership has taken so many actions against people that people have had to be very circumspect in how they deal in their own society. Is that not more likely the case? The repression that has occurred for so many years in that country has now played out to a point where the number of murders committed by death squads and the number of potential victims has been reduced. That is what has brought down the numbers, I am sure. It stands to reason.

With that society and that repression, the Conservatives talk about going into a free trade agreement. They say that things are improving.

Do we not have a minimum standard that we should apply to any country before we enter into a preferred trade arrangement with that country?

It is not good enough to talk about improvement in the number of people killed. We need to examine the nature of the society that we are proposing to link up with. That is the kind of analysis the Conservative government has not done and will not do, because it does not believe anything should stand in the way of free trade.

The U.S. Congress has a different point of view. The members of Congress are not NDPers. We join with our colleagues in the United States in standing up against this proposed free trade arrangement,

Mr. Speaker, I see that I am running out of time. I am sure there will be many other New Democrats who will stand to continue this argument, because this argument is important to Canada, it is important to this Parliament and it is important to the people of Colombia as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's speech in terms of the fundamental question about what our obligation as legislators in Canada is to ensure full development of the Canadian economy and certain international standards of development.

My colleague kept raising the issue of ideological blinders on the Conservative Party. The Conservatives believe that the free movement of capital wherever, however, with whomever, is the only issue. It is a kind of hoodoo mysticism. They believe that as long as capital does what it wants, everything else will be fine.

We are talking about a murderous regime with a horrific record on human rights. Our colleagues in the United States, who in the past have supported some very murderous regimes, have raised clear objections. Clear objections have been raised to the Conservative government and yet it does not seem to have any interest whatsoever in addressing the serious abuses that are international in scope.

The Conservatives have thrown up this narrow fig leaf of respectability. They say that while fewer people are being killed now than before, that is an improvement. If we look at the history of Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua under the death squads, at a certain point there are not all that many people left to kill. The corollary to that is the fact that if enough examples are made out of people, it is hard to get other people to take their place. That is why they are called terror killings.

The whole point of terror killings is to make examples of people in villages, communities, factories and mines. An individual will be killed if he or she steps out of line. Mass murder does not have to be continued year after year to make it work. Examples just have to be made.

Even though we are hearing about fewer people being killed, we are still hearing about gross violations of human rights. This is only indicative that the policy of that outlaw regime is suppressing the basic rights and developments of the country.

Given the immense interest of the Canadian oil and gas sector and the Canadian mining sector in getting into Colombia to get at deposits, and the fact that the Conservative government is showing no interest whatsoever in establishing standards for human rights norms, what expectations does my colleague have that there will be any obligation on any company, Canadian, Chinese, whatever, going into Colombia to exploit its resources to have any obligation whatsoever to ensure that the communities affected will have some basic level of protection?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question that leads me to support the amendment in front of us.

We do not have the answer. We do not have the answer that says these are the rules that are going to drive development within the country. We cannot have the answer because this Parliament has not done a fulsome and complete dissection of that society to understand what kind of society we are entering into an agreement with.

Parliamentarians took a trip to Colombia. I have heard a variety of views about that trip. That trip was very carefully managed. Obviously that trip spoke to individuals who wanted to carry forward the government's message. When they were not speaking to those types of folks, the people who were being interviewed in some cases were almost terrified for their lives. Parliamentarians reported back on these things.

Where do we find the justification, the understanding of the society, to put forward a free trade deal which would bring our companies into the region under rules that are not comprehensible to Canadians and to Canadian businesses? We are putting our businesses at risk here. We are not doing them a favour in the long run. We are causing them potential grief.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this very important debate on the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia, trade not only brings economic opportunities, it brings dialogue between them. It brings ideals, beliefs and what they have in common. This trade agreement is very important. We have sees other trade agreements around the world, such as the NAFTA with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and how it forged our countries together, not only in trade but in our relationships with each other.

Very recently we went on a Middle East tour with the foreign affairs committee, and we talked to the people of Jordan. Jordan has a free trade agreement with Israel and Egypt. Those countries get along. They get along mostly because they are trading with each other. They are relying upon each other for exports and imports.

Regarding the European Union, with all the centuries of strife in Europe, one of the reasons it works so well in Europe is because they are traders now. It is very important that trade is happening around the world because it makes different societies and different nations get along.

Seven years ago, when I was on the trade committee, we went through South America. It was quite an eye-opener to see the potential in this region. We were there at the time we already had a free trade agreement with Chile. Our exports to Chile, such as paper products and airplane parts, increased when we had a deal with Chile, and we started buying products from it.

I remember that tour. We went all through those South American countries. With the ones that we had agreements with, especially Peru and Chile, there was a tremendous amount of trade. As well, air routes were open between those two countries, so there was a lot of dialogue.

We really should be looking at the potential for buying more products from Colombia. It is very strategic. We are in the northern hemisphere and we cannot get certain products here that it can provide. Right now we have SNC-Lavalin from Canada setting up shop there. There is so much we can gain.

A couple of years ago, when I was responsible for emerging economies in the previous government, I toured all these countries, especially the emerging economies in Asia. I saw how their economies were increasing and expanding, and it was mostly because of trade.

I visited the eastern European countries. After the Iron Curtain came down, we saw Poland, Romania and Hungary doing more trade with the rest of the world. Their economies got better. Their social networks got better. Even the labour laws got better in these countries because of trade.

We should not be so afraid of having a free trade agreement with Colombia. It is going to be very good for both countries.

We have to think of the situation right now in South America. Venezuela is strong-arming Colombia. It is helping with the guerrillas who are fighting the Colombian government. We should help Colombia break away from its dependence on Venezuela and the few countries it is trading with. We have to do trade with Colombia, because if it stays in the situation, it will constantly have strife and its economy will not expand.

We are not the first country to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. I mentioned the European Union, which already has a trade agreement with Colombia. The countries of the European Union are all democratic countries. They have very vibrant trade unions. They are committed to human rights. They see the merit of having a free trade agreement with Colombia. If they have seen the merit and gone through all the hoops, we should be looking at it.

We see other countries stepping up to the plate to do trade with Colombia, such as the Scandinavian countries, Britain, the Netherlands, France and Germany. They are all helping Colombia prosper. There is a saying about prosperity, that people will flourish when things are happening, business is good, and people have jobs. But when people do not have jobs and economies are bad, it is very hard, especially on young people.

I remember visiting Syria. Syria and Cuba are boxed in and they do not have a lot of trade. There are a lot of young people in the streets who are not working. They do not see any hope in trade or business. They do not see any future. Many times in these countries, and it has happened in Colombia, they fall for the other side of the economy. That is not good. In Colombia, it is narcotics. A lot of young people have nowhere else to work but in those industries.

A lot of countries that do not have trade agreements and are not trading with the rest of the world are boxed in. They have a lot of young people. It brings nothing but strife and they cannot move forward. It is very important that we are one of the leaders on the trade agreement with Colombia.

Canadians are traders. We are one of the biggest countries in the world, with one of the world's smallest populations, and look at how much trade we do in a day. We are importing almost $1 billion and exporting almost $1.5 billion a day. When we look at the world, those numbers are tremendous for a small population of 30 million people. However, we are traders. We believe in trade, and we have to show leadership.

For 40 years, Colombia has been paralyzed and divided. They have been desperate. There is violence. Legitimate trade, not trade in narcotics, is what will bring Colombians out of it. We have to foster that trade and we have to help them.

I was talking to the member for Kings—Hants, who mentioned that even the U.S. is making a trade deal. The NDP talks about labour standards and how bad they are in Colombia. The member for Kings—Hants was there, and he said they have the strongest and best labour standards in the world. The biggest problem is that they do not have enough inspectors on the ground to make sure those rules are followed. Canada is helping them fund their labour inspectors so they can fulfill and push those rules.

We should not have a free trade agreement carte blanche. We should have labour laws and human rights attached to it. That is the way we should look at it. There is no reason we cannot. We have done this with other trade agreements.

It would be best to move the bill forward to the trade committee. I have been on the trade committee and I know how it works. Committee members are very efficient and they move fast. They will go through the legislation quickly. Let us dissect it and make sure those things are in place that some Canadians are concerned about.

Instead of stopping the legislation from moving forward, NDP members should be thinking about the people of Colombia. They should be thinking of companies like SNC-Lavalin that are working there. They should be thinking about the products we could pull out of Colombia that could make our lifestyle better, whether it is cut flowers, coffee or many of the produce items that we cannot grow in the winter. These are all reasons to move forward with the legislation.

There have been quite a few speakers over the last few days. There was a lot of information brought out, but some of it was misinformation. We should correct that for the record. We should look at this free trade agreement, because Canada is a leader in free trade agreements. It should not stop there, and we should help it move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speakers from the Liberal Party on this issue for the last couple of days, and we certainly have a variety of views. The member for Mississauga South gave a very reasoned argument yesterday about why members should oppose this agreement but he seems to have been counteracted by members of his party who are in favour of it.

I wonder how far the Liberal members would want to go. If they are prepared to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia, would they sign a free trade agreement with North Korea? At what point do we have to ask for an independent analysis and study, and what is the harm of that?

Why not take a little longer, do a study on human rights, rather than rushing forward and joining government members who seem to be determined to sign a free trade agreement at all costs, as quickly as possible. The United States Congress has held back. The Obama administration has held back on endorsing this agreement, as has the British government. Both of these countries are our allies in the world, in Afghanistan and other places. The British government has pulled back on its military aid to the country because of human rights abuses. Certainly the killings are not decreasing, as the Conservatives are suggesting, so why--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will cut off the hon. member to allow the member for Sydney—Victoria a chance to respond.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the dialogue is interesting. I was talking to the member for Kings—Hants, who has just been down to Washington. The Obama administration is fully in favour of this trade agreement. I do not know where members opposite are getting their numbers or what is happening in the U.S., but it is fully in favour of it.

The member brought up North Korea. North Korea has nuclear weapons of mass destruction, whereas here we are helping a country get out of trading narcotics. We are helping a country step forward. How can members make that comparison with North Korea? It is mind boggling.

Going back to where we stand on this side of the House, I come here as the member of Parliament for Cape Breton who was a business person, who traded with these countries and traded all over the world. I know how important trade is for Canadians. I know important trade is for those young people in Colombia who are going to move forward. The proper way to go is to put the bill before committee and let the committee go through it.

But to the NDP, which is against every free trade agreement and believes we can somehow trade among ourselves and survive in this country, where would we buy the oranges and the coffee?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague to discuss the situation on this free trade agreement and our party's position, versus the position of the NDP which was brought up earlier. The confusing part was with respect to the earlier speaker. They want to study it further when in fact they want to do what the NDP used to use, which was the wrecking ball diplomacy type of action. Lately NDP members have been a little more collegial, and I do not know what compels that, but in this case we are certainly arguing for further study on this.

Also, because the member does have an agricultural background, I would like him to talk about some of the sectors that will benefit from this free trade deal with Colombia.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the area of Newfoundland and Labrador is also a big trader, in fish products, oil and gas and also from the mines.

From my perspective, I was a trader before I went into politics. I did business in these countries and I could see the difference. When they start buying and selling goods, people start visiting these countries. They learn ideas. It is more than just money. It is that thing that happens between countries. What better way to open our doors to Colombians visiting Canada than to teach them how our laws, infrastructure and social networks work and show them the way.

The important fact was brought up that we are not passing this bill today. We are bringing the bill to committee, and that is the best place to tidy it up.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the member for Sydney—Victoria and his insight and expertise in this regard.

I am honoured today to speak to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, Bill C-23, for some very good reasons as I will outline. Not just for the benefit of the great Kenora riding but for regions across Canada this is another important step in opening up trade throughout the world.

Canada is taking action during these difficult economic times by reaching out to our trade partners in reducing barriers to trade. This is not just about Latin America. This agreement provides Canadian companies with a competitive edge in many sectors, including wheat and paper products, which in northwestern Ontario, in the great Kenora riding, we feel we have an advantage in this regard. Mining is another strong economic driver in the great Kenora riding, as well as oil and gas, engineering and information technology.

These are just some of the examples of the government's efforts to strengthen our own economy and deepen Canada's presence in Latin America.

I understand some of the concerns outlined by our colleagues. Labour and environmental standards are important. However, labour and environmental standards are addressed within this free trade agreement. The side agreement with Colombia on labour and the environment will help ensure that this free trade agreement advances the cause of human rights and environmental protection in both countries.

The labour provisions commit all parties to this agreement to respect and enforce standards such as the elimination of child labour, freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively.

Environmental provisions will help protect and conserve the environment in those sectors where our country is active.

Obviously, during these tough economic times, it is more important than ever to open up new markets for Canadian companies. That is why our government has negotiated new free trade agreements, like this one with Colombia that we are debating today.

This agreement will create new jobs for Canadians and for Colombians as well. There are very strict labour and environmental standards included in this agreement. These standards help guarantee that these agreements will help advance the cause of human rights and the protection of the environment in the country. Colombia cannot make progress if we isolate it. We believe that political involvement, development assistance and free trade are all key to achieving success in Colombia.

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

The February 2008 report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia stated:

[It must be] recognized that Colombia has made progress in restoring security throughout the country in recent years, and the visibility given to human rights in the public agenda is a solid achievement

While important progress has been made, the Government of Canada continues to recognize that there are challenges in the overall human rights situation in Colombia. However, it is important to look at some interesting recent history, the context in which this agreement has arisen and the key content of the agreement that helps to serve some of the concerns we have heard from members of different political stripes in the House today and those that concern us as well.

In 2007 two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia totalled more than $1.1 billion. That is significant by anyone's standards. It is certainly an important part of our history. Between 2005 and 2007, Canada provided over $33 million in development assistance to Colombia, mostly to address the rights of these vulnerable populations, which concern us not just in Colombia but throughout the world.

Articles 1603 and 1604 in chapter 16 of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement set out the two countries' objectives and obligations with respect to labour. Annex 2 of the parallel agreement on labour co-operation sets out a maximum fine of $15 million for failing to respect the obligations set out in the agreement.

It is worth noting that the international labour agreement represents the highest grade of labour standards. The labour agreement covers the right to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of discrimination, providing protections for occupational safety and health and minimum employment standards such as minimum wage and overtime pay.

Things are improving in Colombia right now. Colombia's social and security improvements since 2002 under the Uribe government are getting better. Between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings decreased by 87%. Homicide rates dropped by 44%. Moderate poverty has dropped from 55% to 45%. Colombia has attained coverage of 94% in basic education and 31% in higher education. These are important achievements.

We have an obligation to be there vis-à-vis this trade relationship to help it further its causes in these important areas. As a registered nurse, this is something that is close to home. We recognize that some form of health system currently covers 90.4% of the population, while the population subsidized by the state has doubled over the last five years to 23 million people. Universal health care coverage is expected in 2010.

I would submit that with solidified relationships, again vis-à-vis this free trade agreement and other important activities in which we engage in Latin America and Colombia, we can hopefully show them the way. Having advanced the cause of universal health care for some time now, we are leaders in the world with respect to providing some of the best universally accessed health care coverage in the world.

The Canadian International Development Agency is continuing with important ongoing assistance. Between 2006 and 2008, CIDA provided more than $32 million for projects and initiatives in Colombia. Since 1972, the total amount of CIDA contributions is $355 million.

There are more than 350,000 internally displaced persons with comprehensive protection and access to base social services in that country and training programs for more than 12,000 civil servants in the new Colombian law, on children and adolescents.

There are several other examples of how we are working in important areas. We have talked about health, education, improving conditions and outcomes for poverty and our relationships in these regards.

Through this free trade agreement, I am confident we will be able to continue to strengthen and build on this important relationship, not just in Colombia but throughout Latin America and other parts of the world. These kinds of free trade agreements would benefit not just Canada or the great Kenora riding but also the countries that we engage with in these important trading relationships.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member, as well as others today. I have also read through the material and they have convinced me that the right way to go is to adopt this free trade agreement.

A number of constituents in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga have approached me or have written to me about concerns regarding this agreement. The concerns generally revolve around the area of corporate social responsibility and the labour agreement as it relates to child labour, occupational safety and health concerns and the employment standards.

I know the member commented on those. Could he assure the people in my riding and Canadians in general that in fact these points are very clearly covered in this free trade agreement?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. As I highlighted in my speech, these are important principles not just in terms of how we do business in Canada but the image that we will put out on the world stage when we engage in trade agreements with other parts of North America, Latin America, South America and borders beyond.

It is imperative that we carry these core principles, the same ones we have here with respect to labour standards, with respect to protecting children's interests in terms of being exploited through labour and with respect to environmental protection, ensuring that we carry out the same kinds of activities by standards here in those countries. This trade agreement gives us an opportunity to lead by example and work with these countries in developing important standards in the regards that the hon. member has pointed out.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of the questions and comments have been around human rights and it is very appropriate. I sit on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, so it is certainly paramount in my mind as well.

However, there has been less talk about the competitiveness of Canada and the need for us to continue to go down the bilateral free trade agreement route to ensure we have lots of partners that have common interests, so we can help them prosper while we prosper rather than having only the one venue, the World Trade Organization, to rely on for our trade.

My colleague has done such a great job at elucidating on why the free trade agreement with Colombia is so beneficial. How will these bilateral agreements specifically benefit us in the future and why is it necessary for us to say yes to them and more free trade agreements in the future?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question, these bilateral agreements are particularly important. It is gives us an opportunity to break through, to get into the countries where we can have relationships that highlight some of the strengths of our economy. Things like wheat, as I had mentioned, paper products, mining, oil and gas, energy production, engineering and information technology are all important activities in which we are world leaders.

It is fair to say that we consider ourselves to be among the world's top people in many of these categories, if not at least near the top. By entering into these bilateral trade agreements, we focus on a relationship that can be productive between two countries and really maximize or optimize the value for both countries and ensure more direct relationships. As I said earlier, they benefit both countries in so many ways.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak today to Bill C-23. A number of Bloc Québécois members have spoken before me to say just how opposed we are to this free trade agreement.

We must make no mistake and most certainly not fall into the demagoguery of the Conservatives. We in the Bloc, unlike the NDP, support free trade agreements, except that we favour agreements that are well prepared, well structured and concluded with countries with which we will have a useful exchange and a real advantage in doing business.

The Conservative government's prime motivation for concluding this free trade agreement has nothing to do with trade. On the contrary, it has to do with investments. As the agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining.

One reason the Liberal Party proposed a bill on the social responsibility of mining companies is that they have a huge problem in Latin America—and we have seen this repeatedly—establishing a minimum of decorum and respecting the environment and local populations. I will come back to this.

Colombia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world and certainly in Latin America. In order to promote human rights in the world, governments generally use the carrot and the stick. They support efforts to improve respect for human rights and reserve the right to withdraw benefits should the situation worsen. With the conclusion of this free trade agreement, the Conservative government will deprive itself of extraordinary means to improve the economy and human rights in regions greatly in need of such improvement.

The government keeps telling us that it is combining the agreement with a side agreement on labour and another on the environment. Such agreements are notoriously ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement and so investors could destroy the rich Colombian environment unpunished, move communities to make it easier for themselves to establish their mines and continue to assassinate trade unionists.

As for the free trade agreement itself, the Bloc Québécois is not prepared to trade the ability of the government to exert pressure to promote respect for human rights for the ability of Canadian companies to invest abroad.

I will provide a few figures to discuss Colombia's investment with Quebec. Imports for 2008 amounted to $88 million. This figure is half a per cent lower than that of 2007. Quebec's imports from Colombia represent some 14% of Canada's overall imports. Exports in 2008 amounted to $120 million, which represents 17% of Canada's exports to Colombia. Quebec's exports increased by slightly less than 2% over 2007. This means that Colombia is fifth in terms of Canada's exports to Latin America and the Caribbean. It is seventh in terms of imports from this region. This means that Canada has much more favoured trading partners than Colombia. Here lies the interest. Why conclude such a botched free trade agreement with Colombia, when we have far more attractive partners in Latin America? The Conservative government, however, wants nothing to do with these alleged parties, such as Brazil and Venezuela, which are far too leftist or socialist for its tastes.

In recent years, trade between Canada and other Latin American countries has increased considerably, reducing trade with Colombia proportionately compared with other countries in the region.

Canada's main exports are cars and car parts, along with grains, which affects only western Canada. There is absolutely no advantage for Quebec. In 2007, those exports totaled 23% and 19% respectively. The vast majority of Canadian investments in Colombia are in the mining sector, which, as I was saying earlier, is facing serious ethical problems in terms of the environment.

In light of this information regarding trade between Canada, Quebec and Colombia, we in the Bloc Québécois are having a very hard time understanding why Canada would want to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia.

When two countries enter into free trade agreements, it usually means they are special trading partners who trade sufficiently to make it worthwhile to lower tariff and trade barriers. Proof of this lies in the fact that Quebeckers were the greatest advocates of the free trade agreement with the United States in the 1980s. In particular, the former Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, comes to mind. He was a major supporter of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement for one, very simple reason, namely, that Canada and the United States have always enjoyed a very good trade relationship benefiting both sides. We are talking about two countries with very similar economies overall, which facilitates a certain degree of synergy. Therefore Canada, and Quebec in particular, stood to gain a great deal from doing business with the Americans without any tariffs.

In this situation, we have to admit that, quite frankly, the Colombian market is not a very big one, and that trade between Canada and Colombia is extremely limited compared to what we can do with other Latin American countries. Canada's primary export there is western grain, which we have no trouble finding takers for because of the food crisis. Exporters in Quebec and Canada will benefit only marginally from this agreement.

We can see how some Canadian companies might find this tempting, but we do not see how the people of Quebec will benefit. That is the crux of the debate. The government wants to sign this free trade agreement not because of trade but, as I said earlier, because of investments. This agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, making it easier for Canadian companies to invest in Colombia.

The moment any legislation—such as environmental protection legislation—cuts into a foreign investor's profits, the government will open itself up to staggering lawsuits. But over the years, Ottawa has signed a number of bilateral agreements modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA. There was so much criticism that the Liberals—who were in power at the time—stopped signing such agreements. I find it very strange that the Liberals, who realized back in the 1990s that it was a bad idea to sign agreements like the one the Conservative government has just introduced, are once again flip-flopping.

I have to say that we are getting used to the Liberals' 180s. Under the Conservatives, Ottawa is now on the offence and is negotiating all kinds of agreements like this one. In this case, the Conservative government is handing responsibility for deciding what is in the best interest of the people over to multinationals. Things are getting very dangerous.

The Bloc Québécois opposes the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Colombia because it contains clauses based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. Our party is asking the government to revert to the old treaty formula, which did not give multinationals control at the expense of the common good.

As I was saying earlier, free trade agreements are generally signed with countries that have similar economies. The reason is quite simple: investment protection measures can hold back development in a poor country because they give corporations the power to take a government to court if it adopts legislation or regulations that would diminish the returns of their investors. It is quickly apparent from the socio-economic data that Canada and Colombia are very different. For instance, in 2007, 47% of the Colombian population lived below the poverty line and 12% lived in abject poverty. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, poverty is most prevalent in rural areas. In 2006, poverty affected 68% of rural areas, which is completely different than the biased data provided by the Conservatives in order to pass this bill. The latter came from the Colombian government and not from data based on facts, such as the UN data.

I am told that I have one minute remaining. Therefore I will move along fairly quickly.

I would like to provide a few figures. The Conservatives said that Colombia has made great progress in social terms. Since 1986, 2,690 unionists have been killed, 39 were murdered in 2007 and these murders have increased by 18% in 2008 to 46%.

This means it is time to come to our senses and to vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech on the situation in Colombia. I have a question for him.

Look at the situation now in Colombia. My colleague mentioned the number of union members who have been assassinated over the last few years and the number of people who have been displaced by mining and agri-food companies. It is about 250,000 people.

We hear the Conservatives say that a free trade agreement will improve the lot of the disadvantaged and will stimulate business. People will work more and their situation will improve.

I do not agree because this all depends, of course, on the will of the government in power. If the government does not support disadvantaged people and populations and assassinates those who are union members, I am not so sure a trade agreement will do them a lot of good.

I would like to know what my colleague from Repentigny has to say about this.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé very much for his extraordinarily good question and on his fantastic knowledge of these matters. I must say it gives rise to some very good exchanges in caucus.

My colleague was talking about the problematic view that if we deprive ourselves of the carrot and the stick, we will prevent Colombia from developing. If mining companies, for example, settle in Colombia, they will continue doing the deeply distressing work they do. We are not against the exploitation of natural resources, but there is a need for a minimum amount of good behaviour and respect for the environment.

I want to provide the House with a few figures the Conservatives probably do not have because they always base themselves on data that are totally false. They have not even read the committee’s report, as my colleague said. I asked the Conservatives about this yesterday, but got no answer. The U.S. State Department says another 305,000 people were displaced in 2007. In 2008, more than 380,000 people had to flee their homes or places of work because of the violence. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, there will be a 25% increase in 2008 in the number of people displaced.

I fail to see how the free trade agreement presented to us here could do much to help local populations facing all the injustices they face.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech and on injecting some humanity and intelligence into this debate.

I was a trade unionist myself, prior to being elected to the House of Commons in October. I worked for a trade union for 16 years.

Were I to be in Colombia, I might not be standing here today. This is not just numbers on a page. Two thousand six hundred and ninety trade unionists have been murdered by the Colombian regime since 1986. Twenty-seven trade unionists were murdered this year.

I come from Vancouver where 29 people were killed in gangland killings this year. If we had 27 trade unionists killed in this country in the last nine months, I wonder if the government would crack down as it has cracked down on crime. It is tough on crime, but it is not tough on Colombian crime when there are 27 people who were murdered because they had the audacity to stand up for rights for their fellow brothers and sisters in the trade union movement. We do not sign trade deals with people like that. The government, if it applied the same logic, would be signing trade deals with the gangs in Vancouver.

I would like to know from my hon. colleague what he has to say about the government's approach to crime and to trade union rights in Colombia.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Repentigny has only one minute.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

I want to congratulate my colleague on the question he asked me. It was extremely brilliant. I can tell it comes from the bottom of his heart.

What we honestly see here is the demagogy the Conservatives resort to all day long. First they tell us they are tough on crime, they are going to set things straight, and they act tough, and then they have no problem doing business with the Government of Colombia at a time when 30 members of the Colombian Parliament are under arrest and most of them are close to the Uribe family.

I think that is really ironic. We have a government that says it is tough on crime and claims to solve problems but the first thing it does is sign agreements indiscriminately.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I would like to start by congratulating the hon. Minister of International Trade and all of his officials for their hard work in securing this agreement. In these tough economic times we need to be doing everything that we can to open doors for Canadians, to create new commercial opportunities around the world and to work with our partners to help our citizens succeed.

As in other Latin American countries, Colombia needs the support of Canada to overcome its challenges and to ensure continued economic development. We would not want to turn our backs on the government of Colombia and send a negative message, not only to Colombians but to all those in the Americas who look forward to increased trade bringing prosperity and improved governance to the region.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is an important part of this commitment to the Americas and a demonstration of this government's commitment to help all Canadians move through these tough economic times.

As previous speakers have indicated, this agreement is about more than trade and investment. It includes parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment as well. We have a strong and comprehensive labour co-operation agreement that will help improve labour standards for Colombian workers in many different sectors.

I know that some hon. members have raised concerns about the potential impact of free trade agreements on workers. It is an important concern for this government as well.

I want to assure members that this government firmly believes that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights. This government is committed to working with Colombia to improve labour standards and to help Colombia protect its workers. That is why the Canada-Colombia labour co-operation agreement, or LCA, is so very important. This labour co-operation agreement goes beyond what was negotiated on labour in the context of previous agreements and serves as a reference point for future labour agreements to be negotiated between Canada and the developing countries.

In this light, this agreement commits both countries to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. As we know, the ILO declaration covers a wide range of workers' rights and obligations: the right of freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination.

However, our agreement with Colombia goes even further. It commits both countries to provide acceptable protections for occupational health and safety, for migrant workers will now enjoy the same legal protections as nationals in terms of working conditions, and for minimum employment standards covering such things as minimum wages and hours of work.

As we can appreciate, these commitments are only as strong as the dispute resolution mechanisms and penalties backing them up. That is why I am pleased to see that the agreement includes appropriate penalties for not living up to these commitments.

To ensure the highest possible compliance, the agreement provides for an open, transparent and streamlined complaints and dispute resolution process. As part of this, members of the public can submit complaints to either government concerning non-compliance of a party with its labour laws and the provisions under the ILO declaration.

If the matter cannot be resolved, an independent panel review process kicks in, which may require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a co-operation fund to be used to resolve the matter identified through the dispute resolution process.

It is absolutely false to state that murder of a trade unionist will be penalized by a fine. Nowhere in the FTA or LCA does it state, directly or indirectly, that the murder of a trade unionist will result in a fine. Murders of any kind are a judicial matter and will continue to be fully prosecuted under Colombian laws.

The Colombian government has demonstrated resolve in recent years to fight impugnity for such crimes. The murder of one union leader is one too many. The government of Colombia has committed significant financial resources for the investigation and prosecution of violent acts against union leaders and members through a special unit of the Office of the Attorney General.

In addition, through the protection program for vulnerable groups, the government of Colombia is providing protection for labour union members, their families and other potentially targeted groups, such as politicians, journalists and civil leaders. These are clear examples of the Colombian government's resolve.

Canadian citizens expect that the Government of Canada will remain committed to preventing those murders and other forms of intimidation and will prosecute those who are responsible.

I would like to reiterate that the fines payable under the labour agreement are not designed to punish specific criminal acts. They are designed to help ensure compliance with and respect for domestic and international labour obligations.

Moneys placed in the co-operation fund would be disbursed according to an agreed upon action plan, which means Canada would have considerable leverage in ensuring that the matters under dispute are effectively resolved.

Through the Canada-Colombia LCA, Canadians would have a unique tool at their disposal to ensure that the Colombian government continues to demonstrate the political will and provide the necessary resources to improve the labour situation.

At the same time, we clearly recognize the challenges that a nation like Colombia faces in complying with every standard that is set out in this agreement. Nevertheless, Canada believes that the compliance with the obligations of this agreement can be achieved, not only through a robust dispute resolution mechanism but also through enhanced technical co-operation.

That is why our agreement would be complemented with a $1 million labour-related technical co-operation program and has started to implement projects in Colombia to promote and enforce internationally recognized labour standards, particularly in the areas of labour inspection, tripartite consultation, enforcement of labour rights and occupational safety and health. This is a program that would help Colombia enforce its domestic laws and meet the very highest standards established by this agreement. It is a program that would foster greater dialogue and co-operation between workers, employers and governments to address labour issues. Despite the fact that these groups' relations have been marked by polarization in Colombia, improved collaboration between these social actors is facilitating a culture of enhanced social dialogue and better governments.

Canada is committed to helping our Colombian partners make the most out of our new free trade agreement.

As we are aware, this government is re-engaging with our partners in the Americas and also promoting the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity. We see improving working rights in the Americas as a fundamental part of this pursuit.

More broadly, we are committed to playing an active role in promoting human rights across Latin America and throughout the Caribbean, and that includes Colombia.

Since 1972, Canada's development assistance program has invested $355 million toward helping Colombia and focuses on human rights, specifically the rights of children, youth and displaced persons.

Over the last two years alone, we have provided $32 million in development assistance to Colombia.

We are one of the largest supporters of the Organization of American States' work in Colombia to support peace and demobilize paramilitary forces in that country. Our global peace and security fund is helping to promote peace, protect victims' rights and help strengthen Colombia's judicial system. Our embassy in Colombia has also been very active on many fronts to support efforts in that country. Canada enjoys a frank and open dialogue with Colombia's government at the most senior levels.

All this to say that Canada takes human rights in Colombia very seriously and this commitment extends to workers' rights. We believe that free trade can play a positive role in the country's economic and social life, and workers' rights fit squarely into this principle.

We will continue to guide our engagement with our Colombia and our partners throughout the hemisphere.

During these tough economic times, this government is committed to helping Canadians complete and succeed in the global economy and we are doing so through an aggressive and principled approach to free trade, an approach that includes a strong focus on workers' rights.

I would like to reiterate that Canada does not and will not ignore the difficult labour and human rights situation in Colombia. Nevertheless, we believe that engagement with a government committed to improving the situation is the right course of action. Canada will continue to monitor developments and progress in the labour area in Colombia.

Canada believes that economic development and the enforcement of labour rights will strengthen the social foundations of Colombia. It will reduce violence and bring greater prosperity for all of its citizens.

For those reasons, I ask all hon. members for their support of this agreement and of the many efforts to help Canada thrive in the global economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a bit of surprise and great interest to my hon. colleague's talk about how to bring dialogue among the various labour and capital that exists.

I was actually pleased to hear the member say that one death of a trade unionist was too much. I would like to ask him about Tique Adolfo who was killed on January 1 in the municipality of Prado (Tolima). That murder took place while our government was having its frank discussions with Colombia. What steps were taken to ensure that murder would be the only murder?

On January 7, Ricardo Rasedo Guerra Diego was murdered in Colombia. On January 16, Arled Samboni Guaca was murdered in Colombia by paramilitaries. Leovigildo Mejia was murdered on January 28. I could go on and on. Every week of this year, while our government was having its frank discussions, people have been taken out of their homes in Colombia and shot.

What concrete steps has the member or his government taken to investigate these murders and to bring the perpetrators from those paramilitary death squads to justice.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, one murder of a trade unionist or of any person is one too many, but Canada has been helping in this regard. We have been taking action and there have been positive developments in Colombia.

Between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings decreased by 87%. Homicide rates have dropped by 44%. It is not perfect but this agreement is a step in the right direction. It would give Canadians some leverage and some ability to have a say in what is going on there. We have been taking positive actions.

This agreement, as I laid out in my presentation, would bring a lot of positive developments to relations between Canada and Colombia. It is a positive step forward and it would continue to allow Canadians to engage with Colombia in a positive fashion.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Leeds—Grenville for giving an excellent speech on this issue and explaining to us in more detail the free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada.

I do know that in 2008 there was $704 million worth of exports from Canada to Colombia. Therefore, it obviously is not a new thing for Canada and Colombia to do business with each other. We have had free trade agreements with the United States for some time. We just recently entered into free trade agreements with some of the smaller European countries and we are currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the European Union.

Could the hon. member tell us how he feels free trade agreements help us to expand our worldwide markets?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, in these challenging economic times, it is important that we reach out around the world and create new markets. Our government really is pursuing an aggressive trade agenda with the Americas, Europe, India, the Middle East and China.

This gives me an opportunity to talk about something that happened right in my riding of Leeds--Grenville just this past weekend. The Canadian Thousand Islands and the 1000 Islands in China have signed an agreement of co-operation and friendship. Some folks came over from China. The Chinese ambassador was there. Our Minister of the Environment, who is also responsible for Parks Canada, was there. This is another example of reaching out around the world.

This government has been very proactive in working around the world and pushing Canada out there, which will not only help us in terms of our relations around the world but will help Canadians and help create jobs, which is what we all know we need, especially in these challenging economic times.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given that this is my first occasion to stand in the House on the resumption of our duties here, I want to say how personally pleased I am to be back with all my colleagues in all the parties, notwithstanding the clear challenges we face in this particular session.

There has been much debate in the House but also outside on the subject of the pros and cons of freer trade between Canada and Colombia. There has been much concern about human rights and I want to commend all the parties for expressing those legitimate concerns. I firmly believe that everyone in the House is very concerned about the protection of human rights, the protection of workers' rights, the protection of labour standards. I believe that every member of the House believes very strongly in those issues, and certainly no one here condones the deterioration of human rights. No one encourages any kind of deterioration of human rights. On the contrary, everyone in the House and Canadians as a whole want to encourage improvement in human rights, labour standards and workers' rights around the world, and that includes Colombia.

However, the big question is, how do we do that? In this context where we are talking about encouraging freer trade with Colombia, this is not just a question of economics. I personally, and certainly the Liberal Party, believe very strongly in free trade, both in principle but also in action. Again, it is not purely from an economic perspective that we take that position. I believe very strongly in constructive engagement, and this is an opportunity for Canada and Canadians to help Colombia and Colombians in improving their situation, not only from an economic perspective but also from a human rights perspective, an education perspective and generally a lifting of the conditions in Colombia for Colombians.

Those who suffer behind walls do not benefit from the building of those walls any higher. Those who suffer behind walls benefit from the tearing down of those walls. I as a Liberal and a Canadian feel very strongly that the more we engage with countries like Colombia, the more we engage not just on an economic basis but using those economic and commercial relations to engage more fully in terms of educational transfers, cultural engagement and dialogue, that increased economic and commercial transactions, increased economic activity between Canadians and Colombians will ensure an opportunity for that much more dialogue about the challenges being faced.

We also see the international community nearly unanimous in saying that what is happening in Colombia is moving in the right direction. I do not think there is a country in this world that can say their human rights record is perfect. Canadians every once in a while need very strongly to look in our own mirror and recognize that we are not perfect either.

So there is not a country in this world that is perfect in terms of its human rights record, but the opportunity for Canadians to engage in dialogue through commercial transactions, through increased economic activity and on all the levels that would accompany that, provides us with the opportunity to help Colombians in achieving improvements in their own situation in their country.

Canada alone will not change Colombia, but Canadians and Colombians working more closely together have an opportunity to achieve significant improvement. If we look at increased economic activity, more investment by Canadians in Colombia will provide opportunities for more Canadians to work in Colombia. That provides opportunity for more Colombians to work with Canadians and to engage in more dialogue and to see what we do in this country. We have an opportunity to show where there could be improvements, what we have been able to do to achieve significant high standards in this country. That provides an opportunity for Colombians to see what Canadians have been able to accomplish.

I will repeat, Canada will not change Colombia; Colombians will. The Colombians will be in a much better position to do the improvements they need to achieve in their country with the support of countries like Canada and Canadians.

I will go back to the fact that every party and member in the House has expressed concerns. I will repeat that I believe all parties need to be commended for their concern. The debate is, how do we help Colombia achieve improvements? It is not just an economic question, it is a question of an opportunity to help that country move forward.

We have heard lots of statistics of all sorts of challenges in Colombia. I will go back to the fact that, for virtually every country in this world, we can point to statistics and examples of things that have been quite devastating. The fact that there have been challenges in Colombia does not mean, by any means, that we as Canadians should turn our backs and help build higher walls. Those very challenges suggest that we take this opportunity to help and improve.

As I said, many in the international community have seen President Uribe and certain members of his government make really strong efforts for improvement. My hon. colleague from Leeds—Grenville has pointed out significant statistics in terms of some of the improvements.

These are opportunities we have to say to the people of Colombia that they are on the right track and we recognize that they are on the right track. We recognize that it is not perfect, but by greater economic engagement, greater commercial transactions, and greater involvement and engagement by Canadians with Colombians, and Colombians with Canadians, we can build on commercial transactions for greater engagement on an educational level and a cultural level, and simply on the basis of much greater dialogue. That will give us the opportunity.

As I said, Canada will not change Colombia, Colombians will, but Colombians will be in a much better position to do so with the help of Canada and Canadians.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and appreciated the comments by the hon. member. She said the reason we should support this agreement is because it will further dialogue.

I am waiting to hear from Liberal representatives and Conservative members who agreed to the North American agreement, which included the side agreements on the environment and provided for an independent forum, a council headed by the environment ministers of the countries, a secretariat that provided for an independent entity that will actually work with them and provide that genuine opportunity for dialogue on environmental matters that relate to human rights in that country.

How can she defend this extremely watered-down agreement? How is it that we are treating Colombians in a different way than Americans and Mexicans?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for me, it is a much larger question than a specific agreement, a specific signed document. It is a greater element of my personal belief, and I believe I can speak for the Liberal Party in this, our overall belief, that greater engagement itself will inspire and encourage greater dialogue.

It is not so much a question of regulating specific requirements. We can put into any agreement we want all sorts of specific requirements, milestones and things that we need to see met, but we all know what happens with international agreements in those areas. We all know and my hon. colleague has highlighted the fact that in some cases those do not necessarily achieve the specific goals they were intended to achieve.

I am pragmatic in that sense. I recognize that those are some of the challenges. My position, however, is that it is the larger aspect of greater engagement and involvement. When business people engage in transactions, they meet, they talk, they see each other in action and in their respective cultures and environments, and they see how they can do better.

It is not perfect, but I firmly believe there is an opportunity for constructive engagement that in fact can help the people of Colombia economically, culturally, educationally and environmentally, and we need to take that opportunity.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague across the way for some very sensible words on this free trade agreement. This is something that this government obviously supports. I would also like, at this time, to wish her an early happy birthday, as I understand that is coming up.

I have had the privilege in the last couple of days of sitting in on the Inter-parliamentary Forum of the Americas conference hosted here by Canada. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement came up in the discussions by a number of countries. It was even suggested that this agreement with Colombia could be expanded to include all of South America. That is probably a stretch in reality, but it gives us an idea of the kind of feeling there is in support of these kinds of agreements.

My question for the member would be whether she thinks this kind of agreement with Colombia and other countries could actually open up a gateway there and expand into other countries down the road, and would that be beneficial?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his kind words about the debate, but I will volunteer that the birthday in question has already occurred recently. Given that it is a rather significant one, I plan on celebrating it all year. Therefore, I want to thank my colleague very much for his good wishes.

The short answer to that question is, yes, absolutely. As I said in my original comments, we not only believe in free trade in principle, but we believe in free trade in action, for all the reasons I stated. That applies all around the world, not just to Colombia.

There are clear economic benefits to free trade, but there are also, in my view, very clear benefits to the greater level of engagement on all levels that come with that exposure to greater engagement from a commercial perspective.

I firmly hope that we will be able to build on this free trade agreement and encourage the establishment of more.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It is a very important agreement for Canada, especially today in these tough economic times. We need to be doing everything we can to open doors for Canadians, Canadian producers, Canadian manufacturers to create new commercial opportunities around the world and to work with our partners to help our citizens succeed.

Free trade agreements are a critical part of these efforts. We must seek out more trade and investment opportunities for our businesses. Our government is committed to this pursuit. In our global commerce strategy, we are moving forward on our aggressive trade agenda, one that includes pursuing bilateral and multilateral trade relationships that will work for Canadians.

Canada's own history is a textbook case of the benefits of reaching out to our partners for trade and investment opportunities. We are a trading nation. Our businesses can compete with the best in the world. Today, I am proud to say that we can find Canadian businesses, Canadian products and Canadian investment dollars at work all over the world. However, it is a competitive world out there. Our businesses need market access in order to compete, now, more than ever, as our business community faces the greatest economic challenge in generations. That is why the free trade agreement we signed last fall was such an important accomplishment.

Canadian businesses and investors have long called for a closer economic partnership with Colombia. They certainly see the clear progress Colombia has made in recent years to tackle such difficult challenges as terrorism, poverty, insecurity and crime, but they also recognize the immense economic potential. Colombia is a vibrant and dynamic market for Canadian exports, a market of 48 million people.

I have had the privilege of travelling to Colombia twice, once with the international trade committee, and I was very pleasantly surprised. I suppose it is one of those things that when we go to a country like Colombia, we do not know what to expect, and I was pleasantly surprised as far as their infrastructure went, but there is still room for improvements. This deal will go a long way to helping them as well.

I talked about this market of 48 million people. At the same time, it is a very appealing market for foreign investors. Colombia's government is committed to reversing years of underinvestment in the public infrastructure as I mentioned. Countries like ours, which have so much expertise in this area, can offer a lot. The potential goes far beyond infrastructure and includes other key sectors like agriculture and industrial goods, and services like engineering, mining, energy and financial services. These are all areas where Canada excels.

Moreover, these sectors are linchpins of our economy in communities large and small all across the country. Once this free trade agreement is in place, Canadian exporters and investors in a broad range of sectors will benefit from lower trade and investment barriers in the Colombian market, which will increase their export potential and help them expand their reach into this exciting market. It will also put them on a level playing field with competitors like the United States and the European Union, which are also seeking preferential access to the Colombian marketplace.

Colombia is moving forward on an ambitious economic agenda that includes free trade agreements with a wide range of partners. We cannot put our exporters at a relative disadvantage. The time for Canada to act is now.

Thankfully, we are starting from a position of strength. We have to remember that Canada and Colombia already enjoy a significant trade relationship. In 2008 our two-way trade in merchandise totalled $1.35 billion. Canadian exports that year saw a 28.9% increase over the previous year to reach $704 million. Key Canadian products like paper, wheat, barley, pulse crops and trucks were driving forces behind this success.

Once the new agreement is in place, trade in these products, along with other products like beef, pork, machinery and mining equipment, will now be easier and more profitable for Canadian companies and producers. Indeed, agriculture was a key driver for these free trade agreement negotiations. From the very start, we were guided by the principle that a successful outcome on agriculture was absolutely critical. In numeric terms, our agricultural exports to Colombia face tariffs of anywhere from 17% to as high as 80%. Once this free trade agreement is in place, 86% of all those agricultural tariffs will be eliminated.

Being a farmer myself and representing a very rural riding that is a very large producer of agriculture products of all kinds, this is great news particularly for my pork and beef producers. That translates into about $25 million in annual duty savings for our producers here in Canada. That is a lot of coin. Clearly, this is a significant benefit for our agriculture sector, one that will sharpen producers' competitive edge during this difficult economic time.

However, as we move forward on creating new commercial opportunities, we must also recognize the very positive role that increased trade and investment can play in a nation like Colombia. The free trade agreement benefits Canada, but it benefits our Colombian partners too by giving them access to the North American marketplace, a greater choice of products from Canada and a chance to promote economic development in their own country. That is very important.

As Canada's own history proves, the single best way to create opportunities for citizens is to harness the skills, ingenuity and products of the people and carry those advantages to the marketplaces of the world. That is exactly what this free trade agreement would do. Free trade is a vehicle to help us do exactly that. Colombia is a nation that is making substantial progress toward becoming a more stable and secure nation. It is not there yet, but it is heading in the right direction, and this deal and Canada will help it along that road.

This government certainly wants to support that effort and give entrepreneurship a chance to take root and flourish in communities across the country. This fits squarely into the Government of Colombia's efforts to promote a more prosperous, equitable and secure nation, and it also fits with Canada's own objectives in the Americas, namely to promote democracy, prosperity and security throughout the hemisphere.

We all want a democratic and secure hemisphere, one that is free from the shackles of terrorism, crime and instability. However, we cannot have a democratic and secure nation without creating a path for our citizens' aspirations or without creating jobs and opportunities through the power of international trade and investment. That is just what the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would do.

It is significant that as we signed the free trade agreement, we also signed parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment. These agreements commit both nations to work together to ensure high levels of protection for workers and the environment. Canada believes that trade and investment liberalization can and must go hand in hand with labour rights and the environment. These agreements with our Colombian partners prove it.

During these uncertain economic times, our government's commitment to partnerships and to opening doors for Canadian businesses and investors around the world remains strong. We are committed to moving forward on more free trade negotiations with other partners around the world, from Asia to the Americas, to ensure that Canadians have the opportunities they need not only to weather today's economic storm but also to emerge on the other side of it, stronger and more competitive than ever before.

For this reason and for the many benefits to our Colombian partners that this agreement brings, I ask all hon. members in the House to support this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Broadcasting and Telecommunications; the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Arts and Culture.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted that in the member's speech, he made several references to his Colombian partners and he did reference that there has been substantial progress made to the stability of the country. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that this year alone, 27 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia.

In fact, in the last 34 days, there have been an additional five trade unionists murdered: On August 11, Diego Cobo was murdered; on August 16, Jairo Martínez Solarte; on August 21, Gustavo Gómez; on August 22, Fredy Díaz Ortiz, and on August 23, Mauricio Antonio Monsalve Vásquez.

I would like to ask the member whether he thinks that this is adequate progress on stabilization of this country. Being from a party and government that believe in law and order and punishing criminals, does he not think it is time to take a second look at this agreement, pull back a little bit and maybe look to see whether we in fact should be furthering the negotiations until there really is some stability in the country?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague's comments about the number of people murdered in Colombia, I do not know of any country where a murder does not happen from time to time. As my colleague from Leeds—Grenville mentioned earlier, one is always too many.

Colombia is obviously working on some of its problems and improving yearly. There are facts to back this up, although I do not have them in front of me. I am sure the member is quite aware of them as well. Alienating the country by avoiding it until the murder rate is at zero is not the way to go either.

We need to help Colombia along, and this deal will certainly do that. We would class ourselves as a well-to-do country, and we have an obligation to help others around the world who need help. This deal will do that. I am certainly proud to support it, and I hope that my colleague sees the light at the end of the tunnel and decides to do the same thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit shocked by my hon. colleague's response, and I would like to follow it up with him.

He says he does not know of any country where a murder does not happen. Murder certainly happens. People fall off buses and they fall off cliffs. However, we are talking about a very specific kind of murder that has been happening while the Conservative government has been promoting this deal.

For example, Eduar Carbonell Peña, who was a teacher, was kidnapped from his workplace and murdered on September 10, just a few days ago, for helping to organize a union. Does my colleague know of other countries where teachers are taken out and murdered? Maybe, but I am not aware of any.

On August 23, Mauricio Antonio Monsalve Vásquez, a union member, was disappeared from his workplace.

On August 22, Fredy Díaz Ortiz, another union member, was taken out and shot by gunmen.

Would the member tell me of other countries where two to three union members a week are taken out of their workplaces and shot? Would he tell me of any concrete steps his government has taken to raise these issues? Is he worried about alienating the junta that has taken these people out of their workplaces and shot them? Is that his biggest concern?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has to be noted right off the bat that the NDP has never supported a free trade agreement of any kind and probably never will.

I have some facts here about some of the problems, the kidnappings and murders. Between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings in Colombia decreased by 87%. Homicide rates have dropped by 44%. Moderate poverty has fallen from 55% to 45%. Colombia has attained coverage of 94% in basic education and 31% in higher education.

To get to the point, Colombia is far from perfect, but Canada is not perfect either. Colombia is heading in the right direction. This kind of anti-Colombia sentiment is not good for Colombia, and it certainly is not good for Canadian producers.

The member should get on track, support this, and let that country keep improving the rates--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Timmins--James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in this House once again to speak to this issue.

We could have a philosophical debate. Our friends in the Liberal Party and Conservative Party use the mantra of free trade, fundamentally they say that as long as capital flows the world will be a better place, and as long as capital flows and there is no obligation of capital to have any regional, local, national obligations, that is okay. It is an ideological view. It is part of the whole theory of the magic wand, that if all the capital and wealth goes to very few people they will sprinkle pixie dust and all will suddenly become better.

As my colleague from Willowdale said, it is not about regulating anything, it is about encouraging them. This is the world view they have. It is a philosophical view. To me this invisible hand that the Conservatives believe in is the invisible hand that is in taxpayers' pockets taking money from the working people and giving it to people who have so much.

It is very much like G. K. Chesterton, if we look at this blind belief in capital without obligation. G. K. Chesterton said it is all about the horrible mysticism of money. If we look through this veil of mysticism to get to the facts, this issue on Colombia free trade becomes very disturbing.

I come from one of the largest mining regions in the world. Mining is international in scope. Many of my constituents have travelled the world on mining exploration crews and drilling crews. I know so many investors who work internationally because mining is international in nature.

One of the things we have come to realize is that it is not the issue of capital itself that should be the prime focus of the economy but how capital helps build a resource and helps build a regional economy. To do that certain rules must be in place.

Nobody ever encouraged the mine owners in my region to lower the silicosis deaths. Those immigrant men died by the thousands. Their wives were told that they should not even ask for compensation because they were an embarrassment to Canada for having had the nerve to come here and work in the mines, while their husbands died in their 30s and 40s. The only thing that changed the mining rules in Canada was people saying there had to be some rules and regulations. So that is what we are discussing.

What I have heard today from colleagues in the Liberal Party and Conservative Party is that we need to encourage the Colombians, that Canada cannot change Colombia, only Colombians can change Colombia, and that if we all somehow just allow capital to do its thing then the Colombians will all get better because they will have access to our McCain's french fries and we will have access to their massive copper deposits.

We have to put this in the context of reality. This is the crux of the problem today. We are dealing with a murderous regime. We have raised issues of people who have been murdered in the last week in Colombia, while the government has been flaunting this agreement. We have been told by the Conservative member and by the member for Willowdale, as well, backed up in the Liberal Party, “Hey, nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes.” Well, I yelled at my kids last week, but that is not the same as someone being dragged out of their workplace and shot for organizing a union just one week ago.

I think it is incumbent upon us in this House to ask what steps will we take to ensure that when capital is allowed to flow between Colombia and Canada and vice versa that certain obligations will have to be met.

My colleagues in the Liberal Party called the human rights record in Colombia “a challenge”. We are talking about thousands and thousands of people who have been murdered. These are not drunken murders on a Saturday night or drive-by killings. Some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party have said, “Hey, we have murders in Canada”. Certainly, we had murders after the Garden of Eden, Cain killed Abel. That is a different fact than the systemic and systematic targeting of people who are trying to organize their workplaces and who are being taken out and shot, murdered in front of their families. This year alone 27 people were murdered, all of them tied into the fact that they were working in unsafe working conditions and were trying to speak up.

My colleague from Leeds—Grenville, who I have a great amount of respect for, said one murder is too much. I certainly agree. It would be a lot easier for me and my colleagues to support an agreement with Colombia if we heard, after the first murder this year which happened on January 1, our government stand and say that one murder is too much. Our government should ask what steps will Colombia take to stop those murders. But we have not heard that from the Conservative government. We have heard there are great opportunities for our producers, and as long as we keep selling to them, somehow they will stop murdering.

My colleague from Willowdale said Canada cannot change Colombia, only Colombia can change Colombia. That is an absolutely disgraceful, pitiful response. The only thing that changed apartheid in South Africa was an international response that fought back. The Afrikaners did not change apartheid, it was the international community who said, contrary to the position of the Liberal Party today, that we should not regulate these things, that we should encourage them. Nobody is perfect was the line I heard from the Liberal Party.

Last year murders went up 18% in Colombia. Things were not getting better under the Conservative Party's negotiations. They continue to deteriorate because there is a murderous regime targeting people who are trying to improve their conditions. That is what this is about.

Many people in my riding will be more than happy to move, work in Colombia, Peru and many other countries because of their mining expertise, but I also know the extreme unwillingness of people to go into regions where they do not have the basic rule of law. That is what we are talking about. I would like to put this in context.

My colleague in the Conservative Party said we had to have a hemisphere free of terrorism. If we look at the history of terrorism in North America and the Americas, it is almost entirely based on the state terror that existed in countries like El Salvador and Guatemala where there were murderous regimes and death squads. I hear my colleagues in the House say that there are certainly challenges and many places where people are not nice to each other. They said the same thing when they took the Maryknoll nuns from the United States and had them raped and murdered. They said the same thing when they killed all the Jesuit priests in El Salvador. They said there are problems on all sides but we knew then that it was false. The problems were the result of the regime and the problems today are from a regime that is targeting, the same as in El Salvador, human rights activists.

I would like to pose the question that I posed earlier to the Conservative Party. Tique Adolfo was murdered on January 1 this year for trying to organize a union. That is the one that was too many for this year. What steps did the Conservative government take at any time to raise that as an issue? It should have raised this issue and said that to have a legitimate free trade agreement Colombia would have to do better. But no, on January 7, 16, 28, February 12, 15, and three times on March 24, all union members were killed by paramilitaries. The killings have gone on and on.

The Canadian government is telling us today that we are setting an example for the world by accepting the fact that these murders go on, but we are going to get access to Colombia's copper, oil and we are going to sell it farm machinery. There are four million displaced people in Colombia. There have been 3,000 people murdered. We are not talking about a country that has been at war, we are talking about a regime that has been at war with its people.

What steps will Parliament take to say that if there is going to be a trade agreement with Colombia, there are going to be strong principles, not side agreements, not platitudes about one being too many? When are the Conservatives going to speak out and publicly say to the Colombian government that we want to see action because we have not heard that in the House? We look to the United States where Congress is pushing back on the Colombia free trade agreements there as well because the Americans recognize there is no benefit of giving legitimacy to a regime like this until there are concrete steps being made to protect people whose only crime is speaking up for safe workplaces with proper wages.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest and some disbelief to the pathological words coming from the NDP members today who, in their description of Colombia and of the Uribe government, completely ignore the reality of what is happening in Colombia. The fact is that the murders, the attacks he describes, have been a product of the narco-economy, the FARC guerrillas fueled by drug money, the drug gangsters fueled by drug money, and the civil war fueled by drug money.

How on earth does providing legitimate economic opportunities and jobs in the real economy through legitimate trade, and helping the Colombian people wean themselves away from the narco-economy, in any way, shape or form risk human rights, labour rights and the environment?

We already have a commercial relationship with Colombia, yet it does not have a robust, rules-based structure around labour and the environment. This particular trade agreement has the most robust labour and environmental agreements of any trade agreement Canada has ever signed.

How does introducing a rules-based structure around labour rights make things worse? Why does the hon. member not just stand up and admit that the NDP is against every free trade agreement and sit back down?

Instead of that, the New Democrats are trying to hoist it so that it cannot go to committee. Are they afraid that at committee the truth will come out and people will actually learn that there are some strong advantages to free and open trade in a rules-based structure with countries like Colombia, as we help--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there to give the member for Timmins--James Bay a chance to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague coming mightily to the defence of the Conservative Party, as he has done so many times in the past.

Six days ago in Colombia, Eduar Carbonell Pena was murdered. He was not murdered by drug gangs. He was not murdered in an SUV drive-by. He was a teacher organizing a union. That is why he was killed.

The member is trying to foist onto the Canadian people that narco-gangs are interested in teachers who are organizing unions. That is a pitiful piece of fiction because a few days before another union organizer was murdered on August 22. Are the narcos after that workplace too? On August 21, Gustavo Gomez and Fredy Diaz were murdered. I am looking at names of people not murdered in drug cartel deals. I am looking at teachers. I am looking at people working in mines.

If the member wants to come here and cover up the fact that he and the Conservatives are signing agreements with absolutely no respect at all for the fundamental rights of workers to organize, that is a position he can take. As I said earlier, it is certainly a world view that certain people have, but he should at least admit that people are being murdered, as they were last week, and why.

I also wonder why it is that nobody from the Liberals or Conservatives has spoken out once when one of these union members was being taken out and murdered. We are being told that nobody is perfect. Now we are being told it is the narcos doing it. They have never spoken out and union members are being murdered.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and Conservatives have criticized the NDP, saying that we are against any free trade deal. The questions we are raising are these. What about this deal? What about the commitments, supposedly by the Liberals and the Conservatives, to the rights of workers and the environment being part of economic development? I do not see that in this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, trade is so important for Canadians, but legitimizing countries that are murdering union activists and teachers is not the business this Parliament should be involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise in the House today and speak on behalf of this bill; in support of my colleague the Minister of International Trade, who is doing an absolutely fantastic job on this file; and on behalf of our Prime Minister, who is espousing the virtues of trade around the world and doing a great job on the international stage.

I want to touch on something that is near and dear to my heart and near and dear to the hearts of my constituents: the agricultural sector. That is the part I will be focusing on in my remarks today with regard to Bill C-23. Our government is pulling out all the stops to help ensure that Canadian farmers succeed and to build a strong future for the agricultural sector as a whole.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is a strong example of how the government is working to maintain and expand markets for our agricultural exports. Our Conservative government has been working very hard to build new opportunities in global markets for our producers. Our government has negotiated free trade agreements with key markets including: Colombia; Jordan; Panama; the European Free Trade Association, including the countries of Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein; and also Peru.

During the constituency break that we all had just recently, farmers and producers, particularly in my riding of Wetaskiwin, told me how happy they were with our progress on market access and the initiatives that we put forward. We produce so much more beef, pork, grains and oilseeds than we could possibly use here in Canada. Because we are an exporting nation, it is absolutely critical and fundamental to our producers that we have market access and a level playing field for our producers to trade and compete on. That is absolutely vital to the producers that I represent. I am proud to represent them and I am proud of the work our government has done on this file.

The government signed the Canada-Colombia bilateral free trade agreement on November 21, 2008. This free trade agreement will strengthen our existing trade relationship with Colombia. It will provide Canadian exporters and producers with improved access to this very important market.

Colombia has been an important partner in agricultural trade. In 2008, Canada exported agrifood products worth $212 million and imported $297 million worth of products, mainly coffee, bananas, flowers and sugar. In fact, Colombia is the second-largest market for Canadian agricultural exports to South America. It is a very important trading partner indeed.

Canadian producers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on exports into Colombia. Many agricultural exports such as wheat, barley, lentils and peas will receive immediate duty-free status. That is very important. Commodities such as beef and beans will also benefit from immediate duty-free access within specified volumes. Canada is not alone in pursuing an ambitious bilateral free trade agreement agenda. Colombia has concluded similar agreements with the United States and is negotiating another one with the European Union.

Allowing Canadian agricultural exporters to remain competitive with other preferential suppliers to Colombia is key to maintaining a competitive sector. This free trade agreement will ensure that Canadian exports compete on par with exports from the United States to the Colombian market for products such as beef, beans, whisky, vodka and maple syrup.

To the benefit of our processors and consumers, Canada will immediately eliminate tariffs on nearly all agricultural imports from Colombia. Signing a free trade agreement with Colombia has also provided momentum for Canada to engage the Colombian government in substantive technical discussions toward lifting Colombia's ban on Canadian beef and cattle.

Step by step, our government is reopening markets to Canadian producers. This strategy is sending a strong message to the rest of the global community that it is time that their consumers once again enjoy our top quality Canadian products.

Our government looks forward to exploring new and expanded opportunities for Canadian agricultural exporters and farmers. As we move forward, the government will continue to consult closely with the entire agricultural industry regarding how best to advance Canada's interests. We are working with our trading partners to establish bilateral and regional agreements and we are working with industry, all with the common goal of building our agricultural trade and opening up new opportunities for our farmers and processors.

Opening and expanding markets around the world creates opportunities for our producers to drive the Canadian economy. During this time of global economic uncertainty, we have to maximize trade opportunities on the world stage. As our Prime Minister has said:

Canada will be watching how the United States implements the “Buy American” clause in its stimulus package, because it could quickly send the world economy from recession into depression.

That is how serious the threat of protectionism is at this time. That is why it is so important that our country engages other trading partners around the world. It is good for Canada. It is good for the partners that we trade with and it is good for their respective citizens.

Furthermore, protectionism does not help farmers or Canadian businesses, but our government's trade initiatives do. They help all farmers and all Canadians by creating jobs and long-term prosperity.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question.

We know that trade between Canada and Colombia is minimal compared to our overall trade with the Americas. Yet Canada has a great deal of money invested in Colombia, especially in the mining sector.

What is the real reason for signing this treaty? It is called a free trade treaty, which gives the impression that it is primarily about trade. But is it not true that it is designed to protect Canadian investments and that the goal is to create conditions that unfairly favour Canadian investments?

In fact, clauses in the treaty provide that, as in many other treaties signed by Canada with southern nations, investors whose profits decrease as a result of the adoption of progressive labour and environmental protection policies can sue the Colombian government and prevent Colombia from making social and environmental progress.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's question. He is asking me a question about mining after my speech primarily focused on agriculture. He wants to talk about mining and I would like to talk about wheat, but that is okay. I will answer his question anyway.

The free trade agreement that we are signing with Colombia is progressive. I always ask myself: Who do I have the most influence with? Do I have influence with somebody who is my friend, or do I have influence with somebody who I do not have a relationship with? When it comes to creating relationships with our friends, I like to think that Canada has much more influence with its friends than it does with people with whom it does not have a relationship.

Colombia is emerging. It is doing the right things. Yes, there are some troubles but these things have been overcome. Crime and killings are on the decrease. The government is getting focused on providing security and a safe environment for its workers and its citizens.

Canada is a model in the way we do business, in the way we conduct ourselves around the world. It will be great when Canada's influence in Colombia is extended through this agreement because it will bring further prosperity, further harmony, and produce great benefits not only for the people of Canada but for the people of Colombia as well.

Helping to bring people up creates more human rights and a better quality of life for all citizens involved on both sides of this agreement.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who has been tireless in raising the important issues around this free trade agreement.

I would like the member for Wetaskiwin to specifically comment on the fact that 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 had improved. As well, the committee recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken to determine the real impact of a trade agreement.

This is in the context of the fact that indigenous people in Colombia are going to be affected by any free trade agreement. Appropriate consultation is consistently called for in Canada when first nations are going to be impacted by any kind of potential development.

I wonder if the member could specifically comment as to his views on this human rights impact assessment on the indigenous people in Colombia.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my comments in my speech were mainly regarding agriculture but if nobody in the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois wants to talk about agriculture I am fine with that as well.

The reality is that there have been some issues. Absolutely. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been asking many questions in the House with the precision of a frisbee thrown in a hurricane.

The labour agreement that is covered is a side agreement. There is an environmental agreement, a labour agreement and the right to freedom of association. That is a great improvement for the citizens of Colombia. The labour agreement would ensure collective bargaining agreements and that is a great thing. One would think the NDP would be solidly behind collective bargaining. For some reason those members are going to vote against collective bargaining.

The abolition of child labour is another great thing in this agreement and that is consistent with the United Nations declaration. Other great things include: the elimination of discrimination, providing protections for occupational safety and health and employment standards such as minimum wages and overtime pay. I have no idea why the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are so outraged by these things.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the former speaker's remarks, but maybe I will try to include those in the points that I am going to make today.

I would like to speak about four particularly egregious parts of this free trade agreement, and then I would like to talk a little bit about the difference between free trade and fair trade, which I think is an argument and a discussion that we need to have.

This free trade agreement really is a failure regarding labour rights protection. It does not include tough labour standards, and by putting it into a side agreement, outside of the main text without any vigorous enforcement mechanism, it is destined to do absolutely nothing. There are problems with that.

The second egregious aspect of this free trade agreement is a failure regarding environmental protection. The environmental issue is also addressed as a side agreement. It has no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. It is as simple as that.

The third egregious part of this free trade agreement is the investor chapter. I have been out on this and my party has been out on this for a number of free trade agreements, including NAFTA. This investor chapter is almost copied directly from NAFTA's chapter 11 on investor rights. The bottom line is that it allows companies to sue governments. That is dangerous. It involves the sovereignty of nations.

The fourth egregious part, and this is what the previous speaker was talking about, is agriculture and agricultural tariffs. Colombia's poverty is directly linked to agricultural development in a country where 22% of the workforce is agricultural. Now an end to tariffs on a number of Canadian goods could very well flood the market with cheap goods and could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in the agricultural sector of Colombia.

Those are the four aspects of this agreement that really cause me some grief, and I think cause the rest of the NDP some grief.

Let me talk about free trade and fair trade. What do I mean when I talk about fair trade? We hear this expression all the time. Fair trade is really trade rules and agreements that promote sustainable practices, domestic job creation and healthy working conditions, while allowing us to manage the supply of goods, promoting democratic rights abroad and maintaining democratic sovereignty at home. All of those are elements of fair trade.

Free trade agreements that we have entered into, and I have spoken back in my riding and in this House about NAFTA and softwood lumber and other agreements, really fall quite short of being considered fair trade.

The question remains, how do we promote fair trade? When we make agreements, we can have new agreements which encourage improvement in social, environmental and labour conditions rather than just minimizing the damage of unrestricted trade. Federal and provincial procurement policies should stimulate Canadian industries by allowing governments to favour suppliers here at home.

How else can we promote fair trade? Supply management boards and single-desk marketers, like the Canadian Wheat Board, can help to replace imports with domestic products and materials. Lastly, we can promote fair trade with local, community and individual initiatives to buy fair trade imports and locally-produced goods.

Why fair trade and not free trade? Fair trade policies protect the environment by encouraging the use of domestically and locally-produced goods. We hear all about the 100 mile diet and all sorts of things going on in this country. I have a large agricultural sector in my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

What using locally-produced goods basically means for the environment is less freight, less fuel and less carbon. By promoting environmentally-conscience methods for producers who ship to Canada, we can make a positive environmental impact.

By contrast, free trade policies, even those created with the environment in mind, do little to impede multinational corporations from polluting with abandon. The environmental side agreement of NAFTA, for example, has proven largely unenforceable, particularly when compared with other protections for industries and investors.

A system of fair trade that encourages the growth of Canadian jobs, both in quality and in quantity, fair competition rules and tougher labour standards will put Canadian industries on a level playing field with our trading partners and slow the international race to the bottom. That has resulted in the loss of thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs.

Free trade rules, on the other hand, have hurt Canadian job quality. Since 1989, most Canadian families have seen a decline in real incomes. Fair trade can also protect labour rights by fostering the growth of workers' co-operatives and labour unions.

Like the environmental side accord, NAFTA's labour agreement has gone mostly unenforced, giving industries that are willing to violate workers' rights incentives to relocate Canadian jobs. Fair trade policies which favour co-ops, unions and equitable pricing will protect workers in the developing world who might otherwise be exploited and take away reasons for Canadian producers to export jobs.

Fair trade rules would also protect societies and human rights right around the globe. Although some predicted a human rights benefit from unrestricted free trade, this has yet to be seen. In contrast, conflicts between locals and multinational corporations in such places as Peru have become violent. A fair trade policy that aims for benefits for all parties can protect the most vulnerable from human rights abuse.

Here are some facts about Colombia.

Colombia is not, in the grand scheme of things, a very significant trading partner for Canada. It is our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America.

We have heard before in this debate, from various quarters, about the problems and the violence that goes on in Colombia. I have been to Colombia recently and while things have improved in the last six years in terms of numbers, it is still a country where three people a day on average are killed by land mines. That is the highest in the world. It is a dangerous place to live and it is a dangerous place to work.

What we can do with a trade agreement is help to promote a country that is healthy and respects human rights. Maybe that should be one of the most important things about a trade agreement, certainly a fair trade agreement.

If we think about the environment, nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction. The rights of indigenous peoples are trampled upon. Many people do not know that the very southern border actually runs along the Amazon River, where many of the indigenous peoples in Colombia live. It is a very important spot environmentally and a very important spot for indigenous people and indigenous rights.

Almost four million people in Colombia are internally displaced, and 60% of this displacement is really in regions of mineral activity, agricultural and other economic activities.

I do not believe that this free trade agreement is very well thought out. I do believe that improvements could have been made. We could end up with, rather than a free trade agreement, a fair trade agreement, if only the government had the will to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. I keep coming back to a fundamental question that I have not heard answered by the Liberals and Conservatives, who are supporting the bill. In the very year when the bill was being negotiated, 28 or 29 union activists were taken out and murdered in Colombia. That is a staggering number.

We are told that there are always problems anywhere. There are not problems like this in many places that we deal with as equal partners. The Conservatives and the Liberals tell us that the crime rate is dropping. We still see an increase in murders. However, overall crime rate is not the issue. The issue is a fundamental lack of human rights respect so that international capital can exploit certain resources.

My colleague mentioned four million displaced persons. We are not talking about a country that is at war, unless we are talking about a country that is at war internally. Of all the questions we have asked, I have never heard one answer from the Conservatives or the Liberals as to what they have done to raise these issues. They talk about side agreements, but what does my hon. colleague think about the difference it would make if the Conservative government said to the government of Colombia that it wanted to know what steps it would take to investigate the murders of union activists by paramilitaries? That would make a real difference for a change rather than simply rubber-stamping an agreement that has no teeth?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the big problems with this free trade agreement is that environment and labour rights are side agreements. When we have side agreement and we do not put them in the actual text of the agreement, they become largely unenforceable. We know that from experience. We know that through NAFTA. We know that through softwood lumber. We know trade agreements need to be strong on those elements. They need to ensure that human rights are not abused.

This agreement should present Canadians with an opportunity to help Colombia improve its record and to work toward a goal where we can work together and where human rights are not abused.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I have a question for him.

We know that the Conservatives and the Liberals believe that unionized workers in Colombia will be better off if this agreement is signed. However, I have looked at some statistics. In 2007, 39 unionists were murdered in Colombia. In 2008, 49 were murdered. There has been a 25% increase in the number of murdered unionists since negotiations on the agreement between Canada and Colombia began. Colombia does not seem to be putting a stop to this reign of terror against unionists.

I would like the hon. member to give me his take on the situation.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further statistic that 27 trade unionists have been murdered since January to last month. The carnage continues. It is difficult in a country where there are approximately 1,800 murders a year. That is not including people who are killed by landmines and other things. It is a problem Colombia has dealt with for decades and decades and indeed centuries.

I had an opportunity to speak to some government officials some months ago in Colombia. They said that this was a problem that had gone on for 2,000 years. I have been told that it is the oldest democracy in that part of the world, and this is nothing new in that country.

I stand and talk about fair trade and human rights to make the point that we can make a difference as a country when we enter into trade agreements with other countries.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-23.

I am proud of my party's position. I am particularly disappointed, however, in my colleagues from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. To them, a free trade agreement has become a panacea to allow globalization to take form and evolve. What they do not seem to realize is that if the agreement does not include provisions on workers' rights, the right to a safe environment and human rights, then we are in serious trouble.

Having examined the provisions in this agreement, I see that it is not actually a free trade agreement. I can say this to my colleague who spoke earlier and who is doing an excellent job on this file. We hear a lot of talk from the other side of the House, and on this side from the Liberal Party, about trade. It is very important. However, this is more of an investment agreement. When it comes to investments, we really want to protect Canadian investors and make sure that they do not become victims, for example, of nationalization. For instance, after they have invested their money, from one day to the next, the government could decide that the investments belong to the government from now on. We therefore understand the importance of reciprocity treaties between two economies to ensure that these things do not happen.

However, when it is associated only with doing business to the detriment of the environment, the workers and human rights in that country, we must put a stop to it. And that is the case with Bill C-23 before us.

When a government in a developed country, a western government like Canada or the United States, signs this type of treaty, it must ensure that it is able to put pressure on a government that does not respect human rights, workers or the environment. However, this treaty does not contain such provisions. The economy is given free rein. We are told that it will work itself out, and a side agreement or additional agreement will be added for the rest. Yet past experience shows us that this never works. It never happens like that. The free trade agreement is signed with a promise to add an agreement on the environment or on human rights later, but as time goes on any agreement is seen as so minor that it is not worth the trouble.

The Canadian government is therefore renouncing the carrot and stick approach. Such an approach would allow us to tell a government that we will withdraw whatever it was we were offering if it does act responsibly, and if things improve, we can tell that government that other things will be added. That goes hand in hand with Canada's vision, or the vision of any forward thinking society.

We therefore do not believe the argument that the agreement can be signed now, and the side agreements on the environment and human rights will follow at a later date.

There have been some problems. For example, chapter 11 of NAFTA is rather explicit. It covers a lot. I remind members that the free trade agreement we are negotiating is fairly similar to what is in that chapter.

The problems with chapter 11 of NAFTA have been pointed out; for instance, foreign investors could proceed directly to the courts without going through the government. When a government has a social conscience, it acts as a filter. It tries to ensure that any developments are fair and just. But in the agreements, the investors are able to go directly to the courts, regarding present or future investments, to dispute the fact that a government did not do its job and that the investor was harmed.

Suppose that there are children working in Columbia and we do not agree with this, but the investors claim that they earn more when they hire children, or when they ravage the environment, and that those things are not important because they want to increase profits. That is what it could come to.

There are also amounts for legal action that are not necessarily related to current investments, but that could be related to future ones. It will be a free-for-all. From then on, as soon as there are social or environmental measures that go against the interests of investors, they could take legal action. This was a problem contested and criticized by many people, and the previous government stopped including chapters that let the investors run the show.

Allow me to explain what I mean when I say that this is not a trade agreement. Usually, two countries that sign an agreement are on a par financially. But Colombia's GDP was $256 billion in 2007. Canada's was $1,610 billion. This is not the same level. Colombia is not in the same league as Canada. I believe that what the government wants is not necessarily a trade agreement, but an agreement on investments. Colombia has attractive mines. Investors want to invest in these mines. Therein lies the problem. Investors will be able to challenge more progressive social policies and environmental protection measures that the government wants to put in place. They will be able to challenge such measures in court.

Colombia's per capita GDP is $5,314, while Canada's is $48,000. What is in this sort of agreement for Quebeckers and Canadians? Nothing. It is not a trade agreement. It is an agreement on investors. Investors have a major stake in this type of treaty. That is why we are opposed to this agreement.

Colombia is a poor country where 47% of the population lives below the poverty line. Will this agreement improve the lives of Colombians? Will it lead to greater respect for the environment?

No, it will not. It will have a negative impact on our companies, because they have standards to comply with in the areas of human rights, workers' rights and the environment. And will we allow these countries to do whatever they want? They will make children work for 15¢ or 20¢ an hour. How will our companies stay competitive in the face of such measures and such lax standards? This is a negative step. I call on my colleagues to come to their senses.

In addition, there is an incestuous relationship between the famous paramilitary groups and the government. It is said that Colombia has become a narco-state. I believe it is true. Last week, I read that 30 members of the Colombian Congress had been arrested and that 60 others were under investigation. There is an incestuous relationship between the paramilitaries and the government of this narco-state. We need to wake up.

I call on my Liberal and Conservative colleagues to amend Bill C-23 and not pass it as is. We say yes to investors and trade, but not at the expense of workers, the environment and human rights.

I hope that our colleagues will take their lead from the Bloc Québécois, which has a very enlightened position on this bill, in my opinion.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague, and I could not believe some of things he was saying.

Are we more likely to help Colombia or anybody else progress in their human rights record or their economies by working with them or ignoring them?

I have to point out something that the hon. member said. He seemed to give the impression that because the GDP in Canada is $48,000 and the GDP in Colombia is $5,000 that somehow it is unworthy of Canada to work with and help Colombia. I cannot believe he actually said that. The GDP in Afghanistan is about $500. By extension, does that mean we should ignore Afghanistan and all the things it needs and the help that Canada can bring it just because it is not up to our standard of GDP?

For heaven's sake, I cannot believe the member would say that.

I ask the member, generally speaking, whether it is Colombia or Afghanistan, can we help people better by working with them in helping to bring their standards up by entering into these kinds of agreements, or do we just ignore them and say, “To heck with you. You're not up to our standard. Why should we work with you?” That is ridiculous.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that this is not the first time I have opposed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. We often cross swords in Standing Committee on National Defence meetings because he tends to grandstand a lot.

That is not what I said. All I did was compare our two economies. If the parliamentary secretary really wants to help Colombians, he should make sure that the agreement includes clauses that cover the environment, union rights, workers' rights and respect for human rights. That does not exist in Colombia. That is the right way to help them, not by putting on blinkers and saying that it is all about trade, that it is good for investors, that everything is good, and that the investors and big companies investing there are like some kind of panacea.

The people I am worried about are Canadian workers and the workers and people of Colombia whose lives will not get better under this agreement. This is not the first time I have disagreed with the parliamentary secretary, and I could go on about that at length. Have things improved in Afghanistan in the last 10 years? I think not. This is neither the first nor the last time the parliamentary secretary and I will have differing opinions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague from Saint-Jean's remarks. I am always surprised at how both Liberals and Conservatives always share the same perspective on a bill.

I would like my colleague to explain why the Conservatives and the Liberals are once again supporting the same approach, the same idea, and why they are protecting investors.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. They have the same view. This sounds familiar to me. I often say they are in bed together.

When this government started introducing right-wing measures, the Liberal Party followed it. These two parties have the same position on a whole host of issues concerning Quebec. What is more, they adopt the same positions, but not just when it comes to Quebec. The first time I noticed this was on Afghanistan. I heard this party say for a year that it would not maintain our presence in Afghanistan and that position changed from one day to the next.

The same is true with politics. When they feel like they are about to gain power, they do not want to move too quickly, they want to protect themselves. Today, in this matter, as with Afghanistan and many other issues, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have the same view. They are in bed together.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, and the two side agreements to that trade agreement: the side agreement on environment and the side agreement on labour co-operation. We know this as the Canada-Colombia free trade implementation act.

I think it has been said many times in this corner of the House that there is absolutely no way New Democrats can stand by and allow this kind of arrangement between Canada and Colombia to go ahead. This is a despicable international agreement to be proceeding with at this time, given the excesses of the government in Colombia.

We do not need to go any further than to look at the record of the Government of Colombia when it comes to trade unionism. The number of trade unionists who have died in Colombia in recent years is in the thousands. Even in this very year, 2009, so far we know that about 27 trade union activists have been murdered in Colombia. That is an incredible record of oppression and violence.

As we are debating strengthening our ties with Colombia and opening more opportunities for doing business with Colombia, I wonder how we can explain that to the families of people like Adolfo Tique, who was murdered in January, or more recently, Mauricio Antonio Monsalve Vásquez, who was murdered just last month in Colombia. What do we say to their families, as Canadians, when we are proposing to enter into this kind of agreement, establishing this kind of relationship with the Republic of Colombia when these kinds of excesses are being perpetrated against workers, families, the people of Colombia?

I do not think there is any way we can possibly justify proceeding with this kind of agreement with Colombia at this time.

There are some very serious problems with this legislation. I have already mentioned the failure on labour rights protection. It is without a doubt that Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries on the planet for trade unionists. They are victims of violence, intimidation and assassination by paramilitary groups, some of which are said to have links to the Colombian president himself.

There are no tough labour standards in this agreement. The labour agreement is a side agreement to the main trade agreement. We know that these side agreements are the least effective parts of such international agreements.

There is nothing in this trade agreement that would enforce human rights protection for trade unionists, for instance, in Colombia. In fact there is a penalty clause, which amounts to the ability for Colombia to actually pay for ongoing human rights violations. There is nothing that says Colombia has to stop the violations; it can pay a fine and those violations can continue. It is not a particularly effective mechanism for improving the human rights situation in the country.

There is also a side agreement on the environment that is related to this. Again, side agreements are lesser agreements. They are not effective. They have been proven ineffective. There is no serious enforcement mechanism that would force either Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. Some people have called this a smokescreen in the agreement, that it is not a serious part of what was undertaken in terms of the development of this accord between Colombia and Canada. It is something that leaves an awful lot to be desired before we would enter into this kind of agreement.

This agreement also includes the same investor chapter we have seen in NAFTA's chapter 11, investor rights, which gives powerful rights to private companies to sue governments. The private companies' interests are enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. We have seen this used to override the democratic interests of Canadians, for instance, when it comes to enforcing our democratic interests in our agreements in trading relationships with the United States. Now we are proposing to enter into a similar kind of agreement with Colombia, with all the extra problems an agreement with that particular country involves.

There is also a serious problem with agricultural tariffs in this bill as well. We know that Colombia has severe poverty and that poverty is directly linked to the agricultural development sector in Colombia.

If tariffs are removed, what will that do to the Canadian agricultural sector, especially to cereals, pork and beef? I—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. I must interrupt. The member for Burnaby—Douglas will have five minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed from September 28 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.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has five minutes left in debate.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, who will we be dealing with when we sign the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement? The government of Colombian President Uribe has been accused by international rights organizations of a long list of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extrajudicial killings by the army, links to paramilitary and right-wing death squads and using security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, the opposition parties, government politicians and journalists. In fact, many government members, including ministers and members of Uribe's own family, have been forced to resign or been arrested.

It is also worth noting the statistics on violence directed against trade unionists. They show that 2,690 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008 the number was up 18% over the previous year, so the situation is not getting any better. So far this year, 27 trade unionists have been murdered. Over the last 10 years, 60% of all the trade unionists murdered around the world have been murdered in Colombia. It is a horrific record.

Nearly four million people in Colombia are internally displaced persons, with 60% of them coming from areas of economic importance, regions where mining and agriculture are the key activities of that area. Private companies and their government and paramilitary supporters have forced these people from their homes. There is a huge conspiracy against the working people of Colombia, especially in the areas of great economic development.

The links between multinational corporate activity in Colombia and paramilitary terror have been well documented. Multinational corporations pay off paramilitaries to allow them access to resources and land. In fact, 43 companies have been accused of having ties with paramilitary groups and the forced displacement of communities and assassinations of trade unionists.

Clearly, this is not a record that anyone in the House could be proud of, yet we are negotiating a deal with the people who allow this to happen in their own country.

What is the attitude of other countries toward Colombia? It is important to note that the United Kingdom has ended military aid to Colombia because of the systemic crimes committed against the Colombian people. In the United States, which on the opposite side of the House there often seems to be some indication to take a cue from there, the American Congress put on hold a U.S. Colombia free trade agreement last year. President Obama has said that he will not pursue the agreement because of the human rights abuses in Colombia. It is very significant that we look to two important allies of our countries and their stance around Colombia.

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 showed improvement. I would think that is at a minimum. It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken to determine the real impact of this trade agreement. The committee recommended that this be “an impartial human rights assessment carried out by a competent body which is subject to independent levels of scrutiny and validation”. This recommendation and the committee's report have been ignored by the government.

Over 50 prominent Canadians have signed a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, urging the Liberal Party to ensure that the concerns around human rights in Colombia are addressed before this agreement is endorsed and finalized. They also point out the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade in this regard. It is clear that human rights need to be taken into consideration.

There is nothing in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that will improve the situation in Colombia. There is nothing in the agreement that will lead to the end of violence against trade unionists. There is nothing that will improve the lives of ordinary Colombians. There is nothing that will agree adherence to environmental standards. This is not an agreement about fair trade.

The Canadian Labour Congress has opposed this agreement. It said:

We oppose the creation of any situation where Canadian investors, exporters, and importers stand to benefit from the lack of freedom experienced by the most vulnerable populations in Colombia....

The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was not written to protect labour and human rights. It is more than a “trade” agreement. It is a trade and investment agreement underpinned by tacit Canadian support for a security agenda that defends the extractive industries, the drug cartels, and the internal security forces of Colombia.

We have to say “no” to this agreement.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

There has been a considerable amount of debate in the House, with arguments from all sides and, in fairness, reasonable arguments from those in support and also from those opposed. Debate has certainly been held in this place and that debate is on the record.

The official opposition believes that the time has come to move this debate and this discussion to committee so citizens can have their say and express their opinions and concerns directly. Those who have concerns, whether they are over human rights or trade issues, and those who strongly favour the trade agreement, as those in the farm sector do, would be able to express directly what they see as opportunities.

Let me be very clear. Bill C-23 should be moved to committee and it should hold hearings across the country and hear from people. The committee should do one of two things in terms of the Colombia argument: first, either travel to Colombia and hear from people directly on what they see as opportunities and what they see as concerns; or, at the very least, invite some Colombian people to come here as witnesses so they can express either concerns or what they see as opportunities in a vivid way. This trade agreement affects both of our economies and should be examined closely at committee level.

There are concerns about human rights in Colombia. The best way to understand the extent and impact of those concerns would be for committee to visit Colombia or invite Colombian witnesses to appear in this country.

There are two approaches that one could take on the conflict of human rights versus trade.

The first approach would be as we have done in China, and various governments have taken this approach. We could foster trade and encourage human rights as a result of the trading relationship. The other approach would be to oppose trade altogether until the human rights concerns have been addressed. Those are the kinds of parameters of the debate on the human rights argument.

Let me emphasize the fact that the best way for Parliament to find the balance and establish a direction and come to a conclusion is to aggressively now pursue hearings in the country and possibly in Colombia or bring Colombian witnesses here.

I can assure the House that farmers will want to be heard. They have sent letters to most of us in the House directly, suggesting how important the Colombian market is for their exports so they can achieve some economic opportunities in our country.

With committee hearings, the people of Canada, the people of Colombia and industries in both countries could be given a direct voice and direct input.

On the Colombian side, I will admit that I am very concerned, after hearing that the president has indicated he may change the constitution so he can stay in office beyond the two term time limit. That is worrisome. Has the Prime Minister raised this issue with the president? Has he said to the president that to violate the constitution in order to extend his term could have an impact in this country as to whether we would pass the Colombia free trade agreement in the House?

I will admit I have serious concerns about agreements once they are signed and the government's ability, or courage or lack thereof, to stand up for Canadians who have established rights under those agreements. The best example is that the Conservative government certainly has failed to stand up for Canadian trade rights under the trade agreement with the United States.

The U.S. is our closest trading partner. Everybody knows how the Conservative government sold out on softwood lumber, but let me explain the latest dispute. The government has failed Canada's livestock industry, beef and hog and other livestock producers, with the trade agreement that is in place with the United States. I have said in the House many times that Canada is losing the hog industry in part due to the United States' protectionist policy and the Conservative government's failure to utilize the authorities under trade law to protect Canadian producers' interests. Here are the facts.

Dr. Milton Boyd, in an editorial in the Calgary Sun, said this about the situation of country of origin labelling in the United States. He opened the article by saying:

Struggling US livestock producers--hit hard by the recent economic downturn and the drop in demand for meat in the United States--have spurred recent trade protectionism measures—

We know what the Americans are doing is illegal. We know the Conservative government should be standing up for Canadian producers. But what are the consequences of the government not challenging the United States and standing up for Canadian producers? Here is what Dr. Boyd had to say:

[Country of origin labelling] COOL has resulted in a tightened, protectionist border. Canadian hog exports to the U.S. for market pigs have dropped...60% [from last year]...

...this loss is around...$163 million over a full year... Also, slaughter-cattle exports are down 20% and feeder-cattle exports are down by 50%.

That is an extremely serious issue. We are losing an industry. The government has the authority under trade law to stand up and fight for Canadian producers, but the minister sits on his hands. When the Prime Minister had the opportunity to apply more pressure when he was in the United States, what did he do? He got in his Challenger jet and flew home at a cost of about $60,000 to have a coffee at Tim Hortons.

[An hon. member]

A double-double.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether it was a double-double or not, but it may have been. He had the opportunity to challenge directly the President of the United States and, from what I can gather, did not do so.

Canadian producers are standing by watching their asset base decline and tumble while the government sits on its hands. To have a trade agreement is one thing, but when one has a trade agreement one has to have a government that has the courage to stand up for the people in our country who are operating under that trade agreement, not just cave in to it. That is what the government has consistently done. Whether it is open market, trade agreement, whatever, it is failing Canadian producers.

With respect to this bill, what really needs to happen from the official opposition's perspective is to move the bill to committee where the voices of Canadians and Colombians can be heard and hearings can be held to establish the direction in which we want to go. The committee and the House can vote on it after all the evidence has been put forward.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed that the hon. member may not appreciate the great news about Tim Hortons being back in Canada and the need for our Prime Minister to represent that. That is a bit disappointing.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Throw me a Timbit. Throw me a Timbit.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing about Timbits from timbits.

Could the hon. member highlight some specific things that would make this agreement with Colombia advantageous for both Canada and Colombia? Perhaps he could make reference not just to the economic opportunities but the importance of a relationship with Colombia to help lead it in important areas like human rights, perhaps health and some of the things that have been discussed in the debate previously.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, let me answer the question quite directly. Of course, I see many benefits in this agreement, especially for the farm sector, such as livestock exports. Certainly the Canadian Wheat Board, a great marketing institution in this country which the current government continues to try to undermine, is saying very clearly that the trade agreement with Colombia is important to move grains and oilseeds into Colombia. There are opportunities. There will be other opportunities down the road as well. However, we need to have that debate and let those producers come before committee.

The member raised the issue of the Prime Minister coming back to Tim Hortons and I must make a couple of comments. It was just another re-announcement of a previous announcement. That is what the Prime Minister is so good at. In Prince Edward Island, I announced the new public building in Charlottetown in 2003 and my colleague, the member for Charlottetown, saw that it got off the ground and got built. That was about four years ago. What did the Government of Canada do two weeks ago? It put up a sign in front of the new federal building in Charlottetown, trying to leave the impression that it is part of its economic stimulus package. It is no such thing. That is the kind of mis-messaging the Conservative government does all the time. The government is trying to confuse Canadians that it is providing stimulus when it is not doing anything of the sort. That stimulus was provided by a previous government that believed in building Canada for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it quite interesting that the member mentioned that the government is rehashing old announcements. I guess that it has learned from the previous Liberal government which did that on a number of occasions.

Regarding Bill C-23, in May the steelworkers were on the Hill lobbying Liberal MPs, asking them to honour the commitment they made in June 2008, demanding that there be an independent, impartial and comprehensive human rights impact assessment before Canada would consider entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia.

It is noteworthy to indicate that in the last 10 years, 60% of trade unionists who were murdered in the world were murdered in Colombia.

I ask the member, is it correct to think that this free trade agreement would prevent murders from happening, that trade unionists would not be murdered? I spoke on this last week and I received an email from a constituent who had just been to Colombia and had some concerns with regard to that as well.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I made it quite clear in my remarks that we, too, are concerned about the human rights issue in Colombia. We are also concerned about the fact that the president may be thinking of changing the constitution to go another term.

However, we also know that the NDP is opposed to any kind of free trade agreement, no matter what. The NDP members are philosophically opposed.

There has been this debate in the House. It should go to committee where some of the issues the hon. member raised could be addressed directly. The trade unionists could come before the committee so that we could hear them, either on the ground in Colombia or on the ground here, in order to make a balanced decision based on the actual facts rather than the rhetoric of the NDP.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill, as I believe it is one of many elements that have advocated prosperity in our country.

Canada is taking action during these difficult economic times by reaching out to other trading partners and reducing barriers to trade. This is certainly a mechanism to create jobs. This agreement provides Canadian companies with a competitive edge in many sectors, including wheat, paper products, mining, oil and gas, engineering and information technology. This is another example of the government's efforts to deepen Canada's presence in Latin America.

Labour and environmental standards are addressed within the free trade agreement. The side agreement with Colombia on labour and the environment will help ensure that this FTA advances the cause of human rights and environmental protection in both countries.

The labour provisions commit all parties to respect and enforce standards such as the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively and the elimination of child labour. Environmental provisions will help protect and conserve the environment in those sectors where our companies are active. I believe this will encourage prosperity in both countries. That certainly has been the essence of our government's work in Canada since our election in January 2006.

Since we are talking about means to enhance prosperity, let me touch upon Canada's economic action plan and Canada's economic stimulus measures.

We all know a great deal about Canada's economic action plan, the $61 billion shot in the arm for the Canadian economy. More recently, we have heard about the incredible progress of Canada's economic stimulus. Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister in Atlantic Canada talk about the success of the $7.6 billion economic stimulus program.

We learned that there are 7,500 infrastructure and housing projects. More than 4,000 have begun. Of the 7,500, there are over 4,700 provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects. There are 1,150 projects to repair and renovate federal buildings across the country; 447 projects to improve infrastructure at colleges and universities; about 300 social housing projects; 600 projects to help communities hardest hit through the community adjustment fund; and almost 100 projects to promote culture and tourism. These are all things that are going to be major benefits to Canada and are going to stimulate communities across our country.

Sometimes when we hear those giant numbers we wonder what it means in our communities. I thought today I would mention some of the successes of the economic stimulus program in Barrie, the riding that I have the tremendous honour of representing. There has been $54 million in economic stimulus over the last year in our region of Simcoe County and I am going to talk about a few of the projects today.

There is the downtown community theatre, an investment of $2.5 million with the federal government to build and construct a theatre in our downtown, something that had been advocated for a long time by Joe Anderson and William Moore, who came to Ottawa and made a presentation last February. I know they were shocked to see how quickly this government got engaged in this project that is going to create jobs and stimulate our downtown.

I think of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, where there has been $5.3 million in investment, dealing with the reduction of phosphorus levels in Lake Simcoe through fighting urban waste runoff in areas where it can be cleaned up.

I look at the Allandale GO Train station. This is a $1.5 million federal investment that was announced last February. For a long time Barrie was without GO Train services. Unfortunately, in the early 1990s the NDP premier at the time cut the GO Train, despite its popularity in our region. To have GO Train services back, as was announced in 2007, was a tremendous boom to our community, but now to have a second station in the downtown dovetails so well with the downtown community theatre that I mentioned.

These are two major projects in our downtown. I certainly must credit the local councillor, Jerry Moore, who was very active in advocating the station, and also Jack Garner, who had sat on the GO Train board when it was taken away and remained active in the diligent fight to bring it back for over 12 years.

I think of the Barrie fire station. There was a desperate need for a new fire station in our downtown and the federal government invested $4.2 million into this economic stimulus project that was announced in June. Shovels are just beginning to work on this property on Dunlop Street in Barrie.

This was something that the city did not have the funds to do. If it were not for these stimulus investments, this is the type of project that would never have happened. Dozens of jobs are being created through this building of a new fire station. I had a chance to sit down with Len Mitchell and Kevin White from the fire force and they were so ecstatic to hear that this investment was made.

To give another example of infrastructure investment, there were five different projects announced in June in the city of Barrie. These too will create prosperity. Whether talking about the Colombia free trade bill or about infrastructure investments, this is all part of a larger picture of investment and prosperity that this government has certainly been engaged in.

Of these five road projects that I was mentioning, one was for $506,000. Another was for $992,000. Another was for $1.7 million. Another was for $1.6 million and another for $3 million. These road projects are all beginning this year. They are going to be finished within a year and a half. These are all projects that are going to have to hire construction workers. These construction workers are going to spend in our community. We are leaving a lasting legacy for our community and country.

I would be remiss not to mention the expansion of Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, the federal component of which was $4.5 million. The municipalities and province are getting involved. This is another project that is embarking momentarily and will be completed within a one-and-a-half year timeframe. This expansion is going to make our region more competitive economically, but it is also something that is going to create immediate construction jobs.

I note that there are also RInC projects in our riding. There are two of them including the tennis club and Eastview Arena. These projects are also of significant stature. They are in the million-dollar range and are desperately needed. When I sat on council in Barrie nine years ago, we were talking about upgrades to Eastview Arena.

It is one of those things that is talked about every year at budget and there is never enough money around the table to do it. This federal investment in recreation enables the city to complete this long-desired investment in recreation. At Eastview Arena, the kids had to split into two dressing rooms to change because it was so small. This change has been—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were debating Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. All I have been hearing are stories about infrastructure. I am just wondering when the member is going to be dealing with the issue at hand.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would ask the hon. member for Barrie to return to the subject of the matter at hand, which is Bill C-23.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, whether it is prosperity created through the Colombia free trade agreement or whether it is prosperity through infrastructure, it is important to look at the larger picture. The big picture is that this government is advocating prosperity in every sense.

Whether we create a job through the Colombia free trade agreement and have a business with a new trading avenue, or whether it is through an infrastructure project like the Eastview Arena that I mentioned, the prosperity-enhancing measures that this government has been engaged in are going to have real benefits for Canadians.

Consider an individual who has a new job in Barrie. What is the cycle of that new job? That individual is likely going to frequent a local restaurant. They are going to shop at a local business. That is more business for a business or restaurant that may have been struggling to keep their balance sheets. It keeps them alive. It maintains jobs.

I am so proud of our government for doing this. Our government is not only advocating prosperity but maintaining it. It is protecting jobs and certainly looking out for the best interests of Canadians.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, recently the Prime Minister attended the world summit at the United Nations and my understanding is that the President of Colombia was present at that summit as well. Considering the amount of time we are debating this very important free trade agreement with Colombia here and the very serious issues being raised including human rights issues, did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to sit down and discuss some of these issues with the president of Colombia at that summit?

We know that the Prime Minister's time unfortunately was limited at the UN because he rushed back at a cost of $60,000 to taxpayers to take the Challenger jet back to Oakville to attend Tim Hortons. Tim Hortons has opened up a location in New York. He could have done it just around the corner from the UN and saved taxpayers $60,000.

However, did he have an opportunity to meet with the president of Colombia to discuss some of these issues. If he did not meet, was it perhaps because his time was so limited because he rushed back on this taxpayer funded $60,000 Challenger trip to Tim Hortons for a double-double?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always amusing to hear the Liberals talk about trade liberalization and trade because their positions really change quite rapidly.

I think of the Liberals when they were in opposition prior to the election of Prime Minister Chrétien. They were rabid anti-free traders and in office they advocated for trade.

Therefore, it is tough to take seriously anything they say today whether they are for it or against it because they tend to change their minds once elected on trade liberalization.

It is always interesting to hear the comments, but I recognize they may not have any bearing on what would happen if they were ever unfortunately to return to office.

In terms of the Canada-Colombia free trade bill, I think it is important to reference that in February 2008 a report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Colombia stated:

It must be recognized that Colombia has made progress in restoring security throughout the country in recent years, and the visibility given to human rights in the public agenda is a solid achievement.

Hopefully, Canada like other countries has helped raised that--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. Question and comments, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly was a little confused for a minute. I thought perhaps the member had the wrong notes in front of him because he talked more about stimulus than with regard to Bill C-23. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is of great concern to not only the NDP but as well to many people within Canada and abroad.

The Canada-Colombia agreement is strongly opposed by parliamentarians in Canada and Colombia, by civil society groups, indigenous people, trade unions, environmental groups and citizens from both nations.

There was a letter that was sent by over 50 prominent Canadians including activists, professors, labour groups, civil society, Stephen Lewis, Ed Broadbent and Naomi Klein to the Leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, during the party's leadership convention--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to refrain mentioning the name of a sitting member of Parliament, but in any event I must give the member for Barrie the time to respond to that question.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of her question about the topic, sometimes the NDP members forget to appreciate this. We have to look at prosperity in all its elements. Certainly, I can appreciate why they may not view it that way but job creation is certainly related to trade liberalization as it is to infrastructure projects. We have to look at the larger picture of how to create jobs, not just criticize or debate in Parliament. It is important to look at tangible job creation mechanisms.

Trade liberalization is one of them, infrastructure investments are another. They are all linked to the larger picture of prosperity.

In terms of Colombia, Colombia will make no progress if we isolate that country. We believe that political engagement, development assistance and free trade are all key elements for success in Colombia.

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

[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.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question and some clarification points. I am not sure where Bloc members stand on the situation when they mention the United States of America. They seem to be of the impression that the Americans are against what we are doing and they too are against it, but my research tells me that it is not the case. President Barrack Obama has admitted that they are proceeding and that he is 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 certainly do not think Congress has tossed this out either.

I wonder if the hon. member could clarify his points on that matter. I think he did touch on the United States situation. I was wondering if he could give his reasoning why they are refusing this in light of the situation in America.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think my colleague understood what I was saying or maybe he was not listening. The Doha round at the WTO is currently blocked. It is blocked because emerging countries do not want developed countries to be the only ones benefiting from freer trade. That should be the focus of debate regarding international trade. To avoid having to have this debate and having to make concessions to open the borders, the American government, under the Bush administration, decided to jump into all kinds of bilateral agreements with different countries. As I said, they were generally countries with which they did not have existing trade relationships, but that were not able to hold their own in the balance of power with the Americans.

I condemn the fact that Canada and its Conservative government took exactly the same approach, using the villages to surround and take the cities, as Mao Zedong said. They are currently trying to establish a model of free trade that does not take into account human rights, union rights or environmental rights.

The government is trying to force this on countries that cannot defend themselves, and make that the standard. That is unacceptable from a country like Canada or the United States. That is what President Obama said he would change.

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

Madam Speaker, numerous Liberal and Conservative members who have spoken to the bill have talked about the importance of signing the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia as a way to improve human rights records in that country.

Does the member have any evidence that signing free trade agreements with any country has improved the human rights record of that country and, if he is aware of one, would he please tell me which one it would be?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear to the Bloc Québécois and to most people in Quebec that human rights must come before trade.

I think that if human rights, labour rights and environmental rights were taken seriously, then free trade agreements and investment protection would also be subject to environmental, labour rights and human rights standards.

Major international conventions exist. They must be respected in order for the advantages in the agreement to apply. That is one way Canada and other developed countries could help democracy and prosperity flourish in these emerging countries and in developing countries.

I do not buy the argument that economics and freer trade alone will lead to democracy and prosperity. That has not been proven in the past and it will not be in the future.

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.

[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.

[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 has been interesting listening, as we have gone through some of the discussions today, to the NDP members and their politics about not trading. They seem to want to circle the wagons within our own country. They oppose any agreement on trade that would give our manufacturers, our industry and our agricultural community any benefits from reaching out and having trade agreements with other countries.

We make trade agreements that are beneficial to both countries. Colombia does not have the same standards of living that Canada has. We are very blessed and fortunate in this great country. We have been able to move ahead in a collegial movement, working on win-win discussions and negotiations with countries that have not had the opportunity to trade into Canada, so we can give them the goods and services and the investment that they need within their country to help them raise their standards.

Why did I talk about the agreement with Colombia in comparison to other trade agreements that we have? We have historical data, but I think it is always important to use good agreements that benefit all the countries with which we have them, as reinforcement to show where we have been able to move ahead on this great agreement with Colombia.

I suspect that NDP members across the way have said that they do not support any agreement. They do not support any movement ahead by Canada in terms of being able to export. That is just amazing, because we are a country with minerals, natural resources and agriculture in abundance that we cannot deal with ourselves.

It is always important that we develop great trade agreements. The Conservative government is the only one that has been able to reach out with these agreements, not just the multinational ones covered by the European discussions, but also the bipartite ones.

I would hope that when the time comes, the hon. members across the way would actually change their mind and come on side and help us to move Canada ahead in this free trade agreement, which is good for both countries, Colombia and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are suggesting that the government should not be signing free trade agreements with countries like Colombia that have atrocious human rights records. The members opposite and some of the Liberals have been making speeches saying that it is okay to sign free trade agreements because by doing so we might encourage them to have better human rights practices and a better human rights record.

I would like to ask the member whether he can give me one example of an agreement with a country that had a bad human rights record which, with the signing of the agreement, was somehow improved.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about human rights, we are very fortunate within Canada to have such a high standard of human rights, protection of workers, protection of families and protection of our individuals, because our democracy has allowed that.

In terms of why we sign these agreements, I would like to read a couple of quotes into the record, if I may.

The government's efforts to strengthen the rule of law, mainly through increasing regional state presence in locations previously under the control of illegal armed groups....

This comes from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I have a number of those. What is really important to the democratic forum is that we actually work with these countries through these agreements to help them improve their human rights.

[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.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments that were just made on the Colombia free trade agreement. As the member will know, New Democrats will be voting against this very flawed trade agreement, in large part, because it completely ignores human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. In comments that our caucus has made in the House it has certainly been abundantly clear and detailed the deficiencies in the trade agreement.

Would the member opposite, though, square the circle for me? One of his colleagues has adopted a bill that was first introduced by a former colleague of mine, Alexa McDonough, the former leader of the NDP. She brought in a bill on corporate social responsibility. The whole point of that legislation was not to allow companies to do elsewhere in the world what we would prohibit them from doing here.

What we see now with the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is an agreement that would fundamentally ignore the rights of indigenous people. It contemplates an agreement with a country that kills labour leaders and then asks simply for a fine to be paid when those murders occur.

Could the member square for me that circle between his party's support for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and his apparent support, as well, for corporate social responsibility legislation.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. There is no question that this agreement will develop a rules-based approach, which enhances corporate social responsibility.

Liberals have advocated corporate social responsibility for a long time. That is very true, whether it is investments in the Canada pension plan or to ensure a mining company practices the same high environmental standards here as it would if it went abroad. We want to ensure that is in place.

Having a rules-based agreement is absolutely important. They are not contradictory at all. If we want that, then I would hope the New Democratic Party would at least agree to support it to allow it go to committee. It is really at committee where all these issues can be addressed. Obviously if they are not addressed to the satisfaction of the member or any other member, they can certainly vote against it.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a great interest and expertise in foreign policy and trade policy issues.

Given the 40-year civil war in Colombia, the strife that has occurred and the fact that most of these issues and human rights violations have been carried out by either FARC guerrillas on the left or disbanded paramilitary who have become drug gangsters, not ideological any more but simply a drug war, does he see the potential of legitimate trade opportunities with Canada, which are rules based, as providing an opportunity to the Colombian people to wean themselves off the narco economy and to take that source of revenue away from those gangsters and FARC guerrillas, the revenue they enjoy from that economy?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that there was a 40-year civil war means that the Colombian government is starting out relatively new in terms of the institutions that we need to build to create a functional democracy there. One of them is parliamentary engagement, and that is where we can play an extremely important role.

We have to get them weaned off the issue of the narco economy. One way to do that is to strengthen the parliamentary institutions. Another way is to work with civil society organizations. An additional way is to ensure there is an effective police force, one that understands and practices human rights.

These are institutional building issues, which are important. Having a rules-based agreement will help and enhance that approach about which the member is asking, and there is only one way to do that. We have to remember that after 40 years of civil strife, society will not be transformed overnight. Rome was not built in a day. However, I think we can play a very important building role in assisting in that regard.

[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.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my colleague's speech because he said that the goal of a free trade agreement should be to bring everyone up.

What we are looking at here is an agreement that was negotiated between two free countries that are able to make their decisions. In chapter 16, articles 1603 and 1604 talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and it sets out the two countries' objectives and obligations with respect to labour. The labour agreement covers the right to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, elimination of discrimination, providing protections for occupational safety and health, and minimum employment standards such as minimum wages and overtime pay.

What we have in front of us is an agreement that was negotiated by two countries and agreed to by both countries. I do not understand the NDP's rationale here. We have two countries that agree to a free trade agreement and agree that it will bring both countries up.

If there is a fair trade agreement template out there that the countries agree to but it is not good enough for the NDP, who should be negotiating these free trade agreements around the world? Should it be two independent countries that agree on it or should the NDP negotiate it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was making a general statement about how I think trade agreements should be developed. Under no circumstances was I suggesting that somehow a free trade agreement with Colombia be negotiated until its human rights conditions are improved. Just this year alone there have been 29 trade unionists murdered in Colombia, a dozen killed in the last 30 days.

This is a non-starter. A free trade agreement or a fair trade agreement or any type of trade agreement with Colombia right now should be a non-starter until we resolve this whole issue of the human rights abuses in Colombia.

The government, by its own admission, is working on several options. It is not working just with Colombia at this point. It is pursuing free trade agreements or fair trade agreements with a lot of different markets right now, and I think it should keep pursuing them, but a little more attention should be put on trying to get a fair trade component.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the New Democrats has expressed some real concerns today.

In terms of trade unionists, however, he must realize that the murders of unionists have declined 73% since the election of the Uribe government in 2002, that the Uribe government actually provides full-time, 24-hour paid security for 1,800 union leaders and that the attacks on these union leaders are almost exclusively from drug gangsters or FARC guerrillas. The narco-economy in Colombia is one of the biggest challenges.

How does the member not realize that providing legitimate, rules-based trading opportunities will actually help the Colombian people wean themselves off that narco-economy?

These attacks have occurred without any free trade agreement, without any rules-based approach. He says, and I believe him, that he wants to see a rules-based approach. How does signing the most robust labour and environment side agreements we have ever signed in any trade agreement have any potential but to make things better?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the member's attention to the fact that in 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that no agreement be signed with Colombia until the human rights situation improved. It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment study be undertaken to determine the real impact of a trade agreement. So far the government has totally ignored this report.

Why is the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus and the member going along with the government and ignoring this particular recommendation of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade from just a few months ago?

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Conservative member if he has the courage to answer this very specific question.

In his view, how will an investment agreement—I said investment and not trade—help reduce poverty in Colombia? In fact, Canada wants to protect its investments in Colombia. How will investments, especially mining investments that can generate a lot of money, help reduce poverty in Colombia? We know that we cannot eliminate crime if we do not reduce poverty.

More to the point, how can Canadians who invest in Colombia in order to maximize their profits—we do not imagine that they are giving away their money—help reduce poverty?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin with a general answer and then give the Bloc member a more specific answer as he has requested.

The general answer is that we can well observe over the last 20 or more years the general growth in prosperity around the world in countries, for example, like India and China, which have thrown open their doors to investment and which have invested in our country, a growth in prosperity, and alleviation of poverty around the world. I fully expect that this will occur in Colombia.

As to specifics, I would like to add that these agreements that we sign with Colombia will include, for example, Canadian labour projects which will provide technical assistance in Colombia, including $400,000 for the modernization of Colombia's labour administration, and $644,000 for the enforcement of labour rights. These agreements will help establish an independent review panel which will impose penalties if labour rights are not respected.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a very interesting speech and good quotations, but he made some assumptions that I find hard to understand. He assumed that free trade would bring a decline in crime rates; with less poverty there would be less inclination to commit crime.

In one country with which we have signed a free trade agreement, Mexico, and in the free trade zones in the north of Mexico we have actually seen a ramping up of crime over the past 10 years. This is an epidemic.

Could the member explain how the free trade agreement with Mexico has reduced the crime rate and poverty in that country?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to analyze all of the problems that are occurring in Mexico right now, but I will remind my friend of something I am sure he learned in his educational days and that is an old principle of logic that sometimes things can be necessary, but not sufficient. In my view, the elimination of poverty is a necessary prerequisite for the kind of rule of law that one of my Liberal friends mentioned earlier. It may not be sufficient and it may be that there are other factors at play, but the logic of the matter dictates that we have to do something to lift Colombia out of poverty.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, listened to the member's passionate speech and I thank the member for his passion. In my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex there is a refugee family that came from Colombia about 10 years ago. Yaneth, who was a prosecuting attorney, was driven out of her country by the corruption. I know that she was so pleased to meet with the Colombian president. I want to tell the House how thrilled she is about the prospects.

What does the member see as the future for law-abiding people in Colombia? What can they expect with this new agreement?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a Colombian family in my riding. I spoke to them very recently about this and they are encouraged by President Uribe's efforts. They know that he cannot solve everything overnight, but they believe he has put the country on a road to a more law-abiding context and a more prosperous future.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for having raised points that had not yet been mentioned. I think they are important in today's debate because they shed the light on the way people are treated in Colombia.

Does my colleague realize, in reading the Government of Canada's recommendations to not visit Colombia, that this is nothing more than an investment agreement?

People would not even go there because it is much too dangerous. So this is not an economic agreement as they would have us believe. Investments are made, people are hired there and exploited as much as possible, in mines in particular, without the investor even having to visit the country. They invest and then make as much money as possible.

I do not see how this can address the issue of poverty. Can my colleague explain how investments could help address the issue of poverty in Colombia?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Brome—Missisquoi is absolutely right. I did not want to repeat all the other points brought up by the Bloc Québécois in this House regarding this agreement, because my colleagues all did so brilliantly. They were very precise. They have very carefully examined this agreement.

This is not a commercial free trade agreement. This is not what will help Colombians. This will not help free them from the violence and misery. This will not ensure that human rights are respected in Colombia. On the contrary, the agreement with Colombia before us now—that is being made, but that I wish would never be made—will simply enable Canadian investors to conduct mining operations in Colombia and to exploit not only the soil and subsoil, but also the Colombian people. It is an agreement to exploit the people of 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, we see on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that there will be absolutely no way of helping these people with the free trade agreement as currently proposed.

As we have said, it is an agreement that protects investments, exploits the local population and exploits the Colombian environment, but it is not an agreement that can help the people in any way at all. Even if we wanted to, we would still have to be able to go there, and the Canadian government tells us to avoid non-essential travel there because it is too dangerous. That is what they say at the foreign affairs website. We are told not to go, that it is dangerous. There are guerrillas and armed drug traffickers. They may perpetrate attacks, extortion, kidnappings, car bombings, and damages to infrastructure in all regions. We cannot go to help the people if we cannot at least go and see the situation.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Liberal member.

For a while now, we have known that, each time the word environment is mentioned, the Liberals want to hide under the carpet. They just vanish. The environment is over for them. However, the member had the courage to say that this measure could protect the environment in Colombia.

I would ask her to explain how this agreement—this pact—could protect the environment in Colombia, when we know the extent to which this sort of agreement is not made to protect the environment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges with the environment right now is an absence of financial ability by the Colombian government to carry out compliance and enforcement, just as in Canada. According to our Auditor General, the Conservative government has not adequately invested in compliance and enforcement in some areas of its responsibility.

A free trade agreement brings an additional flow of funds to the government, allowing it to implement that compliance and enforcement. The scrutiny of the international community and the Canadian government combined with mechanisms for complaints to be filed would help with environmental protection.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of things that makes Canada the powerhouse that it is and gives it strength is the fact that we trade with other countries. The more countries we trade with, the better it is.

I am not saying that we make a blanket statement that the Colombian free trade agreement is 100% correct and that is all there is to it. Some people are saying they do not even want to look at it.

Maybe the hon. member can explain the process. At the stage we are at right now, it is not like we are saying yes and that is it or no and that is it. If we say no, it is dead. If we say yes, it goes to committee. The committee will have to be very thorough before coming back to the House. Perhaps the member can explain what the process is within committee to ensure that Canada is getting the best deal possible.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the debate has been providing some guidance as to what areas the committee can look at in order to make some recommendations, if it has any, for modifying this agreement.

Really, the key question is this. In a country that is having such a difficult time and humanitarian tragedy as Colombia, is this going to be helpful? It is very important to listen to the voices of people in Colombia.

With respect to the previous member's question around environment, witnesses who came to committee to talk about the environment and their concerns in Colombia also answered that yes, a free trade agreement would be a benefit to Colombia. Even as environmentalists, that was their view. Can we strengthen our environmental side agreement? Absolutely.

As for the member's question about committee, I would like to see a stronger compliance mechanism in terms of a complaint process that has teeth in our side agreement and I encourage the committee to put that idea forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

I was also part of the international trade mission to Colombia and we did not necessarily hear the same things. She says that, in general, people were in favour of this agreement. My recollection is that all the groups we met with—the national indigenous organization of Colombia, all the social clubs, the social association, the popular women's organization, the national agrarian coordinator, the Christian movement for peace with justice and dignity—actually expressed their displeasure with the signing of this agreement.

I would like the member to explain why she perceives the people she met in Colombia to be in favour of the agreement.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Perhaps we were in different meetings, Mr. Speaker, but as I said, there were groups that had advice for us and ideas about how to improve a free trade agreement. When the question was posed, “Are you better off with this trade agreement or without it”, the answer invariably was that it is better to have more trade and have rules-based trade through a free trade agreement. That was my experience.

[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?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Canada Day; the hon. member for Malpeque, Health; the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East, Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and say that he has hit the nail right on the head. We get what he is saying because we share the same opinions.

The member mentioned other countries' experiences. Does he remember what happened with bilateral agreements between European countries and Africa, specifically? Did those bilateral free trade agreements improve things in African countries, or did they merely enrich Europe? There have been many examples justifying our concern about two countries with different levels of prosperity signing a free trade agreement.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Brome—Missisquoi suggested a very relevant comparison because if the two parties signing such an agreement are not equally matched, we will never be able to ensure that its provisions are carried out in the public interest. Once again, the only parties that will benefit are multinational corporations that consider borders to be something of a nuisance. They will figure out how to take advantage of the situation every chance they get.

Consider the diamond wars going on in Africa and conflicts over other natural resources where foreign interests are pillaging nations despite obligations to follow various international trade regulations. Clearly, we are fooling ourselves if we think that by signing this agreement, somehow, magically, we will create laws where there is no way to enforce them.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his remarks on this matter. The government and the Liberals say that signing an agreement with Colombia will improve the rights of that country's citizens. I would like my colleague's opinion about one thing. Over the past 10 years, 60% of union leaders killed throughout the world were Colombians. Does my colleague really believe that signing an agreement with Colombia will improve conditions for the citizens of that country?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for his question. It is completely unrealistic to believe that the mere act of signing such an agreement will have any impact whatsoever. In fact, the reality is just the opposite.

Rather than using its moral authority to tell a country that if it wants an agreement it must have a good human rights record, Canada is condoning, accepting and sanctioning the state of affairs in Colombia. Rather than using these agreements to bring about positive change, we are about to ensure that the government of that country can turn to its people and tell them that a country like Canada, with such a fine human rights record, has just signed an agreement with it, which is tantamount to an endorsement that all is well in Colombia. However, we have just given a number of examples that prove that this is not at all the case.

[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.

[An hon. member]

The law of the jungle.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to put a few thoughts on the record about this important piece of public business before us, the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia.

Members may remember that a couple of weeks ago I was here asking questions and debating with members who spoke at that time. I focused my comments on the very terrible human rights record of this country with which we now propose to enter into an arrangement regarding our economic future. I talked about the hundreds of people who have been summarily killed: trade unionists, social activists and innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of that terrible reality.

We heard from the daughter of a trade unionist who spoke with some of us in our offices about her father who was killed by the government forces of Colombia as he tried to do what we take for granted in Canada as ordinary. We go about trying to keep a balance between labour and management in our workplaces, to organize people, and to demand fair wages and benefit packages and health and safety conditions in workplaces.

However, I do not want to focus my comments today on that, although it is of pre-eminent importance and something we need to continually keep in front of us as we debate this public policy.

I want to talk about why this is the wrong thing for us to be doing at this particular point in our history, particularly when we consider the economy at the moment and what got us here. The chasing after free trade agreements and arrangements with mostly multinational corporations that literally dictated to countries what they could and should not do with their resources and their workplaces in an unfettered, unregulated way, driven by greed, got us to a place where we lost control and the financial system collapsed.

For a time, and I suggest it continued for quite some time, we really did not fully appreciate nor understand how we got there, the dynamic that was in place and what we needed to do to get us out of it.

I suggest that we have had a wonderful track record and history in this country, particularly in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and some of the 1990s, of managing our domestic economy in a way that recognized the communal ownership of natural resources we had some stake in, and that we needed to make the economy work for everybody, that we needed to be acting in this country in the best interests of all people, that we left nobody behind.

I remember when my parents, in the late 1950s, sold everything they had in the wonderful country of Ireland, which at the time was struggling economically, and they bet the resources they generated on a dream for their family. They came to Canada, and we arrived in the wonderful little pristine town of Wawa, in northern Ontario. There were about 5,000 people in the town at that time, and 1,200 of those people were working in the mines. They were working in the sinter plant, mining ore and turning it into a product they then shipped to Sault Ste. Marie, where 12,000 people in a community of around 80,000 turned that sinter into steel.

They then sent that steel off to communities across this country, to every end of the country, to Vancouver, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and southern Ontario, to make boats, airplanes, cars and trains. Literally hundreds of thousands of other Canadians were kept working in good jobs, making good money, belonging to unions where they got good benefit packages, and in their retirement years they were able to live on the pensions that were negotiated.

That was not all that we did as a country at that time, and since then, to have us become the envy of many economic jurisdictions around the world.

The market did not create Canada, which is why today I say that we should not be allowing our future to continue to be driven by this trolling in the world for further trade agreements with countries and jurisdictions in which human rights are in question.

The market did not create Canada. Our history is one of interventions by national and provincial governments to ensure that the market did not dictate or limit our choices: Sir John A.'s transcontinental railroad, the Wheat Board, public health care, wartime buy Canada policies, unemployment insurance, the CPP, Hydro-Québec, the Canada-U.S. auto pact and efforts to foster a domestic aerospace industry, to name just a few examples.

Such interventions reduced the Canadian economy's dependence on exports of largely unprocessed resources and agricultural products by growing a significant manufacturing sector, providing good, well paid, often unionized jobs that guaranteed a comfortable family living, plus a tax base to pay for high quality public services across this country. That is what my family came to experience over the years after making their home in this country in the late 1950s.

Policies to boost the value-added component of the Canadian economy cut the unprocessed or barely processed proportion of Canada's exports from more than 90% in the late 1950s to under 45% in the late 1990s. An undervalued dollar at the time and the country's public health care system helped to add to Canada's appeal for investors in job rich manufacturing.

By the mid 1990s, Canada had a sophisticated mix of high value export industries, including automotive products, aerospace, telecommunications equipment, machinery, high tech applications and computer software.

Alas, the lessons of history are too soon ignored. The diversified economy that placed Canada among the most envied of nations has come undone. Of the 600,000 manufacturing jobs lost in this country since 2002, half of them disappeared since mid-2008. Our manufacturing trade balance is once again in deficit: $32 billion in 2007 and growing. The proportion of unprocessed or slightly processed resource exports is growing again, reaching almost 60% in 2007 from its low point of under 45% in 1999. The rise in commodity prices, especially that of oil, has boosted the value of our resources exports but done little for employment, with new jobs in the oil and gas industry offsetting only one-fifteenth of lost manufacturing jobs.

All one needs to do is look at that track record to see this almost obsessive compulsive attention and attraction to free trade agreements here, there and everywhere. Not considering the human rights records of any of the countries that we enter into agreements with is taking us down a road that will not produce, protect or grow the kind of country that we have the potential to be and, in fact, we were heading toward before free trade agreements and free trade arrived in this land.

Today, I suggest to everyone in the House and to the people out there watching that this is not the right time nor the right thing to be doing. This will not get us out of the difficult financial situation that we are in right now, nor will it help the people of Colombia.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak to this bill earlier and I addressed some of the concerns about human rights issues that constituents and others have raised with me.

Maybe the member has received some other information since that time, but the committee considered this deal and made a recommendation that an independent human rights assessment be done and that it was essential in terms of assessing the context in which a free trade deal could be addressed. Subsequently, I have found out that Amnesty International has refused to participate in an independent human rights assessment. This is troubling and maybe equally confusing since this is clearly an area that requires some attention.

I wonder whether the member has any idea where we are in terms of an independent human rights assessment to address the concerns expressed by many Canadians. If organizations like Amnesty International are not prepared to deal with it, what options do we have to satisfy that criteria?

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

Mr. Speaker, this independent review has still not been taken up by the government, which has the ability to actually launch such a review and make that happen.

I would suggest that the fact that Amnesty International does not want to participate should tell us a lot about the potential of such a review and what that says in terms of our going ahead with this free trade agreement with Colombia.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When the House returns to this matter, the member for Vancouver East will have three minutes remaining.

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Vancouver East had the floor. Three minutes are remaining in the time allotted for her remarks, and I therefore call upon the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to use my full three minutes.

I want to talk a bit more about the crisis situation in Colombia as we debate this bill.

I find it rather concerning that the Liberal member for Kings—Hants, during this debate, said that the NDP was hallucinating about the situation in Colombia. That is really a bit over the top, because when one looks at the real facts of what is going on, the reality in Colombia for workers, it is terribly serious. People are receiving death threats. Workers are being murdered.

I want to read into the record some information from the International Centre for Trade Union Rights, the Colombia bulletin, from January to September 2009. In that report they assess, as a result of their information and investigations, that there has been a total of 27 trade unionists assassinated in Colombia between January and September of this year alone. This is not a hallucination. This is a very dire situation that is facing workers in this country.

I just wanted to read out a couple of the citations in this report.

On May 5, the president of the Santander public sector workers' union received death threats that were sent to the union office by letter.

On May 28, a letter was sent to the offices of Atlántico containing death threats against a whole number of union leaders, including those from the health workers' union, the teachers' union, the court staff and judicial workers' union, the university workers' union and the pensioners' union. The list also included a death threat against a human rights lawyer. This letter was signed by paramilitary groups.

One of the grave concerns that we have about this bill is that it will do nothing to improve the atrocious violations of human rights and labour rights in Colombia. This is something we are very concerned about and the reason we are opposing this bill and trying to stop this bill from going through Parliament.

We think there is very broad support right across the country to do this, and I want to congratulate the activists in the CLC, in local labour councils across the country, as well as those in civil society. People have really taken this issue on, and they are really making the connections between what happens to us as Canadians and what happens to our brothers and sisters, whether they are in Colombia or elsewhere.

We talk about living in a global village. These trade agreements are written in the far distance with no involvement from ordinary people. In some ways it is like signing one's life away and that is how we see this trade agreement.

I do want to say that because of the work by civil society and the labour movement, and particularly by our own trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, we aim to stop this bill. So far it is going pretty well and we are going to keep at it.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member claims that paramilitary groups have murdered trade unionists this year. She should be aware that paramilitary groups have been disbanded in Colombia, but there are drug gangsters who continue to exist. There continues to be a battle between FARC, the leftist guerrillas who philosophically are closer to her party, and the drug lords who continue to operate in what has become not an ideological war today but a drug war.

To say that paramilitary forces are murdering union leaders today is false, because everybody who has been studying the issue recognizes that the paramilitary forces have been disbanded, and in fact the trend line on these attacks has decreased tremendously. The fact is that there is a drug war in Colombia and the best way to provide an alternative to the narco-economy is through legitimate trade.

She also has said, and the trade critic for the party has claimed, that President Obama is against it. In fact President Obama has said that he supports the free trade agreement and has instructed Ambassador Kirk, his trade representative, to work closely with President Uribe's team to proceed with the free trade agreement, so the U.S. Democrat position is in support--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to give the member for Vancouver East the opportunity to respond.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member for Kings—Hants got up and I know he would like us to believe that everything is okay in Colombia--

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

No, that's not true.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

--and that somehow this trade agreement is going to make things better. I know he would like to downplay the situation, but the fact is, what I just read comes from the International Centre for Trade Union Rights. It is their latest report, the Colombia bulletin--

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

You are a big supporter of free trade.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

--that contains information right up until September 2009, so this is very recent information. I only read a very small part because I only had three minutes left to speak, but I would be happy to share with the member the information that is contained here, and then I think he will begin to appreciate that the source material that is here tells us about the dire situation, violence, death threats and murders that have actually taken place.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to call the hon. member for Kings Hants to order.

I will not recognize those who continue to heckle. Questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for a terrific speech on the subject.

I want to point out, as many other members have, that just last year the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that no agreement be signed with Colombia until the human rights situation there is improved. It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment study be undertaken to determine the real impact of a trade agreement.

Now the question is, why has the government completely ignored this report and why are the Liberals going along with this?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

We have pointed out over and over again that not only is this a bad trade deal, but the process by which it is being taken through this Parliament has also been seriously flawed. I know that our member on the trade committee and other members of the NDP caucus have fought tooth and nail to try to ensure there is a proper public consultation process and assessment, just as the member for Elmwood—Transcona has outlined.

The only response I can give is that we have a Conservative government that, like the Liberal government before it, is more interested in creating these trade deals and signing on the dotted line than it is with the real impact on the lives of ordinary people in some of these countries, including the impact on Canadian workers.

I think it is because it is so divorced from the reality of what it is that workers face as a result of these trade agreements, particularly in the situation in Colombia. The government has no regard for what those real impacts are.

This happens at a very high level, and I think it is very reflective of the problem with these trade agreements and how they come about. They do not involve trade unions and they do not involve civil society. We are not a party to these things and yet we live with the consequences of them. Some of them, as we have pointed out, are hugely negative and problematic.

We will always try to work to ensure that there is a proper process, at least through our Parliament. If the Conservative government and the Liberal members choose to ignore that, I guess that is their problem. We will always seek to ensure that there is that kind of wide consultation and examination of these agreements.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to focus on the current social, human and political situation in Colombia, so as to explain why the Bloc Québécois opposes Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

It is important to consider the impact and repercussions that the terms of this agreement will have on the people of Colombia. We must ensure that the rights of Colombians are respected and that their opinions will be taken into account before we ratify such an agreement.

Civil society and the people of Colombia are opposed to a free trade agreement that enhances the rights of foreign investors and exporters, but does nothing to take into account local issues in terms of development and human rights.

Yes, trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows those states that are willing to do so to promote development and protect the environment.

The uproar against this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is only growing in strength, in Canada and in Colombia. According to the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the two side agreements—one on labour rights and the other on the environment—will only exacerbate the problem of human rights violations, and the legislative provisions meant to guarantee those rights and protect the environment will not work.

We cannot enter into a free trade agreement with Colombia without looking at the human rights situation in that country. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to life, security of the person, freedom of expression and freedom of association. It is therefore incomprehensible that the Canadian government should ratify a free trade agreement given the Colombian government's deplorable record of violating human and workers' rights.

Can the Canadian people, who consider themselves a democratic society and stand up for workers' rights, sanction a free trade agreement with a country where people put their lives at risk just by demonstrating or wanting to join a union? It is regrettable that the Canadian government is supporting a regime that is heavily involved in human rights violations and mired in a huge political scandal because of its ties to paramilitary groups.

Those responsible for the crimes against union members and civilians are very seldom found guilty in court. Only 3% of the crimes committed have led to a conviction and in the meantime, the paramilitaries are reasserting control over the territory, and the government is doing nothing to stop them.

In Colombia, it is easier to organize an armed paramilitary group than a union. The anti-union culture prevailing in Colombia makes it one of the most dangerous countries in the world for union members. A number of groups are targeted. The Liberal member who said that everything is great in Colombia must be hallucinating because when we examine what is happening we see that major groups such as teachers, those involved in labour disputes, those against privatization, women, children, prison guards and farmers are being targeted. Furthermore, thousands of people are being displaced.

I would like to cite just a few statistics: 2,685 union members have been killed in recent years, 474 of them since President Uribe came to power. Thousands of men, women and children have been threatened and even kidnapped. In 2008, 41 union members were killed and in 2009, 29 were murdered, as mentioned by the NDP member. More than 300,000 people were displaced in 2007 and more than 380,000 in 2008. That is unacceptable. Such displacement occurs more frequently in rural areas.

These people are being displaced with the support of mining companies and large agricultural companies, making this a major humanitarian issue, bigger than what is going on in Sudan. That says something.

Why is Canada, and especially a government like this one, acting like this? The Prime Minister has said:

I will sign trade agreements with parties who respect the rights we respect in Canada; fundamental values like democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance.

How can the Prime Minister and the current government sign, or try to sign, an agreement with Colombia?

Earlier, we spoke about paramilitary groups, and I said that it was easier to form this kind of group than to form a union. It is true that they are now called something else. We call them militias, the Black Eagles. They go by many names, but they continue to systematically kill unionists and/or civilians who speak out against the Uribe government, which is also trying to finally sign this free trade agreement that only gives rights to investors and has nothing to do with trade.

Bill C-23 contains a chapter on investments. As the agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia is ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Such clauses are especially dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best. By protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement could delay social and environmental progress in that country, where the need for progress is great.

Canadian mining companies have to be careful not to become complicit in human rights violations or cause forced displacement of any populations, since regions that are rich in minerals tend to become theatres of violence, paramilitary control and displacements.

This chapter pays mere lip service to corporate social responsibility. Its “best efforts” provisions are purely voluntary and completely unenforceable.

As mentioned earlier, a parliamentary group studied the issue and submitted a report that was completely ignored by the current government. We made some important recommendations in that report.

As members of the Bloc Québécois, we cannot condone such stubbornness and such disdain for parliamentarians. Such behaviour stems from an authoritarian trend that is completely unacceptable and cannot become a precedent. This is not how we would like democratic institutions to operate in the future.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his speech. We just heard the Liberal Party critic say that there are no longer any paramilitary groups in Colombia. He dismisses all of the evidence presented by the member and ignores the humanitarian and human rights groups that say exactly the opposite, that Colombian paramilitary groups are still killing people.

I would like the member to comment on that. Does he think that the Liberal Party's position is even remotely credible when it claims that paramilitary groups no longer exist in Colombia?

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. Earlier, I said that the Liberal member was hallucinating. Parliamentarians are not the only ones talking about these paramilitary groups. A number of civil society groups in Canada, Quebec and Colombia are still condemning paramilitary activities in Colombia.

As I said earlier, paramilitary groups are no longer known by that name. Instead, some such militias are now known as the Black Eagles. The Colombian army, which I now consider to be a paramilitary group, has been told to make sure that Mr. Uribe can pursue this kind of trade agreement with Canada in a way that prevents the Colombian people from benefiting from it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, who gave an exceptional speech about why we will be voting against this truly bad agreement.

I would like to talk about some of the examples he gave. He emphasized that this agreement is quite hypocritical. The Conservative government says that this agreement is about trading goods, but we know that it is mainly about investment, particularly in the mining sector, and about protecting Canadian investors.

I know that my colleague was a unionist and that he has had personal experience with a similar situation in Quebec, not unlike what is going on in Colombia. Iron ore was being mined and Quebec was getting 1¢ per tonne. Workers were being paid starvation wages. Foreign investors were the ones making money.

Can my colleague tell us whether such conditions in the Quebec mining industry improved workers' quality of life, their health and the environment?

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We could draw a parallel between what happened here in Canada and what could happen in Colombia if we were to apply this kind of agreement to investors. Indeed, there was a time when workers here in the mining industry were terribly exploited. That was the genesis of unions, which helped secure decent working conditions in our mines.

Right now in Colombia, it would be impossible to ensure similar improvements to the working conditions, because the people are not allowed to unionize or to negotiate. Workers who choose to oppose something are systematically excluded from working, or even worse, killed instantly in some cases, especially when it comes to labour activists. I am not afraid to say that this practice is still a common occurrence in Colombia.

These are things that we denounce here at home, although the situations we face are much less severe. It is completely unacceptable that a government like the one across from me in this House would dare ratify this kind of agreement.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement implementation act. I have followed this debate with great interest and have listened to the arguments being made for and against.

Given my own personal experience with Colombians and having spent time in Colombia, I can appreciate on some level what is being said by those with one point of view and on the other level, I am inclined to want to fill them in on my understanding of what has gone on in Colombia over the years.

There is no doubt that this debate is about people. It is about ensuring that people have a right to live the kind of life that we live comfortably, and that they have the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy. That has been a problem in years past. That was a problem when I spent time in Colombia working with street children. There were times when young boys would be taken and destroyed. Young street boys were destroyed by the paramilitary and police because they were considered a nuisance.

However, we were there. I was working with a not for profit group and we were there to show that it did not have to be this way. It did not have to be that way then and it does not have to be that way now. I know from what I have read and people I have spoken with that progress has been made in Colombia. We will continue to make progress if we lead by example.

That is what my remarks are going to be about today. Countries like Canada have an obligation to make the point that we can lead by example. Look at what we are doing. Let us enter into business arrangements and whatever arrangements we have to enter into, so that people will understand that this is not the right way to do it. We do not take people for granted. We do not treat people with disrespect. We do not hold people up and tell them that they are no good because they cannot do this or that or make a contribution.

We as Canadians must show them that that is not the way to go. When I listen to colleagues talk about trade unionists being murdered, that is serious. The colleague who just spoke referenced information that she read suggesting that a great number more trade unionists are being murdered. That is not the same information that we have. We would not stand here supporting anything that would be detrimental to the people of Colombia.

I stand here today because I believe that we can make a difference. We can show people that the way to live is to work together and share our values with people who want to make a change in the world, and understand that we can work together to make that difference.

The people of Colombia need to feel confident. They need to know that there are people out there who care and want to help them make a difference. How do we do that? Again, we lead by example. If that means entering into business with Colombia business people, then we do that. Through building relationships and working together, we can lead by example. By building these relationships, one builds trust. When one builds trust, people come to understand that they can in fact depend on them.

I think it is really important to go down this path. I think it is important for a group of people that I spent a considerable amount of time with. I referenced street children earlier. Street children are children who were members of a family, particularly in rural parts of Colombia. Their fathers had to leave home through no choice of their own. They left a family behind. In some cases, they left 10 children behind for a mother to raise. The fathers did not leave because they wanted to leave. They left because there were no legitimate employment opportunities for them.

This is where the drug lords enter the picture. Drug lords are providing employment. The fathers never returned to the home because they knew that in doing so they would probably be putting their families at risk. They continued to work in an environment that was less than safe for them and one that they felt was probably even worse for their families should they return home because their families could be held to ransom.

We have families living without a father. We have mothers trying to raise as many as 10 children. What happened? The mother could not do it. It was just impossible to do. The young boys in the family, many of whom were not even teenagers, left home to form street gangs, and they became a member of a family. That family was the street gang. As members of that street gang, they did whatever they had to do to survive. In doing so, that was when the paramilitaries and the police and whoever else was in authority considered them to be a nuisance and more often than not got rid of them.

We need to be there. We need to do whatever we can to help those children. When I talk about not for profit organizations, they are doing tremendous work in these countries, but we cannot leave it up to the not for profit organizations. It is not fair to do that. They only have limited resources, and there is no way that they can possibly do everything that needs to be done.

All of this is to make the point that entering into economic arrangements is not only good for Canadians but it is good for Colombians. I know that, as a Canadian, I want to do whatever is good in an economic free trade agreement that is going to be good for the people I represent and for the people in our country. We do that by seeking out opportunities around the world. This is one such opportunity.

I know it works. As a previous minister of industry, I led trade missions to different countries. In fact, I could list many companies that have entered into successful business arrangements with companies around the world.

One example is Rutter Technologies in St. John's, Newfoundland, which is doing business in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South America and North America. By doing that it is providing employment opportunities not only for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but for people in other countries.

The same will happen in Colombia. There will be those opportunities that will come that will be legitimate opportunities for the men and women of Colombia. We have a part to play. We can help to make a difference in this country and I think we need to do that. I think we have an obligation to do that.

What we have seen happening in Colombia in the last while is a good news story. Last year we saw two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia that amounted to approximately $1.3 billion. Canada exports $703 million worth of goods to Colombia in motor vehicles, manufactured goods, wheat and paper, and imports $644 million worth of goods from Colombia in coffee, bananas, coal, oil, sugar and flowers.

It is a two-way opportunity and there are benefits for both countries. That is what we need to recognize. By doing that, by entering into these kinds of arrangements, we do provide those legitimate working opportunities for Colombians.

What is just as important to me as the free trade agreement itself is the side agreement on labour co-operation. There is also one on the environment. This side agreement with an economic arrangement cannot be overlooked. As with Canada's free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and NAFTA, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement includes side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

The Canada-Colombia labour co-operation agreement recognizes that both countries have obligations under the 1998 international labour organization declaration and fundamental principles and rights at work, which requires each country to ensure that its domestic laws, regulations and practices protect the following rights: the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination.

This is an incredible, important part of this particular free trade agreement.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I want to briefly commend my hon. colleague for her very articulate remarks. I had not heard her speak before in the House. I think we could all benefit from her more active participation in future debates. Her intervention struck me as balanced and based on personal experience.

Just very briefly, I think members of all parties say that we need to expand our trade markets so that we are less reliant on the United States. We certainly hear that from our friends in the New Democratic Party. However, at the same time, we often hear from those voices advocating an expansion in trade, opposition to particular trade agreements.

I wonder if she would care to reflect on the fact that there does appear to be a consensus that we need to expand our trade markets so there is less reliance on the United States, but in order to do so, we actually need to establish better trade arrangements with particular nations, such as Colombia.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, if we are going to play the role that we should play as a country in this world, and we are talking about a global marketplace here. If we are going to make a difference, if we are going to be the country that we are known as, a country that cares, then the obligation is on us to reach out to other countries throughout the world, no matter where they are, and work these arrangements so that they are in the best interests of both countries.

I think we can all speak about atrocities that are happening throughout the world. Do we just ignore them or do we take measures that are going to improve the situation and put an end to them? I think that is our obligation. There are wonderful opportunities throughout this country, working in a global marketplace, to see a benefit for all involved.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened as the member talked about Colombia, and I have a brief question for her.

Does she believe that that country's labour laws are up to International Labour Organization standards?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, we have seen great strides made in Colombia in the last while. If we look at the last 10 years particularly, we have seen significant strides made. The leadership in Colombia is working very hard to make a difference. It is working very hard to change the actions of the past. I think we have to recognize that. It will not happen overnight. However, with input from countries like Canada, leading by example, we will see the kind of Colombia and the kind of working environment in place that the people of that country are entitled to.

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

Madam Speaker, does my Liberal colleague believe that having a free trade agreement will increase exports?

She has already given bananas and flowers as examples. Flowers have killed just about the entire market for flowers grown in Ontario and Quebec greenhouses. Tariffs are already so low that I do not see how trade could increase.

I have the feeling my colleague did not realize that what this agreement primarily does is make it easier for Canadians to invest in the mining sector.

Why did my colleague not talk about that and tell us what the agreement is really all about?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, to just identify flowers as one commodity being traded is really doing an injustice. We should look at the many other examples of things that are being traded, whether it is coal, flowers or bananas. We have to look at the total number of products that are being traded and then work from there. Obviously, we have to start somewhere. We are making great strides. Both countries are benefiting from what we have in place now. So, let us make more opportunities for both countries and I think we will see a difference.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was hoping the member for Kings—Hants would stick around and listen because some of his remarks stirred me today. It motivated me to ask for a speaking opportunity in the context of this debate about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I am a socialist and a trade unionist and as such, if I lived in Colombia I would probably be dead today. I would not be alive at all. I would have been whacked by paramilitary hit squads associated with the ruling party, the government of the day.

I used to do my job in an aggressive way to elevate the standards of wages and working conditions of the people that I represented. What happens to people in Colombia who have reputations for trying to interfere with the absolute rule of the corporate structure is that they get killed.

Trade with Canada is not a right. Trade with Canada should be a privilege granted to those who are worthy of such an esteemed position in the international trading community. If it is one of our goals to elevate the standards of wages and living conditions for workers around the world, that is a laudable notion, but in this we are putting the cart before the horse, because once the Uribe government gets this free trade gift signed, the incentive to improve the well-documented human rights abuses will be gone. They will have vanished because there goes the only lever to try to elevate its performance on the international world stage.

I have very little time to make this case but a dear friend of mine, the former head of the Manitoba Federation of Labour who became the secretary treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, Brother Dick Martin, the head of the Steelworkers Union local 6166 in Thompson, became the head of ORIT, which is the labour central organization under the Organization of American States representing members of the OAS. Canada is a member of the Organization of American States, as is Colombia, Peru and much of Central and South America.

Dick Martin spent a lot of time in Colombia and, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, came back to report horrific assassinations of people he knew and worked with. People he would be meeting with one day would be killed in their driveway or home that night for having the temerity to speak out for fair wages and working conditions for the people they represented. It was the wholesale slaughter of trade unionists and it continues to this day.

The reason I raise this is that we are not talking about something that happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of the drug war or the power struggle that was going on in that country. We are talking about a report from the International Center for Trade Union Rights, Colombia Bulletin, January to September 2009. In that period between February and June, 27 trade unionists were assassinated in Colombia.

Acts of violence against trade unions were continued at an alarming rate. I have dozens of examples. On June 9, Pablo Rodriguez Garavito, a teacher and member of the teachers union, was assassinated by unknown gunmen in his classroom in the town of Puerto Rondon. It was in his classroom in front of his students because he was a trade union activist.

Colombia is a country that is unworthy of trade with Canada because once this agreement is signed it will dine out on the fact that its country is okay because a nice country like Canada saw fit to join with it.

My question would be: Why Colombia? It is not even the biggest trading partner of that region. It is the fifth largest trading partner with Canada in that particular area of South America. However, there is this compulsion to rush into this free trade agreement without consultation and without adequate thought going into it to maximize any benefit that we could gain from it.

I want to quote the chairman of the House trade working group in the United States, Chairman Mike Michaud from the state of Maine. He said:

If [I] had been born in Colombia, [I] would be dead. That's right. As members of our respective labor unions, the fight for higher wages, better working conditions, and a secure pension could have cost [me my life].

That is an American congressman, the chair of a House trade working group.

What about 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”. This is a Colombian politician sounding the alarm that this agreement does not have any kind of unanimous support among the people of Colombia and certainly is unworthy of the support of the House.

I want to take a moment to recognize and pay tribute to the diligent work of my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who has been working with a large group of civil society in Canada, trade unions, lawyers, environmental groups, parliamentarians and members of the Colombian congress. My colleague has been in contact and has met with members of the Colombian congress who are opposed to this agreement and concerned citizens all around the world to raise awareness and to stop this agreement. I do not think anyone has worked as hard to sound the alarm that this agreement is unworthy of our support and it should not be ratified by the House of Commons. The bill should not pass.

I also want to challenge some of the claims made by my colleague from Kings—Hants who, as I said, I was hoping would stay and listen to the remarks I have to make because I do not know where he gets his information from. I know he travelled to Colombia and met with people who support this agreement but he claimed that he met with a significant number of trade union groups which supported it. I have a declaration here signed by the general secretary of the General Labour Confederation, which would be Colombia's equivalent of our Canadian Labour Congress; the president of the Confederation of Colombian Workers, another trade union central umbrella organization; and the president of the Unified Central of Labour Unions, the CUT. It is too long to read, but I will perhaps read the last paragraph. These three leading trade union leaders, who represent the bulk of the unionized workers in that country, say:

That under these conditions...

Which they cited in great detail,

...the Colombian labour movement invites the Canadian society as a whole, and its Parliament, to demonstrate its solidarity with the Colombian people in mobilizing against and abstaining from signing...[the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement]...

... like those signed with the U.S., the European Free trade Association (EFTA) and the one it intends to sign with the European Union, because these will only aggravate the already difficult situation of a country that does not deserve the situation it is currently facing.

They make a compelling argument that by engaging in this free trade agreement we will be compounding the problems that they face and we will be making it that much more difficult for the working people in that country to elevate the standard of wages and working conditions under which they toil, and that human rights, as such, will continue to be violated on a monumental scale in the state of Colombia without the global pressure that would come from our holding back on this liberalized trade agreement.

Time does not permit going through many of the details here, but the United Kingdom recently ended military aid to Colombia because of the systematic crimes committed against the Colombian people by the Colombian military. The connection has been made that the Colombian government of President Uribe has been accused by international human rights organizations of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extrajudicial killings by the army, links to paramilitary and right-wing death squads and using its security forces to spy on the supreme court, opposition politicians and journalists. In fact, many government members, including ministers and members of Uribe's own family, have been forced to resign or have been arrested.

The Colombian government is a corrupt regime unworthy of a free trade agreement with Canada. We should be far more particular with which country we trade. It should be a reward. It should be a recognition that we have stipulated ourselves to certain guidelines that are befitting of democracies in the 21st century such as adherence to human rights, labour rights and environmental conditions within these free trade agreements, not as some auxiliary side agreement that has no enforcement mechanism.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I respect the member's passion, but I have one factual question for him I wonder if he could try to answer to the best of his ability. Is he aware of any free trade agreement that the New Democratic Party has ever supported, because I have been here for 13 years and I cannot recall one?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

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

Madam Speaker, I will be brief.

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member from B.C. on his idea of harm reduction. It is something we should pursue and take away the oxygen to many of the militias. This is why it is so important that we focus on that and not put our stamp of approval on a government that clearly is out of bounds when it comes to human rights. Yes, I would applaud that, and we should pursue it. However, for heaven's sake, let us not get involved with the kind of government that is overseeing some of these abuses and is involved in this kind of corruption. That is the wrong way to go.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his presentation in which he talked about teachers. We are all touched by his remarks. We are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that certain political parties in this House are siding with investors whereas other parties are supporting workers, teachers, ordinary people, miners and so forth.

I would like my colleague from Ottawa Centre to explain why they are supporting just the investors.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is at the core of what we are talking about.

Why do we have a government that does not want to sign on to corporate social responsibility in a real way? Why do we want to rush into a trade agreement with a country that has not put its house in order when it comes to human rights and environmental oversight?

What I think is at play is we have a government that is so enthusiastic about looking like it is expanding trade at any cost that it has forgotten about the core values of most Canadians. When we go abroad and we make deals with people, we have to ensure we check the whole package. In this case, it is only about the bottom line.

At the end of the day, it is just not worth it to trade with regimes that do not have their human rights or environmental houses in order. It is not worth it. The government needs to examine that a lot more carefully and the Liberal Party needs to do that as well. Trade at any price is not worth it.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was intrigued by the member for Ottawa Centre. I am sure he was a very good teacher and a passionate one.

He reminded me when I was practising law many years. As a member of the Canadian Bar Association, we received a letter from a member of the judiciary of Colombia saying they needed interaction with Canadian lawyers and with judges because they were under threat all the time. They pleaded for us to take an interest and for more interaction, which would be facilitated by the type of agreement we are debating today.

Would the member respond to that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a way to engage without having to make things worse and this trade agreement makes things worse.

Through the Organization of American States, we could intervene. We could work with those who trying to bring democracy and fairness to civil society in Colombia, which is actually going on now. That is the route to go.

Until we see enough change, we should not be involved in this trade deal, and I think most Colombians—