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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, with regard to this agreement, we have talked about labour rights and I want to underline the fact that Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries on earth for trade unionists. We have had examples given by my hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, and others who are saying that these folks are regularly victims of violence, intimidation and assassination.

This agreement does not have any kind of tough labour laws or labour standards. By putting these labour provisions in a side agreement, outside of the main text and without any enforcement mechanism, will not encourage Colombia to improve its horrendous human rights situation for workers and will actually justify the use of violence.

That is something that we have talked about here and I believe warrants more thought and consideration.

This agreement also does not really address the environment issue. It is addressed in a side agreement with no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights.

Then we come to another point that we have not really talked about a lot and that is the investor chapter. This is copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 which provides powerful rights to private companies to sue governments, enforceable through investor state arbitration panels.

I find this particularly worrying because of our many Canadian multinational oil and mining companies operating in Colombia. The arbitration system set up by chapter 11 gives foreign companies the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environmental labour and social laws here in Canada. It will give the same opportunity to foreign companies in Colombia. I think this is absurd.

If we look at chapter 11 and what has happened in Canada as a result of this clause, we see that for example in early April American chemical company Dow sued the federal government for $2 million in damages it claimed it would suffer from Quebec's cosmetic pesticide law. This is absurd, a foreign company suing a Canadian government that wants to protect its citizens.

We have seen that our tax dollars have been used by the Canadian government to pay Ethyl Corporation, $13 million to be exact, for an out of court settlement following a challenge filed on April 14, 1997, to Canada's ban on the import and interprovincial trade of gasoline additive MMT, a suspected neurotoxin.

The list goes on and on. Our government has been challenged by chapter 11 of NAFTA and now we want to transport this clause to Colombia so that other multinationals including ours can challenge their laws. For this reason alone, we should not be signing this agreement.

We look at agriculture tariffs. We look at Colombia's poverty. We know that in Colombia 22% of the employment is in agriculture. An end to tariffs for cereals, pork and beef, although favourable to us, the trading partner, will flood the market with cheap products and lead to thousands of lost jobs.

We have seen this in Mexico. We have seen that 30% of the corn in Mexico consumed now is imported from the United States, which is heavily subsidized corn. It has displaced over two million and up to fifteen million, I am not sure of the exact count, farmers from the land who have not been able to compete with produce coming in from out of the country.

Personally, I do not think that Canadians would want to see their farmers being displaced because of goods coming into our country. Surely there must be a way to have fair trade in these commodities between our countries and not trade which displaces farmers off the land.

I would like to talk about the fact that in any trade agreement, it is essential for fair trade to ensure full respect of human rights. The Canada-Colombia agreement is fundamentally flawed. It only tentatively addresses the issue, and does nothing to improve the serious problem with human rights in Colombia.

By ratifying the trade agreement with Colombia, Canada would be condoning a dangerous regime that is involved in acts of violence and murder against its own citizens. We heard a number of examples in our discussions today. The “kill a trade unionist, pay a fine” provision is ridiculous. It is particularly offensive. Under this provision, when a trade unionist is killed in Colombia, the government would simply have to pay into a development fund, up to a maximum of $15 million per year. That is unacceptable.

The Canada-Colombia agreement is essentially a reproduction of the outdated trade approach taken by former President George Bush. In the United States, 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. If our neighbour to the south had second thoughts about this agreement, the least we could do is carefully examine the agreement before us today and not blindly accept it.

In 2008, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that we not sign any agreements with Colombia until they have improved their human rights record. It also recommended that we conduct a human rights impact assessment to determine the real repercussions of a trade agreement. The government completely disregarded this report. This is another example of how the government does not listen to its own committees, in this case, the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Members in this House have said that they will support this bill. The Standing Committee on International Trade published a report in June 2006 recommending that Canada not sign and implement a free trade agreement with Colombia before conducting an independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights impact assessment. That was recommendation No. 4.

I would also like to applaud and thank my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the work he has done to raise awareness of the facts we are talking about today and for the work he has done with parliamentarians from other countries to show that this is not really a free trade agreement. This is an agreement for huge multinational corporations that want to enjoy the same benefits in Colombia as they do here in Canada, corporations that were not protected with all of the free trade agreements like NAFTA or the agreement that may now be finalized, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Some may not agree with what is happening here. For instance, some may think that NAFTA has not helped Canadian agricultural producers. Twenty years ago, beef producers earned twice as much as they do now. That was just before we signed the free trade agreement with the United States. We are always being told that markets have to be opened up. The market for beef has tripled in size, and we are now exporting three times as much beef as we were 20 years ago, yet producers are earning half as much as they were then.

That is one outcome of the so-called free trade agreement we signed. The same thing happened to cherry producers this summer. They had the best harvest ever, but they lost money because we imported U.S. cherries thanks to the so-called free trade agreement with the United States. That is why we have to be so careful and really think about what is being proposed.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's comments. He talked about standards and that there are not enough tough standards in this agreement. Of course, we know that if the NDP had its way, there would be no trade agreements, period.

I have an article from a newspaper that I want to quote. It says, “The pact”, referring specifically to this trade agreement, “is broadly modelled on others Canada has signed with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica--”, and it goes on.

The member spoke about President Obama. I would like to quote again from the paper. It states, “Now U.S. President Barack Obama's trade czar Ron Kirk is seeking a way forward”.

I chaired a committee not too long ago, before the recess, at which President Uribe appeared. He reached out to us and said, “We need help”.

I want to ask the member, are we going to help this country by staying away and ignoring it or are we prepared to go there and show it how we do things here in Canada?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, with regard to trade, I would ask him to look at our last year's agricultural policy and our statement on food sovereignty, for example, which stated that we believe in trade, but we also believe in self-sufficiency and the fact that we should not be hurting the small farmer. In this case, we are looking at the farmer in Colombia. We are looking at fair trade as opposed to free trade.

While we are talking about trade, I would like to ask the member why he and his party did not support our amendment, which basically kills our shipbuilding industry, when we signed on to that so-called free trade agreement with the European countries, of which Norway was a part.

The NDP put forward an amendment that could have protected our shipbuilding industry, so that at least people could keep working in Halifax, Quebec and Vancouver. Because Canada signed that agreement, in the name of free trade and more trade, in 15 years our shipbuilding industry will be gone because he and his party supported the Conservative Party and the other opposition party in signing that agreement.

I would like him to reflect on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior.

I had the opportunity to visit his riding where I learned of his humble nature and his work with farmers. I have heard a lot of good things about my colleague. He talked about farmers today and in fact, when I look at this particular trade agreement with Colombia, it is my understanding that this free trade will help farmers.

My question to the member is this. How would it positively impact small farmers, not the multi-millionaires, either in Saskatchewan or—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly enjoy speaking with my hon. colleague on various issues. I know he works hard. He certainly has many friends in my riding and we talk about the issues concerning farmers.

Any time we can open up markets, it is obviously good for farmers who export. We have organizations fighting on behalf of our farmers. There is the dynamic Canadian Wheat Board which supports trade and exporting more grain would see more markets open up. That is what these organizations should be doing and they are doing that. They are working hard on behalf of farmers.

It is up to us here in this building to look at the overall picture and ensure that if we happen to open up a few more markets for our farmers, it does not kill markets for other farmers in the world.

I gave the example of Mexico. It is a ludicrous situation. A country that was self-sufficient on corn production now has farmers displaced off the land, many of whom are involved in the drug trade and are now illegal farm workers working on farms in the United States because we have signed these ridiculous free trade agreements. That is what I do not want to see happen to Colombian farmers and that is what our farmers certainly do not—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise and add my voice to this debate.

Not long after my election last fall, I was contacted by some constituents who are with KAIROS. KAIROS works on Canadian ecumenical justice initiatives as part of a dynamic church-based social justice network and social justice movement.

I was very familiar with the community work that KAIROS had been doing, so I was eager to meet them, thinking we would talk about some of their work on ecological justice or human rights and trade, or maybe their work on actions for global justice.

What I did not expect were the guests they would bring to the meeting. I did not know that KAIROS was working on the issue of trade and human rights, specifically measuring the impacts of trade on human rights. They were bringing leaders of Colombian social movements to meet with people in Canada to talk about what was going on in Colombia. These movements represent women, indigenous peoples, workers and faith-based communities.

They were coming to Canada to talk about the human rights impacts they believe will result if Canada actually implements the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement act. The Colombian leaders that KAIROS is working with include German Casama, who is a leader of the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia. They are also bringing Maria del Carmen Sanchez, the national president of the Colombian Health Workers' Union and Yolanda Becerra, national director of the Popular Women’s Organization. They were also bringing Brother Omar Fernandez, director of the Inter Franciscan Commission for Justice, Peace and Reverence for Creation.

All four people are also leaders of the Coalition of Social Movements, which brings together a range of civil society movements and organizations that represent women and indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombian communities, small farmers and churches. This organization, as I understand it, represents almost two million people.

I had the distinct pleasure of meeting with Brother Omar Fernandez in my office in Halifax. During this meeting I heard Brother Omar's first-hand account of human rights violations in his country, how trade and investment would be expanded by this agreement and how that will actually impact on the rights and livelihoods of Colombian communities.

It was chilling to hear his first-hand stories of violence and human rights violations. After our meeting, Brother Omar asked me to write a letter to authorities asking for his protection upon his return to Colombia. That was a sobering letter to write, to say the least.

It is very irresponsible for the government to push an FTA with Colombia. This is a country with the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere, and it is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists.

The belief that trade will bring human rights improvements to Colombia is completely contradicted, not just by the facts, but also by the text of the agreement. The full respect of fundamental human rights must be a precondition of any trade agreement. This was made very clear to me after my meeting with Brother Omar.

It is interesting how this issue has captured the attention of Canadians across the country. I have received letters and phone calls and emails about the CCFTA, and they have been unanimous in asking me to stand up against the implementation of this act.

I have been at community meetings about other topics. I was at a community meeting about a school closure when someone slipped me a copy of the Canadian Labour Congress' write-up on Colombia and the free trade act. A couple of weeks ago I was doing a radio call-in show on P.E.I. along with a Liberal member of the House. This Liberal member cited our ability to co-operate and collaborate here in the House. He actually pointed to the Liberal Party's support of the CCFTA as an example of how we can work together in Parliament.

A caller on the phone said, “That is wrong and you really need to reconsider what you are doing, because workers are being shot and killed on the shop room floor”. The caller actually asked that this member reconsider his position on the bill.

There are four main aspects to the FTA that are really the most offensive: a failure on human rights or labour rights protection, a failure on environmental protection, the investor chapter, and agricultural tariffs. I will summarize each.

The failure on labour rights protection is of particular interest to me with my law background. Colombia, as I said earlier, is one of the most dangerous places on earth for trade unionists. They are regularly the victims of violence, intimidation and assassination from paramilitary groups that are linked to the Colombian president's government.

The CCFTA does not include tough labour standards. Putting the labour provisions in a side agreement, outside the main text and without any kind of enforcement mechanism, will not encourage Colombia to improve its horrendous human rights situation for workers.

Madam Speaker, 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, as of September 2009, 27 trade unionists have been murdered. According to the International Labour Organization, over the last 10 years 60% of all trade unionists murdered in the world were murdered in Colombia. This is reason enough not to go through with enacting the legislation, but there is more.

The Colombian government of President Uribe has been accused by international human rights organizations of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extra-judicial killings by the army, and links to paramilitary and right-wing death squads. It has also been accused of using its security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, opposing politicians, government politicians and journalists. Many government members, including ministers and members of Uribe's family, have been forced to resign or been arrested.

It is telling to look at our neighbours around the world. One of my colleagues alluded to this earlier. The U.K. recently ended military aid to Colombia because of the systematic crimes committed against the Colombian people. This happened within the context of false positives coming to international attention. This is the practice of the Colombian army that involves the dressing up of murdered civilians as guerrillas to show results. It is this body count of false positives that the government and the Liberals are rewarding with Bill C-23.

We need to be talking about fair trade, and fair trade means fully respecting human rights as a precondition for all trade deals. The Canada-Colombia agreement is fundamentally flawed and does little more than pay lip service to the serious damage it could do to human rights in Colombia.

Another area where this agreement fails is environmental protection. The environment issue was addressed again on the side agreement, and there is no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. The process is very flawed; it is just a smokescreen.

We have seen in the past that side agreements are unenforceable. For example, there has not been a single successful suit brought under the NAFTA side agreement on labour. Before the House rose this summer, I had the distinct pleasure of hearing my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, an environmental law expert, discuss this aspect of the agreement in great detail.

Another area where there is a flaw with this agreement is the investor chapter. The investor chapter is copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 investor rights. The CCFTA provides powerful rights to private companies to sue governments, enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. We have seen this before. This is particularly worrying because there are many Canadian multinational oil and mining companies operating in Colombia. The arbitration system set up by chapter 11 gives foreign companies the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environment, labour and social protection. Giving this opportunity to private businesses in Colombia and elsewhere will further erode Canada and Colombia's ability to pass laws and regulations for the public interest.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that the House appreciates and respects the overview that has been given by the member, in particular from a legal perspective.

The free trade agreement is a bilateral agreement. The argument has been made that side agreements are more than just footnotes to a bilateral agreement; they give the force of international law the opportunity for further enforcement through multilateral organizations. That is not just through the WTO, but when talking about human rights, it is through the United Nations. If there is an abrogation with respect to the bilateral agreement, the side agreements actually provide more opportunity for a more broad and enforceable adjudication through such international organizations.

Would the member like to comment on that? Rather than magnifying the opportunity for enforcement, I think her argument, based on the precedents she cited, is that it rather constricts it. That is not my understanding of international law.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, international law is a nebulous thing at best, and I go back to the point I made earlier that not one single successful suit has been brought under the side agreement on labour with NAFTA.

If I may take a moment, I want to read something from the International Centre for Trade Union Rights:

28 January: Leovigildo Mejia, a member of farm workers' association of Santander ASOGRAS, was assassinated in Sabana de Torres in the Department of Santander.

12 February: Luis Alberto Arango Crespo, president of the fishing and farm workers' association of Barrancabermeja, was assassinated in Barrancabermeja in the Department of Santander.

15 February: Guillermo Antonio Ramirez, a member of a local teachers' union of Belen de Umbria, was assassinated in Belen de Umbria, in the Department of Risaralda.

18 February: The secretary of the Valle del Cauca region of the CUT federation received an anonymous phone call in which threats were made against local CUT leaders Álvaro Vega and Wilson Sáenz.

20 February: Leoncio Gutierrez, a member of the teachers' union of Valle del Cauca, SUTEV, was assassinated in El Toro, in the Department of Cauca.

This speaks for itself.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly thought I heard the last two speakers on this side reaching out to the Liberal Party. The party, under John Turner, was opposed to the free trade agreement with the United States, and it is now supporting a free trade agreement with Colombia, which is a country with a terrible human rights record.

We had the members for Mississauga South and Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca asking questions that would indicate they have quite a lack of support for this agreement.

We had the member for Random—Burin—St. George's saying she is not aware of any trade unionists being killed, and she said she would not support the bill if she had any information to the contrary.

The member for Kings—Hants said that human rights have improved. I would ask him then to explain the improvements when 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, and in 2009 alone, 29 trade--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must give the hon. member for Halifax time to respond. She has about 50 seconds.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his question, and frankly, I could not have said it better myself.

The House resumed from September 30 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.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter today.

As debate in the House indicates, the issue before the House is a complex issue, regarding the ratification of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. There are very strong arguments in support of the ratification, and I will acknowledge that there are strong arguments against it also.

At the outset, several people in my riding came to visit me, people who I admire and respect deeply, and they urged us not to ratify the agreement, mainly for ongoing human rights abuses in the country.

The arguments for it are clear and I do not think they are debated. The basis is that the agreement will be of considerable advantage to both Canada and Colombia. I believe that debate has been settled. Certainly any nation that is successful is a trading nation, and the country of Colombia has to get beyond the existing regime it is into now, mainly with the trade with the Venezuelans.

On the other side, the arguments against it are also clear and they have some merit. There are and have been for many years human rights abuses in that country. These are serious matters and they are still ongoing. They do deserve discussion and debate in the House. As has been pointed out many times, Colombia is a country with a difficult past. A civil war has been going on for quite some years, which has morphed into a narco war that is very serious. It requires not only domestic, but probably international attention.

In a situation like this, when we look at what comes first, the chicken or the egg, if we took a snapshot in time and still saw some abuses, we could argue that perhaps we should not. I believe, and that is my argument today, that this has to be looked at as a continuum. As a developed country, we have to look at the progress and the improvements that have been made in that country over the last eight years, especially since the election of President Uribe. We have to consider the agreement in its totality, especially the ancillary agreements regarding the environment and human rights. We also have to consider the international thinking, the present dialogue going on in the United States and the dialogue going on in the European Union.

Considering everything, it is my view that Canada and Canadians and the country of Colombia and Colombians will be better off if the agreement were ratified by this Parliament.

I did not come to that decision lightly. When President Uribe was in Canada, I attended the briefing session. I met him. There was a lot of tough questions put to him during the hour and a half session. I was quite impressed with the president. I have spoken, as I indicated previously, with Colombians in my district, the city of Charlottetown. I have certainly spoken with our critics, the member for Toronto Centre and the member for Kings—Hants. I believe they spent four days in Colombia meeting with a number of NGOs, politicians and other interested parties on this agreement and the Senate committee on foreign affairs.

We are dealing with the business case, the economic case and the moral case. It is my position that these two issues really cannot be separated. The business case is very strong. There is very little economic risk to either country. There is no direct competition. What we import from Colombia is not really in competition with other domestic producers and what we export is not in competition with some of their manufacturing sector there. Trade is not large. Canada does have a trade surplus with the country of Colombia, but there is a very persuasive argument that this will form a platform for enhanced trade for both Colombia and Canada.

When we deal with the human rights issues, the waters get a little murkier. As I indicated already, Colombia does not have a good history. It is rife with some abuses, and the troubled country over the last eight, 10, 12 years has morphed into having a very serious ongoing narco trade. That has ancillary violence and gangs. We all know the problems that country is undergoing right now.

However, we have to look at the progress that has been made. We have to take note of the progress and state of affairs. We have to read all the reports, especially the one from the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights and the reports from the special rapporteur and the other NGOs that have reported on the progress, and I would say it is real progress, that has been made in this particular country.

I do not want to be seen in the House as downplaying the problems that remain. They are a very serious issue, but we cannot take a snapshot in time. We have to look at, within a continuum, the progress that has been made, especially in the past six to eight years. We have to take note of the other reports from the NGOs, politicians and senators in Colombia, of what is going on in the region, not only with regard to the narco trade but also as far as the influence from the Chavez government in Venezuela goes.

When we consider everything, it is my premise and my argument to the House that there is a very strong argument for signing this agreement. Of course, this has to be relayed in other agreements that I hope will take place, considering the comments from President Obama. There is a very strong case that this will spur on and result in other improvements being made in the country of Colombia.

As I said before, I do not believe we can separate the moral arguments from the economic ones. When we look at the poverty and lack of opportunities for the people who live in that country, I do not believe this agreement will be the whole answer. There is not a great deal of trade, though hopefully that will improve, but it will give certain people in Colombia an economic opportunity so they can move forward as a society, a culture and a country. I hope that eventually living standards will be raised, further progress will be made on the corruption there now, and they will move onward.

I know this is a very interesting debate for many people, myself included. I listened carefully to everything that has been said. I have read a lot of the reports that have been written with respect to this particular situation.

As I indicated when I first stood, there are sound arguments to be made for or against, but it is my belief that when we analyze everything, our country, but more importantly the country of Colombia, will be in a much better position to continue on that road of progress that it is on now. That is why I will be supporting the ratification of this agreement.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the problem, especially for us on this side, is that we do not believe we can separate economics from human rights. Colombia is a country that has systematically destroyed and taken away the collective bargaining rights of individuals to form a union or association or to argue those points with the current government, and I would say that quite emphatically.

The reality is that this trade agreement has workers' rights and human rights as a side agreement, not in the main body of the text. We have seen other agreements in which human rights and environmental standards have been included as side agreements, which says, in other words, that people will get around to those kinds of discussions later. First come the profits and the interests of the big companies, and then we talk about the people and the environment later.

My question to the hon. member is this. If he honestly believes, and I know he does, in the care and well-being of the people of Colombia, their respective unions and associations and most importantly the Colombian environment, why would he not insist that those things be in the main body of the text of the trade deal?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to his question, the member indicated that we cannot separate economic arguments from human rights, and that is my point. That is what I did say in my speech. We cannot do that.

The point I am making is that I am not going to stand here in this House and downplay the existing problems in Colombia, but I believe that we have to take note of the considerable progress that has been made over the last six or eight years.

We have to take note of the many reports from the United Nations and other NGOs, but most importantly, and this is perhaps lost in this debate, we have to take note of the existing labour agreement between the country of Canada and the country of Colombia. It is all part of this package. This, I believe, is the strongest labour agreement ever signed by this country. It contains very tough measures to enforce the provisions and this will just lead to further progress.

Again my friend across makes some serious points, but I believe this agreement will assist Colombia and Colombians in getting beyond some of these existing problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Charlottetown today who has provided some very thoughtful commentary on the situation in Colombia and the potential effect of a free trade agreement with Canada.

He spoke of the issues of civil war in Colombia. It is a country that for 40 years has wrestled with a civil war that began along ideological grounds but that has evolved more into just a drug war, in which there are former paramilitaries now, who are drug gangsters, effectively, and FARC, which is still active, not on the ideological side as much as on the drug side. It is a civil war that continues to be fueled by drug money.

When I was in Colombia a couple of months ago, some of the former paramilitary members with whom I met, who have been demobilized, told me that the reason they joined the paramilitaries in the first place was the lack of real economic opportunity in a legitimate economy or through legitimate trade. It is the same with FARC members. They joined FARC because the only job they could find was something to do with either the war or the drug trade.

Does the hon. member see the potential of the legitimate economy and legitimate economic trade with Colombia as providing opportunities for these people so that they do not have to go into either the drug trade or a civil war?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, I do, and I have described in my earlier remarks that this will provide an opportunity so that people will be given a choice, that they perhaps do not have to join FARC or one of the paramilitary operations, that they will have a legitimate opportunity to engage in the legal economy.

However, one other point I will make very briefly is that there are Colombians living in every riding in Canada and it is important to talk to them. They want their country to succeed.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

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

It is extremely irresponsible for the Conservatives to push a free trade agreement with Colombia, a country that has the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere and that is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists.

The belief that trade will bring human rights improvements to Colombia is completely contradicted, not just by the facts but also by the text of the agreement. The full respect of fundamental human rights must be a precondition of any trade agreement.

There are four aspects of this free trade agreement that we completely oppose. Labour rights protection is something that is not happening in this agreement. Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries on earth for trade unionists who are regularly the victims of violence, intimidation and assassination by paramilitary groups linked to the Colombian government.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does not include tough labour standards. Having labour provisions in a side agreement outside of the main text and without any vigorous enforcement mechanism will not encourage Colombia to improve its horrendous human rights situation for workers and will actually justify the use of violence.

The penalty for non-compliance is determined by a review panel that has the power to require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a cooperation fund that can be summed up as “kill a trade unionist, pay a fine”. A key fact is that almost 2,700 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008 the number of murders was up by 18% over the previous year, and this year 27 trade unionists had been murdered by September, not a number that inspires confidence.

The second aspect of the failure of the bill relates to environmental protection. The environmental issue is addressed in a side agreement with no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. This process is seriously flawed. In the opinion of the New Democrats, this is just a smokescreen.

We have seen in the past how these side agreements are unenforceable. For example, there has not been a single successful suit brought under the NAFTA side agreement on labour. Another fact that should be noted is that nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction.

Copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 on investor's rights, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement provides powerful rights to private companies to sue governments, which are enforceable through investor-state arbitration panels. In the opinion of the New Democrats, this is the third fault of the bill.

This is particularly worrying because there are many Canadian multinational oil and mining companies operating in Colombia. The arbitration system set up by chapter 11 gives foreign companies the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environment, labour and social protections.

I can speak to how this impacts Canadian communities. Right now in my riding of Sudbury there is a labour dispute between Vale Inco, a Brazilian company, and the United Steelworkers Union, Local 6500.

We see first-hand what happens when governments refuse to act. Workers are laid off; families struggle to make ends meet; there are cutbacks to worker's rights, especially in pensions or in years of bargaining, and natural resources are sold to the highest bidder. Giving this opportunity to private business in Colombia and elsewhere will even further erode Canada's and Colombia's ability to pass laws and regulations for public interest.

Let us not forget that Colombia's poverty is directly linked to agricultural development in a country where 22% of employment is agricultural. With an end to tariffs on Canadian cereals, pork and beef will flood the market with cheap products and lead to thousands of lost jobs. In a country that already has almost four million people internally displaced, 60% of this displacement has been from regions of mineral, agricultural or other economic importance where private companies and their government and paramilitary supporters have forced people from their homes.

It is irresponsible for us to turn a blind eye to the Colombian situation. We know human rights abuses are happening. We know trade unionists are losing their lives. If we approve this bill, our actions would essentially give the Colombian government a green light to continue its abuses. We cannot overlook our responsibilities. Human rights are just that. They are not trumped by trade interests.

With all of that being said, even the Colombian government has been accused by international human rights organizations of corruption, electoral fraud, links to paramilitary and right-wing death squads, and using its security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, opposition politicians, government politicians and journalists. Many government members, including ministers and members of the president's family, have been forced to resign or have been arrested.

What we do need, though, is fair trade. Fair trade means fully respecting human rights as a pre-condition for all trade deals. The Canada-Colombia agreement is fundamentally flawed and does little more than pay lip service to the serious damage it could do to human rights in Colombia.

What we mean by fair trade is new trade rules and agreements that promote 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.

How can we promote fair trade?

New trade agreements should encourage improvement in social, environmental and labour conditions, rather than just minimize the damage of unrestricted trade. Federal and provincial procurement policies should stimulate Canadian industries by allowing governments to favour suppliers here at home. Supply management boards and single-desk marketers, like the Canadian Wheat Board, for example, could help replace imports with domestic products and materials.

Why fair trade and not free trade?

Fair trade policies protect the environment by encouraging the use of domestically and locally produced goods, which means less freight, less fuel and less carbon, and by promoting environmentally conscious methods for producers who ship to Canada. 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 industry and investors.

A system of fair trade can encourage the growth of Canadian jobs, both in quality and quantity. Fair competition rules and tougher labour standards would put Canadian industries on a level playing field with our trading partners and slow the international race to the bottom that has resulted in a loss 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.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think many of us in the House have serious concerns about this particular bill, recognizing the benefits on one hand that could possibly come to our country, as well as other countries, but also the concern about ensuring we pay attention to any human rights violations. However, most important, as I continue to go back and forth on this issue, I would like to know if there is the opportunity for us, through an agreement like this, to demand better treatment of the country's citizens and to extract something on the positive side as a part of this agreement if we were to go forward with it.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I started my speech on this debate, I talked about the four initial flaws that we see in this. There is no way to protect the environment. The labour practices are horrendous in Colombia. We see problems with agriculture, the poverty and many other things. I believe the member's colleague said it earlier talking about the chicken and the egg and which one do we put first.

We in the New Democrats think we need to put human rights as the first issue that we must address before moving forward with a trade deal.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the whole debate, as well as this member's contributions, with great interest.

One of the things that troubles me is that there seems to be an incongruity between the position the government is taking domestically and what it is doing abroad. We know, for example, that in Colombia, as the member detailed so eloquently, violence, crime and corruption are rampant and yet here at home the government would want us to believe that it is all about getting tough on crime.

I wonder if the member could comment on why it is okay to take that position here and yet say, in the rest of the world, that it does not matter what we stand up for, they can do as they wish. Is there not some hypocrisy in the government's stand with respect to this free trade deal between Canada and the Republic of Colombia?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it does seem to be a little hypocritical when we look at how those two are playing out.

However, we have New Democrats in the House of Commons to ensure we stand up to the government and ensure we bring forward the issues that are affecting people, not only in Canada but right around the world. When people are being affected by poverty, when people do not have the right to bargain fairly and when individuals are affected by poverty, New Democrats will be the ones who stand up and ensure we have something done, fairly and equitably for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had to stand up after the last comment from my hon. colleague.

As a member of the international trade committee, I had the honour of spending some time in Colombia. I met with the president when he came here and spoke to our committee. I would be the first to admit that it is far from perfect and that there are a lot of challenges in that country with the labour agreement and the environment agreement under this free trade agreement.

Would the hon. member not concur that from the discussions that we have had with witnesses who came forth that they support the free trade agreement? They are looking at a rising tide lifts all boats. Would it not be better from the human rights perspective to engage in dialogue with the Colombian people rather than isolating them and giving them no opportunities for the betterment of their society as well?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it just comes down to what we want to put as our priority. Do we want to put economics first, ensuring there is a trade deal in place so we can get products out, or do we want to ensure human rights?

That is what we have been saying and that is why we are opposing this. We believe that human rights are the fundamentals on which everything should be based. After that issue is addressed then. of course. the economy could come forward, especially when dealing with Colombia.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if I sound a bit repetitious of my hon. colleague, I probably will be. First, I want to say at the outset that the NDP is not against trade, in fact, Canada is a trading nation, and we know that. We need to seek out new trading partners around the world in order to export and import goods and services. However, what we in the New Democratic Party are so concerned about is that the rights and privileges that we enjoy as a society are part of those benefits in terms of any fair trade or free trade deal that we have.

There is a difference. We in the NDP have advocated for many years for fair trade, not necessarily free trade, but fair trade where coffee growers in South America, for example, get a fair return on their investment, as well as textile workers, et cetera. We want to ensure that those people from formerly third world countries are not exploited to the benefit of a few companies or a few individuals here in Canada.

Most important, what is imperative from our perspective is that when we open up trade deals with countries, such as Colombia, that the environment and human and labour rights be first discussed long before anything about economics.

I heard my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants talk about when he was in Colombia and how he met individuals who joined the military or the other group because there were no other economic opportunities and thus they may have slipped into the drug trade and so on. If free trade, in the eyes of the government, were to prevent that from happening, what is going on in Mexico right now where we have a NAFTA deal with that country and there are thousands upon thousands of people involved in the drug trade. In fact, many people are being murdered in Mexico on a weekly basis because of this. The reality is that trade did not stop that.

When NAFTA and free trade were signed 20 years ago, it was the NDP that said that human and labour rights and environmental rights must be included in those deals, but it did not happen. They were put in as side deals. Where are the documents and the conversations that talk about those side deals? Where are those human rights and environmental rights for all Mexicans right now? One would need to search long and hard to be able to get them and to see what concrete action Canada, or any other nation for that matter, has taken.

This is our fear. We believe that if the Canadian government signs a free trade deal with Colombia, the next thing it will talk about is other deals with countries similar to that. Human rights and environmental rights in Colombia will not be monitored by the Canadian government nor any other foreign agency. It will just continue on as business as normal, which is our greatest fear.

We have a kindred spirit with the workers of Colombia and their unions, associations and religious institutions. We believe they have a right to live in peace, freedom and democracy. Yes, trade will expand those aspects but they cannot be used as a side deal. They cannot be used as something we will talk about later. They must be paramount in the initial discussions.

If Colombia is serious about forming a fair trade deal with Canada and Canada is serious about forming a fair trade deal with Colombia, then those issues can be discussed. They could be imprinted on the front pages of that trade deal and there could be serious cross-monitoring and observation to ensure that the human rights abuses, the labour abuses and the environmental degradation going on in that country come to a stop.

On a sidebar, we in this country, through something called schedule 2 of the mining regulations, allow mining companies to take a perfectly healthy lake like Sandy Pond in Newfoundland and destroy it and use it as a tailing pond. Instead of having an independent tailing system free and clear of any aquatic systems, we allow this perfectly healthy lake to be destroyed just for the benefit of the mining companies. If we do that in Canada, what makes us think that any mining company in Colombia would do any better? In fact, it would probably do worse. This is the type of hypocrisy we have in Canada.

We talk about environmental and human rights from the government perspective but the reality, in many cases, is that we do not even practise it in our own home. If we have these types of domestic laws in Canada, what would the Colombian government allow in any kind of a trade deal?

It sort of has the cart before the horse in this particular regard. We have said very clearly that human and environmental rights are first and economics, profits and companies are second. We believe that is the way to go. If we did that and set that as a shining example for Colombia, imagine what we could do in those particular aspects right now in the entire southern cone.

While I am up here, I have to give special kudos to a company called Just Us! Coffee in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. This company has done a tremendous job in fair trade tea, coffee and chocolate. It has gone completely past the government and organized these deals themselves to ensure that the producers and growers of these beans and chocolate get fair remuneration for their products. If one group of individuals can do this, imagine what we should be doing as a government. We should be ensuring that those on the bottom of the economic scale get the hand up we have been asking for.

I have heard the expression that a rising tide lifts all boats. It is absolutely correct, but a rising tide can also sink boats if it comes up too fast. The government and the official opposition like to talk about human rights in a parliamentary sense, but we never really get down to the brass tacks and actually see them negotiate these things first, long before the economic opportunities exist.

We want to reconfirm that the New Democratic Party is not against trade deals with countries around the world. We would like to ensure that the workers of Colombia, especially the union leaders, have the opportunity to engage in discourse with their government without fear of being murdered.

Many years ago we celebrated and commemorated the 40th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution. Thousands of Hungarians came over to Canada and commemorated the anniversary of being here for 40 years. I will never forget the sign they were displaying in the National Arts Centre. If I am not mistaken, some of Elvis Stojko's relatives said that it was nice to move to a country where politicians could retire and they are not executed.

That is what Canada is all about. We should be exporting these ideals around the world and especially in the country of Colombia. If we did that, I am sure the government would have our support. Until that happens, we have to raise our objections to these types of trade deals. In the long run, history has shown that it is workers and the environment that will suffer and very few companies will profit from this type of undertaking.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the notion of safety for retiring politicians. I support that wholeheartedly, although I have no intention of retiring for the time being. However, one never has a lot of choice in these matters.

That raises a point. President Uribe's father was murdered by FARC some time ago. The violence in Colombia, during the civil war between ideological factions, with the paramilitaries on the right and FARC on the left, wreaked tremendous damage on the people of Colombia. The government has made progress. We have a trade relationship with Colombia right now, but we do not have a robust, rules-based system to enforce better labour or environmental practices now.

Given that we already have a trade relationship with Colombia, how does having the most robust rules on labour and the environment of any trade agreement Canada has ever signed make things worse for the people of Colombia? The member mentioned Just Us! Coffee, a great company in my riding that the Martin government made an investment in supporting. I agree that it has made a difference, but it is one company.

We want to see rules that govern the activities of all Canadian companies there to strengthen the rights and environmental protection of the people of Colombia. The people we met with there believe that legitimate economic opportunity that weans them off of the drug trade that is destroying the environment, destroying lives and creating violence can actually help.

How does having more rules make the situation worse? I have an additional question. Can the member name one free trade agreement that the NDP has ever supported? He said that the NDP—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is serious about a rules-based system then why not rules for union leaders? Why not rules for the environment? Why not rules for the poor?

There is no question that when a country ups its economy, a lot of downcast people may take part in that and become a bit more better off. We hope fair trade deals allow that to happen.

When Canada looks at a country like Colombia for deals, examples have shown that it is always the people in labour, the people in unions, the poorest people, the people who are trying to protect their environment who are always pushed to the side to make way for the economy.

There is nothing wrong with a growing economy, but to quote the hon. member, “robust environmental and human rights legislation” must be in trade deals before we talk about any aspects of the economy.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend talked about the record of trade deals. There was a question from a Liberal suggesting that the trade deals that his party and the Conservatives have negotiated have somehow been of benefit to the environment. I am thinking about some of the pesticide laws that the U.S. enforced upon Canada, increasing our acceptable limit of pesticide use on fruits and vegetables that we produce in this country, never mind the ones that we accept from the U.S.

I am wondering if my friend could comment on that or any other aspects of trade deals that have since affected Canada's own sovereignty and ability to construct laws to protect the health and environment of our country, never mind the countries that we trade with.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a classic example is chapter 11. When we first came to the House in 1997, the Ethyl Corporation was suing the Government of Canada because Canada wanted to remove MMT, a known carcinogen, from gasoline. Not only did we have to pay heavy legal fees but we had to keep MMT in our gasoline. We were one of the few countries in the world that had to have that. Plus, we paid Ethyl Corporation $20 million. The government said it could not do anything because of the trade deal.

We just need to look at Hudson, Quebec and other cities in this country that want to ban the use of pesticides within their jurisdictions. They are being taken to court by these multinational companies because of these trade deals. That happened as a result of our deal with the United States, so imagine what could happen if we deal with other countries.

This is what we are repeatedly talking about. We implore the government to ensure that environmental and labour standards are put first and then the economy and business rights after that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. I want to compliment my colleague, the critic, who has done a very good job of dealing with a very difficult situation and trying to balance our deep concerns for the human rights situation taking place in Colombia with our need to understand and support our free trade initiatives that remove the barrier to trade that we know is going to liberate people, particularly the poorest in the world, from the poverty trap.

We recognize that while aid is a useful primer, foreign direct investment enables countries to have active, vigorous private sectors, where jobs and wealth can be created and moneys can be utilized by responsible governments for the social needs of a citizenry. It is something we support and, hence, that we pursue and support with some provisions.

As has been mentioned before, our goal is to ensure there is improved access. We want to balance it and ensure that elements within this bill are going to be supportive of the social concerns that many Canadians have due to what they have seen in Colombia.

I draw to the attention of the House to two parts. The critic has done a very good job of trying to highlight the parts that we want to ensure were going to be included. The side agreements involve labour co-operation and the environment.

I know that our colleagues and friends in the NDP have spoken about this, but it is very important for us and Canadians to understand that there are two side agreements and they involve the following. The first is the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, the absolute importance to abolish child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination.

We are also supportive of a $15 million annual budget to ensure this agreement is going to be honoured and not violated. There are, however, some concerns.

There is one point I always try to bring forward. I had the privilege of travelling to Colombia some years ago. We know that the ELN, the FARC and the paramilitary are really driven financially by the moneys they are able to accrue from drugs, primarily cocaine and, to a lesser extent, heroin. There are, in effect, all groups of narco-terrorists. They may have started at one time, particularly the FARC, as having some political constituency and pursuing a certain political ideology, but for a long time that has not been the case.

Mr. “Sureshot” Marulanda died a couple of years ago. We saw the devolution of that individual from becoming a political revolutionary into a pure blooded narco-terrorist. It has been instructive to see how these larger groups are now operating.

In fact, what is happening now in the large context, which the government needs to be aware of and has not brought forward, is the input and responsibility of Venezuela, which is now harbouring the FARC and has for a long time been supporting it and other paramilitary groups to the detriment of the people of Colombia and the region. Frankly, we do not do a good enough job of holding to account the individuals in groups, like the government in Venezuela, to account for their destabilizing activities, in this case in South America.

President Chavez is engaged in activities that some in his country see as being supportive. In the larger context of stability within South America, he is a destabilizing factor. I do not know how anybody can countenance the fact that Mr. Chavez is selling the most vile of all weapons, landmines, to the FARC, that are being used now, despite the fact that Colombia is a signatory to the landmines treaty, the Ottawa process that was started by the Liberal Party.

Despite the fact that Colombia is part of invasive, destructive elements such as what Mr. Chavez is doing, it is killing people. Half the casualties are soldiers; half, however, are civilians.

I was in a different party at the time we were pursuing and pushing hard for the landmines treaty. Part of it was the fact that the majority of casualties were actually civilians. In fact, landmines are the poison that prevents a country from being able to be financially stable.

Imagine if there were one landmine in downtown Ottawa. What would that do for the commerce in Ottawa? It would shut it down cold. Therefore, imagine a country that has thousands of these landmines. The people live in fear because at any moment they could be blown up. It kills the economy. It kills the social infrastructure of a country. The foreign affairs minister and the Conservative government need to do a much better job in that area to deal with the external influences of what takes place to destabilize Colombia.

The other point is there would not be a FARC if there were not a demand for illegal drugs. The government unfortunately takes a position on substance abuse and harm reduction as something to be discarded or discounted. We can see the troubles we have had in the ideological oppression and position that the government has taken against scientifically proven harm reduction strategies, such as Vancouver's Insite or the North American opiate medication initiative, headed by Dr. Julio Montaner at St. Paul's Hospital.

Those things work. Why in heaven's name does the government not get its own House in order and work with the provinces to help reduce the demand of drugs, which are fuelling the internal problems taking place in countries such as Colombia and the Middle East? They are in fact fuelling, in part, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which are killing our soldiers in Afghanistan.

The need and the desire to have effective, scientifically-proven harm reduction strategies is critically important in the larger context. It is also very relevant to the situation we are talking about today. The harm reduction strategies that my colleagues in the Liberal Party have championed and allowed to occur today must continue. The government must work with those who are experts in the area of harm reduction to ensure that Canadians from coast to coast will have access to those initiatives that work.

The bill also has another very important part and it deals with the issue of the environment. We know that in South America, one of the two great lungs of our planet are in Amazonia. We know Amazonia is being destroyed. We also know that addressing deforestation is one of the simplest and easiest ways of addressing and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, particularly for developing countries.

Dr. Eric Chivian and Dr. Ari Bernstein of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Michael Fay, a National Geographic scientist in residence in Washington, have put forth some very compelling solutions as to how we can look at areas that are critically important for the collective health, not only those countries but the world, and use those areas so they will be seen as assets.

Right now we look at forests as an asset when the trees are cut down, but in reality forests are public utilities. They take carbon dioxide from the environment and put oxygen back. That has a value. If we put value on carbon, we can put value on these wild spaces and a country can receive moneys for preserving those carbon sinks. It very important that there are ways of doing this.

I encourage the government to also construct an independent group to oversee this bill. The Liberal Party is very concerned with how the bill will be implemented. This is why we are supportive of the existing oversight mechanism. However, I also suggest there is a very important role and opportunity to bring in civil society in Colombia and Canada, to bring forth a group of independent experts, arm's-length from the government, who can oversee the implementation of the bill to ensure the labour, human, environmental and social benefits of it will be accrued to the people of Colombia.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House would agree that the member has given a very circumspect and balanced commentary on the bill. The member has addressed some of the concerns that have been raised through other members with respect to oversight, accountability, particularly in the area of human rights and the environment. A previous speaker, the critic for the opposition, talked about a robust rules-based regime that would drive this free trade agreement.

It has been said that side agreements really detract from the opportunity to make these oversight mechanisms work. Does the member think, given the oversight mechanisms that are subject not only to bilateral agreements but to multilateral institutions, there would be an argument that these side bar agreements would in fact reinforce the kind of accountability that all members of the House on all sides would like to see built in to this free trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent question really hits the nub of the matter.

Side agreements are important to support the central agreement. They are the ying-yang of the agreements. They provide a check and balance to ensure, in this case, a free trade agreement will not be utilized in a way that will not ultimately benefit the people.

The weakness I see, historically, is oversight mechanisms have been wanting. Part of the reason is that we might have an oversight mechanism without a proper enforcement mechanism. What has to be built into this is an enforcement mechanism.

It also gets to the heart of the need to rewrite and strengthen our Special Economic Measures Act, the SEMA, which a lot of the private sector companies in Canada want. They want to have discreet and defined parameters upon which they wan work. In that way, they will be able to work in a way that is commercially effective but also socially responsible.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleague, who has spent a fair amount of time looking at trade agreements, to check with his consistent adoration of these side agreements being as purposeful as the agreement itself. If the meaning and support for rules around labour regulations and environmental regulations were so critical to the Government of Canada and the government of Colombia, then they would have been in the body and context of the official agreement, the one that is truly enforceable by both countries' courts and parliaments. Putting it to the side is in fact putting it to the side.

We have seen this with NAFTA in the side agreements around labour, environment and other important issues about which I have spoken very strongly. They were always put into these side agreements that had far less effect than the main body of these trade policies. This has been borne out in the fact of how the agreements come into force in the years that follow.

If he is so insistent, has he made the petition in the government to include these very important issues into the main text, the main body of the agreement, the one that gets all the attention, money and focus in the courts and in the parliaments?

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

Mr. Speaker, it does not preclude the fact of being able to have side agreements that are effective. We make the side agreements as effective as we want based on the negotiations in which we engage.

We need to look at this perhaps in a different way. Let us say that we did not have this agreement at all. Then we would not have any agreement on labour or on the environment. There would be no vector or roots at all to deal with these very important issues that not only affect Colombia, but also affect our country in the larger context.

Therefore, the question I think the member needs to ask himself is this. Is it better to have no agreement than an agreement that gets our foot in the door to deal with these larger issues that are critically important? I would submit that it is important for us to have strong side agreements to deal with these issues about we are mutually concerned.

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.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commit to you and the House to make no such gestures whatsoever, regardless of how passionate I become around this debate, the so-called Colombia free trade agreement. Right now we are dealing with a subamendment that was moved by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I spent, as did many Canadians, a number of years working in Latin America as a volunteer and as a student. I was trying to, at first intentions, help out a subcontinent friend but I learned that the help was coming back to us. So many Canadians and Americans have benefited from their experiences in Latin America and have learned that the context there is critical for our engagement as a country. Having some understanding of the local lay of the land, some of the politics and history of the place is absolutely essential, whether we do business at a formal level or we do trade agreements as proposed.

The context of Colombia, which I spent some time living and working in as well, is so utterly different than the context that we work in, legally through the actual system of how voting happens or does not happen, the use of paramilitary forces, the drug trade, which the demand from North America and Europe throws, literally and figuratively, a grenade into the societies that produce these drugs. There is so much demand in our countries. Rather than properly deal with the issue at home, in the U.S. and Europe, where the primary markets are for these drugs, we joined the Americans in the war on the drugs and went there to impose upon them our ideas about how to stop the drug trade, which was napalming a bunch of fields and going after folks at every level rather than going at the demand side of the equation.

Knowing the context is so critical to the way Colombians see Canadians and North Americans, in general, and their European trading partners, when we get to the table that describes how we will trade with one another, the Colombian context has bearing.

We also have to understand the opinions and attitudes of the Colombians toward trade deals in general. How has it worked out for other trading nations, both within Mercosur and the trading blocs within South America, and the experiences of NAFTA in North America or the European Trading Union? When a developed country and a developing country get together, hopefully in a symbiotic trade relationship, the people particularly in the developing nation, nations like Colombia, Peru, Mexico, have a very keen interest because the impacts are much greater there than they are here.

We have not recognized this in our debate to this point. The decisions that we make, the and yeses and the noes that we implicitly put into a trade deal with a country like Colombia, have far greater impact there than they will for Canadians.

That is not to say there will not be an impact here. That has also been felt, obviously through agreements like NAFTA. We have watched the hollowing out of our manufacturing base in our country. We continue to lose value-added jobs and replace them with service sector jobs. The great economists within the Liberal and Conservative Parties, if there are any, say that this is a fantastic trade policy, this continual sliding slope of just not making stuff any more, allowing it to be made somewhere else. We buy it and send them raw resources instead.

The records of trade policies and instigating some of the change that the Liberal and Conservative members have talked about has been poor. To not recognize that pattern is critical. It then says that the negotiators on behalf of Canada did not recognize that context, did not recognize that history as well. They have brought forward an agreement that will continue the disastrous record of the so-called free trade policies that we have seen so far.

Also in this context, again utterly ignored by the government, is a Latin American arms is race going on, basically hinged between Colombia and Venezuela, with Peru and Ecuador getting involved. Now Brazil has come in as well as Chile and Argentina and they are buying more weapons per capita than anywhere else in the world. This is after two decades of not having done so. To enter into that context and not recognize those realities for a place like Colombia, where weapons and violence against union activists, labour activists, NGOs, environmental groups and indigenous groups has been on the rise for the past 15 years, seems to me folly.

It seems to me to be that we are putting on blinkers and saying that all we are doing is a trade deal. On the other hand, we are saying that this trade deal will lead to so much benevolence for the people and that the good people will be so much more secure, better off and so much richer after it happens.

It is also a question of asking what we actually want in our trade deals. The New Democrats have asked time and time again in this House for environment and labour accords, basic social justice that our party fights for in a Canadian context also to be implicit and put into the central agreements in the trade context. Yet time and time again we see them as after the fact footnotes to trade agreements. The central parts talk about other things, but at the end of the day when the government feels a little bit of heat and pressure from some NGOs, a little side agreement is thrown in to deal with serious issues such as the environment and labour.

To suggest that trade is a path toward a more benevolent, fair and equitable world is to ignore the many decades that these trading patterns have existed, all the way back to the sugar and spice trades in the Caribbean, and the African slave trade. All of these were great trading patterns that went on. They were trading for trading sake, and the benefits were declared in parliaments around the world, saying that it was good for business and therefore it must be good for the general population. We know the sugar and spice trades did not work out that way. We know the textile and mercantile trades did not work out that way.

We have seen the elites of two societies get together and hammer out a deal but they do not return to the general populace for any type of confirmation or understanding. The current government has done this and the previous government did it as well. There is no information campaign by the government around this trade proposal, nor is there any in the lead-up to a South Korea trade proposal which it is suggesting. Members of the Canadian public have learned about this trade deal through other means, through non-profit organizations and through MPs like our friend from Burnaby—New Westminster. They have engaged the public town hall by town hall, in church basements. They have talked to Canadians in a much more respectful way about what is being done on their behalf. That is what this place is meant to stand for.

The government spent $35 million on its outreach about its economic turnaround program. It spent $35 million to say how wonderful it is. It spent not a dollar to talk to Canadians about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, not a dollar to talk to Canadians about the impact on their communities and their homes. It suggests to me that rather than being proud about it, the government hopes this slips through under cover of night.

Negotiating a trade deal for its own sake is folly. We know this. To go into a negotiation to simply be able to say that there is a negotiation one or that another deal has been made does not make any practical sense. One has to go in with a certain intention, a certain principle and purpose that one hopes to get in the end.

We hear all the lamentations and cries from the two parties. The Conservatives and the Liberals say that this will improve trade. One point that was raised earlier was that the fierce and violent drug trade in Colombia would somehow be alleviated by the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. I would point to Mexico. Mexico signed on to an extensive trade deal with this country and the United States. Mexico's narco-traffic trade has gone through the roof. The violence amounts to a state of civil war in many states in Mexico. It has a trade agreement in place, which has rules defining how trade is meant to cross the boundaries. Yet colleagues from the Liberal Party this morning said that if we enter into a trade deal with Colombia, it should help alleviate the pressure on those citizens who are dying at the hands of narco-traffickers. That is truly living in another dimension.

We know that the connection between the narco-traffic trade and free trade represents two other worlds. If we want to talk about how to curb the violence and the trade in elicit drugs in Colombia, we could have that conversation, but let us not pretend that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement could do anything about it.

On the environmental side, I have spent a great deal of time working with Latin American environment groups and their perspective of countries like Canada is not exactly exemplary. Many of the companies that work in countries in Latin America and South America do not have a great record. Every parliamentarian should check the Omai gold spill.

There is a good bill by a Liberal member to enforce Canadian environmental laws on Canadian companies when they operate overseas. That is a trade policy we would support. That is a trade policy that actually talks about having some sort of equivalency when we are dealing with other countries. However, to suggest that a blanket trade agreement will somehow cause Canadian companies and their Latin American counterparts to do better by the environment is an absolute falsehood and must be pushed to the side.

In fact, it is a side agreement. It is not nearly as enforceable as the main body of the agreement that Canada has negotiated. It shows the relative lack of importance the government and its supporters in the Liberal Party have placed on the environment and the treatment of labour activists in the Colombian context. This so-called trade deal is not a deal for the Colombian people any more than it is a deal for the Canadian people. We should instruct our negotiators to make these issues front and centre. If we believe in them so much, they should be the first two chapters of the trade agreement, not two throwaway subamendments at the very end of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the geopolitical challenges faced in Latin America and Central America today, particularly the issue around the Venezuelan President Chavez. President Chavez' regime is threatening to cut off all trade with Colombia.

We have spoken with labour unions, businesspeople and workers in Colombia who are very concerned about the effect of Mr. Chavez' potentially cutting off all trade relations with Colombia, virtually shutting down industries in large parts of Colombia, particularly those contiguous with Venezuela.

Furthermore, the Chavez regime is supplying landmines to FARC in Colombia. We heard an intervention by one of my colleagues earlier today about the pernicious effect of landmines in Colombia, landmines being put in the ground by FARC, being supplied by Venezuela.

We also know of the relationship between Iran and its leadership and Venezuela now, and the fact that there are three direct flights between Caracas and Tehran every day.

Is it not important to the people of Colombia that we provide them with legitimate trade to help protect them against the thuggery being imposed on them by the Chavez regime in Venezuela?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is trying to understand the mind of someone as diabolical as Chavez, he should go to other places. Maybe a house filled with psychologists would have a better shot than a house full of parliamentarians would.

His supposition is that a trade deal with Canada would somehow subvert the efforts of Hugo Chavez.

This trade deal would give access to Canadian arms manufacturers, point in fact, into a place that is buying more weapons per capita than anywhere else in the world. It is not mentioned in the trade agreement whether any consideration has been given to that fact.

Canada must understand the level of violence in these countries, the escalation of an arms race like we have never seen before. We must also remember that there were so few arms purchases in the last 20 years in Latin America because all the dictators the western world supported getting into power in the 1960s and 1970s eventually got the boot by activists on the ground, the same activists we are trying to protect by destroying flawed labour agreements.

There are few arms being traded right now but it is increasing exponentially because of trade agreements with countries like Canada that produce the very arms that some of these countries are looking to import. Obviously this should be a consideration we should be seized with in this House.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member's historic and economic analysis with respect to the two examples: one being the issue with Afghanistan and the military results of not having developed any relationships economically with Afghanistan in the past; and his theory with respect to economic determinism in Latin America and the Caribbean. His experience has been in Latin America and mine has been in the Caribbean. There was a tremendous infrastructure and history. It was not just the spice trade. In the 1960s there were agricultural relationships with the West Indies federation. It was retaliation, quota setting and capital concerns of investment that stymied the efforts of the West Indian federation to do the very thing he is talking about.

Here, we are talking about globalization in terms of lowering those kinds of barriers. Is that not a different time? This is not the time to pick up for developing countries, given that we do have a robust rules-based system. But is this not the time at least to make a start and not let those military, gang and thuggery types go forward?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that those very dictatorships that have since been removed from Latin America established trade negotiation parameters with this country and with the U.S. That is what enabled many of those dictatorships to thrive and survive. Let us not make the mistake of saying that trade for trade's sake will always give us a positive result.

We traded with Pinochet. We sent our merchandise there and bought from him. We traded with South Africa until, finally, public pressure forced the Brian Mulroney government to switch policies. We are seeing the same thing here.

We have no problem with trade. Canadians are simply asking that if we are going to trade with these countries that we trade for ultimate purposes. There should be a lightening of the load for the people in places like Colombia. It should not be some trade policy for trade's sake. We should not be absolutely blind to an arms race going on in the country. We might end up exacerbating the problem.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee on international trade, I want to add my voice to this debate. A couple of years ago I had the privilege to chair the committee and now I am the vice-chair.

I just heard the NDP member say that they are not against trade. Earlier, the trade critic for the Liberal Party, the member for Kings—Hants, asked the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to name one free trade agreement that the NDP supported. There was not one. Who is telling Canada and Colombia that they are prepared to support this no matter what the terms are?

We hear the debate at committee and in this House, but let me refer to some of the experiences we have had at committee and the witnesses we have heard and the comments that have been made, by the ambassador for Colombia, for example. The president of Colombia was here just before the recess. I had the privilege of chairing that committee meeting. The man sat there and opened his heart. He said, “We need help. We want to create terms and conditions whereby both our nations can benefit”. Trade does not benefit one side. It is not a one-way venue. It is two-ways.

As a nation we trade goods, services and technology. Why? We want to keep Canadians employed. We want to generate revenue so that we can invest in new technology, in post-secondary education, in research chairs, in new product lines, for example, so that not only can we export them, but we can use them here as well.

We received a letter from the house of representatives in the Republic of Colombia. For the record, I would like to read some of the comments with respect to this trade deal:

As members of the national legislative entity and the representatives of the people of Colombia, we consider that the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Colombia is a major factor in the establishment of stable, transparent scenarios for commerce and investment, which generate employment, allow for the improvement of living conditions of our citizens and blocking out the paths for drug trafficking.

This is very important also.

The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Colombia is composed of a series of chapters in which the rules of engagement for trading goods and services and investment processes are determined--

The letter goes on. Another area of the letter to our Parliament states:

--as well as the Labor and Environmental Cooperation Agreements, allow us to assert that the conditions to strengthen the relations between Canada and Colombia are on the table, by means of instruments designed to contribute to the high and sustained growth of our economies by way of increasing exports, diversifying markets, increasing productive investments and generating employment.

It goes on, and then there is even better stuff, which hopefully will satisfy the NDP:

Likewise it is important to indicate that these instruments reinforce the commitments of Colombia regarding human rights and labor conditions creating suitable scenarios to improve the alternatives of our citizens, such as better working conditions and balance between trade and sustainable development.

We consider that supporting the approval and implementation of these instruments is a step in the right direction, for it will represent support for our nation in the challenges it faces regarding these sensitive issues, and the confirmation of our understanding in the defence of the fundamental rights of our citizens.

The letter goes on and on. The closing part is very important:

--as to the advance in the achievement of our goal to overcome poverty and generate appropriate conditions for the creation of stable and dignified employment, and to protect and guarantee fundamental rights.

It is signed by the Republic of Colombia house of representatives.

Colombia has gone in whichever way it can right now to try and improve. Earlier I asked in questions and comments what we should do as a nation. Should we stay away? Should we just say we will wait until Colombia gets its house completely in order, until it reaches perfection? Perfection does not exist.

We look at some of the trade agreements that Canada has engaged in in years past. It is an evolving issue. We look at the North American free trade agreement, or the free trade agreement prior to that and the evolution of it. We look at what is happening in Europe, for example, and the nations that are coming on board continuously, year after year.

I will not name any, but there are some nations within Europe, especially since the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, where there have been abuses, human rights violations, labour violations, and the list goes on. What has Europe done? The European Commission has set certain criteria and prerequisites. Within these agreements that we are engaging in, we all know very well that these conditions are also there.

Let me point them out, if I may. This article has to do with free trade with Colombia. These are not my words but the author's:

The pact is broadly modelled on others Canada has signed with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica in the past 15 years.

There was a benchmark set that we are following as a nation. Of course, we know the NDP's position. They have not signed on to or been prepared to support one free trade deal. If they had their way, we would be an esoteric country. We would not deal with anybody or talk to anybody. We would just ask to be left as we are. Unfortunately, that is not how jobs are created. That is not how we are going to prosper as a nation.

Let me point out something else. A senator from Colombia visited us. He is from the opposite side of the spectrum. Senator Robledo asked to meet us before our committee and we invited him. He was accompanied by the ambassador of Colombia. He had his say and expressed his concerns. We asked a lot of questions. We asked him what he would like us to do. We asked if we should just close our doors, period. He told us that we can move forward constructively to engage and hopefully look at improving some of the difficult issues that Colombia is facing today.

What has Colombia done? The office of the president appointed a gentlemen by the name of Frank Pearl. Mr. Pearl was appointed as high presidential counsellor for social and economic reintegration by President Uribe in September 2006. His responsibility, and they are investing money in this, is to help bring people from post-conflict reintegration programs back into society. His responsibility is to help these people rejoin their families, get retrained, find new skills, find gainful employment, find some dignity and come back into society.

I met with this gentleman a year ago and at that time he pointed out that 45,000 ex-combatants from both paramilitary groups and guerrilla forces have come back into society. For me, this is a sign that this country is serious about addressing the very difficult issues that it is facing. I am reaching out to everybody here. We as a nation have to make sure that human rights, labour rights, and others are not violated. areas.

I will close with this. I believe we have a duty as a nation to do two things. First, we must show them our way, which I believe is second to none. Second, we must create opportunities for ourselves as a nation so that our people have an opportunity to get their fair share of the pie out there.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and his home country for voting the right way for a green socialist party, a party to the left. We thank Greece for leading the way once again in Europe.

My hon. colleague talked about these trade deals and he talked about Alvaro Uribe himself. He should know that in a letter from Mr. Rick Arnold of Common Frontiers Canada dated October 2, which was copied to him, there were a lot of comments and concerns. I am sure that Mr. Arnold would like some answers from the member to his enquiry.

The member is hinting that if we sign on to these free trade deals and we just click our heels three times and make three wishes, all of the human rights abuses and all of the environmental degradation will go away and life will be better for everybody.

The opposite happened during the apartheid regime in South Africa. We did not continue trading with South Africa but instead put sanctions on that country. I remember the world got behind that movement. When economic sanctions were put on that country, it changed its evil ways to the point where Nelson Mandela, who spent 27 years in jail, became the president. That was an historic day, but it could not have been done if we had continuously traded with South Africa. We had to put sanctions on that country to ensure that it was taught a lesson.

I wish the member could highlight one instance of a trade deal with a country like Colombia where labour rights and environmental rights were paramount to any economic rights.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, South Africa at that time was not doing very much and that is why there were sanctions. Colombia is moving aggressively and practically forward and that is why we need to engage with that country.

I thank the member for his comments with respect to the elections in Greece. If he follows his politics very closely he will understand that the PASOK party has evolved from the socialist party that it was 30-odd years ago to a modern, state-of-the-art, centre type of party.

The only difficulty I have is trying to understand why after 60 years the New Democratic Party keeps calling itself new.

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

Mr. Speaker, an important issue has received some attention during this debate and that is the trade in illegal drugs, the driver of the human rights abuses that have plagued Colombia for so long.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Toronto if he does not think that the Conservative government is actually working in opposition to the initiatives that are needed here to reduce the demand for illegal drugs in Canada. If we were able to do that, then the financial driver of FARC, the ELN and the paramilitary groups in South America would be severely undermined.

In other words, the absence of support by the Conservative government for harm-reduction strategies is actually playing into the hands of FARC, ELN and the paramilitary groups that are committing the human rights abuses that all of us are deeply concerned about.

Does my colleague not think that the government needs to seize on harm-reduction strategies like Insite and NAOMI and ensure that medical establishments across Canada have access to these programs?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of merit in what he says. There is no question about it.

I would like to focus on my contribution to this debate. This trade agreement is multi-dimensional. We have talked about mining companies and forestry companies. We have talked about labour rights and human rights violations. We have talked about everything. My comments were focused primarily on keeping an open mind as we move toward voting on this piece of legislation.

We have to move forward with the thought in mind that it is not a perfect agreement, but it is the right direction for us to take. As we move along, we can make changes, a suggestion that my colleague has made as well.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate today.

My friend said earlier that we do not face death or the extinguishing of our life when we finish this job as parliamentarians, and he meant that tongue-in-cheek. In my previous profession as a trade union activist and educator, I had the great privilege of meeting a trade union activist and educator from Colombia who came to this country for two reasons. One was to share his story and experiences of what it was like for him as an educator and trade unionist in Colombia at the time, and the other was to be safe. Not only had his life been threatened by paramilitaries in this country, but indeed numerous attempts had been made on it.

I had a personal discussion with that gentleman and we talked about our families. He recounted a story that was very moving. It was a horrendous story, and he was very brave to tell it. He said they came for him one night in jeeps and machine-gunned his house, but they had the wrong night. He was at a meeting in another village, but unfortunately his wife and two children were at home and all three of them died.

Those three individuals died only because that woman's husband and those children's father was a trade union activist and educator. He had not committed a crime. He belonged to legitimate organizations. Folks were saying he was doing great work in the countryside and villages that he was engaged with, yet they came for him anyway.

He came here to be safe and of course we made him safe here, but the horrible things happening to trade unionists, which he told us about, happened not because of illegal activity. They were murdered for speaking up, the thing that we do here on a daily basis, speaking up for those citizens across this great land of ours who expect us to come to this place and speak up. When they do that in Colombia, however, they face great threat and great danger. In some cases they actually face death, and in all too many cases they die.

We have all acknowledged this in this House. I do not think there is anyone in this House who refutes that. We accept it as being fact, but then we diverge from that into the sense of whether we should have a trade policy with a group and a country that we know cannot make all of its citizens safe. Some might say that not all of our citizens are safe either, and that is true. Murders happen in this country, but we do not have murders targeted at individual groups such as trade unionists and teachers, as Colombia does. Murders happen here as acts of violence, in the commission of a crime. These premeditated murders in Colombia are targeting groups to keep them quiet.

One must ask why. Why would a country allow a group to be silenced, unless of course it does not want to hear the voice? That voice is really the people of Colombia itself who are saying, through its representatives, “This is not a good deal for us. We do not believe in the free trade sense”.

My colleagues in the Liberal Party are saying that New Democrats have never stood in their places and said yes to free trade. I will agree we have not, because we do not believe in free trade, but that does not mean that we do not believe in trade. Of course we do, but we believe in a fair trade policy that takes labour and environmental rights and makes them part of the whole agreement, not something to be added at the end. When we add something at the end, we give it less significance and less weight. All of us who go through arbitration, mediation or bargaining processes know, and in fact I am sure even some lawyers in this House will explain it to me as well from a legalistic perspective, that when we put things at the end, make them addenda or reference points, they do not carry the same weight as they would if they were in the agreement.

I would say to my colleagues in the Liberal Party that if that is the case, if they really believe it, then they should amend it. They have the opportunity to amend the agreement, to take the labour and environmental rights and insert them into the free trade agreement, but I have not heard them say that yet.

What I have heard said is that they know it is not the best. A colleague in the Conservative caucus talked about a rising tide lifts all ships. I came from an island so I guess it makes me somewhat of a maritime type person. Coming from Scotland, I suppose I was close to the sea. However, the problem is that if one does not have a boat when the tide rises, one might drown.

When we debated chapter 11 last week in the House, we talked about how Canadians were doing under chapter 11 of the free trade agreement from an economic perspective. The Statistics Canada report was quite evident. The majority of us who live and work in this country are not doing as well or are about the same as we were in 1985. The Statistics Canada report actually says that we are less well off or about the same. If we take inflation into account, it is less.

Here is this agreement that did not give Canadian workers any great deal of joy and we want to give it to Colombians. What we are saying is that it did not help us, but we want them to have it as well. I find that really reprehensible from the perspective that we are trying to inflict upon Colombians a free trade agreement that the vast majority of them do not want.

If President Uribe really believes in it, I guess he could take it to the people of Colombia and ask them, as part of a referendum, whether they want free trade. Then, of course, it would need to be explained. As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley said earlier, we do not explain it to Canadians. The government has not spent $1 explaining the free trade agreement to Colombia or to Canadians. If the Government of Canada is not willing to do it, then it is highly unlikely that President Uribe will be.

My colleagues in the Liberal Party have said that if we just sign it the human rights conditions will get better. The human rights violations in Colombia are deplorable and they agree. However, I would suggest that if they believe President Uribe who says things are getting better without free trade, it is like the old adage of the carrot and the stick. At the moment the stick is working in the sense that if we do not give Colombia the free trade agreement, perhaps it will get better.

When President Uribe appeared in committee on the day I happened to be there to listen to him, he said that there were less deaths but that he does not have a free trade agreement. The logic seems to be that, if that is the case, why would we rush to give it to him when he says, by his own words, that things are getting better without it as far as the violence is concerned?

I would suggest that my Liberal colleagues tell President Uribe, because I will not propose free trade to him, to eliminate the violence against trade unionists and teachers' organizations and to cut out the paramilitaries and then we will talk. Ultimately, lots of things get done with the carrot and the stick. At this time, if we hang out the carrot to Uribe, I think he may just eat it all and then we will no longer have any leverage, because once it is done, it is done.

At the end of the day, human rights is paramount for us. We have it enshrined in this country. If we are suggesting to Colombia that it must follow suit, then we cannot simply allow it to have free trade at no cost. Ultimately, this is what it will be about. When Colombia gets it, there is no more leverage for Canada.

I heard my colleagues earlier talk about the congress of Colombia and Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo who was here with a minder because he was not allowed to come by himself. A minder accompanies someone to ensure he or she does not say things that are out of line. What he did say was:

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,

That person was Colombia's representative who said that. We did not elect Senator Robledo, Colombians did. He speaks for Colombians and I think we ought to hear what Colombians have to say to us, which is that they do not want this deal at this particular moment in time. What they do want is a fair trade agreement.

We need to enter into negotiations with Colombia but, first and foremost, we need to ensure human rights are protected in Colombia and that Colombian trade unionists and educators are safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important point when he talks about violence toward trade unionists. I would call his attention to a Washington Post editorial from April 19, 2008. The editorial had some analyses of the attacks on trade union members and leaders in Colombia. In fact, it was determined that of the murders in Colombia in 2007, only 0.2% of those murders were trade unionists compared to the fact that 2% of the overall population of Colombia are members of trade unions. Trade unionists are in fact 10 times safer than the general public in Colombia. Based statistically, Colombia is a violent country.

Does the hon. member realize that 1,800 trade union leaders in Colombia are provided with full-time security by the Uribe government? That has resulted in the fact that trade union members are safer than the general public under the Uribe government's leadership. Does he understand that? Is that one of the reasons that President Obama is supportive of free trade with Colombia?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague answered his own question about whether we should agree with free trade and enter into the agreement when he said that trade unionists are safer than ordinary Colombian citizens because they actually have folks walking around with submachine guns to look after them. If they have armed guards looking after them, that speaks volumes to the fact that they are under threat.

I know the Prime Minister has a security detail, but the hon. member for Kings—Hants and I do not have security details. Therefore, if trade unionists in Colombia need a security detail to look after them, what does that say about Colombia? Does it say that it is safer? I would suggest that it does not.

What I would suggest, albeit the hon. member continues to say that we need to go forward and all of his talk about the human rights piece, why not put the human rights piece first? The member has a good relationship with President Uribe, and I do not say that in any kind of sense other than an honourable sense. He has spoken to him on numerous occasions. I would ask the member to reach out to the president and tell him that when he fixes the issue we will come back and talk to him. The member has that opportunity because he actually has that type of relationship with President Uribe.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member for Kings—Hants seems to be the biggest supporter in this House for this trade deal with Colombia, basically under any and all circumstances.

However, he has made previous comments to this House and there is a particular individual with common frontiers who is quite outraged by the comments of the member for Kings—Hants because of his sort of analysis of the situation in Colombia.

I would just like my hon. colleague from Welland to just highlight a few of the concerns that the gentleman in question has raised.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. The hon. member has said that paramilitary groups have been disbanded in Colombia and yet he seems to be one of maybe two in the House who believe that. The rest of us do not. President Uribe certainly believes it but provides no absolute proof of that.

The gentleman who actually wrote the letter said that he thinks perhaps it is an hallucination suffered in the House in the sense that these paramilitary groups have actually disappeared when all of the human rights groups across this world are saying that it is not true, that they still exist. We still hear of folks getting murdered.

When we look at 2008, the murders of trade unionists increased by 18% from 2007. We actually saw a blip back up in 2008 over 2007. It still continues to this day.

One wonders, if it is still happening, then how can one say that the paramilitary groups have gone away, that they are no longer in existence? Maybe they are just a little bit more clandestine than they used to be because they are still there today.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the NDP caucus and, in particular, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his consistent and principled fight to put an end to the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia. His fight against this unacceptable trading arrangement is truly the fight of every fair-minded person who cares about labour rights, human rights, environmental protection and the individual's right to freedom from violence and displacement from home and agricultural land.

Violations of labour rights and violence committed against unionized workers are among Colombia's foremost human rights challenges. Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. A deep seated anti-trade union culture exists in Colombia both within government and among entrepreneurs who see the autonomous organization of workers as a threat.

Two thousand, six hundred and ninety trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986, with 46 deaths in 2008 and so far in 2009 27 murders.

Impunity rates for these violations is unchanged. There is only a 3% conviction rate for those who murder. Tragically, these crimes are tolerated by the Colombian government.

Canadians must never be a party to tolerance for violence. It goes against everything that we believe about ourselves. The Uribe government continues to inaccurately denounce union members as guerillas, statements considered by the unions as giving carte blanche to paramilitaries to act, putting workers in extreme jeopardy.

Substantive labour rights protections remain in a side agreement rather than in the body of the free trade agreement. Enforcement of these rights is entirely at the discretion of the signatory government. It is not a matter of discretion. It is a matter of life and justice, and justice has been denied because the complaint process is not investigated nor evaluated by independent judicial or even quasi-judicial bodies that could lead to real remedies for the affected parties. It is, as I said, only a matter of discretion in this agreement.

Unlike the provisions for investor's rights, the agreement offers no trade sanctions, no countervailing duties or abrogation of preferential trade status in the event that a party fails to adhere to the labour rights provision. What it does institute is fines, fines for murder, and that is beyond credulity. Investors have rights but workers do not. It defines any kind of logic that killing a trade unionist means paying a fine. This is hardly acceptable or effective. Fines neither address the causes of the violence nor generate substantive incentive or political will in Colombia to address the crisis and bring an end to that violence against trade unionists. There is no justice.

Given the scale and the depth of labour rights violations in Colombia, neither the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement nor its labour side deal will be an instrument to guarantee labour rights and freedoms. In fact, it is more likely the agreement provisions for market liberalization and investor rights, which are substantive, will exacerbate conflict and violations of worker's rights. How on earth can we be a party to this?

I would also like to address the investment chapter of the CCFTA. Canadian oil and mining companies are well established throughout Colombia, including in the conflict zone. Canada's embassy in Bogota estimates the current stock of Canadian investment at $3 billion and predicts it will grow to $5 billion over the next two years with a focus on the oil, gas and mining sectors. Regions rich in minerals and oil have been marked by violence, paramilitary control and displacement.

The ongoing human rights crisis undermines the roles of citizens and communities in deciding which foreign investment projects proceed in their region. It also hampers their ability to advocate for greater community benefits, decent wages and working conditions and improved environmental protection. Canadian companies operating in conflict zones are not neutral actors. Even when investors are not directly connected to the violence, their interests are often intertwined with the perpetrators. Canadian companies cannot evade their responsibility. The CCFTA investment chapter pays mere lip service to corporate social responsibility with best efforts provisions, which are purely voluntary and completely unenforceable.

Almost 4 million people in Colombia are internally displaced. Sixty percent of this displacement has been from regions of mineral, agricultural or economic importance, where private companies and their government and paramilitary supporters have forced people from their homes. Agriculture in Colombia is pivotal for addressing poverty and human rights. Twelve million people live in Colombia's countryside. Agriculture provides 11.4% of the GDP and accounts for 22% of employment, nearly twice the level of manufacturing.

The CCFTA aggressively opens the Colombian agricultural sector to Canadian exports, including the immediate elimination of duties on wheat, peas, lentils, barley and specified quantities of beef and beans. Small scale wheat and barley producers in Colombia will be the hardest hit by a free trade agreement with Canada. Twelve thousand livelihoods will be undermined by Canada's industrially produced wheat and barley exports. A voluntary best efforts clause is not good enough. This trade agreement means additional displacement of the rural poor.

In addition, African palm is also critical. It is the fastest growing agricultural sector in Colombia. Colombia's President Uribe wants to take advantage of the growing global demand for palm oil and biodiesel by promoting the industry. However, the palm oil sector has a dark side. In all four palm growing zones, palm companies have been linked to paramilitaries and human rights violations, including massacres and forced displacement. Human rights groups have documented 113 murders in one river basin by paramilitaries working with palm companies to take over Afro-Colombian owned land.

I would like to also address the environmental side of the agreement in the CCFTA. Colombia is the second most biologically diverse country on earth, but it is losing nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest every year. This deforestation results from agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and infrastructure construction. The environmental side agreement, or ESA, is unable to provide an effective buffer to counter the pressure of enforceable investor rights that undermine environmental measures.

We have repeatedly heard from the government and others that trade can support the realization of human rights if it brings benefit to vulnerable people and allows willing states to promote developmental outcomes. However, neither the political conditions in Colombia nor the terms of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement provide these reassurances.

While Canadian officials have argued that the FTA will strengthen democracy and improve human rights in Colombia, Colombian civil society organizations are concerned that the effect will be the reverse. They point to the deep connections between human rights violations and commerce in their country. The systematic attacks on trade unionists that resist liberalization and deregulation of local industry, as well as the dispossession and disappearance of peasants and Afro-Colombians as an expedient means to clear land for export plantations and mining investments, are serious problems.

In 2008, our parliamentary Standing Committee on International Trade undertook a study on human rights and environmental considerations of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. That committee report was important for making issues of human rights and the environment, issues in which Canada has numerous binding obligations under international law, central to debates on the deal. The committee concluded that the FTA with Colombia should not proceed without further improvement in the human rights situation in Colombia.

I think that it is imperative that we take that kind of advice. This FTA, signed behind the backs of the Colombian people without any real participation from civil society or any study on the impact, has caused great problems and violence in that community.

I would like to conclude my remarks. At the beginning, I said that the fight against the CCFTA was principled and truly a fight that every fair-minded person should support. After listening to the debate in the House, I have not changed my mind.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to take action when I was the Minister of Labour. I went to Colombia and Peru to speak about this free trade agreement and, among other things, a side agreement on workers' rights.

I had discussions with the President of Colombia. Naturally, Colombia wishes to have Canada's support for the implementation of this free trade agreement, which is going in the right direction. It will make progress in the area of workers' rights for unionized workers and all Colombian workers.

With respect to workers' rights, there is a side agreement in which Colombia confirms that it will respect fundamental labour rights. It also confirms its intention to grant the right to form unions, to not condone child labour and to ensure that there will be annual discussions among unions, workers, the government and entrepreneurs.

Either we allow them to be isolated or, on the contrary, we help them move in the right direction.

I therefore ask the member why do they not want to allow Colombian workers to hope for better days and ensure that Canada will partner with them and make it possible for them to head in the right direction?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would echo what we have said before. Why is the labour agreement a side agreement? Why is it not integrated into the main agreement? Why does it have to take second place? I would suggest that it is because in the House, among some members, human rights are an inconvenience. They certainly seem to be an inconvenience in Colombia. It is absolutely integral to our values as Canadians that human rights be first and foremost.

I would like to also offer an observation in regard to a meeting I had this spring with a young woman, a trade unionist. She was a union steward for a service union. She came here with the help of the Canadian Labour Congress, but we had to meet very quietly. She did not tell me what village she came from. She only talked briefly about her family. She said her visit to Canada was kept absolutely secret from authorities in Colombia because were she to return and they had found out, she would be killed. She worried very much about her children while she was gone. She was very concerned that her children were in danger.

The point is, last spring a trade unionist feared for her life. What has changed in Colombia?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the hon. member. She has said she does not believe we should have trade with a country wherein there is violence, as there is certainly in Colombia.

We also have to consider not just trade relations but also our aid relations. Canada does have quite a robust relationship with Colombia in terms of Canadian aid. We have agreements, for instance, where we provide funding for labour enforcement in Colombia. We provide money for human rights development in Colombia, for security in Colombia. That is our aid development.

Is the hon. member saying that we should continue our aid investment but not our trade investment because that would not make a lot of sense to me. Is it the official position of the NDP that we should continue to provide aid to developing countries, but we should not provide trade opportunities to developing countries? Is it the official position of the NDP that we should give the fish to the developing world, but we should not give them the fishing rods that would help them develop their own economy? Is it the position of the NDP that we should keep the developing world enfeebled and cowering to us and taking our aid, but not buy their products?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can safely say that the position of New Democrats is for fair trade, the kind of fair trade that respects human rights, that promotes human dignity, and that means at the end of the day that there is not the kind of imbalance that we have seen in many countries.

I would ask the member how free trade has helped Mexico. I can recall many instances of Mexican workers being murdered because they wanted to have a union or to increase their wages. I can recall the situation in Chiapas, where Mexican labourers, farmers, were removed from their land at gunpoint, so that multinational corporations could grow cheap strawberries for the North American market, a monoculture that destroyed the land and a methodology that destroyed the lives of these people. Murdered peasants, murdered workers in Mexico and environmental degradation, the trade agreement did nothing for Mexico.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Teacher Day and many of us are honouring teachers. I wonder if the member could tell us about some of the concerns that Colombian teachers have with regard to this free trade agreement.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, there is a huge migration of Colombians into my riding of London—Fanshawe. Many of them are teachers and I have had the opportunity to speak with them. They talk about the war against teachers.

If we look back at totalitarian governments or regimes or those who used violence to get what they wanted, very often their first move was to kill the teachers, the intellectuals, and those who had the ability to speak up to analyze a situation and to talk about justice. That is precisely what has happened in Colombia. Teachers and their families have been targeted because they have the ability to speak up for justice and fairness.

We have a great deal to learn from past agreements and from the teachers of Colombia.

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 to the amendment.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to talk against this bill that would give a message to Colombians that Canada supports a government that violates human rights. Of course, we all know that Canada would never support a country that violates human rights.

The Prime Minister launched his free trade talks with Colombia in 2007, around the same time that U.S. President George W. Bush was pushing a trade pact through Congress, where Uribe's government was vilified by the Democratic majority. The government-proposed trade pact is another sign that Conservative foreign policies simply shadow those of U.S. Republicans in an attempt to bolster our like-minded leader in Latin America.

Fearful of implicitly endorsing Uribe's government, Norway has put a hold on free trade talks with Colombia, and Britain has stopped providing training and support to the government's security forces. I would like to quote José Oney Valencia Llanos from Colombia. He said:

You know that here in Colombia, there are many human-rights violations. Business people, through multinational and transnational corporations, have violated human rights and attacked workers, directly and indirectly.

He goes on to say:

We don’t have the right to free association, or political rights, or the right to unionize...The government sees that we want to get together so that we can demand our rights, and they call us terrorists. Those of us that have had charges pressed against us, we’re accused of having links with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, even though we have never had links with—and at no time did we have meetings with—illegal armed groups.

This brings me to a company that we have in my riding. It is a company from Brazil. Brazil is not a third-world country, but I want to give an example of a company that is acting like a third-world company. This company purchased a company in my riding called Inco a few years ago. It was able to purchase this company through an agreement with the government of the day. It was an agreement that we cannot even see today. We do not know what is in this agreement.

I will give an example of what this company is doing. Right now, there are negotiations going on in my riding with Vale. Over the years, we have had a lot of negotiations because Inco has been in existence for 100 years. This company is not negotiating. It is not negotiating because it wants to bring us back 30 years to the times of third-world countries. It wants to take away our pensions, which are hard earned by the former employees of Inco.

It wants to take away what is called a nickel bonus. Miners earn a nickel bonus when the company is profitable. If the company makes money, the workers make money. There is nothing wrong with that. It says that it wants to make these changes to be more profitable. I think that it is profitable enough as it is.

This company was also negotiating in bad faith when it was negotiating. Last week, it fired three strikers. It fired these three strikers and then it did something that has never been done in negotiations in Nickel Belt before. With its third world attitude, the company sent out a press release announcing to the media that these three workers had been fired--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The time provided for government orders has expired.

The House resumed from October 5 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, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The vote stands deferred until 5:30 p.m. today.

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 to the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan on the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-23.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #112

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for the following:

That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the second reading stage of Bill C-23 shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately then, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, second reading stage of Bill C-23 shall not be subject to any further amendments or sub-amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And fewer than 25 members having risen:

Fewer than 25 members having risen the motion is adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from October 7 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.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to confirm that we are proceeding with Bill C-23 as we just had a motion dealing it.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Yes.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor today so that I can continue the debate on this free trade agreement with Colombia. The Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-23 for a number of reasons. And we are not the only ones who oppose this bill. The whole of Colombian civil society, the unions that are trying to help workers in Colombia and a great many groups in Canadian civil society have also criticized this agreement.

This agreement is premature. Moreover, it does not take into account the serious problems in Colombia, especially with regard to human rights and respect for individuals. Colombia is one of Canada's minor trading partners. Canada exports grain to Colombia, which in turn sends us products that are often hand-made. Where this agreement could be important to Canada is in connection with the extractive industry. Colombia is among the Latin American countries that are very rich in ore. Canadian mining companies that set up there need protection, because these countries are not safe.

It is no secret that Colombia is a country with a great many guerillas. What is more, President Uribe is not known for promoting social justice or upholding human rights. When we first started talking here in this House about this free trade agreement with Colombia, the ambassador of that country sent tonnes of documents to members of Parliament. We received those documents in our offices. We were told that there had been changes, that President Uribe had changed his ways in the past few years and that Colombian law had changed. That is not exactly true.

We recently read a blog by Linda Diebel of the Toronto Star, who accuses the hon. member for Kings—Hants of trying to whitewash the Uribe government by peddling untruths. Diebel scoffs at the member's claim that there are no longer any paramilitaries in Colombia. That is the line we got from various Conservative members who have spoken. It is shameful; these people are prepared to hide the truth to advance their agenda and adopt an agreement that is decried by many in the general public, in the world and in Canadian civil society.

Linda Diebel reminds the hon. member for Kings—Hants that the new death squads that have formed and that the new groups of drug traffickers are just the old paramilitary groups and they still have close ties to the army. According to Diebel, he is wrong to say that the situation of murdered unionists in Colombia is improving. She goes on to say that recent figures show a slight increase.

She roundly condemns this member's campaign to whitewash the Uribe government, which has been condemned by the main human rights groups. This is a president who ignored the actions of the death squads when he was governor of Antioquia.

What does this mean? It means that when our investors, who want to make money, go to such a country, they need protection. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is not about trade and, I reiterate, is all about investments. Because this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make the lives of Canadian investors easier, especially for those investing in mining in Colombia.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia seems 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. These measures are similar to the NAFTA chapter 11 provisions and are particularly dangerous in a country where labour or environmental protection laws are uncertain at best.

We should remember that, with respect to foreign investment in certain countries such as Colombia, there are few if any rules that protect people against environmental disasters. There are no provisions with respect to child labour or working women, for example, or to protect workers in general. These are countries where a human being is not necessarily valuable and it is up to us, I believe, as a civilized country that recognizes the importance of the human being, the importance of prohibiting child labour, and the importance of ensuring gender equality, to set rules for our entrepreneurs so that they do not disregard human rights and are cognizant of environmental protection, even if the environment is not that of their own country.

I have seen slides, pictures showing, for instance, that the ground in areas where some Canadian extractive companies were mining was so polluted that river water turned pink. This water had become unusable for the local people, who then had to walk miles every day to fetch water. The groundwater has been completely contaminated for decades, perhaps even centuries to come. It should be possible to tell a Canadian mining company that, because it is contributing to water pollution in an area, action will be taken against it. But if the company is penalized somehow and cannot operate, it could sue the government, increasing its chances of being able to continue to not give a damn about the environment and human rights.

That is one of the reasons why we oppose this free trade deal. It provides excessive protection to Canadian extractive companies. It is one thing to protect Quebeckers and Canadians, but this agreement ought to include standards to protect the people and the environment.

There may be a few words about them here and there in the agreement, but that is not enough.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's fine speech.

It is not just abroad that many Canadian companies are doing this kind of thing. Companies mining for uranium have done some testing at Sept-Îles on the North Shore. They did some drilling and took some core samples, and everything was left on site. Everything was left with no supervision from Environment Canada, and the Canadian government does not care.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had to be called upon, because these Canadian companies are doing this not only abroad, but also in Quebec on the North Shore, for instance, in uranium mining. They left exploratory samples—they were hoping to find uranium—on the side of the road that runs along the Moisie River, a salmon river, as well as near the water intake for the city of Sept-Îles. Not only are environmental regulations needed, but we must also be much more vigilant, because companies are doing this kind of thing right here, as well as abroad, and they have no qualms about it.

I wonder if my hon. colleague knew that this was happening not only abroad, but also in Quebec. I would like to hear her comments on that.

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to quote Colombian senator Jorge Robledo who said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to listen to this member and all the nonsense he has been spewing out for the last 10 minutes. Members of the Bloc have been here for 16 years and they have never deviated from the thought: big private company, bad; small company, good. They do not get it that big companies create jobs for hundreds of thousands of people in this country.

Let us talk about the oil sands in Alberta. Under the Liberal government no money went to the oil sands companies to help them develop new technology for cleaning up the environment, not one cent--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, I recognize the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor on a point of order.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of what the government House leader brought up before, I must ask the Conservative member, what does this have to do with the trade deal?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Again, I would invite all hon. members to come back to the subject at hand which is the free trade agreement.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am simply responding to what the Bloc member was saying when he talked about the big oil sands developers that were taking government money and still polluting. He does not get it. The reason the tax credits went to these firms was to help them get technology to clean up the environment. He will not admit that.

What is wrong with Canadian companies going abroad and teaching those companies about environmental rights, about workers' rights, and helping those countries, which may be lacking in those areas, to develop the standards that Canada has? I ask the member that.

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

Madam Speaker, the simple good reason is that there is nothing in the agreement brought before the House that promotes respect for environmental laws. Once again, I am not the one saying this. The international press has described the oil sands as the biggest polluter on the planet. That is a fact.

If the Conservative government wants to invest money to pollute, that is its prerogative, but that is not what Quebeckers want. As I said earlier, we developed our hydroelectric power with our own money, with no help from Ottawa. That is why one day, Quebec will be capable, as a country, of getting by without any federal money.

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

Madam Speaker, unlike the Conservative members opposite, I rather enjoyed the member's presentation. When he was talking about the role of the big banks here, he was in fact going to be relating that to the free trade agreement with Colombia and how a free trade agreement would also facilitate the takeover of Colombian businesses and so on by these banks.

If it were not for the opposition in the House stopping the merger of those banks, we would have had bank mergers, and we would have been in a huge mess come the recent recession. So, in fact, the opposition inadvertently saved the government from being in the same mess that the United States government is in. They should be thanking the member opposite--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to be honest with my colleague. His party, the New Democratic Party, did not want bank mergers. That means they have a conscience. Quebeckers are proud to serve as the conscience of the Americas. I encourage NDP representatives to continue acting according to their conscience and stop supporting a Conservative government that is one of the worst polluters on the planet.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Manicouagan has time for a very brief question.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, the companies that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel referred to are not just making money, they are harming the health of their own workers and that of people living in the regions in which they operate. The activities of companies looking for uranium on the north shore, mainly around Sept-Îles, are detrimental to their employees and people living on the north shore.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Manicouagan, who provides us with regular updates on what mining companies have left behind in the region along the north shore. Things would be even worse if the member for Manicouagan did not work so hard to bring these polluters into line. I would like to thank him for his work.

He is the eyes and ears of the people, and he is working to bring mining companies on the north shore into line. However, other people will have to be responsible for whipping them into shape in Colombia. We will not always be able to be there, and that is why we have to vote against this bill.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the party, contrary to this particular aspect of what the Conservative government is doing. I consider the Conservative government to be so desperate to sign a trade deal with literally anybody, that it seeks one with Colombia. It wants to be like the big boys out there and say that it can play too.

I first want to put on the record that the NDP is not against trade deals. However, we would like to see deals that are fair trade deals, not trade deals that upset the environment and the workers' rights. Everyone knows that Colombia has one of the worst workers' rights records in the world. Everyone knows that a unionist in Colombia does not have a very long shelf life, as they say. The reality is that the paramilitary, with the backing of the government and others, has supported basically the riddance of some union members and other people on the left who wish to speak up for social rights, justice and the environment.

What does the government do? It seeks out friendships and trade deals with countries of this nature on the premise that we might be able to improve things and may be able to improve their situation. How has that worked for thousands upon thousands of workers in Mexico right now? Do members remember when NAFTA came along? All tides were going to rise up and the workers of Mexico were going to have the same quality and standard of life that we have in Canada.

That has not happened, and do members know why? The control is lost to governments and is turned to multinational corporations. That is what these deals are all about.

The fact is we, in the NDP, and others, and I assume the Bloc as well, are opposed to these deals because they completely ignore the human rights element and environmental aspects in Colombia. All they do is make these particular profits and motivations for trade paramount and everything else secondary. It is lust like the free trade deal and NAFTA. When we asked about labour rights and about environmental rights, what happened? They were put in a side deal, to be talked about later.

We in the NDP have been asking over and over if the government is serious about human rights and environmental rights in Colombia. Those rights should have been put into the main body of the text. The first things that should have been negotiated were human rights, workers' rights and the environmental rights and then we talk about the economy of scale and the opportunity for companies to trade back and forth and make a profit, which they should be able to do. However, we cannot separate them and put one in a side deal.

It is funny that we never hear about the economic aspects of these big resource companies being put in a side deal. They are always in the main body of the text and workers and the environment are always on the side, to be talked about later. That is not fair and it is certainly not right.

What we have said very clearly about any trade deal is that if the premise of the trade deal is to create an economy for both sides to lift up workers and their communities, then must be equal on both sides. It cannot just be a one-way street, which is what is happening here.

We know the committee on international trade was dealing with this but the government circumvents the work of the committee and goes ahead anyway. Why would the government ask a committee made up of all parliamentarians to study this particular aspect and then go ahead and proceed with it anyway? The government is circumventing its own members of Parliament. As Garth Turner once said, “The sheeples won't say anything. They're afraid that their committee chairs or something else may be taken away from them”.

The reality is that if a committee has been tasked to look into an agreement or into a particular legislation, the government should never be signing on until that work is done, a report is tabled in the House and a thorough review and analysis has done by all parliamentarians, instead of the government just riding roughshod ahead superceding Parliament's wishes in this particular regard.

I cannot say this enough. If our children looked to this Parliament, they would see a massive debt and deficit that we are leaving for them. We are leaving them an environment that, by all standards, is worsening on a daily basis. Now we have no idea if our children will have the security of long term employment that we ourselves had. This is the legacy we are leaving our children.

What does the present government do and what did the previous government do? They both rushed out to make these trade deals thinking that if we just keep trading with countries like Colombia everything will be better. That is simply not true.

For those of us who have toured Mexico, we know that a lot of people in Mexico are not better off by NAFTA. There is no question that some communities have done better, but most Mexican workers are not that much better off than they were before. We were promised that the workers in Mexico would have similar rights to our workers in Canada, but when the trade deal was signed, thousands of Canadians lost their jobs and a lot of businesses left Canada to go elsewhere.

We are still in debt and have a massive deficit, and what does the government do? It searches out countries like Colombia with a terrible human rights record and bad environmental standards and we want to trade with that country. For the life of me, I do not understand why the--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for allowing me to interrupt him.

At noon today, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons put forward a motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.l that would prevent any new amendments to Bill C-23.

In my view, moving this type of motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 is out of order for the following reasons.

Standing Order 56.1 has to do with any routine motion for which unanimous consent has been denied. Standing Order 56.1(b) defines a routine motion. It may be required, and I quote:

—for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

I do not think that a motion to prevent an amendment or subamendment to a motion for second reading of a bill can be classified as a routine motion based on the definition in Standing Order 56.1(b). I believe that it is a motion to limit debate much as moving the previous question would, and, I should add, Marleau and Montpetit consider the previous question to be a motion to limit debate.

I would like to bring to your attention a ruling you made on September 18, 2001, in which you stated:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House.

I am certainly willing to recognize that the government is being innovative with the wording of its motion, but the fact is that this motion is basically designed to limit debate. In that sense, I believe it should be ruled out of order, since it was introduced pursuant to Standing Order 56.1.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to support the argument and the point of order put forward by my colleague from the Bloc.

I was just reading the ruling that came from the Speaker on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, and I would agree that what the government did today by preventing further amendments was really a motion to limit debate.

It has been clear in rulings from the Speaker that there is a lot of concern now about the expanded use of Standing Order 56.1. The member is entirely correct about the Standing Order being about routine motions, whereas what took place today was clearly an attempt by the government to limit debate, which is not appropriate under this Standing Order.

The government has other Standing Orders that it could use, such as Standing Order 71. There are other measures that it could use. For the government to try to ram this through at the last minute by using Standing Order 56.1, definitely limits the debate of members.

Madam Speaker, I would hope that you would examine this very carefully. A creeping, sort of incremental change is taking place where the government is continually relying on this particular Standing Order to expand the horizon of what it wants to do. It is really an inappropriate use of this particular Standing Order.

I hope the Speaker will uphold the earlier decision that was made in 2001 to make the confines and the appropriate use of this Standing Order clear. It clearly was not intended to be used to prevent further debate by members, which is what is actually happening right now because it was allowed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is our contention that we are following the rules of the House. Standing Order 56.1 has been used a number of times in the House, most recent, in the softwood lumber debate. We believe we are using it accordingly.

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

I would like to read again, for the benefit of the chief government whip and yours, madam Speaker, the part of Standing Order 56.1 which states that such a motion may be used for the following purposes:

—the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.

There is no mention of motions to limit debate. The purpose of the motion introduced by the government today under Standing Order 56.1 was to limit debate. In that regard, I think that the Speaker's ruling of September 18 was clear. The government could have used other means besides Standing Order 56.1.

I would therefore encourage you to consider our point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, I believe our position will be upheld. We believe we are following the rules.

What I suspect is the two opposition parties do not have any more speakers and they are trying to fill the time until 1:30 so they can get out of here.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, with great respect to the member from the Conservative side, I was right in the middle of a speech. If truth were an island, you would be uninhabited right now. Try a little honesty in the House next time. I—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would ask the hon. member to address his comments to the chair.

I thank the hon. members for their contribution to this point of order. All their arguments will be taken into consideration and a decision will be brought back in due course. This is indeed a very serious matter.

I thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and the other members for submitting arguments for and against. We will take these arguments into consideration.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sackville--Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to reconfirm that the Canada-Colombia free trade deal was signed on November 21, 2008, right smack in the middle of the international trade committee dealing with this effort. I have to ask the government this. Why would it have the committee undertake a study of this deal and, while doing its work and before the reports can be tabled, sign the deal anyway?

What about the Conservative members on that committee? Are they pawns in a game? They should do whatever they are told and not worry about things. “Pretend you are wasting all this taxpayer money on studies, witnesses and reviews, don't worry we're not going to listen to anything you say anyway because we're going ahead and signing it”.

This is the problem with the Conservative government. It promised us accountability and transparency. What did we get? An incredible number of Conservative bag people, Tory hacks and political contributions. This is its accountability review. “If you donate to the Conservative Party, you too can be a judge in Canada”. This is the type of system we want to tell the Colombians about, that they should follow our lead, that corruption begins at the highest places, even in our Canadian democracy?

Getting back to the free trade deal, we firmly believe these deals should be based on fairness, equality, the rights of workers, the rights of people and, most important, the environmental standards for both countries. If these deals were predicated upon those items, then we would probably be very supportive. However, we get backhanded deals, we get told all kinds of wonderful things by the government, “Don't worry, be happy”. Bobby McFerrin sang that song years ago and won a Grammy for it, but the Conservatives would never win a Grammy for that, I can assure everyone.

They Conservatives are deliberately misleading the House and Canadians when they make these deals without fair and proper observation by the committees and a thorough analysis and debate by the House. This is why we are here.

I remember when the Conservatives were on this side of House, they stood on their chairs like banshees and screamed and yelled every time the Liberals tried to pull something like this. It is quite amazing to know that the Liberals are very supportive of this. They are in the pockets of the Conservatives on this deal.

At the end of the day, only time will tell if these trade deals are successful. I can guarantee one thing. We have seen other deals that Canada has made in other areas of the world and the workers are still no better off. The environment is getting worse and the debts and deficits of those countries are rising.

Where is the proof that these deals actually succeed in the long term and who do they benefit? Who are the main beneficiaries of these deals? Who is pushing the government so hard to get these deals signed so fast with a country like Colombia?

As my hon. colleague from Prince George said earlier, is it not our responsibility to help them, to work with them, to assist them with worker stability and the environment? Absolutely, but we do not need a trade deal to do that. We can send a lot of people there to assist them in moving forward in a more democratic manner. This is why this deal should not be ratified.

The bill should be killed. I am glad to see the Bloc Québécois and the NDP siding on this very important issue.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I sit on the trade committee along with a number of colleagues. This debate has been dragged out in the trade committee for an enormous period of time. We visited Colombia. There have been over 30 hours of debate in the House on this issue.

Quite frankly, there is a side agreement in this free trade agreement on the environment. There is a side agreement on human rights. This is some of the best legislation that we have ever put forth in a free trade agreement with another nation.

My question for the member is very simple. Name a free trade agreement that provides jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers that the NDP has ever supported? This is an ideological argument. This has nothing to do with reality.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, he just said it. He proved my point. He said that the issues of the environment and human rights were in a side agreement.

My question for my hon. colleague from the South Shore of Nova Scotia, which by the way is a beautiful area of the country, is this. Why are the side agreements not in the main text of the agreement? Why do they have to be in a side deal? If they are so important, why are they not in the main text?

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

Madam Speaker, over the last five years, the Canadian government, through CIDA, has provided $64 million of aid to the people of Colombia, institution building, security and helping to rebuild the lives of the people of Colombia, socially and in terms of governance, after 40 years of civil war. Since 1972, the Canadian government has provided around $355 million of aid to the people of Colombia.

We are already engaged as a country in Colombia. Canada is already a partner in Colombia. If the NDP's aversion to this trade agreement is based on what is going on in Colombia, then the logical corollarary of that is those members ought to be opposed to Canadian aid to Colombia.

Is that the case? Are they opposed to sending aid to the people of Colombia? Or is it an ideological aversion to all free trade agreements that is crafting the NDP members' position on this? Is it their position that it is all right to give the Colombian people fish, but we should not give them fishing poles? It is alright to give them direct funding and aid, but for goodness sakes do not buy their products? Is that the NDP approach to foreign development?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, if a union member in Colombia had a fishing pole, he would not be fishing for very long. He would probably be murdered by somebody.

We have no aversion to CIDA helping Colombia or any other country that requires our help.

A letter was written by someone from Common Frontiers, who was very angry over the member's viewpoint of what was going on in Colombia. If my hon. colleague, from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia, honestly believes this is the proper way to go, then why are environmental, human rights and labour rights not enshrined in the main text of the body? Why must these things always be in the side deals? Those members refuse to answer that question.

It is quite telling as to why they refuse to answer that one very critical question to help those people on the bottom rung of the ladder in Colombia and around the world.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke has time for a very brief question.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will be hard for me to be brief.

Can my NDP colleague confirm the increasingly obvious complicity between the Conservatives and the Liberals?

For all intents and purposes, the member for Kings—Hants, who sits on the committee, dreams only of being the Minister of International Trade or the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade. Can the NDP member tell me whether he senses this complicity?

For less than 1% of our exports, they are willing to renounce human rights and environmental rights and pave the way for the paramilitaries, the corrupt Uribe government and drug traffickers to keep on doing business at the Colombian people's expense.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, in short, he is absolutely correct.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that I do not have much time left to take part in this debate, but I am obviously happy to add my comments to everything that has been said here in this House.

I congratulate the Bloc Québécois and NDP members who are taking a stand so that globalization has a human face. Here in this Parliament, I learned quickly that we had to weigh the pros and cons of each bill. I do not understand how anyone can be in favour of this bill. That said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of free trade and has advocated for free trade since it arrived in the House. Moreover, the people of Quebec are in favour of free trade.

But I do not understand how anyone can be in favour of a free trade agreement with a country that has absolutely no respect for human rights, environmental rights or workers' rights. There have been many, many speeches in this House that have demonstrated just how corrupt the Colombian government is.

Canada absolutely has to shoulder its international responsibilities by setting an example and helping the people of these countries. Saying that there is no problem trading with a country that denies all the rights I have just mentioned is not a good way to set an example.

I would now like to address an aspect that has not been discussed as much in this place and that is investment protection. When I first came here to Parliament Hill, I was a parliamentary assistant to the hon. member for Joliette, who was the international trade critic. A great deal of time was spent discussing investment protection and chapter 11 of NAFTA, which has been perpetuated by the Conservative government in every free trade agreement.

The House resumed from October 9 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.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-23 and I, along with my NDP colleagues, am proud to speak in opposition to the bill.

The bill is about free trade with a government that refuses to recognize human rights and a government that is complicit in human rights violations. The bill is also about free trade with a government that refuses to recognize the need to protect our planet and our environment, and that is complicit in taking our environmental resources for granted.

Canada signed a free trade agreement on November 21, 2008 and the legislation we are debating today is a result of that agreement and would implement the agreement signed between our two countries.

Even though the agreement is signed, it is not too late, which is why we are taking turns standing in the House to talk about the problems with this agreement. We are trying to wake the government up to the fact that this is a very bad deal. It is bad for Canada and it is bad for Colombia.

On May 25, the Bloc Québécois moved an important amendment to Bill C-23 which I believe is important enough to reread in this honourable House. The amendment reads:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline 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 this agreement while the Standing Committee on International Trade was considering the matter, thereby demonstrating its disrespect for democratic institutions”.

That is a very important and precisely worded amendment. The amendment is important because it restates the purpose of the bill to say that, in fact, members of this House would refuse to give second reading to this bill. We refuse to give second reading because it is not a bill that is good for Canada and it is not a bill that is good for Colombia.

I have previously stated in the House some of the most egregious aspects of this FTA. As we know, the CCFTA consists of three parts. There is the main FTA text but there is also a labour side agreement and an environmental protection side agreement.

The areas of concern are as follows: First, this agreement shows a failure on labour rights protection. Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries on earth for trade unionists. They are regularly the victims of violence, intimidation and even assassination by paramilitary groups linked to the Colombian government.

The CCFTA does not include tough labour standards. By putting these labour agreements, as I said, in a side agreement outside of the main text and without any kind of vigorous enforcement mechanism will not encourage Colombia to improve its horrendous human rights situation for workers but will actually justify the use of violence.

This agreement is also a failure on environmental protection. The environment issue again is addressed in a side agreement and there is no enforcement. Anybody who has ever looked at law, legislation or policy knows that if there is no enforcement it is meaningless. There is no enforcement mechanism here to force either Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights.

We have seen in the past how agreements like this are unenforceable. For example, I will draw attention to one agreement we all know and that is NAFTA. We have never seen a successful suit brought under the NAFTA side agreement on labour.

Another aspect of the agreement that is problematic is the investor chapter copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 investor rights. The CCFTA provides powerful rights to private companies to sue governments, enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. This is particularly worrying because of the many multinational Canadian oil and mining companies in Colombia.

The arbitration system that is set up in chapter 11 gives foreign companies the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environmental labour and social protections. Giving this opportunity to private businesses in Colombia and elsewhere would further erode Canada and Colombia's abilities to pass laws and regulations that are actually in the public interest.

Another area that we find problematic is the agricultural tariffs. Colombia's poverty is directly linked to agricultural development where 22% of employment is agricultural. An end to tariffs on Canadian cereals, pork and beef would flood the market with cheap products. What would this mean? This would mean thousands of lost jobs for Canadians.

Bill C-23 would also seriously destabilize the Canadian sugar industry. Importing sugar from Colombia would threaten the closure of at least one of the Canadian sugar plants in the west and would result in job losses of up to 500 employees and 250 sugar beet growers; all this while at the same time Colombia is not a significant trading partner for Canada. It is our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America; all this while at the same time 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986 and 31 trade unionists alone this year; and all this when nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction, and we are complicit in this.

Free trade does not work in this context. What is the solution?

I would like to share with the House an idea that is familiar to many Nova Scotians and that is fair trade. Just Us! Coffee Roasters Co-Op really brought this idea of fair trade to Nova Scotia. Fair trade is a trading partnership based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equality in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to and securing the rights of marginalized producers and workers, especially in the south.

Fair trade organizations that are backed by consumers are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for change, change in the rules and practices of conventional international trade, which is what we are seeing with this agreement.

The strategic intent of fair trade is threefold. First, deliberately work with marginalized producers and workers in order to help them move from a position of vulnerability to one of security and economic self-sufficiency. Second, empower producers and workers as stakeholders in their own organizations. Third, actively play a wider role in the global arena to achieve greater equality and equity in international trade.

To put it more simply, fair trade is an alliance between producers and consumers that cuts out the middle man. In this process, it empowers producers and it gives them greater dignity and a fairer price for their products. It provides consumers with high quality products that they know are more sustainable from both a social and environmental point of view.

Just Us! Coffee Roasters is Canada's first fair trade coffee roaster and it is located in the town of Wolfville, Nova Scotia. There are two Just Us! Coffee Roasters shops in my riding of Halifax, one on Barrington Street, which is in the heart of our business district, and the other one on Spring Garden Road, which is very close to the campus of Dalhousie University.

Both those coffee shops are touchstones for our community. They are not only a place to meet friends, a place to buy ethical products and a part of our local economy, but they are also doing more to support our local economy. They offer food prepared by local food suppliers, like Terroir Local Source Catering and Unique Asian Catering, which are small businesses located in the community of Halifax.

I applaud Just Us! Coffee Roasters for leading by example and for showing the country that fair trade is possible. It is my hope that the bill fails and that, instead of rewarding countries that fail to recognize human rights, we work with them to develop trade in a fair and equitable way.

Those are the reasons that I stand in opposition to Bill C-23.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very good speech and offer some solutions to our trade policy.

I would like to ask her a question with regard to the ideological slant of the Conservatives who are pursuing this. They often talk about how tough they are on crime and how tough they are on drugs and that whole agenda here in Canada, but at the same time they are willing to open up our borders for a privileged trading relationship.

What we really need to emphasize is that we do have trade with Colombia right now. It does go on between our two countries and will always go on with regard to a number of different goods and services. However, what we are doing is considering a privileged trading relationship that is the exception. This is with a narco state that has not only human rights issues with trade unionists but also drug production that ends up in Canada.

Does the member know why the Conservatives, who pretend to be so tough on crime and drugs, would want to engage in a privileged trading relationship with such a narco state?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent and very insightful question about bringing down the crime control issue with international trade.

It is all smoke and mirrors. We are tough on crime and free trade is good for everybody. If we say it often enough, it does not make it true.

I worked with a young man in my community of Halifax who said to me, “My dad sold rock and my uncle sold rock. What am I supposed to do? All I know how to do is sell drugs on the street corner. I don't know how to make a resumé. I don't know how to show up on time for work and communicate appropriately with my boss. We need programs to help me understand how to get a job but also how to keep a job”. We are not listening to the experts, the experts being the kids on the street who need assistance.

I will point out that our international trade critic has worked directly with people in Colombia and has asked them what they think of this free trade agreement. The experts, the people on the ground, are saying that trade unionists are being killed on the shop room floor and that the agreement is bad for their environment and their country.

The problem is that we have a government that refuses to listen to the real experts, the experts who are actually being impacted by the laws that we are arbitrarily drafting in some back room in the House of Commons. It makes no sense. We need to talk to Colombians about what they need. We need to talk about youth on the street who are at risk to find out what they need. That is how we should move forward on both of these issues.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Halifax gave her usual ground level speech about an initiative in the House. I wonder if the member could speak to another side of this proposed so-called free trade agreement, a free trade agreement that is free of any conditions to protect the environments of Canadians or Colombians.

Every time we raise concerns about the government's failure to act on environmental protection measures and climate change, it speaks of balance, and yet this agreement and the side agreement on the environment has severely pared back any environmental conditions as found in the agreement that we have with Mexico and the United States.

Does the member think that environmental conditions are just as important to fair trade?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her counsel and mentoring on environment issues. She is doing an excellent job of representing environmental issues in the House.

I agree with her wholeheartedly. I would come back to the fact that the environmental regulations are a side agreement. They are not included in the main body of the text to show they are important to the government. There also are no enforcement mechanisms, which means it is completely meaningless. We cannot do x and, if we do x, nothing will happen. It makes no sense. We need something that is enforceable and we need it to be in the main body of the agreement.

As for her question about whether the environment should be considered when it comes to fair trade, I say, wholeheartedly, yes. We will see that. I used Just Us! Coffee Roasters as an example. Not only is it about fair trade but it is looking at shade-grown beans, which are more ecologically sustainable, and it is looking at the impacts on the environment in all of the countries where it works.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could say I am pleased to rise here today, but the truth is, I am not.

I do not understand how a government can introduce a bill in the House of Commons that aims to implement a free trade agreement with Colombia. I find it shocking. It is appalling that a government should favour the mining industry at the expense of human rights in Colombia.

First of all, people here have spoken out to say that this agreement favours the mining industry in several ways. The agreement's provisions have been explained in a number of documents. Colombia is one of the main countries where the mining industry can still mine coal.

If a mine is established in the middle of a village, mining companies have no problem displacing all the people. As we all know, anyone who resists will be killed. Is that what we want? Does Canada want to send a message to the entire world that it cares more about an industry than about people? We want to protect those people. This kind of situation cannot be tolerated by Canadians.

Human beings have rights, workers have rights and children have rights, such as the right not to work and not to be exploited. We do not let companies break the rules here, but we are ready to help them do it elsewhere. I am dumbfounded by this. Moreover, so many crimes go unpunished in Colombia as a matter of course that human rights groups believe there is collusion between Colombian politicians and paramilitary forces. At this very moment, more than 30 members of the congress are under arrest in Colombia. I do not think that Colombian parliamentarians, as a group, are particularly trustworthy. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I do not understand how a country like Canada can pursue free trade with Colombia without a thought for the Colombian people. It is beyond comprehension.

The Conservative government would have us believe that things are much better than they used to be. But that is not what we have been reading and hearing about what is going on in Colombia. We have been hearing that in 2008 the number of crimes committed by paramilitary groups rose by 41%, compared to 14% the year before. That means that in 2008, the paramilitary crime rate surged by 55%. Is that what we want to be a part of? Are these the people we want to help?

Maybe everything is fine and dandy in Colombia, but there is one thing I do not understand. The Conservatives should listen carefully, because I did not make this up. It is right there on Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada's website. The website recommends that people avoid all 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. And where do these mining companies operate? In rural regions.

We are told that everything is fine and that we should trade with Colombia, but on the other hand, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada tells us that we should not go there because it is dangerous. It is dangerous for the people of Canada and the people of Colombia, but for the mining industry alone, it is not dangerous. That industry faces no danger, because it hires the paramilitary forces and does business with them. I will come back to Foreign Affairs later.

The government is going to tell us at some point that Canada does business with Colombia and that it does good things. I will tell hon. members what it does with Colombia. Canada buys only raw materials from Colombia. Energy products accounted for 31% of exports in 2007, while agricultural and agri-food products accounted for 58%. It is the mining industry that the government wants to protect. Canada buys a total of $138 million worth of coal and related products, $115 million worth of coffee, $72 million worth of bananas and $62 million worth of cut flowers. That is our trade with Colombia. Is it profitable for us? No, it is not. Can we do without it? Yes we can.

I repeat, and this is the important point in the free trade agreement with Colombia, the only thing we do not want is for Canada to take the people of Colombia hostage in an effort to promote the mining industry. That is what the government is trying to do. I totally disagree with giving even two minutes' thought to helping an industry to the detriment of a people. It is unfair. It is unthinkable.

I return to the subject of Colombian exports. They do not come from urban regions. They come, rather, from Colombia's most remote rural regions. It is here, in these remote regions, that the greatest wealth of natural resources is to be found, but it is here, too, that the most violence is to be found. To continue in this vein, it is here that 87% of the forced population displacements occur, as well as 82% of abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law and 83% of the murders of union leaders. Continuing on, according to the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, this would lead one to believe that there is substantial evidence that Canadian investment in these regions of Colombia is linked to human rights violations.

I am not making that up. It is taken from a report of the Standing Committee on International Trade of June 2008 on concerns over the effects on the environment and human rights in connection with the free trade agreement with Colombia. I can go even farther than that. It is clear and simple. A group from the Standing Committee on International Trade carried out studies to find out whether, through the free trade agreement, something could be done in support of human rights and the environment. Democracy here in this House is not the kind of democracy that should be copied around the world, and I will tell you why.

This government authorized the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to go and see what was happening in Colombia in order to prepare a report, including conclusions on the free trade agreement. The members did not even get time to draft the report before the government signed the free trade agreement with Colombia. Is that the sort of democracy they want in this House? They ask people to prepare a report and then ignore it. Is this the government Canadians and Quebeckers want here? I do not think this is the answer.

I want to continue from where I left off. There was talk of areas where a high degree of caution is required. The exception to this would be some parts of the coffee growing area near Bogotá and resort areas with established tourist industries. People should avoid travelling to Colombia.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech on free trade between Canada and Colombia. I completely understand his passion and interest in this subject.

I would like him to elaborate on the fact that the government is eliminating the possibility of pressuring Colombia into respecting human rights in that country, and why the government is eliminating this possibility.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question, which I will answer in a roundabout way.

We want this government to take responsibility and exert pressure for human rights in Colombia, but it is not even capable of doing so here at home. I am referring to the older worker adjustment program, but the government is not interested in older people. It wants to grant an additional 5 to 20 weeks of employment insurance benefits for those people who lose their jobs, instead of introducing a program for older worker adjustment, or POWA.

How can we trust a government that is not even willing to help its fellow citizens who live here and pay taxes?

What makes us think that this government could have any influence on human rights in Colombia when it does not even respect them here?

Worse yet, the government will not even adopt anti-scab legislation to prevent people from replacing workers who are on strike. How are we to believe that it has any consideration for people in another country?

The only thing Canada wants to achieve today, with this free trade agreement, is to open the door for the mining industries to operate mines in Colombia. The government will make things easier for them by doing nothing to help that country and by doing nothing to help people who, like hostages, have to work for these companies.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his fine exposé on the current situation in Colombia as well as in this House.

We have been discussing the pros and cons of Bill C-23 for several months now. On this side of the House, we think there are a lot more cons than pros. That is only to be expected.

As always, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to all injustice, not only in Quebec and Canada but everywhere in the world. This bill, unfortunately, would sanction a number of injustices.

When the government says that no crime victim or any one whose rights have been trampled, even here in Canada, should be ignored and tells us that it has a very busy law and order agenda, I think it is forgetting that there are places elsewhere in the world where people do not have the ability or even the possibility of defending themselves.

At present in Colombia, 30% of the people who in the government are being seriously investigated for corruption, collusion and all sorts of things and 60% of the rest are suspected of engaging in activities that are not exactly legitimate in view of their positions and responsibilities.

Every day in the House, members from one party or another rise to praise someone from their community or someone whom they know to remind us—because this person is deceased—of how important the person was to his or her family, children, colleagues at work and the people he or she met on a daily basis.

At times like those, I think it would be great for us to stop treating the victims in Colombia—the trade unionists and murder victims—as mere statistics despite what the Colombian government has to say and despite its efforts to minimize these crimes. We know of 109 murders between January 2007 and June 2008. I want to list a few of them and it would be good if my colleagues on the other side could start seeing them as human beings, as fathers and mothers of families and as people with responsibilities in society. These people are dead today because of their convictions and their work. I want to mention the following:

Maria Teresa Jesus Chicaiza Burbano, killed on January 15, 2007; Maria Theresa Silva Reyes, killed on March 28, 2007; Ana Silvia Melo Rodriguez, killed on May 19, 2007; Marleny Berrio de Rodriguez, killed on June 11, 2007; Leonidas Sylva Castro, killed on November 2, 2007; and Maria del Carmen Mesa Pasochoa, killed on February 8, 2008.

Other people who have been murdered include Maria Teresa Trujillo, killed on February 9, 2008; Carmen Cecilia Carvajal Ramirez, killed on March 4, 2008; Leonidas Gomes Rozo, killed on March 8, 2008; Victor Manuel Munoz, killed on March 12, 2008; Ignacio Andrade, killed on March 15, 2008; Manuel Antonio Jiminez, on March 15, 2008; Jose Fernando Quiroz, on March 16, 2008; Jose Gregorio Astros, on March 18, 2008; Julio Cesar Trochez, on March 22, 2008; Adolfo Gonzales Montes, on March 22, 2008; Luz Mariela Diaz Lopez, on April 1, 2008; Emerson Ivan Herrera, on April 1, 2008; Rafael Antonio Leal Medina, on April 4, 2008; Omar Ariza, on April 7, 2008; Jesus Heberto Caballero Ariza, on April 16, 2008; Marcello Vergara Sanchez, on June 5, 2008; and Vilma Carcamo Bianco, on May 9, 2009.

I could go on naming names for another 20 minutes. How many victims do there have to be in Colombia before this government wakes up and realizes that it is not a good idea to be negotiating a free trade agreement at this time with a country that has no more respect for human beings than this?

All of the persons I have named were unionists. All of them were working to improve the living conditions of people living in Colombia and trying to make a better life for themselves. But this government does not hear the names of the dead and murdered. It hears them only when it is in its interest to hear them, when it can spread propaganda, when it can use them.

This government should stop using the misfortune of others for its own advantage and start respecting people who work to earn a living.

At the moment, working people in Colombia are subjected on a daily basis to violence, murders and crimes. We cannot stand by and let this sort of thing go on. If we agree to this free trade agreement today, we are agreeing to the continuation of these murders of men, women and children.

I do not know if my colleagues are like me, but I believe that all of us have to look into our hearts, stop thinking about profit only—obviously, there is short-term profit involved here—and stop thinking that we can impose our law on the whole world. That is not the way it works, and that is not the way it will work in Colombia, where the government is corrupt virtually from top to bottom.

Do you think that the Colombian government will be suddenly cleansed of all its impurities because we sign a free trade agreement today with Colombia? One would have to be a little naive to think that.

Indeed, my colleague from Compton—Stanstead is right. You have to be a little naive or acting in very bad faith to believe such a thing. You have to be a little naive or acting in very bad faith to try to make this House vote in favour of a bill that has not been thought out and for which no serious consultation has been done. As my colleague from Shefford so aptly said, the only consultations that were done were not used to develop a free trade agreement that would stand up and take account of the rights and lives of the people in Colombia.

If we adopt this agreement, if we pass this bill, I will be ashamed as a Quebecker and a Canadian. I am ashamed that we would support such a bill. I am ashamed that we are trying every day, through the Justice minister, to introduce bills that will put crooks in prison using minimum sentences, with no consideration for judicial discretion. I am ashamed that we are trying to introduce bills that would throw a large part of the population, aboriginals primarily, into prison without any opportunity for rehabilitation. I am ashamed that we are permitting a corrupt government to keep on turning a blind eye to crime and the murder of its citizens who are doing everything they can to give the people living down there a better life.

I simply cannot believe this. I cannot believe that the members in the other opposition parties are turning a blind eye too. I do not believe it. If we stand up for the rights of the people we represent, we have to stand up, by virtue of our status as members of Parliament, for the rights of the people we represent everywhere in the world and for the rights of human beings.

The unionists have come to meet with us and let us know about these odious crimes committed against their sisters and brothers. We know perfectly well that they have not been heard by the government.

Is my time up, Madam Speaker? Very well then.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will no doubt have an opportunity to continue her comments during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Laval for her fantastic presentation. She gave a very good explanation of what is happening in Colombia and what the free trade treaty involves.

I would like someone to tell me why the Canadian government is so keen to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. I cannot understand or imagine why it wants to do so. The only thing I can think of is that it is under pressure from the mining lobby, which wants to open doors in Colombia because it will benefit mining companies. Who will go to work there? I am not sure many people from here will go to work in Colombia. We want to exploit the Colombians and their land. For whose benefit? For the benefit of the mining companies that will stash this money in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying tax. What good is the agreement if human rights are not respected in Colombia?

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of this option.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I also do not understand why this government is in such a hurry to give in to the lobbyists' demands. But I am not surprised.

The Bloc Québécois members are not the only ones who are opposed to this free trade treaty. The opposition members are not the only ones who are opposed to this free trade treaty. Justice for Colombia is an organization based in England, not Colombia. It is based in England, where all the unionized workers support our cause. Nearly three million United Steelworkers of America support our cause. As far as I know, we are not the only ones who support this cause. We should not be so crazy, so naive.

What is the government waiting for to stop kowtowing constantly to Bay Street? What is it waiting for to stand up and refuse to aid and abet these mining companies, which will keep on committing abuses and will enable these killings to continue?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her passionate presentation to the House on this important debate.

Obviously, there have been a lot of discussions going on with regard to this free trade bill, particularly as it relates to human rights matters and specifically related to unionists. I have come to understand that the death or human rights abuses of unionists also occurs in a number of other countries and at the same levels of incidence. I am not aware of the details, but the member may have some details on that.

Second, the standing committee that looked at this whole issue regarding the human rights concerns had reported to the House that it felt that there should be an independent human rights assessment done as part of the consideration of this matter.

I have also come to understand that Amnesty International has refused to do so—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I must give the hon. member time to respond.

The hon. member for Laval.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Obviously, such acts of violence are committed in other countries as well. We are very aware of that. However, there is a common thread. Where mining companies are present, there are union problems and human rights violations. For example, in Romania, the rights of workers have not been respected. People who lived around the mines had to be moved. These people have ongoing health problems because mining companies have little respect for them.

My colleague is knowledgeable about all aspects of human rights. Yes, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms should apply and the Ligue des droits et libertés should be allowed to review this agreement and add anything that is missing. This agreement currently has very important gaps.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the bill again.

Let me begin by following up on the comments made by the member for Mississauga South when he asked a question of the Bloc member. It certainly is the case 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 has improved. It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken to determine the real impact of a trade agreement. The government, of course, has ignored this report.

With that information in mind and the fact we have known about this for a year now and that members of the House are very familiar with it, as it keeps being brought up over and over again, the issue is, why is the Liberal Party not opposing this trade agreement? Why are the Liberals complicit with the government in trying to ram this through?

I appreciate the member for Mississauga South, because I know that on this particular issue and others, I do not really think he is in sync with his caucus at all. The member for Kings—Hants has stood up in the House and the tone and content of his comments are certainly, to my mind, very different, if not the exact opposite. It sounds to me like there may be some sort of mini-war going on within the Liberal caucus over there, and I certainly hope that the member for Mississauga South could win on this one, because we are doing our best on this side to hold up the bill as long as possible, perhaps to give him enough time to win the war and to get his caucus members onside. He is quite aware that together we form quite a formidable force in the House. The three opposition parties actually are the majority, and if we could just get the Liberals onside on this particular issue, it would go a long way to stopping this initiative.

The history of the Liberal Party has been all over the place on this issue and many others, but certainly there is a core group in the Liberal Party that, I would think, is having a lot of difficulty supporting this particular free trade agreement.

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 was introduced in the House by the Minister of International Trade on March 26, 2009. Bill C-23 implements three agreements and the respective annexes signed by Canada and the Republic of Colombia on November 21, 2008. The first of these is the bilateral free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement provides for the liberalization of various types of economic activities: trade in goods, trade in services, foreign investments and government procurements. It has already been pointed out by members of the Bloc and NDP how small this amount of trade really is. In fact the previous Bloc member suggested that this free trade agreement is all about the mining companies, the mining sector, and supporting the mining companies without any regard to the human rights record found in Colombia right now.

The two other agreements dealt with in the bill are side agreements to the free trade agreement, 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.

The environment agreement seeks to ensure that each party enforces its environmental laws. However, if a country does not have any environmental laws, it is hard to enforce them in the first place.

The labour agreement seeks to ensure that the domestic law of both states respects basic labour rights and is duly enforced. The latter agreement also provides for the possibility of resorting to arbitral panels to settle trade-related disputes that involve a persistent pattern of failure to comply with obligations under the labour agreement, an option that is not created in the environment agreement.

The wording in agreements can sound very good, but at the end of the day, it is the will, the implementation, and enforcement of the agreements that make them successful or not successful. We do not want to get involved in an agreement like this when we know that the basic bedrock, the basic infrastructure, is not there to promote the proper type of results we would expect from an agreement like this.

We in our party want to develop free trade agreements that promote fair trade. We on this side of the House are all in favour of reducing barriers and we are supporting fair trade as opposed to free trade. We have seen what sorts of agreements have been developed over the last few years with successive governments in this country. I recall the Liberal Party in 1988 and its leader at the time, John Turner, who was running his entire election campaign against the Mulroney government's Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and saying he was going to eliminate it if he became prime minister. Of course, the Liberals said they would eliminate the GST and do a lot of other things in their red book back in 1993, but which they totally ignored when they came to power.

Currently Canada is party to five free trade agreements, all of which have been implemented through legislation. There is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and the Canada-Israel and Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreements. The two others we have been dealing with lately have been the free trade agreement with Peru and the one with the European Free Trade Association.

Bill C-23 implements the three agreements between Canada and Colombia through a set of provisions that will form the core of a stand-alone piece of legislation, the proposed Canada-Colombia free trade agreement implementation act. It also contains amendments to a number of existing pieces of legislation: the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, the Export and Import Permits Act and the Financial Administration Act.

I mentioned that the extent of trade in goods between Canada and Colombia is relatively modest at the current time. In 2008, two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia totalled just over $1.3 billion and Canadian merchandise exports to Colombia totalled $703 million. The major exports include agricultural products such as wheat, barley, lentils, as well as industrial products, paper products and heavy machinery. Canadian merchandise imports from Colombia totalled $643 million and consisted of major imports such as coffee, bananas, coal, oil, sugar and flowers. Having said that in regard to those figures, I believe that Colombia is our fifth largest trading partner in the area. It is not even in our top four trading partners in the area.

Bill C-23 has attracted considerable attention, as we have pointed out and continue to point out. The groups and individuals opposed to the implementation of the free trade agreement oppose it because of the country's abysmal human rights record. The previous Bloc member read the names of people who have been killed, and I have a similar list as well. People are being killed on a daily basis in Colombia and the government seems to ignore that fact. As a matter of fact, the president was invited to appear before the committee and the Conservatives are blithely ignoring the record of the country, all because the Conservatives have this tunnel vision that they can sign these free trade agreements that are somehow going to lift everybody up. That in fact does not work out. What we have seen in Colombia and other countries is a degradation of the environment after the free trade agreements have been put into place.

That is why we need a fair trade agreement. On that basis, I think we should certainly look at a different approach here, and only after the human rights record is straightened out in Colombia.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have here the Amnesty International report for 2009. I would like to read the conclusion and ask for the member's comments. It says:

Throughout the Americas region, human rights defenders continue to work for a world where everyone is able to live with dignity and where all human rights are respected. To do this, defenders often have to challenge powerful social and economic elites, as well as the inertia and complicity of governments that are failing to honour their obligations to promote and defend human rights.

That is one of the reasons I wanted to participate in the debate and why I am troubled with the trade-offs here. However, I am moved by Amnesty International's generic statement and I wonder if the member would care to comment on it.

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

Madam Speaker, it certainly is a well-known and documented fact that numerous people have been killed in Colombia over the last few years and that they continue to be killed. We are not helping the problem by facilitating or giving the Government of Colombia what it actually wants: the respectability that comes from having a free trade agreement with Canada.

In fact, I believe that the United Kingdom has recently ended its military aid to Colombia because of the human rights record there. We have some debate about the Americans and what they and their Congress are doing with regard to their agreement with Colombia, but my understanding is that they have put a hold on it as well.

What kind of encouragement does the Colombian government have to rectify its human rights record when governments such as ours entertain and encourage them by offering them free trade agreements? They should be the pariahs of the world and be forced to clean up their human rights record first before governments such as Canada's or the United States' give them free trade agreements.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wise words and comments.

The question here is somewhat of a chicken and egg debate in terms of what countries do with regard to trade. Around the world, Canada has the unique role in being able to offer countries its reputation when trading with them. When Canada signs a free trade agreement with a country, it is giving its blessing to that country's role in the region.

Colombia has struggled for many years with fighting paramilitaries, and with the increase in the drug trade and all the rest. It is now in the midst of an arms race, which I think has to be brought into this debate.

I raised with my Liberal colleagues down the way, who seem to continue to ignore it, that after almost two decades, South America is going through an arms resurgence right now. Billions of dollars in arms are going into the region, creating what could be a very volatile situation in some very unstable regimes, particularly Colombia right now.

The idea of Canada entering into the fray and creating a free trade scenario, in which arms are not even mentioned in the agreement whatsoever, brings many concerns to Colombians who are fighting for and advocating peace, and are seeking peaceful measures with their neighbours to the south and north.

I am wondering if my colleague can comment on some among the Liberals. I know it is a big tent, but it is a circus tent if they allow the idea that one can both oppose and support something so volatile as a trade agreement with a country seeking an arms deal.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I do feel sorry for the Liberal member in this particular debate, but I am eternally hopeful that some common sense may prevail within the Liberal caucus in the next short period of time.

The fact is that 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008, the number was even higher than that, and we have statistics here showing there have been murders as late as just a couple of weeks ago.

This problem is going on unabated. No matter what sort of promises the government or the committee thinks they are getting from the President of Colombia, when he showed up before committee—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this extremely important debate. First of all, I would like to congratulate the member from Compton—Stanstead on the birth of her first granddaughter on Sunday. I believe this event should be acknowledged in the House. We have a future sovereignist. Congratulations.

I will now turn to the bill. I believe this is exactly the type of bill that is very problematic for Canadian and Quebec societies and all western societies in terms of relations with a developing society that has significant economic and political difficulties. It also poses a problem with respect to what tack to take in its trade relations and the ensuing political, social, environmental and cultural ramifications.

Unfortunately this government is in denial about something that is extremely important. Of course, the Liberals denied it also when they were in power. These free trade agreements have an impact on trade and the economy as well as having social, environmental and cultural implications.

In our opinion, this agreement contains nothing to guarantee that the people of Colombia will benefit from it. That is also true for Canada and Quebec, but to a lesser extent. Our moral responsibility is to ensure that the agreements Canada negotiates with other countries are to both parties’ advantage. I am thinking of Colombia in this case, but the same thing may arise in relation to Costa Rica, with which we have negotiated a free trade agreement that was strictly to Canada’s advantage. Is it morally acceptable for parliamentarians to endorse this kind of agreement and this kind of thing being done by the Canadian government?

Once again, the Conservatives have taken up the torch from the Liberals.

Take the example of investment protection. This free trade agreement with Colombia gives rights to Canadian multinationals. It will be said that rights are also given to Colombian multinationals, but are there such multinationals, and how many of them do business with Canada? They are being given the same right as a government to go before the courts to challenge provisions adopted by the federal and provincial governments, including Quebec, or by municipalities. Based on this agreement, multinationals can challenge the legality of certain decisions in the name of private property rights, the right to profit and to invest, no holds barred.

This new provision appeared in the North American Free Trade Agreement when it was negotiated with Mexico. It absolutely did not exist in the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. It seems that this provision was introduced to defend against forms of economic nationalism such as have been seen in Mexico. This is like asserting total control over the governments of those countries. I am talking about Mexico, but it was also true for Costa Rica, and now for Colombia.

This is a totally unacceptable agreement and that is why there is such strong resistance in Parliament to adopting it without thoroughly debating it. It is not that we are opposed to protecting investments. For example, in the trade disputes between Bombardier and Embraer, the rules of the World Trade Organization are being undermined. In a case like that, there is an arbitration tribunal where Canada represents Bombardier and Brazil represents Embraer. Embraer or Bombardier do not appear directly before the special tribunals that handle cases relating to NAFTA or this agreement to challenge a decision made democratically and completely legally for the welfare of the public that parliamentarians are supposed to represent. Not to mention Colombia’s tragic track record when it comes to respect for human rights.

It is all very well to tell us there have been improvements, but there is a long way to go before we, as a society, can associate ourselves with impunity with what is going on there. As I said, there are human rights abuses. People are harassed and even outright killed by paramilitary organizations. I can attest to this, because we have a community of Colombian refugees in the riding of Joliette, particularly around Joliette itself, who came here because of the political situation in Colombia. Even today, there are Colombians who come to join their families in the greater Joliette region because their lives have been threatened down there by the paramilitary forces or by FARC. There is a human rights situation that is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that Canada should be advancing on the international stage.

Workers’ rights, the right to unionize, the right of association, the right to strike, the right to bargain freely, none of those are respected in Colombia. I can attest to this myself, because as Secretary General of the CSN I worked for many years with Colombian trade unionists whose lives had been threatened. There are people who have come to Canada and Quebec to testify about the abuses in the situation that people in the labour movement lived in, and who, once they went back home, were unfortunately again victims of harassment, or worse still, were outright killed. We cannot accept this.

We hear about displaced populations. There again, unfortunately, there are Canadian companies that are not living up to their responsibilities. They are guilty of some instances in which populations, and in particular aboriginal populations, have been displaced.

The government’s answer, like the Liberals’ answer, is that we have parallel agreements about the environment and labour. Those agreements, which have existed since NAFTA was signed, were included in the free trade agreements with Chile and Costa Rica. They are not in any way binding and they have not resulted in any significant improvements in labour rights or environmental rights, or more generally human rights. What is needed is for certain provisions to be incorporated into the free trade agreement or a future free trade agreement with Colombia. The benefits provided for in the agreement have to be linked to respect for the major international conventions of the International Labour Organization and the major environmental agreements, and respect for human rights.

All of this is missing from this treaty. I think this is largely a result of the government’s indifference, the Conservatives’ insensitivity to what human rights mean. When we consider that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister went out and said that if the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Court was correct and the Canadian government had to do everything necessary to repatriate young Omar Khadr, and I note again that he is a child soldier, arrested at the age of 15, who has been living in Guantanamo since that time, he was not sure that the government would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. When we have reached the point that the Conservative government—because in this case, that is what we are talking about—is telling us in advance that it may not abide by a decision of the Supreme Court, we are in trouble.

This is not the only situation where the Conservatives are disregarding the rules. I am thinking, for example, of the current situation the Chief Electoral Officer finds himself in, where the Conservative Party, in response to the interpretation given by the Chief Electoral Officer, who is the arbitrator of the democratic rules when it comes to elections, has decided to bring action against him. The arbitrator is being sued. They do not agree with his decision, so they start legal proceedings. I am also thinking of the partisan appointments and the use of public funds for Conservative propaganda purposes.

I myself have seen in the riding of Rivière-du-Loup—Kamouraska—L'Islet—Montmagny—I said it backwards, but it is the same riding—tactics that it would not have been believed still existed in elections. There have been the phoney announcements by Conservative ministers and the use of resources in dubious fashions. I am thinking of the advertising both on the radio and in homes. And also, on election day, strangely, there was a message going around among Bloc Québécois sympathizers that created definite confusion.

I am not saying it is the Conservatives, but as Sherlock Holmes said, and I will conclude with this: “Who benefits from the crime?” Who benefits from the crime that took place in Rivière-du-Loup on November 9? I will leave the answer to the listener.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. It is true that there is a new Quebec sovereignist in the family. One day, a minister said that we had to have children, and that is exactly what we are doing.

I want to talk about Bill C-23. We hear more and more about fair globalization and human rights. Even President Obama is talking more and more about the right to democracy.

I have a question for my colleague. Why is this Reform-Conservative government, that keeps introducing law and order bills because it wants to protect victims, negotiating today an agreement with Colombia, with the same people it wants to put in jail?

Why does this government think that it is as pure as the driven snow when in fact it is not? Is it because profits are given precedence over human rights and the right to live? As the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind. In other words, as long as it is not in our backyard, there is no problem.

I would like my colleague to explain why these Reformists have a double standard.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. This gives me the opportunity to talk a little about the fundamental rights that are being violated in Colombia. If the Canadian government adopts an agreement like this, it will be an accomplice to the violation of human, labour, environmental and cultural rights.

We must not let ourselves be fooled. The people of Quebec and Canada are not fooled. The series of bills proposed by the Conservative government is part of its public relations and smoke and mirrors operation. If we dig a little deeper, we can see that most of these bills have to do with elements that already exist in the Criminal Code, or provide for amendments that would have no effect on crime prevention.

While the government is running this public relations operation, it is encouraging its members to vote in favour of measures to dismantle the Canadian firearms registry, a tool that police officers, stakeholders and criminologists have said is essential to crime prevention.

I remind members that three times, the Quebec National Assembly has voted unanimously in favour of a motion calling on the government to maintain the Canadian firearms registry in its entirety. The government's position is inconsistent, and we can see this inconsistency with the Colombian free trade agreement. The government talks a good talk, but in reality, what matters, what comes first are the major lobbies, like the environment lobbies for oil and mining, and some Canadian companies that operate in foreign countries. They are being given free rein, at the expense of what Canada has historically stood for.

I would like to conclude by talking about Kyoto. Canada signed the protocol, but the government reneged on the signature of Canada, of Canadians. I think that Canada's international reputation has gone out the window.

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

Madam Speaker, I can understand the Conservative government supporting this agreement, but I really cannot understand the Liberal Party supporting this agreement, particularly because in 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that no agreement be signed with Colombia until a human rights impact assessment had been done. It has not been done.

Why does the member think the Liberals are offside in supporting the government on this issue?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

Personally, I think that the Liberals' approach is basically the same as the Conservatives', and that is a shame. If only some lessons had been learned from the shortcomings of the bilateral trade agreements Canada signed with developing countries a few years ago.

I feel that the government should have gone along with the committee's decision. I think that the Liberal members of the committee made the right decision. However, the party has regressed to where it was five or six years ago. I find that utterly deplorable. I hope that everyone here will recognize the fact that agreements signed in the past are just not good enough. We need to go forward with a new generation of free trade agreements.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to put on the record a couple of points.

First of all, it is pretty clear to all hon. members, I am sure, that if private member's Bill C-300 were adopted by this House, it would provide the framework to indicate that businesses doing business abroad would have to fall within international guidelines for the protection of human rights and ethical standards for doing business. I wish that bill were in place right now because it would make this debate a lot easier for many people.

We are discussing this bill on the assumption that free trade will lead to greater influence over the human rights situation in Colombia. It is a hope. It is an assumption. It is not guaranteed, but it is a possibility in the right direction.

However, other countries are aware of the facts and are revoking their support for the Colombian regime. Recently the U.K. ended military aid to Colombia because of systemic crimes committed against Colombian people, so Canada is not sitting out there all alone and wrestling with how to deal with this. Certainly in the absence of human rights issues, the trade deal would have bilateral benefits. It is useful and if Canada were a player, that certainly would be helpful.

I referred earlier to the Amnesty International report of 2009 on the Americas. I would like to read into the record the section entitled “Insecurity”. It says:

In Colombia, many of the human rights abuses committed in the internal armed conflict--including killings and enforced disappearances--are aimed at displacing civilian communities from areas of economic or strategic importance. Many indigenous communities live in regions rich in mineral and other resources on lands legally and collectively owned by them. Such communities are often attacked in an effort to force them to flee so that the area can be opened up for large-scale economic development.

It elaborates on the point, but it argues strenuously about the reason a bill such as Bill C-300 is necessary, because these displacements are also a form of human rights abuse. We need to deal with that.

Finally, I wanted to add to the debate some extracts from an open letter from members of the House of Representatives from Bogota, Colombia to Canadian members of Parliament. They wanted us to know their opinion as the legislators. They said:

First of all, we would like to inform you that...[we are] responsible for exerting political control on the Government and the administration. It is also our duty to approve or not to approve the agreements the Government wishes to subscribe to with other States, by issuing a law.

As members of the national legislative entity and the representatives of the people of Colombia, we consider that the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Colombia is a major factor in the establishment of stable, transparent scenarios for commerce and investment, which generate employment, allow for the improvement of living conditions of our citizens and block...paths to drug trafficking.

I think that is very powerful of the members of the House of Representatives of Colombia to give us their view. There is no simple solution to a problem when there are human rights abuses around the world. We could look at a number of countries, which I would argue would probably include China and others with whom we trade, with which we do not stop trying to advance trade opportunities.

We are not just Boy Scouts. We are a model to the world in terms of who we are and our values. The Colombian House of Representatives is reaching out to say they need to be more like Canada. They understand that. There needs to be commercialization and freer trade between our countries in order to protect and ensure the rights from a cooperative perspective. That means coming together.

In this letter, they also refer to the fact that this trade agreement includes a chapter on strengthening commercial capacities and essential elements to ensure that the benefits and opportunities given by this instrument and two parallel agreements to the development and evolution of a free trade agreement have been contemplated.

There is also an environmental cooperation agreement, which includes a commitment by the parties to sustainable development and mutual support in environmental practices in the formation of trade policies. There is a labour cooperation agreement which sets forth an effective inclusion of the fundamental rights of workers and international legislation of the parties.

Looking at this, I personally have been very concerned about the human rights situation in Colombia and whether or not there was something that we could constructively and affirmatively do. Asking for a human rights assessment on Colombia is asking for something that is obvious on its face. There are problems there. However, we have the tools in Bill C-300 to demonstrate the need for ethical conduct of Canadian businesses abroad. We also have the commitment of the House of Representatives from Colombia, that it understands these problems and it is not ignoring them.

Yes, there are human rights abuses, but having assessed this on all bases and notwithstanding the fact that I continue to have a very strong concern about human rights abuses in Colombia and in other places around the world, I think the only affirmative action for Canada to take is to be there and to demonstrate how business can be conducted abroad on an ethical basis.

On that basis, I cannot have it both ways, but I believe we have to deal with this matter in a constructive and responsible fashion and be affirmative in what we believe we can bring to the table in terms of our relations with Colombia. Accordingly I have decided that I will be supporting the bill.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that some members of the House are completely unaware of what is going on. One member just said that members of the Colombian Congress agree that a free trade agreement would help. How can anyone trust these people? How can any member come here and say that everything will be fine?

Most of the crimes are being committed by paramilitary groups. A number of human rights groups are worried about connections between the Colombian government and paramilitary groups. So many crimes go unpunished in Colombia as a matter of course that human rights groups believe there is collusion between Colombian politicians and paramilitary forces. At this very moment, more than 30 members of Congress are under arrest in Colombia.

How can a member tell us that we have to heed a cry for help from a member of Congress who wants a free trade agreement with Canada when 30% of them are under arrest? That makes no sense.

I would like to hear from the member who talked about the Congressman begging us to sign this agreement even though 30% of those people are in prison. He needs to come here and tell us why he is on their side.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have to accept the representations of the members of the House of Representatives at face value. In their letter to us they also said they consider approval of these agreements to be a step in the right direction to help us face the challenges that we face. They said that was to help us. They understand that this is an opportunity.

As well they go on to say that these instruments are entirely suitable to successfully face the ever-changing future. All countries face an ever-changing future, but the health and well-being of a nation cannot be legislated simply by not doing anything. We have to take steps. We have to take a risk.

There is a risk that this agreement will not do anything substantive to alleviate human rights abuses. However, we will be there, and we will be models to the Colombian people to show that we can have sustainable, fair and safe trade, and economic commercial activity with Colombia if we pass bills such as Bill C-300.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not at all convinced of my colleague's credibility when he stands up for the Colombian congress. He should come and say that to one of my fellow citizens, Liana Pabon, whose father, mother and brother were killed in their house because they refused to move out.

This member is unable to understand that human rights are violated everywhere on the planet and especially in Colombia and that we denounce the fact that these people have no rights. How can one give any credence to the congress's claim that a free trade agreement will make things better? I do not believe that claim.

Therefore, it is important to understand that the government is willingly turning a blind eye. The only thing it wants to protect are the interests of mining companies.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is not the case. I have spoken previously, and in this debate as well. I am aware of the human rights abuses. I am aware of the position of Amnesty International. I am aware that the committee asked for an independent human rights assessment.

Making choices is not about having perfect information. Sometimes you need to decide which is the optimal option available. I have come to the conclusion that we have an opportunity to promote, encourage and work with Colombian people to address some of these human rights abuses in a small way.

I do not have to convince the member to change his vote. I am just telling him why I am voting the way I am.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the Bloc human rights critic, I am very pleased to speak today on a matter as important as the bill regarding free trade between Canada and Colombia.

This is not the first time that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I have risen in this House to criticize the Conservative government's stubborn support for industry without regard for the rights of workers and with contempt, even, for human rights. We need think only of the employment insurance program, which, in recent years, has become a supplementary tax on employees and employers. Then there is Bill C-391 aimed at abolishing the requirement to register long guns with the Canadian gun registry, the failure of the mining companies to respect human rights when they are operating outside Canada, the failure to respect the rights of Omar Khadr and the matter of the return of Nathalie Morin and her children from Saudi Arabia. I must limit myself to these few examples, because the list is much too long and the time allowed me is much too short.

In a news release dated June 9, 2009, many Quebec and Canadian human rights organizations, including the Ligue des droits et libertés, expressed their indignation at the Canadian government's cynical commitment to human rights.

The Conservative government has rejected totally or partially 29 of the 68 recommendations made to it by the members of the Human Rights Council, including the most significant ones. With this sort of behaviour, the Government of Canada has once again shown its complacency, indeed its disdain for its commitments under the various international treaties it has signed.

It is blatantly clear that social values are not among the Conservatives' priorities and even less among their concerns. However, supporting business is top priority in their ideology, while human rights and often the environment are treated with contempt.

Bill C-23, the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement, is further proof of the sad reality of the Conservative government. Money to it is far more valuable than the fate of people. To sign such an agreement is also to support the social injustice in Colombia.

Why ratify such an agreement when they know full well that Colombia offers one of the poorest records in Latin America in terms of human rights? When he appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, Pascal Paradis, of Lawyers without Borders, said that the UN and the Organization of American States considered that the worst humanitarian crisis was still going on in Colombia.

Many human rights groups are concerned about the possible links between the Colombian government and the paramilitary organizations responsible for most of the violations. So many crimes go unpunished in Colombia as a matter of course that human rights groups believe there is collusion between Colombian politicians and paramilitary forces. The figures speak for themselves.

In 2008, crime by paramilitary groups increased by 41%, compared to 14% the previous year. The proportion of crimes committed by the government security forces rose by 9%, which is unacceptable. Despite the increase in crimes, impunity continues, with charges being laid only 3% of the time.

Over 30 members of congress are under arrest in Colombia, including members of the president's immediate family, and over 60 are currently under investigation regarding their links to the paramilitary.

The Conservatives always say that the human rights situation has greatly improved, but we need to be very careful. It is less catastrophic but still far from ideal.

Let me provide a few more figures. Since 1986, 2,690 trade unionists have been killed. If the number of murders of trade unionists declined somewhat after 2001, it has been increasing again since 2007. Some 39 trade unionists were murdered that year, followed by 46 in 2008, which is an 18% increase in just one year.

According to Mariano José Guerra, regional president of the National Federation of Public Sector Workers in Colombia, “thousands of people have disappeared and the persecution of unions continues”.

It is hardly necessary to say that Colombia is one of the worst places on earth for workers’ rights. Trade unionists are targeted for their activities. They are threatened, abducted and murdered.

On this side of the House—or rather in this part of the House because I am stunned to see the Liberals supporting an agreement like this—we cannot understand why the Conservatives are insisting, with Liberal support, on negotiating an agreement with Colombia when we know that trade unionists there are very often targeted with violence.

Another problem facing the people of Colombia is forced displacement. Although the Colombian government says there has been a 75% reduction in these internal displacements, other people contradict this figure. The U.S. State Department and Amnesty International say that more than 305,000 people were forcibly displaced in 2007. In 2008, more than 380,000 people had to flee their homes and workplaces because of the violence.

The Centre for Human Rights and the Displaced says that in 2008 there was a 25% increase in the number of forced displacements in Colombia. Since 1985, more than 4.6 million people have been forced to leave their homes and their land. I mention their land because the rights of Colombian farmers are also threatened. As someone who represents a riding that is largely dependent on agriculture, I am very worried about the situation.

In proportional terms, the number of displaced people is estimated at more than 7% of the entire population. Every day, 49 new families arrive in Bogota. Native people represent 4% of the population but more than 8% of the displaced.

When we look at these figures, it is hard not to be worried about the impact of a free trade agreement. More and more people are being displaced for economic reasons. Small subsistence farmers and small miners are forced off their land in favour of big agri-food or mining companies, a trend that would be considerably strengthened by this agreement. The situation is intolerable, especially when we know that in order to achieve their ends, the people responsible for these displacements use pressure tactics, threats, murder and the flooding of land.

We in the Bloc Québécois are not against trade, but it cannot be at any price. We should globalize in a way that is fair. In the trade agreements before us today, nothing significant has been done to include clauses regarding respect for international standards on labour law, human rights and environmental rights. We are left wondering whether the Conservative government is actually a lot more interested in investments than in anything related to human rights.

As my party’s human rights critic, I am very concerned about the situation.

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

Madam Speaker, I had wanted to ask a question of the member for Mississauga South regarding the comments of the member for Kings—Hants on September 30. Nevertheless, I will ask the previous speaker the same question. On September 30, 2009, the member for Kings—Hants commented in regard to Colombia and said:

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--

He based that assessment on, I believe, a four day visit to Colombia. However, this is totally inaccurate. A recent report from Amnesty International found that paramilitary groups remain active, despite claims by the government that all paramilitaries had been demobilized in a government-sponsored process that began in 2003. Paramilitaries continue to kill civilians and to commit other human rights violations, sometimes with the support or acquiescence of the security forces.

The question I have for the previous speaker is this. How did the member for Kings—Hants get it so wrong?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Indeed, I mentioned in my speech some pretty alarming statistics about murders of trade unionists in Colombia.

Canada accepts a large number of Colombian refugees. People who are persecuted in Colombia seek political asylum in Canada.

Canada wants to sign a free trade agreement with a country, while accepting nationals fleeing persecution in that same country.

I think the government's actions in this matter are not coherent since it accepts Colombian nationals who are persecuted and whose lives are at risk in that country.

And yet we hear that this free trade agreement will allow the government and paramilitary groups to improve the situation of people living in Colombia. This rhetoric from the members opposite is totally illogical.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in the debate on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. At the outset, this debate has exposed a serious flaw in the government's approach to international trade.

I commend my NDP colleague from Burnaby in leading the opposition to the bill. I also thank the members of the Bloc Québécois for their continued support. I was very moved this morning when I heard the member from Laval speak eloquently and passionately about the situation in Colombia. She gave names and voices to those who have been murdered by a very oppressive regime. Through its support directly or indirectly of the paramilitary, that regime has caused the murder of thousands of civilians, many of them trade union activists. According to the International Labour Organization, over the last 10 years, 60% of all trade unionists murdered in the world were murdered in Colombia.

It is important to note that President Uribe has been accused by international human rights organizations of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extrajudicial killings by the army, of links to paramilitary and right-wing death squads, using his own security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, opposition politicians, government politicians and journalists. Many government members, including ministers and members of his family, have been forced to resign or have been arrested.

The regime has been recognized as a pariah by many countries in the world in terms of how it deals with its people and its failure to act in the interests of its citizens. Accordingly Canada, by entering into this agreement, is in fact acting to defend the approach of Mr. Uribe and his regime to government in Colombia.

We have heard it said by others, including the Liberal member for Kings—Hants, that this is a good deal because it would not only put an end to any possibilities of protectionism, but it would also lead to human rights advances. That statement cannot be supported. There is absolutely no precedent for a free trade agreement leading to changes and improvements in human rights. We need an agreement that ensures significant action is taken to reverse what is happening in Colombia and that the regime no longer supports the kind of activities going on there.

The NDP is not opposed to trade or to a regime which involves fair trade. We would support an agreement that fully respects human rights as a precondition for a trade deal. The Canada-Colombia agreement is fundamentally flawed for that reason and it does little more than pay lip service to the serious damage it could do to human rights in Colombia by legitimizing the dangerous regime that is implicated in violence and the murder of its citizens.

It has been suggested that once the Uribe government gets this free trade gift, the incentive to improve human rights will go out the window. There is no fundamental protection for human rights contained in this agreement. In fact, the violation of the side deal on labour rights can only result in a contribution being made of $15 million to an international fund. That is clearly not a significant response to the desperate situation taking place in Colombia.

In addition to these serious and significant human rights violations, nearly 3,000 trade unionists have been murdered since 1986. This year alone, some 34 identified trade unionists have been murdered for their activities.

Colombia has nearly four million internally displaced persons, 60% of whom come from regions where there is mineral, agricultural or other economic activities. Private companies and their government and parliamentary supporters are forcing people from their homes. This economic development is being supported by the Colombian government and its trading partners. If Canada intends to act as a supporter of that regime, then we intend to do everything we can to stop it and we hope members of Parliament, who have listened to the debate, listened to their constituents, who have written them on this matter, listened to the Canadian Labour Congress and others, will change their mind and their approach toward this legislation.

I want to mention some of the names, as my colleague from the Bloc Québécois did earlier, of individuals who have been killed in Colombia in the last few months: a teacher union activist of Arauca, Rodriguez Garavito, was murdered on June 9; Carbonell Pena Eduar, union of teachers and professors, was kidnapped from his workplace and murdered; a teacher with the association of teachers of Cordoba, Ramiro Israel Montes Palencia, was stopped on the road by two unidentified men and shot; and Cortes Lopez Zorayda, an activist in the teachers union, was murdered by two gunmen on a motorcycle on November 13 last week.

This violence against trade unionists and activists has continued on an ongoing basis, week after week, month after month, for many years, yet the Conservative government proposes to enter into a free trade agreement with the Colombia government and its regime. Our relationship with Colombia in the area of trade is not even significant. It is only our fifth largest trading partner in all of Latin America.

Why does the government see fit to enter into this relationship with Colombia, effectively supporting, ratifying and encouraging its activity toward its citizens? This is not the kind of Canada we want to see on the international stage. We want to see a Canada that vigorously promotes human rights. We do not want to see a Canada that helps countries that act this way toward their citizens. We do not want to see a Canada that fails to take any significant action to distance itself from this type of activity, which in fact, is being held by many international groups as being responsible for this.

It is a great shock to see the Conservative and Liberal Parties of Canada give support to the legislation, to the trade agreement and to the Colombian government, which acts so negatively against its citizens and tolerates and promotes directly and indirectly the kind of activities that we have talked and heard about in this debate.

This is a significant and important debate. We have submissions to the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade on this arrangement from the Canadian Labour Congress, which has significant objections to the agreement. In its submission it states:

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.

That is a fairly strong and powerful statement coming from the representatives of all organized workers in Canada. It is not the right thing to do for Canada. It is not the right thing to do for Colombia. It is not the right thing to do for the global economy, which was what the Prime Minister unfortunately said.

There is a significant problem with this. The Government of Canada is tacitly supporting the government of Colombia. Its people live in fear because of the operations of paramilitaries and private security firms and the mafia-style gangland killings aimed at the people who are trying to change things and better their own lot and that of their fellow citizens. Trade union activists are the ones who do that.

That government, in defeating human rights activists and trade union activists, refer to them as terrorists. This is the latest word used to blame somebody. The latest way to make it fair game for people to murder them, kill them, kidnap them and attack them is to pass a label on them when they are in fact trying to improve the lot of their fellow workers, citizens and the country in general.

I would be happy to entertain some questions and comments, but this agreement should be opposed and we certainly oppose it.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the lobby doing some other work and I could not help but overhear some of the comments being made today, including from the member who just spoke. Everyone around the world recognizes the historical problems in countries like Colombia. A lot of what he has said is a diatribe to that.

Why does he feel that Canada, as a stable democracy, does not have a role to play in helping countries like Colombia into the 21st century? Our free trade agreements include labour and environmental standards, which are the cornerstone or ideology of that party. We are seeking to help them in doing that.

I know the president of Colombia was before the committee. He painted a different picture of the country. I doubt the member has been there to see that new picture, but I have. I had the great opportunity to be there for some time last year as we moved toward this. It is easy to snipe from the sidelines and read a lot of the gospel from before, but we are there to help them change.

Agriculture is a huge beneficiary of this type of free trade agreement. The Canadian Wheat Board wants this to happen, which is a paragon to the NDP. Therefore, why do those members constantly waste our time and stand in the road of this kind of progress?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we are clearly not talking about ancient history. We are talking about what has happened today, yesterday, the day before and last week.

Members of the Colombian labour movement are imploring Canadian parliamentarians to reject the agreement. They are the ones who know what is going on in their country. They are the ones who are telling us to not give succour to their government. They are telling us not to help it and legitimize its activity by supporting this agreement.

One would think, if this were good for the agricultural workers, industrial workers and the people of Colombia, members of the trade union of that country would be asking us to open it up. They would be asking us for more trade so they could get more jobs and improve their lot in life. However, that is not what they are saying. If they were, we would obviously be taking a very different approach.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from St. John's East for pointing out and asking the obvious question. Why would we reward such bad behaviour toward environmentalists, trade unionists and anybody in the judicial system? It is open season on my colleagues in that Latin American country.

The labour organization ORIT, which is the plenary labour organization for the Organization of American States, has condemned Colombia. Yet it seeks to form this alliance with Canada in order to improve its image internationally, I believe.

My colleague points out some of the recent murders. They are not ancient history, but have taken place up to and including November 13, which is the most recent example, when a trade unionist was gunned down in the streets by two gunmen on motorcycles.

It is open season on the head of the carpenters union, the head of the teachers union and the head of the nurses union. Why would we do business with a country like that? When there is no compelling economic reason, what is driving the government to get in bed with such a corrupt regime and international pariah?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the question does not have an answer from me. Why, indeed, would the Conservative government of a proud democracy and whose history is foremost in support of human rights, both nationally and internationally, give encouragement to the Colombian government that has an appalling record of human rights and whose own people and representatives in the trade union movement, people working for human rights, are saying that this agreement is a bad thing and that it is rewarding the government for its atrocious record.

Why, indeed? I do not have an answer to that question and the answers that we are hearing from hon. members opposite do not hold water.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lively debate on the subject. As we see it, from the perspective we have on living conditions in Colombia, we can see that on the government’s side, everything seems rosy in Colombia. We are discussing Bill C-23, whose purpose is to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia, and in particular we are debating the Bloc Québécois amendment, which has sparked considerable debate here in this House.

After our review of Bill C-23, it is our opinion that we must refuse to pass this bill at second reading. The government concluded this agreement while the Standing Committee on International Trade was considering the matter. The government thereby demonstrated its disrespect for democratic institutions.

This week, Le Devoir published a long article by Manon Cornellier denouncing a crisis of democracy in Parliament. The article said that the committees are no longer held in high regard, that debates are ignored, neglected and scorned, and that Parliament is giving up on them. I could speak at length about this democratic deficit since the Conservatives have been in power.

We know very well that it is difficult to maintain a certain level of democracy and a certain respect for the opposition. But since the Conservatives were elected, it has worsened. Committee work is no longer what it used to be. It has even made the work of parliamentarians worse.

While the committee was considering the agreement with Colombia, the government flouted the work of parliamentarians and democratic institutions. This is one of the reasons why we oppose this bill. If we are not capable of showing the world that we have a democratically elected Parliament and that opposing voices are being expressed, if the work of parliamentarians is ignored, how can anyone have confidence in the legislation we want to pass, especially when that legislation will have serious consequences for Colombia?

With the possible signing of a Canada-Colombia free trade agreement looming, the Standing Committee on International Trade considered the issue and actually went to Colombia for this purpose. It went to Colombia to meet there with representatives of government, civil society, unions, and human rights advocacy groups. This committee was supposed to produce a report containing recommendations for the government regarding the signing of a possible free trade agreement with Colombia.

Yet it was not even back from its trip when the government completed its negotiations with Colombia and was ready to sign an agreement. The committee produced a report all the same. Naturally the government took no account of its recommendations. Now even the Liberals are ducking out, despite the fact that they were in agreement with those recommendations. I say this because it was already difficult to maintain some respect for committee work, but this has become worse with the advent of the Conservatives.

A second reason raised by the Standing Committee on International Trade is at the very root of the Bloc Québécois’ opposition to the signing of this agreement. It is important to note that our concerns are shared by many lobby groups, particularly human rights advocacy groups here in Canada and in Quebec, and also in Colombia. It would like to list a few of them. For example, here in Canada, there is Amnesty International, Development and Peace, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and the Canadian Labour Congress. A number of unions have also come out against this agreement.

In Colombia, there are 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, the Black Community Process, and COMOSOC, a coalition of Colombian organizations.

As is apparent, the committee heard several witnesses who enlightened it about this agreement and the fact that it raises a number of questions. For example, it would not allow for Colombians’ living conditions to be improved if a Canadian investor were done out of profits.

It is understandable to want to implement measures to protect investments by Canadian or Quebec companies. But if an investment were threatened by government decisions that did not allow the company to make as much profit as it might hope, the company could then claim damages and have the matter heard by the courts.

As a result, according to the study the Bloc Québécois has done, this bill is very negative for Colombians’ living conditions.

As well, Colombia is not one of Canada’s leading trade partners. We wonder why the government wants to move ahead so quickly with this agreement. Imports were $644 million in 2008, and exports amounted to $704 million for the same year. Trade between the two countries is obviously very limited. We hear about wanting to protect investments and business transactions that take place between Colombia and Canadian investors, but the extent of the investments does not justify applying this clause in the case of Colombia.

A majority of these investments are in the mining sector and the extraction industry. It is important to consider that fact if we want to assess the importance of the investor protection clause in the free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada. The first aim is to make life easier for mining investors in Colombia. It has to be understood that it is common practice to incorporate an investor protection clause in a free trade agreement, and the Bloc agrees with that, to create a foreseeable environment for the investor so that it will not have its property seized or there will not be nationalization without compensation.

The Bloc Québécois is very aware that this is an issue for investors. But there has been some drift in this regard. As well, Canada incorporates an investor protection chapter in the free trade agreements it negotiates that is modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA. What does chapter 11 of NAFTA provide? Foreign investors may themselves apply to the international tribunals, bypassing governments. The concept of expropriation is so broad that any law whose effect was to reduce an investor’s profits may amount to an expropriation and result in legal action. The amount of the claim is not limited to the value of the investment, as I was saying earlier, it includes all potential profits in future, and in our opinion that is completely excessive. It means that if a law cut into a foreign investor’s profits, the government of the country where the investments were made would be exposed to fantastically high claims.

The intention of the Conservative government regarding this agreement is clear here. Under the Liberals, incorporating an investor protection clause in free trade agreements modelled on the clause in chapter 11 of NAFTA had become common practice, and that is clearly a response to demands by multinationals. That is why I said just now that we thought the Liberals would support us and not agree with this, but clearly they are going back to their old habits and perhaps they are now ready to reconsider how they will be voting on this bill.

In Colombia, 47% of the population live below the poverty line, and 12% live in dire poverty. The unemployment rate is the highest in Latin America. Instead of putting on rose-coloured glasses as the Minister who spoke for the Conservative government was just doing, if we look at Colombians’ living conditions, there is every reason to believe that this government does not care at all how the people there live and how we might improve their living conditions.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my comments on the record about the reckless comments from the NDP and from some of the opposition members, but specifically the NDP members because they are not putting the facts out there.

I actually had an opportunity to speak with President Uribe a week and a half ago and he explained to me how important this would be for the Colombian people.

I will get to my question right now. The number of mass killings has decreased in the last four or five years from 680 to 127.

The hon. member just spoke specifically about the fact that extreme poverty in Colombia is at 12%. However, what she did not say is that it was at 21% before that government was elected. Colombia is making remarkable progress for the people of Colombia. A democratically elected government believes this will be good for the people of Colombia.

The reckless comments by the opposition and the comments from the NDP members, which are simply not true, are completely outrageous.

I would like the member to comment on the extreme conditions. Does she not agree that the government in Colombia has almost cut extreme poverty in half since it has taken office?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think more rigorous and in-depth reading on events in Colombia is called for. I do not know whether the minister who has just spoken has met with other players currently in Colombia, where development is occurring on government land.

For example, how do they consider workers in Colombia? These people are underpaid, exploited and living in extreme conditions. I could perhaps send him some DVDs I have in my office, which express the anger, fear and fear of reprisals, often with a certain—I will not say it in the House, but I think the minister's arguments are very narrow when he says that to us.

For example, too much protection is afforded investors. This means that if a government wanted to give more benefits in order to protect its citizens—Colombians in this case—it could then be sued by Canadian or Quebec investors through the courts.

The government in my opinion is giving too much latitude to businesses, and many mining companies locating in different countries are ransacking and do not—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my colleague's remarks. I have a very simple question for her.

In 2008, the committee responsible for international trade conducted a study costing several tens of thousands of dollars. The members went to Colombia to study what was going on there, in greater depth. The committee submitted a report, but the Conservatives ignored it.

As we have said from the outset, the Bloc has no problem with free trade as such. Our problem is with the way it is done and the rules and framework.

When I see that the Conservatives do not even take the time to look at a committee report, I think they are ridiculing democracy and the work we do. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Québec with a short response, please.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the government operates in an undemocratic manner. As to the work of the committee, they went to Colombia and they met not only the president and people in the government, but they also met a number of groups, which I mentioned earlier, and had recommendations.

The government did not even wait until they came home. It had already decided. Its bed was made. As I pointed out earlier, this week's Le Devoir reports that democracy is in crisis. That says a lot on how people see the work of parliamentarians.

I have sat in this House since 1993 and I find that, compared with what the committees do, the Conservatives are far below people's expectations of what living in a democracy might be. They have no time for the opposition.

In representing the public in our riding as elected officials, we also represent certain values and political beliefs. People want their values and ideas defended in this Parliament, but this government does not care what the opposition thinks.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, now before the House. I am pleased to also express my opposition to this legislation, primarily because of human rights issues, as we have been stressing over the past few weeks.

As with everything else, before making a decision it is important to weigh the pros and the cons, to hear the arguments on both sides, and then to take into consideration the fine distinctions that are overlooked in the basic arguments. It is not out of ideological stubbornness that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill. I know the Bloc critic on international trade quite well. He is a serious person who would not let his parliamentary duty be tainted or marred by restrictive ideological straitjackets. So, I can say with certainty that our party's position on the legislation before us today has much more to do with a careful review than with irrational stubbornness, contrary to what some parliamentarians suggested during their usual display of petty partisanship.

One has to be very shortsighted to not realize that our position is shared by a large number of organizations, including unions, workers advocacy groups and human rights groups, both in Canada and in Colombia. “We are not alone”, as Michèle Lalonde says in her poem. There are many who, like us, think that supporting Bill C-23 would be “shooting ourselves in the foot”, this for a number of reasons.

Indeed, to agree with this legislation is to condone serious and even very serious human rights violations affecting social, economic and even fundamental rights. There are many examples of that.

For instance, it is estimated that, since 1986, close to 2,700 trade unionists have been killed. In 2007 alone, 38 were assassinated because of their commitment.

According to France's national institute for demographic studies, in the year 2000, Colombia had by far the highest violent death rate in the world, with 60.8 violent deaths per 100,000 population. This was far more than Russia, which came in second with a rate of 28.4 homicides per 100,000.

By comparison, Canada had a rate of 1.78 per 100,000 for that same year. So, we are talking about a rate that is 34 times higher than that of Canada.

To claim that a treaty can improve humanitarian conditions is to delude oneself. It is the contrary that should occur. Indeed, the improvement of the social conditions should be a prerequisite to signing a free trade treaty.

Canada does not have to be a global cop enforcing what is morally right, but it has a duty to refuse to condone things that happen elsewhere, but that would not be tolerated here. It is because of this same principle that we cannot accept the unconditional transfer of Afghan prisoners, without any guarantee that they will not be mistreated. Otherwise, we are more or less part of a subcontracting process involving basic right violations, whereby the government shirks its responsibilities on the pretext that these violations are not occurring on its territory. The government should know that moral obligations do not stop at the border.

Beyond the humanitarian dimension of the situation in Colombia, and regardless of the good and not so good reasons that should make us accept or reject this bill, there is one aspect that remains profoundly unacceptable, namely the utter contempt for democratic institutions shown by the Conservative government in signing the free trade agreement, without even waiting for the committee's report.

That adds another string to the bow of Conservative hypocrisy. Was it not the Prime Minister himself who used to castigate Paul Martin’s Liberals for running roughshod over the will of Parliament? Did he not proclaim loud and long that, if elected, he would make it a point of honour never to disregard the will of the House?

Obviously these were hollow words that soon yielded to actions that speak a lot more loudly and show the true face of the government, which cannot accept its minority status.

So even if we had agreed with the spirit of this bill, which we do not, we would have been forced to object to the way it was handled in actual fact.

This made the front page of last Saturday’s Le Devoir, as my colleague mentioned, and I quote: “Democracy in crisis”. In this devastating article, the excellent journalist Manon Cornellier writes the following in her introduction: “Stephen Harper rules: his ministers play second fiddle, committees have fallen out of favour, and debates are ignored. Neglected, held in contempt, Parliament is in deep trouble”. She goes on to quote Peter Russell, an emeritus professor at the University of Toronto who could hardly be described as a nasty separatist. He is unequivocal, though, saying that the Prime Minister does not take the House of Commons seriously as a forum of national public debate, which only encourages the further marginalization of Parliament.

There are numerous examples: the manuals given to committee chairs on techniques for slowing and sabotaging the work when things are not going the Conservatives’ way; their contempt for private member’s bills, even if the bills pass all stages of the legislative process; their refusal to give royal recommendation to these bills; the use of public funds for partisan purposes; and the constant appeals of decisions made by Canadian courts. I could go on forever.

Yet this same government constantly urges the opposition to cooperate with it. They must have a very peculiar idea of cooperation to think they were encouraging it by short-circuiting the work of a committee.

What message does an attitude like that send to parliamentarians? Basically, their work is useless and the government could not care less about the conclusions they reach and the recommendations they make. In other words, no salvation outside the government, or should I say, outside the Prime Minister’s Office.

Passing this bill, agreeing to this treaty, would amount to approving, condoning, confirming, ratifying and assenting to a way of doing things, a view of parliamentary government that is so restrictive it poses a real threat to the democratic values of Quebeckers.

The end never justifies the means.

This reminds me of another flagrant example of the government’s inability to listen to either parliamentarians or the courts of the land, namely, the case of young Omar Khadr. I think there is a parallel here with a case whose historical importance should give us pause. I am thinking of what in France is called the Dreyfus affair.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quickly remind the members what happened.

Alfred Dreyfus, a captain in the French army of Alsatian Jewish descent, was at the heart of a very important political and social scandal in the late 19th century. He stood accused of the most serious crime an officer could face, namely, high treason, after a note was found that gave details regarding the location of French troops during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. He was quickly tried and convicted, but later appealed that ruling, knowing he had been the victim of a legal conspiracy. In fact, as history has shown, he was innocent. There was compelling evidence to support his theory that it was a conspiracy. Clearly, France wanted to make someone pay, to find a scapegoat for the French fiasco. A guilty party had to be found.

Thus, in seeking some form of justice, the French government was willing to convict an innocent man, someone it knew to be innocent.

One of the most outspoken individuals in this affair was certainly Charles Péguy, an author who is largely unknown today, but whose body of work was enormous. In Notre jeunesse, he wrote the following about the Dreyfus affair and what he considered a crime committed against him:

—that a single injustice, a single crime, a single illegality, particularly if it is officially recorded, confirmed, a single wrong to humanity, a single wrong to justice and to right, particularly if it is universally, legally, nationally, commodiously accepted, that a single crime shatters and is sufficient to shatter the whole social pact, the whole social contract, that a single legal crime, a single dishonourable act will bring about the loss of one's honour, the dishonour of a whole people.

I could go on. Ten minutes go by very quickly in the House. I will move on to my conclusion, for I believe I have made my point.

The way in which Bill C-23 was brought forward is another example of how this government tends to undermine the House. So people will understand why the Bloc Québécois could never vote in favour of Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have become accustomed to seeing the Conservative government show a total lack of respect for democratic institutions: sabotage of committee work on orders from the PMO, obsessive control of information to the point of restricting access to it, and refusal to implement resolutions passed by the House of Commons. In the case of the free trade agreement with Colombia, the government took contempt to a whole new level. It conducted broad consultations and even went to Colombia.

But the government decided to enter into this agreement before the committee had even completed its work. Its message to parliamentarians is that no matter what they think or say, it will do as it pleases. And we see that today. It is saying the same thing to the many witnesses who came to share with us their comments on this agreement. We cannot condone such contempt and such stubbornness.

How can we trust the Conservative government to ensure respect for human rights in Colombia when it has no respect for our democratic institutions?

I would like my colleague from Saint-Lambert to comment on that.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was precisely asking in my speech how this government could respect human rights in Colombia when democracy is not even respected in this House. The parliamentary committee tabled its report, but it was not taken into consideration before the agreement was signed.

I take this opportunity to answer the question asked by my colleague opposite a few moments ago. He said that the poverty rate has gone down in Colombia.

When signing such free trade agreements with other countries, we must first ensure that the economy of these other countries is similar to ours. That is hardly the case with Colombia. Human rights should therefore be much more important than the economy and investments between our two countries.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question on poverty for my colleague. I enjoyed her speech, but she did not really have enough time to speak to poverty or respond to the member opposite who spoke of reducing poverty in Colombia.

When we only meet with representatives of the Colombian government and those who can cook the books—it is as simple as that—can we truly talk about reducing poverty in Colombia? The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has the real figures: 68% of the population in rural Colombia live below the poverty line. Of that number, at least 11% were poorer still and were even struggling to feed themselves.

Can we sign a free trade agreement with a country that has absolutely no respect for its population or its workers and certainly has no real concern for reducing poverty?

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I want to thank my colleague.

Although the poverty rate in Colombia has gone down over the past few years, it is still one of the highest in Latin America. This is one of the poorest countries in Latin America. We cannot sign free trade agreements with this country to make life easier for investors. On the contrary, Canada has to retain its ability to exert pressure on this country to respect the human rights of its citizens.

I would like to draw a parallel with the child poverty situation in Canada, since I am a member of the committee that deals with that issue. In the past 10 years, we have not in any way achieved the goal that was set for reducing child poverty. Other goals will be set for 2020 or 2025. If Canada cannot manage to come up with the necessary measures to reduce child poverty here, then I imagine that poverty in other countries is way over its head.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to speak to Bill C-23, which the Conservatives would use to force Canada, if they have their way, to enter into a free trade agreement with Colombia.

A number of speakers before me have clearly shown that, unlike most international trade agreements, this agreement does not acknowledge the importance of enforcing respect for human rights.

The Conservatives have managed to convince themselves that by signing a free trade agreement with Colombia, we would miraculously be creating a new set of conditions that would have Colombia respect human rights from this point forward.

That is just not the case. Even the Americans, who the Conservatives emulate in international matters, are saying that they will never, ever sign a free trade agreement with the current Colombian government for the simple reason that they recognize, as we in the NDP do, that, unfortunately for its inhabitants, that country does not respect basic rights and the right to free association and union rights, in particular. Hundreds of union members and leaders have been murdered without any apparent consequence in that society, and this is but one of many examples.

Out of the ruins of the second world war, pioneers like Jean Monnet, Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman achieved one of the greatest successes in the history of the world when they took countries that had been at war for centuries, if not millennia, and built what is now the European Union. But you have to walk before you can run. They at least had a common foundation in their desire to respect human rights. It started with an agreement covering coal and steel, which became a common market, then an economic community, before turning into the true union we know today. But this is a union that continues to respect human rights, because that was one of the values on which it was built.

There is no similarity here. We are talking about a country that the Conservatives would like to see improve its human rights record, but that is not happening.

Moreover, I have news for the Conservativechief government whip, who decided a few weeks ago to give us a lesson in morality when he said that he was apparently offended because the opposition was daring to play its role as the opposition. He gave us a finger-wagging lesson in morality, saying that that is not how to make Parliament work. If I understood the Conservative Party's chief whip correctly, making Parliament work means giving the Conservatives everything they want. That is not how things work in a democracy, but it speaks volumes about this government's attitude and why the Conservatives do not see any problem in proposing a free trade agreement with Colombia, something the Americans would never do.

In fact, by debating the amendments and subamendments to Bill C-23, we are complying fully with the rules of our parliamentary institutions. We will not be lectured on morality by a government that is trying to force passage of a bill that would mean signing a free trade agreement with a country that does not respect human rights.

We will not stand for that. They can carry on admonishing us and telling us how dissatisfied they are with the results, but they are in the minority. There is an important lesson in this for anyone who might be thinking of making a change for the worse if they ever win a majority. The consequences of that are clear in the wording of Bill C-23. This bill belies the Conservatives' ideals: even if a country does not respect human rights, as long as business is good, nothing else matters.

All of the Conservatives' empty words about respecting human rights can now be examined and understood in light of what we have before us today.

The emperor has no clothes. This government talks about respecting human rights, but what it really wants is a free trade agreement with a country that systematically denies people their basic human rights.

The New Democratic Party believes that we must begin by strengthening the ability to enforce respect for human rights within Colombia. If asked, we should not hesitate to use our democratic institutions' experience to help Colombia.

But if we sign this agreement now, we will be sending the Government of Colombia the message that it does not need to make an effort to improve its human rights record because we are prepared to sign an agreement with the current Colombian government.

We must avoid sending that message at all costs. If Canada is serious and wants to become a champion of democratic values once again, we must stand up and say that an agreement like this one with a country that does not respect human rights will never make it through this Parliament.

One of the things that was the most surprising in this debate with regard to this proposed free trade treaty with Colombia was to hear the whip of the Conservatives, index finger wagging under our noses, telling us that we did not understand democracy because democracy was giving the government what it wanted. He said that we were not making Parliament work because we were not giving the government the free trade deal that it wanted with a government that does not respect human rights in Colombia. I have news for him. We are respecting every single rule of our Parliament and the institution that it represents in our democracy.

What we are saying is that it is wrong to sign a free trade deal with a government that does not respect human rights. We are going to use our ability as a major player in Parliament to do something that the Liberals do not do, which is to stand up for human rights, to stand up for democracy, and to stand up for principle.

I have a series of letters from groups around the country complaining that the Liberals are not doing what they claim to do, which is to stand up for human rights. It is a good thing that the NDP and other members of the House have stood and used their voices to say yes to greater relations with all countries, yes to using our parliamentary institutions, our experience and our human rights record to help people build capacity to respect human rights, and no to a free trade deal that sends the wrong signal.

It sends the signal that there are no problems in Colombia, that the murder of hundreds of trade unionists is something we would accept, whereas it is completely unacceptable based on all international principles and understanding of human rights, and democratic values around the world.

Shame on the Conservatives, those great givers of lessons before the eternal, those great finger waggers with regard to everyone else's behaviour. Shame on them for proposing a free trade deal rather than requiring that an effort be made in Colombia to bring up its standards of human rights, its respect for people, and its respect for social rights. That is a major difference between Colombia and us.

Shame on the pathetic Liberals, as usual talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time, daring to say that they want to have Canada once again become a voice in the world. They are pathetic. All the correspondence in this file shows that the groups that once supported the Liberal Party now realize that there is only one strong principled voice for human rights in the House and that is the New Democratic Party of Canada.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting rant. I will try to counter that with some facts.

The reality is that the free trade agreement with Colombia has human rights and environmental provisions. It is a good agreement for human rights and the environment in Colombia. We have listened to the hyperbole that has continued to erupt over this agreement. We have had over 80 hours of debate in the House already and it is ongoing.

I will provide a couple of facts. Between 2002 and 2008 the number of mass killings decreased by 81% in Colombia, homicide rates have dropped by 44%, kidnappings are down 87%, extreme poverty has fallen from 21% to 12%, 32,000 paramilitaries have been demobilized, and the list goes on and on.

The question I have for the hon. member is this. We are already trading with Colombia without rules. We already have a co-operative trading agreement. We do not have a free trade agreement, so our industry is being penalized for trading with Colombia. Since we are already trading with Colombia, would it not make sense to put rules in place?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since 1990, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia.

Colombia does not want just to have trade with Canada, all countries do with very few exceptions, it wants a privileged trade agreement with Canada. We should only put our name on privileged trade agreements with countries that respect human rights, and that is not the case in Colombia.

These great givers of lessons about law and order, they are dealing with a narco state and then they are going to stand up here in the House and say that they are standing up for law and order. Why do they not try standing up for law and order internationally? Then we will start believing them.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives would have us believe that it is now okay to trade with Colombia and give it this special status, most favoured nation status with a trade deal because it is murdering trade unionists at a lesser rate. I heard the Minister of Agriculture saying that it would be good for agriculture, et cetera. Well, it is the very trade union leaders of the farm workers in Colombia who are being slaughtered this month. We are not talking about last year.

November 1, the head of the ACA union of farm workers of Arauca, Paulo Suarez, was murdered in his home, gunned down by gunmen in front of his family.

Then on November 5, Raoul Medina Diaz, also with the union of farm workers, was also gunned down and murdered.

On November 13, just a couple of days ago, Cortes Lopez Zorayda, member of the union of teachers and union activist, was murdered by two gunmen on a motorcycle.

It is happening as we speak. How in all good conscience can a country like Canada see fit to do business with an international pariah that is gunning down every barrier to its trade ambitions without any recognition of human rights? I would like my colleague to comment.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of facts like that, that have taken place within the last couple of weeks, that the Americans would never sign this type of free trade agreement with the current Colombian government.

What my colleague from Winnipeg Centre just said is precisely true. Canada should stand up and say, “We will help you. We will teach you. We will help you build capacity. But we will not put our signature on a privileged trade deal which by implication means that we accept what is happening in Colombia, when based on all of our traditions here in Canada, our respect for democracy, our respect for human rights, we cannot in good conscience sign this type of trade deal with that regime”.

Help the Colombians to learn. Give them examples of what institutions will work. Help them develop respect for human rights. Then we will see. Right now, that government, historical error. That is why we are going to use every means in this House under our institutions and the respect thereof to prevent this trade deal from going through.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

First of all, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, because it is an insult to human rights. The Conservative Party should be ashamed of itself for coming up with this bill, for trying to make us believe that it will create jobs in Colombia, when what it will actually do is help drug traffickers, many of whom are in power, to make money on the backs of workers. It is shameful. We are here in the House today to remind those people who claim to be “tough on crime” that they simply want to do business with a government that does nothing less than allow paramilitary groups to kill its own citizens, unionized workers and people who work in the mines in order to line the pockets of the criminals who run the government. It is scandalous.

The Canadian government's main motivation for entering into this free trade deal is not trade, but rather investments. Given that this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining. What does that mean? In 1995, a Canadian corporation, Colombia Goldfields, signed a mining contract with a rich Colombian local family to extract gold from a mine that until then had been artisanally mined by the inhabitants of the Rio Viejo region. At the same time, paramilitary forces killed 400 people and displaced over 30,000 people from that region. That was to make money on the backs of workers. They did so by taking up arms to kill people and force 30,000 citizens out of that region. All that to allow a Canadian company to make money. That money is tainted by the blood of those people. Is that what we want to pass here in the House? It is scandalous. We must not sign such an agreement.

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 a foreign 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.

Colombia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world. With the conclusion of this free trade agreement, Canada would deprive itself of the ability to exert pressure on the Colombian government to improve its human rights record.

The Conservative government keeps telling us that it is combining the free trade 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 with impunity, 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, companies that would make money at the cost of Colombian lives. That is absolutely disgusting.

The Bloc Québécois and the NDP have very good reasons to oppose this bill. In Canada, not only the opposition is against this bill, but 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.

In Colombia, the coalition of social movements and organizations of Colombia 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. All these organizations are opposed to this totally unacceptable agreement.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. Listen to this. The crime statistics 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. 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.

Canada is going to invest in this country on the pretext that it will help the economy. That is not true. If this agreement is signed, Canada will help the rich get richer by crushing the people. People in the middle ages were respected more than people today are by this political party, which is bent on disgracing Canada. No government on earth can accept this sort of situation, especially since our country is supposed to be democratic. A democracy has principles of law. I hope that these people will listen to reason. They will if they have a conscience. Mr. Speaker, I know that you have a conscience and that you will talk some sense into these people.

Since 1986, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia. Though the number of murdered trade unionists dropped somewhat after 2001, it has risen again since 2007, when 39 trade unionists were murdered. In 2008, the number jumped to 46, an 18% increase in one year. They are murdering trade unionists, people who defend workers. Who is doing the murdering? Colombian paramilitaries are, with support from the state.

And now the Colombian state has suddenly become angelic? We are not fooled. These people only have money in their hearts and on their minds. They have no respect for their fellow Colombians or for human rights. What is more, they have no respect for Quebeckers and Canadians who do not accept this way of thinking. At the risk of repeating myself, this is totally unacceptable.

According to Mariano José Guerra, regional president of the Colombian trade union federation, thousands of people have disappeared and unions continue to be persecuted.

For these and many other reasons, we have to vote against Bill C-23.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech, which was quite active and lively to say the least, but very important. For a number of months we have been leading the charge together to bring awareness to this ill-thought-out deal.

I want to focus on one element which I think is really important. We already have trade with Colombia. We will always have some trade with Colombia, just like other nations. However, we are talking about engaging in a privileged trading relationship. That is what this is about.

The Conservatives continually talk about how they are tough on crime. They are very serious about that and they have flooded the justice committee with a number of bills. Ironically, the committee cannot get through all the bills. At the same time, the Conservatives want to enter into a privileged trading relationship with a narco-state which has a murderous record with respect to trade unionists and which also has a drug economy. Why would the Conservatives want to engage in this type of a privileged relationship with that country?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for his question.

He is absolutely right. The answer is not necessarily in the question, but there are certainly some troubling indicators. The Conservative Party of Canada, the product of the merger between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, is a party that has always said it wants to be squeaky clean. It is a party that has always approached politics as though preaching, that calls itself a down-to-earth, grassroots party, and that projects an aura of saintliness that calls to mind a full array of religious regalia. This party is trying to tell us, the elected representatives of Quebeckers and Canadians, that their approach to an agreement with Colombia is right when, in fact, they want to do business with a country that promotes the sale of illegal drugs and is known around the world as a narco-state. This is totally unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Gatineau for his arguments in support of the Colombian people and against this bill. His words clearly evoke the misfortune awaiting the Colombian people should Colombian companies be given the latitude that this free trade agreement would afford.

My question is the following. Does my colleague understand the Liberals' position? When they were in power and under NAFTA, chapter 11 gave the latitude that is included in the Colombian agreement. They had to backpedal on that point and today they are going to support the Conservatives in their attempt to give more latitude to companies that will exploit the Colombian people. Can he elaborate on that? Does he understand their position?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his question.

We should not be surprised and I am certain there will be agreement on this: when in power, and although they are two different parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have the same outlook. These parties do not think in terms of human rights. They think about making rich Canadian mining companies that establish themselves in developing or emerging countries even richer. Why will they go to these countries? Crudely put, to exploit the local people and have their friends pocket the profits. It is scandalous, unacceptable and even anti-democratic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to once again congratulate my colleague from Gatineau on his argument, and in particular for the work he does every day for the citizens of his riding, which he represents not only with brilliance but also with great effectiveness.

I want to continue along the line raised by my colleague, with some statistical illustrations.

The U.S. State Department and Amnesty International say that 350,000 more people were displaced in Colombia in 2007.

In 2008, over 380,000 persons had to flee their homes and workplaces because of violence. According to the Centre for Human Rights, in 2008 there was a 25% increase in the number of population displacements, and 2008 was the worst year since 2002 for population displacements.

Since 1985, nearly 4.6 million persons have been forced to leave their homes and their land.It has been estimated that 7% of the Colombian population has been displaced. Every day 49 families arrive in Bogota, the capital of Colombia, after being forced to leave their land. Indigenous people account for half of the Colombian population thus displaced. In fact, 8% of the total population has been displaced, and 4% are indigenous. These figures are very revealing.

These people are displaced because they have been evicted from their land by land exploiters, big landowners and property and mining conglomerates.

The latter do their work through pressure, threats and murder. They flood the land. When the people are forced to move, they have to take shelter in the cities, and shantytowns grow up. I have been to Bogota, Colombia. Right downtown there is a mountain of cardboard houses. Every day 49 families arrive in these places. The living conditions of these people are quite unimaginable. They used to have a small landholding, their own space to grow crops to feed their family, but they were uprooted from that land. In fact companies, including Canadian companies, have the right to expropriate the people.

The agreement that is before us confirms and upholds the rules of the marketplace that cause people to be exploited.

As my colleague from Gatineau said earlier, this is outright theft, and it is part of a state system. These people are forced, by the paramilitary and all the resulting abuse, to abandon their land. This creates poverty, unemployment, crime, truancy, water shortages, power shortages, etc. The city of which I speak is a shantytown at that central mountain in downtown Bogota. There is no electricity. When there is electricity it is thanks to extension cords. The people go to get electricity at the bottom of the mountain, and quite often the cords are unplugged. When the rains come, the mountain is washed out and often people lose their homes. These are houses made of cardboard or bits of wood.

You have to see this poverty to realize the extent of it. The government is aware that it exists. The Liberal Party is aware that it exists.

A committee went there, to Colombia, and was to report to this House to give the government an opinion before it introduced its bill. However, the government did not care about that and did not even wait for the report from the committee that went to witness the situation before introducing its bill. This situation is completely unacceptable for Colombians, but it is also unacceptable in terms of the democratic process in this House.

First, the opposition is against it and the party that forms the official opposition has not even bothered to do its job as the official opposition. A majority of the public has given the opposition a mandate to prevent acts like those that are currently being committed, in terms of legislation. The Liberals did not even bother to do their job as opposition with the mandate they received, with us, from the public, which is precisely to keep watch on this government. The public did not have enough confidence in this government and gave the opposition a majority so it would act vigilantly to protect us and protect the peoples with whom we do business.

It is quite scandalous to see how the Liberals are behaving in this matter and it also violates a tradition, now becoming somewhat remote, in the time of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. Because of his humanitarian positions, for example, for peace and humanity, he received a Nobel Prize. We are a long way from that. This is quite shameful. They have tarnished the reputation of those people, whose conduct in relation to human rights was exemplary, even if they did not have the same political allegiance as us. In that respect, I would say that the conduct of the present Liberal Party regarding this bill is quite shameful.

In terms of protecting the rights of workers, which my colleague has spoken about, since 1986, 2,686 trade unionists have been killed. As I said a moment ago, I went to Colombia twice, in 1974 and 1976, on cooperation missions, to establish food, agricultural and housing cooperatives. So I have had an opportunity to work with those people. At the time, in 1974 and 1976, I found the situation to be abominable and I thought that the situation had improved today.

The more I have thought about this in the last few months, the more I have realized that not only has the situation not improved, the violations of human rights have been refined. Often, they are less visible and they give people like the Conservatives and Liberals pretexts for claiming the situation has improved. Well, the situation has not improved, and we have the statistics to show that 2,686 trade unionists are dead. As soon as trade unionists start making demands, they are in trouble. There were still murders in 2007. There were 39 murders of trade unionists, an increase of 18% in one year.

I could continue like this, but I am told I have only one minute left. My colleagues are certainly going to ask me questions and so I will be able to fill in a bit more. The Bloc Québécois will definitely not approve a bill like this. Bill C-23 is unworthy of being voted on by a Chamber such as ours and we are not playing that game. We have too much self-respect to do that and we have too much respect for the people who voted for us to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, the member for Kings—Hants, representing the Liberal Party, made the following comment:

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....

That is what he said after having been in Colombia for four days.

According to a recent report from Amnesty International, it found that paramilitary groups remain active, despite claims by the government that all paramilitaries had demobilized in a government sponsored process that began in 2003, and that paramilitaries continue to kill civilians and commit other human rights violations, sometimes with the support or acquiescence of the security forces.

How does the member think the member for Kings—Hants came up with that conclusion?

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

Mr. Speaker, when someone wants to make an unacceptable position sound legitimate, they deny the facts. The member he quotes is denying the fact that trade unionists are still being killed because he wants to support what the Conservatives are saying.

In 2007, there were 39 murders of trade unionists by the paramilitaries, and in 2008 there were 46. That is very recent. There is nothing more stubborn and immutable than a fact. The facts show that 2,690 trade unionists have been killed in 23 years. Since the beginning of this decade, there have been 40 murders a year. That is the answer and that is what they are doing.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, a Liberal member who supports this bill said that the Colombian House of Representatives wanted us to sign this agreement because it would further protect human rights.

We know that 30 members of congress have been arrested in Colombia, including members of the president's immediate family. Furthermore, 60% of them are under investigation.

Why imply that this agreement will further protect human rights when we know what is actually going on? I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Once again, the government is trying to deny a reality that cannot be ignored.

The member for Gatineau and I described the situation with the help of statistics from large conglomerates. The agreement between Canada and Colombia, Bill C-23, would legitimize something unacceptable: a company can expropriate an owner if the company wants his land. What is more, if the country's laws prohibit this expropriation, the company can sue the country for preventing him from investing and making a profit. That is totally absurd. This would let companies take power away from the government in terms of the management of land and natural resources. That makes no sense. That is what the Conservatives want to do, with the help of the Liberals. That is unacceptable.

The Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power to prevent these unbelievable economic crimes and human rights violations that are awaiting the people of Colombia.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have spoken to Bill C-23 a number of times. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster should be congratulated for continuing to work in a co-operative manner to seek a solution to the impasse we have with this trade agreement. This trade agreement is wrong on a number of fronts.

These debates also show us what has happened in the House of Commons. Essentially the Liberal Party is facilitating this policy, through the Conservatives, and it has been done in a very interesting way. The Liberals removed their previous member from the international trade committee, where they actually did have some reservations about this. The NDP and Bloc Québécois were solid in their position to have an investigative third-party evaluation before we went forward with this agreement, but the Liberals replaced their member with a former Conservative member who crossed the floor. That member has brought with him and the new leader an ideology of facilitating the Conservative government without any conditions at all.

It is unacceptable to stand here and not address the reality that a narco-state is being rewarded. It has a murderous agenda against its trade union members. It deals in cocaine, which affects many of the world population. Yet Canada wants to give it privileged access to Canadian markets. That is what we will do if the agreement goes forward without any terms or conditions. It has carve outs for labour and the environment and carve outs that allow businesses to trample on the rights of individuals. They could actually sue countries for their own interest rather than those of the population.

That in itself is bad enough, loading the deck to ensure that it has a balance against the balance of civil society, the elected members of the state and legislatures on both sides, in Canada and in Columbia. It also is a signal that we are telling the rest of the world that we are open for business with a narco-state, with a murderous agenda on trade union activists. We are not talking about just the mining activists, for example, who are fighting for workers' rights. People who are being murdered in Colombia are from the nurses union, teachers union and even from the prison union. They are from a number of different civil society organizations and bodies that have joined together, under the laws of that country, yet they keep getting killed or disappear. There is a pattern that can be, and has been by international independent analysis, traced back to the paramilitaries and to the governing party and the president. It brings it back to the state.

During this process, I had a chance to ask about some of those cases when the ambassador and representatives appeared before the committee. I read off four specific cases of people who were killed, recent trade union activists, men and women. I read their stories and I asked for a response. The representatives said that they had no response for those cases and that they would get back to me, which they did. They claim that every one of those cases was an act of passion by somebody in their relationship. It is absolute utter nonsense. The tribunals that have been established are not enough.

Canada is clearly telling the rest of the world that we are open for business, despite the crime, the corruption and the problems with that country. We will reward it first and give it privileged trade ability with our country. That is different from what has happened out there. The United States has put the brakes on this. It has realized, and it is a trading nation as well, that there is a responsibility for the governing body to bring this into line before the Colombians get privileged access to its market.

However, what are we doing? We are giving up. The Conservative government likes to huff and puff on crime all the time. How many times have I heard the Minister of Justice say that the Conservatives are going to crack down on crime, that they are going to produce all kinds of bills and policies. Interestingly enough, they do not even provide the proper supports in the system to implement those policies. It is very disingenuous. There is no way the justice committee can get through many of the bills that have been tabled, between the government bills and the private members' bills. The Conservatives keep announcing them and introducing them, knowing they cannot get through the system and that they will never see the light of day. Yet they are supposed to be cracking down on crime.

Why is it different internationally? Why can the Conservatives and Liberals not see that their actions are telling many other people across the globe that it is okay. It is a complete contradiction, but Canadians are not being fooled by the Conservatives or the Liberals.

For example, 50 prominent Canadians signed a letter to the Leader of the Opposition during their Vancouver meeting, which turned out to be bringing in a new leader without any type of discussion and no policy. That is their business, not ours. Regardless, those 50 prominent people did not even get an adequate response.

This is really important. Canadians understand where the Liberals have drifted. They have drifted to the benches over there. In fact, New Democrats are split up over here. What should happen is some of the Liberals should be over there and our group should be joined together. In fact, they can expand the bench.

I want to read from the letter to really get an idea of what we are talking about. Tique Adolfo, a trade union activist for agri-mining, was killed on January 1. Alexander Pinto of the prison trade workers union was killed by an unknown gunman. Over 2,000 activists over a number of years have been killed by unknown gunmen. Milton Blanco from the teachers union federation was killed on April 24, and there are many more.

It is sad because when we look at a country that should show leadership, it should be Canada. We were known for that in many respects, for being progressive, for being a country that was going to speak the truth to the powers that be, letting them know that if they wanted to work with us, we could do that. There have been many examples where we have, but at the same time, we would not give them the unconditional gift of access to our markets and to our people and a privileged relationship without any expectations.

That is what we have. Perhaps it is the influence of the mining industry in Canada. Perhaps it is just a grab for the agriculture elements. That is fine if we work with Colombia to change things. At the same time, there has to be a fair balance in this and that does not exist right now.

The debate began in 2008 when this was first announced. A standing committee went to Colombia to speak with officials, to see the things on the ground there. I know our member for Burnaby—New Westminster came back even more convinced that the approach should be to put pressure on the Colombia government, not rewarding it first by giving it this privileged trading relationship. We have trade with Colombia right now. That will not change. There is an engaged relationship to begin with, but to give in on a privileged trading relationship with no terms and conditions is unacceptable.

What is the government and the Liberal Party afraid of? Are they afraid to have an independent analysis of the entire trading agreement and the relationship and the issues that are taking place, where so many people are being murdered? Are they afraid they will find the paramilitary, the government and some of the cocaine and other industries tied together perhaps? Are they afraid that Canadians might wake up and realize that their tough on crime government, the Conservative Party of Canada, is so weak internationally on crime that it does not care if a narco-state gets access to a privileged trading relationship? It does not care if those drugs end up on the streets of Canada because we will trade with them no matter what. We will do it unconditionally and then hope the Colombians change their practices. In the meantime, they can continue to do what they are because we do not want to have any type of dissension. Nor do we not want to have our country being one that leads the way, that says that there has to be a sense of social justice, and trading principles are tied to that, to build a better world for all of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member outlined how, at one point in this process, the Liberal members were more or less on side opposing this bill. Particularly last year 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 been improved.

It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken to determine the real impact of the trade agreement, and of course the government ignored that. In the meantime, the Liberals somehow managed to disengage themselves and ended up siding with the Conservatives.

Could the member detail the process that allowed the Liberals to move to where they are now?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, essentially that was very disappointing. Given the increased evidence of the regime in Colombia and the continuation of assassinations really warrants a third party independent analysis. It would at least be a basis for engaging in a constructive approach to dealing with this issue and the challenge of giving a privileged trading relationship to a narco-state with such a murderous past and present. That at least would provide us with an opportunity to have a greater indepth discussion.

The Liberal Party has been shifting to the right quite significantly and has mirrored the Conservative Party in so many aspects. It has just simply given in. A delegation went to Colombia for a second time. Perhaps those people were wined and dined. I have no idea. However, they came back without recommending that analysis, which is unfortunate. We need a balanced approach. We could then have a greater indepth debate before giving a privileged trading relationship to Colombia for nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member also has detailed the fact that the NDP believes in fair trade agreements as opposed to free trade agreements. Would the member give some examples of what he thinks would constitute a fair trade agreement, where proper social, environmental and labour standards built into it so the agreement would be good for both sides?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked an important question with regard to labour and environmental standards, which have been carved out of this agreement and put into side agreements. We have never had a successful challenge under NAFTA on a side agreement. It is important to recognize that because side agreements are seen as offshoots as opposed to being the centre of gravity of an agreement. We need to have balanced environmental and labour standards.

The member for Winnipeg Centre has spoken strongly on the issue of asbestos in Canada. We would not want to degrade our environment or subject our citizens to bad policy just to get an economic advantage over someone else. That is the wrong approach.

We want to operate from a principled point, and that being that all workers deserve the same rights and the same support. That is how a country can enter into a competitive fair system where trade is open and beneficial and the economies of both countries will grow in a responsible way as opposed to what could happen as a result of this agreement.

There could be exploitation as a result of this agreement through substandard mining and other types of practices that could really undermine not only the short-term of the country, because of the damage done to the environment, but also to the long-term of the country could be destroyed for generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

In 2007, the Conservative government stepped up negotiations with Colombia to conclude a free trade agreement and promote the government's foreign and trade policy in the Americas. Ironically, the Canadian government intensified its talks with the Colombian government at a time when U.S. negotiations with Colombia had just been blocked, as members will recall, because of the many human rights violations in that country and its lack of real labour and environmental measures.

These issues are the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill. We believe that signing a free trade agreement with this country raises very serious problems, because Colombia has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere. That is not insignificant. These issues are also the reasons why the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, of which I was a member at the time, decided to conduct a comprehensive review of the appropriateness of an agreement with Colombia.

But lo and behold—and I think it is important to remind the members of the House about this—on June 7, 2008, after just five rounds of negotiations, the Conservative government officially announced that a free trade agreement had been concluded with Colombia. The Minister of International Trade confirmed the free trade agreement, even though the Standing Committee on International Trade, which was studying the possibility of such an agreement, had not yet heard all the planned witnesses, produced its report or submitted its final recommendations to the House.

The Conservative government invested thousands of dollars to send the Standing Committee on International Trade to meet with various stakeholders in Colombia. We met with union representatives, members of the government and civil society groups. After meeting with all these people, the committee was supposed to report on this mission and all the consultations. But the agreement was signed before the committee made its report to the House. This is shameful.

Last Saturday, I read an article on the front page of Le Devoir, explaining how the Conservative Party does not respect the work done in this House, or in the various committees. For all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister is the only one to have powers. The ministers do not seem very present, and they do not seem very familiar with their files. So, the Prime Minister and his cabinet simply took it upon themselves to sign this agreement without respecting the parliamentary process, which is about reviewing studies, committee reports and reports presented to the House.

Again, I think that Quebeckers are increasingly aware of the fact that the Conservative Party does not respect the will of the House of Commons, or the rules of Parliament. It simply does as it pleases. It deals with the legislation without any ethics. It does not respect any values. It does not care about the fact that all MPs in this House should have their say regarding an agreement or a bill. In this case, we are talking about the free trade agreement with Colombia.

During our trip, we noticed some serious human rights issues. The murdering of human rights activists, trade unionists and people who are simply seeking a better life is still a reality in Colombia.

It is through force and repression that the Colombian government is implementing its neo-liberal economic model. Over the past 10 years, Colombia has been torn by unprecedented violence. Thousands of people have disappeared and over 2,500 trade unionists have been assassinated, which accounts for 64% of all the unionists killed in the world.

Right now, we have a Conservative government that is prepared to sign a trade agreement with the Uribe government. However, Uribe himself and a number of his parliamentarians are facing court proceedings for activities that are said to be improper, to put it mildly.

The Conservative government and the Liberals know that the situation in Colombia is not ideal. There is poverty and violence. Moreover, services are hard to access. I was shocked and devastated by the scope of population displacements, which is a tragedy in itself. Entire populations are relocated in suburbs of the capital, because mining companies come and settle on the land and just get rid of the populations that live there. These companies take these people's homes and lands, and they send them to live in shantytowns, so that they can begin their mining operations and, ultimately, exploit workers. These companies organize things so that workers cannot protect their rights, their conditions and their quality of life. They are then in a position to exploit these workers even more.

This free trade agreement is unfortunate for Quebec and all of Canada. We are signing with Colombia an agreement that only protects mining companies and that allows them to get rich at the expense of Colombia's workers and environment, by exploiting and displacing thousands of people and sending them to live in shantytowns. The agreement is very helpful in this respect. We must say so, because it is shameful. It is incredible that the government would behave in this fashion.

Our committee prepared a report and made recommendations. Now, even though the Conservative Party did not read that report, the fact remains that the committee did an important job of examining the impact of this agreement.

But the government decided to sign the agreement even before the committee had presented its report. It is with this in mind that the amendment presented today by the Bloc Québécois is worded. The message sent by the government to parliamentarians is: regardless of what you may think and say, we are going to do as we please. The Prime Minister does as he pleases. Worse still, he said the same thing to the large number of witnesses who came to express their views on this agreement.

We cannot support the government's scornful, stubborn attitude. We condemn and refuse to accept its authoritarian approach. Most importantly, we will never accept an agreement with a country that does not respect the basic human rights of its own people.

Despite countless human rights violations, the Canadian government, with Liberal support, wants to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals seem to care about all of the murdered union members. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals seem to be unfazed by failure to respect the environment.

Human rights will be trampled in the interest of promoting free trade. The Bloc Québécois cannot accept that.

Unlike the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois is not made up of narrow-minded ideologues. And unlike the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois is not opportunistic, nor does it hesitate to defend the values of Quebeckers.

We are against this free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia because it is a bad agreement, and I urge all parliamentarians to reject it.

Notice of time allocation motion

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Therefore under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Second Reading

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments.

On average, approximately three people are killed by landmines every day in Colombia. That is three people every day.

I would like to ask the hon. member first of all whether that is of concern to him and secondly whether the government should be signing a treaty with that country.

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

Of course not, Mr. Speaker.

The Bloc Québécois has shown—and the NDP has done a good job too—that there have been too many violations of human and environmental rights in Colombia. The Colombian government is not trustworthy and has been involved in a large number of court cases for failure to respect basic human rights. This issue is very complex.

That is why we cannot support this bill. If Canada signs this agreement with Colombia, we will be forced to hang our head in shame on the world stage because Canada and Quebec supposedly respect human and environmental rights. Or at least some members of this House do. Everyone knows what is going on in Copenhagen. Canada cannot sign this kind of agreement.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for his speech. I understand he was a member of the committee that went to Colombia to study the free trade arrangement between Colombia and Canada.

I would like him to tell me about the frustration he felt when the government ignored every one of the committee’s recommendations. In addition, the government signed the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia before it had even received the report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Shefford for his excellent question.

On the first page of the weekend edition of Le Devoir, they say flat out that the Conservative Party has no respect for the rules and processes of Parliament or the work done by committees. The government signed the agreement, but previous to that, it spent money to send some committee members to Colombia to meet people there and improve their understanding of all the effects the agreement would have.

The government ignored the ensuing recommendations and did not even have the time to read the committee’s report. It just signed the agreement with Colombia. There was a lack of transparency here and a lack of respect for the democratic rules of Canada and Quebeckers.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this Reform government, which is in favour of law and order for everything that moves but is currently negotiating an agreement under Bill C-23 with narco-politicians, even though that is totally contrary to its ideology.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks a very good question.

This really is amazing. As she said, several members of the Uribe government are facing charges related to drug trafficking. They also have ties to the paramilitaries and have been linked to the assassination of some union leaders. They connive with particular mining companies and in the displacement of large civilian populations into ghettos and shantytowns so that the mining companies can take over. It is a disgrace.

What kind of a government is this? It is as if the Conservatives said they wanted to do business with a motorcycle gang or a group involved in illegal activities. That is what the agreement is all about. They are signing a free trade agreement with people who show no respect for democratic rules, human rights and the environment in the pursuit of their economic interests.

This bill only encourages our Canadian companies to do the same in Colombia. We are told the agreement will make Colombians wealthier. But when we went into the field in Colombia, all the members of civil society, all the government members and the companies told us not to sign the agreement because it would not help them at all.

Of course the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement.

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.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to join other members of my caucus and our party's trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, in voicing my strong opposition to Bill C-23.

It would be extremely irresponsible for the government to push for the passage of this free trade agreement with Colombia, a country with the worst human rights record by far in the western hemisphere and that is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists.

The Conservatives' claim that trade will bring human rights improvements to Colombia is entirely contradicted not just by the facts I will raise in my address today, but also by the text of the agreement.

The full respect of fundamental human rights must be a precondition for any trade agreement. Before going into the facts of the argument, let us first trace the government actions that have led us to where we are today.

On November 21, 2008 Canada signed a free trade agreement and related side agreements with Colombia, the result of a year and a half of trade negotiations. The bill would legislate the implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, also known as the CCFTA.

The agreement consists of three parts: the main FTA text, a labour side agreement and an environmental protection side agreement.

It is nearly identical to Bill C-24, the implementation legislation for the Canada-Peru free trade agreement.

In June of this year, the New Democrats, with the support of the Bloc members, and joined by the trade union movement and civil society, successfully prevented Bill C-23 from completing second reading.

At that time, New Democrats presented a subamendment to the Bloc motion on Bill C-23, asking that the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-23 because the government had concluded the Canada-Colombia FTA while the committee was still considering the matter.

Over the course of the debate on Bill C-23, our caucus critic has continued to work tirelessly with a large network of civil society groups, trade unions, lawyers, environmental groups, parliamentarians, members of the Colombian congress and concerned citizens to raise awareness and, ultimately, to stop this agreement.

In 2008 the critic travelled to Colombia with the standing committee to meet directly with stakeholders and opponents of this deal.

Various motions have been presented at committee to study the issue in depth and to stop this flawed deal. Petitions have been, and are being, circulated. To date our caucus has received almost 3,000 signatures from Canadians all across Canada who do not support the government's desire to put this agreement into action.

Now that we have looked at how we got here, let us go over the main flaws in the agreement and some facts about the current situation in Colombia.

The most appalling aspects of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement are the following.

First and foremost, this agreement fails due to its lack of labour rights protection. Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists. They are regularly victims of violence, intimidation and assassination by paramilitary groups. In fact, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986.

In 2008, the number of murders went up by 18% over the previous year. What is even more alarming, as we discuss this agreement, is that since September of this year, 27 trade unionists have been murdered.

Some important facts about the Colombian government of President Alvaro Uribe are as follows. Uribe's government 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 of using the security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, opposition politicians, government politicians and journalists.

Many government members, including ministers and members of the president's family, have been forced to resign or have been arrested in relation to many of these issues.

With this type of reality in Colombia, it is clear that the agreement, in its current form, does not include strong enough labour standards. The division of labour provisions in the main text of the agreement, in addition to not having any substantial enforcement mechanism, will do nothing to encourage Colombia to improve its horrendous human rights situation for workers.

In fact, in its current form, the agreement could justify the use of violence in many cases. For example, in the agreement, the penalty for non-compliance is currently determined by a review panel, one that has the power to require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a cooperation fund. Unfortunately, this type of enforcement measure will do little to encourage the government to change its current approach to trade unionists. If and when a trade unionist is killed, under this provision, all the government is required to do is to pay into a development fund, capped at $15 million per year, essentially equating the murder of a trade unionist to paying a fine. That is shameful.

The second way in which this agreement fails is in its lack of environmental protection. Environmental issues are addressed in a side agreement, this time with no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights.

Here is a fact. Nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest in Colombia are lost every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction. Another fact is that almost 4 million people in Colombia are internally displaced persons, 60% of whom have come from regions where there is a rich supply of minerals, agriculture and economic resources. In these areas, private companies and their government and paramilitary supporters have come in and forced individuals and local communities from their homes.

The side agreement process has serious flaws. In the past we have witnessed how these side agreements are unenforceable. For example, in the case of NAFTA, not a single successful suit has been brought forward under the labour side agreement.

The third major flaw in this agreement is found in the investor chapter. Copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 on investor rights, the CCFTA provides powerful rights to private companies. The provisions in this chapter give private companies the ability to sue governments, as is enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. The arbitration system set up by the investor chapter gives foreign companies the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environmental, labour and social protections. This is not a standard that we accept.

The fourth most shameful aspect of this agreement relates to agricultural tariffs. Colombia's poverty is directly linked to agricultural development. In fact, 22% of Colombia's employment is in the agricultural sector. An end to tariffs on Canadian cereals, pork and beef will result in the flooding of the local market with cheaper products. This would ultimately lead to thousands of lost jobs and to more poverty.

In conclusion, Canada needs to set the example. It would be highly irresponsible to turn a blind eye to the Colombian situation. We cannot allow Canada to abandon its values and its support for internationally recognized human rights to gain economic advantage for our companies at the expense of millions of displaced and impoverished Colombians.

Let us remember Jorge Darío Hoyos Franco, the prominent union leader who was gunned down near his home in southeast Bogota on March 3, 2001, a year before President Uribe was elected to his first of two terms in power. In the words of his daughter, Yessika Morales, "You cannot give a reward before he”, meaning President Uribe, “fulfills his duty of improving human rights. This is like a father continuing to reward a child when he misbehaves, so that child will never change his conduct”.

I call on all parliamentarians to join me and my caucus in our strong opposition to Bill C-23.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, did I just hear the member say that one of the main reasons the NDP is opposing this is that it will give opportunities to Canadian farmers to access markets in Colombia? He just said that a couple of minutes ago.

I stopped what I was doing, because I think this explains why the NDP has so far removed itself from its grassroots. At one time it used to be a rural party representing rural areas and said that it represented farmers. Now we understand why it does not get support across the rural areas of this country.

He stood up and actually said that the NDP was opposing this bill because it would allow Canadian products to go into Colombia's markets as a result of the tariffs and barriers coming down. Does he not understand even the basics of free trade, that those Colombian farmers would have opportunities to come into our markets as well?

It is hard to believe that the day has come when the NDP is actively opposing Canadian farmers in the interests of its ideology.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member does not want to bring up any of the bad things about this bill. We can look past the 2,690 trade unionists who were actually murdered in that country. We can look past the poverty and the environmental damage. They do not matter.

We could create a few jobs, but the unfortunate thing with this bill is that it does not do anything for fair trade, and that is what the New Democrats are talking about: fair trade, not free trade.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that there are two side agreements in this trade agreement, one being environmental and the other dealing with human rights. I am wondering why these two agreements are side agreements and not in the main text of the agreement, which would give them more power to be enforced and more moral power.

I was just wondering if the hon. member for Sudbury would be interested in maybe commenting on why he thinks these are side agreements as opposed to being put into the body of the text.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could only imagine the reasons the Conservative government would not want to put the environment and human rights into the main portion of this free trade agreement.

As I mentioned earlier, what we are advocating is fair trade, fair trade with countries that we can actually deal with, and that we ensure that we have fair environmental practices and fair human rights. Right now this bill does not present any of that in the way it is presented.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here this afternoon to resume debate on the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, to amend Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Sherbrooke and congratulating him on his fine work. Throughout this debate he has been able to point to those parts of the agreement where important questions remain regarding its fairness, of course, but also regarding the real motivation behind the implementation of this proposed new free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

However, as I was saying, this debate is not about the bill itself, but rather the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke. Regarding this amendment, I wonder why the government would disagree with it, since the amendment does not change the substance of the bill, but the nature of the debate proceedings.

At this point in my speech, I would like to read the amendment. Then, I will explain whey the government could very well support it. The amendment says:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline 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 this agreement while the Standing Committee on International Trade was considering the matter, thereby demonstrating its disrespect for democratic institutions.”

Members will recall that, in the summer of 2008, the Prime Minister declared that an election was necessary because Parliament had become dysfunctional, committees were no longer able to conduct their business properly and that there was a lack of respect for the institutions of Parliament.

I am wondering, given that the Prime Minister himself seems so interested in the democratic nature of standing committees, why his government decided to introduce a bill to have this House study the matter while a parliamentary committee was examining it.

We know very well how our parliamentary committees work and how the agendas for these committees are established. Usually, the agenda is set by the members of the steering committee, which includes members of the opposition as well as government members.

How is it that government members decided to put a future Canada-Colombia free trade agreement on the agenda of the standing committee knowing very well that, in the back of its mind, the government intended to ignore the committee's work and to introduce in the House a bill to examine this very issue?

When these members informed the other committee members that they would support the study of this issue, did they realize the importance of the committee's work and the fact that this committee's findings could enlighten the government on a future bill?

It seems that would be obvious and that there is a process set up. When this issue was before the committee, the government members could very well have explained to government officials how the committee would be examining this issue. Now, it appears as though they were talking out of both sides of their mouths, since the committee had decided to examine this issue and to make some recommendations to the government.

As I said earlier, if the Prime Minister really had respect for the way committees work, he himself would have allowed the committee to do its work and reach its own conclusions so as to give the government a new perspective before it drafted its bill.

For these reasons, I think my colleague from Sherbrooke was absolutely right to introduce this amendment, which states that we should set aside this bill, and that we should decline to give second reading, so that the committee can continue its work. In fact, the committee is working as we speak.

I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for inviting me to join him during some of the committee sessions so that I could hear for myself what some of the representatives and witnesses had to say. By the way, those witnesses had been invited by the government, when my colleague invited me to join him. The witness I am referring to seemed, in the case of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, to assure us that that free trade agreement would also be beneficial to Colombia.

It should come as no surprise that we have some reservations about this issue since we do not have many figures on trade between Canada and Colombia. We can all agree that current trade between Canada and Colombia is quite limited. In our opinion, the government is thinking about establishing a new trade regime between Canada and Colombia not because it has trade in mind, but because of certain interests, which could hinder efforts by the Colombian government and Colombian civil society to adopt better practices with respect to the environment and the rights of workers.

In closing, I would like to remind hon. members that the other point this witness wanted to make addressed the competitiveness we should maintain with respect to the United States. However, when it comes to international trade, Quebec and Canada have a very different attitude from the United States. Competitiveness must not be the only consideration in establishing a free trade agreement between Canada and another country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes, who has worked so hard on this file.

It is understandable because this is an important cause. At the moment people are changing their minds about agreements. On the weekend I was with a delegation from Mexico which is questioning certain parts of the agreement. This is surprising because the parts at issue in NAFTA are the ones defended by the bill introduced by the present Conservative government.

I would like to ask my colleague from Verchères—Les Patriotes whether he believes that this ploy in committee to hasten the passage of this bill does not stem from the fact that certain groups are pressuring the Conservative government to protect certain interests. They are attempting an ideological ploy to speed up the passage of this bill.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his question.

What he is in fact advancing is the following question. Is the government vulnerable to lobby groups that might urge it to cut corners, to rush the work and speed up the process, even if it means an imperfect agreement, an agreement that could have adverse effects in future?

This is a very important question, because what is expected of a responsible government, a government that does its job thoroughly, is that it pay no heed to all of these lobbies demanding that the process be accelerated, and that it take into consideration all interests and the informative perspective of a parliamentary committee, such as the Standing Committee on International Trade. That committee too may, in the exercise of its duties, invite experts from all over who have different and diverging points of view. What moves the debate ahead is having opinions that are sometimes contradictory. However, my colleague makes a good point. The government should not rush into anything to benefit special interests.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member to expand a little on the issue of the committee's work being ignored.

I was here when the Conservatives were in opposition and said that the government needed to listen to the majority of Parliament as that was a priority for any government, particularly in a minority situation. Here the Conservatives are acting in exactly the opposite way.

I thought the member made a good point. I wonder if he could expand on what it says about the government when it wants to have it both ways. When the Conservatives were in opposition in a minority government they felt that the majority ruled, but now that they are in power in a minority government, they think it does not really matter what the majority thinks and that it only matters what the Conservatives think.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The example he gave is entirely to the point. One could mention many others, for example the government’s decision to reduce the funding needed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do his work. There is also the government’s refusal to say whether it will act on the Supreme Court’s directive regarding the repatriation of Omar Khadr, that is, whether or not it will respect the court’s decision. One might also think of what happened in the last Parliament. For example, there was a vote on the implementation of the Kyoto protocol and the majority of members of this House voted in favour, but the government had decided, on the pretext that it was the government, not to heed the majority voice of this House.

These are all examples that tend to prove that the government is in agreement with democratic institutions when it is in its interest to be in agreement, and does as it pleases when it is not in its interest.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the bill to implement the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I have criticized this agreement, and the fact that I am going to continue to do so will not come as a surprise to anyone. Just because it is a free trade agreement does not mean it is the be all and the end all. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have a tendency to say that an economic agreement takes precedence over everything else, and that it is very important to ratify such a treaty. However, the case before us is a completely different matter. People who are watching this debate must realize that the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia presents some serious risks, and I will mention a few.

There is the possibility that investors may sue the Colombian government if they feel that their performance in that country is affected by various measures implemented by the government. That is very dangerous, because this would impede social development in a country like Colombia. Any investor—whether he is Canadian, British or American—who has interests in Colombia, could blame the government for putting forward measures to protect workers or young working children, among other things. This could be dangerous, because investors could claim that such measures are affecting their performance and they could sue the Colombian government to oppose such legislation.

Colombia is already a poor country led by a “narco-government” that is controlled by drug cartels. There is a tremendous risk that initiatives designed to improve people's working conditions will be adversely affected by this bill.

In order to follow a democratic process, Canada first signed a free trade agreement with the United States, and then another one with Mexico and the United States. These countries are democracies that have safeguards to prevent such agreements from impeding progress in terms of people's quality of life.

The free trade agreements signed by Canada with the United States and Mexico include provisions to that effect, but in this case, there are fewer of them. The government said it was important to address the issue and sign a free trade agreement with Colombia, adding that it would enter side agreements on working conditions and the environment.

However, we know what side agreements imply. Once the official agreement has been ratified, they will find excuses to delay the negotiation of those side agreements. They will impose very small fines that will do nothing to prevent abuse of workers or of children, but that will hurt the social initiatives designed to improve people's quality of life.

This is a great danger which is not posed by other free trade agreements. Free trade agreements are often entered into with countries with a comparable economy and a legitimate democracy. This is absolutely not the case with Colombia.

Speaking of democracy, 30 members of the Colombian parliament are under arrest, and some 60 are under investigation. There is complicity with drug traffickers, who gain a foothold with the government by buying MPs and senators. Some will say that this happens in Canada and everywhere else. I will concede that, in part, except that down there this seems to be the preferred method of operating.

God knows the drug traffickers have an immense amount of money to make available to those who agree to work in a negative fashion as elected officials. It is easy for those people to agree to certain things. The evidence is that some of them are now under arrest and others under investigation. What is more, there is their possible complicity with the paramilitary groups that are to some extent the law in Colombia. This is a very unstable country in terms of working conditions, living conditions and the status of democracy.

Will this agreement enable this country to evolve? If Colombia signs an agreement with Canada, will it conform to international standards? Given the current state of affairs, we doubt it.

I leave aside the fact that the standing committee did excellent work in trying to get to the bottom of things, and that the government totally ignored it in an attempt to impose its will on the Parliament of Canada. I concur with my colleagues who say that the government is moving too fast. It makes no sense. This needs serious reflection. Problems are not going to be resolved just by signing a free trade agreement. On the contrary, what the Canadian government is doing at the moment may aggravate those problems.

I can give some examples of democratic problems. Unionists are disappearing down there. They are being killed and executed. The union should be regarded as anti-establishment. When the authority in the Colombian parliament is corrupt, people in civil society rise up, and the unionists are often the first to do so. I could talk about this at length, being a former unionist myself. For me, the union has always been anti-establishment. It is important to have the unions’ viewpoint in a free and democratic society. But when they are condemned to silence, when an attempt is made to keep them quiet, when no effort is made to improve the working conditions of Colombian workers and the government interferes, major problems arise. This is what we are trying to denounce as responsible members of Parliament here.

The same applies for the people’s quality of life. In Colombia children are permitted to work. We do not permit this in Canada. Or we permit it, but under certain conditions. The children must not be too young. If the Colombian government decided to put a stop to children working in companies, the companies might threaten the government with prosecution because their investments and their performance would be jeopardized. As I was saying, these are not incentives to social progress.

We are seeing population displacements in Colombia. We are seeing big agricultural consortiums tell small farmers to get out, whereupon they take their land, often with the help of the paramilitary who have an almost direct relationship with the government. The government knows what is going on. It lets it go on. It sees to it that the big consortiums are able to control the situation, and they are pushing more and more people out.

It is the same thing with the mining companies. They may decide to expropriate people to get big expanses of farmland in different provinces of Colombia, because they consider it important to do this on the pretext that they are investors and they are going to attract Canadian, British or American investment to Colombia.

In this way entire populations are displaced.

We are not against this agreement because we have to be against it or we like being against it. Moreover, I would remind hon. members that free trade has always been a very important issue in Quebec and that Quebec succeeded in winning acceptance for the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States when the rest of Canada had misgivings about it. When we object to something, it is because we have good reasons to do so.

I invite my colleagues to vote against this agreement, because it will not help Colombia any more than it will help Canada, which is supposed to be a defender of human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, last year, 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 was improved and also that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken to determine the real impact of the trade agreement.

At that time, the Liberals and the Liberal critic on the committee appeared to be supportive of that idea. Now over the course of the year, evidently, the Liberal position has changed and the new critic, the member for Kings—Hants, after a four day trip to Colombia made the following statement on September 30 regarding Colombia. He said:

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--

Of course, that is totally contradicted by a report from Amnesty International which found that paramilitary groups remained active despite claims by the government that all paramilitaries had been demobilized in a government-sponsored process that began in 2003. Paramilitaries continued to kill civilians and to commit other human rights violations, sometimes with the support or acquiescence of the security forces.

The question is, how did the member for Kings—Hants get this so wrong and has the member apologized to the organizations that have approached him for an apology on this issue?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are talking about a time when the Liberal Party hoped to come to power. This is not the only example of major shifts by the Liberal Party. I remember hearing the Liberals and their national defence critic say for a year that the mission in Afghanistan would not be extended because what was happening there was terrible, we had done our part and we were going to leave the country.

A year later, when the polls were good, that party flip-flopped, got into bed with the Conservatives and decided to extend the mission until 2011. This is not the first time the Liberals have done this. In my opinion, the Liberals are guilty. Instead of taking a consistent stand, they will say one thing for a while. Then, when they feel that power is within their reach, they change their tune because they can picture themselves in power. They want power.

The Conservatives have also done this. When they were on this side of the House, the Conservatives criticized the government. But today, they are the first ones to do the very things they used to condemn. The Liberals and the Conservatives are just the same. They are two of a kind.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Saint-Jean for his interesting speech.

I would like to ask him a question since he is the Bloc Québécois national defence critic. I know he is an expert on the subject. When I was listening to his comments, I saw many similarities with Afghanistan. There is institutionalized corruption, problems, the democratic deficit, drugs, poppies, which are a major problem. I now see parallels with Colombia.

How can we conduct trade with people who have problems similar to those we are trying to overcome in Afghanistan? Does he not see a parallel between these two situations?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières.

She is quite right in what she says. I would say, when talking about drugs, that the similarities are quite stupefying, Yes, there is corruption in Colombia. Yes, it is a narco-state. Yes, the drug cartel is in control. We will not be helping the people of Colombia and international rights by signing an agreement with those people.

Usually, membership in important forums, such as NATO, the UN or the European Union, is contingent upon conduct that is close to that of a democracy. By intentionally ignoring this, we are not contributing to the advancement of the Colombian population or international law. So yes, there are similarities.

At present, we are having a great deal of trouble in Afghanistan, which can be easily traced to the opium trade. The same goes for Colombia. We should not agree to sign an agreement with Colombia until positive changes occur.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate and to put my feelings on the record.

At the outset, all the bad things that have been said are bad, but it is disheartening to think about Canada going down this road. I hearken back to my time in the Ontario Legislature, where I watched the Mike Harris government, over the course of eight years, destroy so much of what made me so proud to be a Hamiltonian, and particularly the things that were built over decades and generations before. It will take another decade or so to catch up to where we were in many of those areas.

I raise that because not only is the agenda similar, but the players are similar. The chief of staff to the Prime Minister is the former chief of staff to Mike Harris. The finance minister is the same finance minister I watched in the Ontario Legislature. It is the same with the transport minister and a couple of other players on that side of the House. As disheartening as that was to watch as a member of the provincial legislature, cherished programs and important legacies destroyed, I now see the same thing at the national level. Much of what makes us proud to be Canadians is on the line in terms of the government's action, and in particular, this bill.

Why is there so much opposition? The previous speaker said that he was not standing to oppose for the sake of opposing. Certainly, we are not. We are the party that is keeping Parliament alive. We are standing opposed to this because it is wrong. It is wrong for Colombians, but it is wrong for Canadians. It is wrong for Canadians to enter into an agreement that gives the impression that everything is okay in Colombia, that it is just business as usual. Well, it is not.

Just today there was a news conference reported in the Latin American Herald Tribune. It says in part:

Representatives of the Colombian Coalition against Torture held a press conference in Geneva to discuss the report the group is presenting this week before a U.N. rights panel here.

Torture continues to be generalized and systemic in Colombia. It is perpetrated by the Public Force, by the paramilitaries and by the guerillas, but the party principally responsible for these acts is the state”, said Isabelle Heyer, a member of the Colombian Jurist Commission....

She said sexual violence againstwomen and girls is one of the most pervasive modes of torture, calling it “an habitual, systemic and invisible practice, which enjoys impunity in the majority of cases and whose principal perpetrators are soldiers and police”.

Is it not the same government that uses girls going to school in Afghanistan as their one reason for continuing with the mission in the format that it is? Yet we see what is going on with women and girls in Colombia, but somehow that does not count.

We have seen a lot of Canadian trade unionists getting involved in this issue. Do members think they have nothing else to concern themselves with? They stand for more than just collective bargaining and taking care of their members. They know when they build a stronger Canada, they are taking care of their members.

I was meeting earlier in my office on the Hill with some ACTRA representatives, as many members are. They are lobbying on some very important issues regarding Canadian culture and the importance of maintaining and reflecting that culture and ensuring there is regulations that it happens in our airwaves. It is an important matter. I happened to mention in passing that I would be getting up later to speak to the Colombian free trade agreement in the House, and members should have seen their reaction. They knew about it. They knew what was happening. That was not why they were there to see me. They were horrified by the prospect of Canada entering into such an agreement.

We met on the Hill with Colombian citizens, Colombian trade union leaders whose family members, friends and colleagues have been murdered. It is a narco-state. What the heck are we doing? Whose bidding are we taking care of by doing this? I have heard some nonsense from the official opposition that it is all about human rights. Give me a break.

Norway was all set to enter into a free trade agreement. It has pulled back. Why? It wants to see some improvement in human rights. Norway has taken our place as the leading nation in the world being seen as fair-minded, fighting for human rights, building a society that helps all its people. That is where we were. That is what Norway has done.

Britain was providing some military assistance. My understanding is it has pulled back on that also. Why? It cannot bear the thought that the actions it would take would lend credibility to what goes on in Colombia.

The United States of America, under George Bush, was gung-ho for this agreement. It had a slight change there. That slight change has brought this to a screeching halt. In fact, the chairman of the House trade working group and representative Phil Hare have attached themselves to the following quote:

If we had been born in Colombia, we would probably be dead. That's right. As members of our respective labour unions, the fight for higher wages, better working conditions, and a secure pension could have cost us our lives.

I am a trade unionist. My brother is a trade unionist. That applies to all of us.

Colombian Senator Robledo stated:

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.

Let us get a sense of this. The people who are known to be on the forefront of fighting for human rights in Canada and around the world, the trade union movement in Canada, are opposed to this. Trade union leaders, human rights activists and citizens and elected senators in Colombia do not want this to happen. The U.K. has pulled back from supporting Colombia. Norway has pulled back from its free trade agreement with Colombia because of human rights violations. The United States has stopped, at least for now. We do not know what the future holds, but for now it cannot get past the Democrats in Congress because of human rights violations.

Therefore, why are we doing this? It is hard not to think that, given the fact that the labour and environmental protections, and I use the word “protection” loosely, are in these side agreements. We know from our own experience in NAFTA that a side agreement does not have the same impact as being in the main agreement. That would be why we put it in a side agreement.

Again, I come back to this question. Who wants this? Who benefits? It would seem that there are a lot of multinational corporations, many of them Canadian-based. We lead in resource extraction. Over the next few decades, they stand to make an awful lot of money if they can get into Colombia and start getting at those resources, at best looking past the human rights violations, looking past the fact that narcotics is the key component of its economy. That is at best.

It would seem that the Conservatives are prepared to do their bidding. I do not see a whole lot of Canadians filling these chambers, demanding that the government proceed with this and that we stop opposing it. It is quite the contrary. A lot of Hamiltonians have told me how proud they are that we have stood up, delayed and done everything we can to stop this bill from being law, to stop this free trade agreement from taking effect.

It is wrong for the Colombians. It is wrong for Canadians. It is wrong for the government to continue pushing this through. We on this side of the House, representing the majority of Canadians, will continue to do everything we can to kill it completely.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Hamilton Centre, for his very passionate remarks about a serious issue.

I can only imagine how much it pains him, having sat through the Mike Harris government and seeing that province dismantled bit by bit, to be now here in the House of Commons and to see the same bunch do the same thing to our country and the values that Canadians hold near and dear.

However, I am curious to know how he feels about another party in the House, the Liberals, who have acted in complicity with the Conservatives on this very serious issue, and whether he can justify the party of Laurier, the party of Pearson, the party of Trudeau now standing in the House today and saying that there is no such thing as torture in Colombia, that trade unionists are not being murdered, that human rights are not being abrogated, that women and girls are not being raped.

Could he square this circle in terms of Liberals who suggest, as the member for Kings—Hants has, that paramilitary forces murdering union leaders is in fact a falsehood? Could he help us to understand where the Liberals are at and why in the world they would be supporting the Conservatives with such a right-wing ideology?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no answer. During my remarks, part of me forgot that they were doing this. I mentioned that the best I had heard from them was the Liberals contended that this would help Colombians. By somehow getting us in there and doing business, we would magically transform their human rights atrocities into human rights protection and human rights promotion. There is no evidence of that. I leave it to the Liberals to defend themselves.

However, one has to ask the same question that I asked of the government. Whose bidding are the Liberals doing? Could they stand and list the Canadian groups and the Canadian leaders who are prepared to put their names and reputations on the line to back up this free trade agreement? Let us see that list. We have reams and reams of names of people and organizations that are quite prepared to stand up proudly and say that they oppose this agreement on principle because of human rights violations.

Let us see the Liberals, if they say they are standing on a just point, produce their list, produce those Canadians who are prepared to stand up and put their reputations and the reputations of their organizations and their members on the line to implement this free trade agreement with Colombia, which does nothing for the people of Colombia and does nothing for the reputation or purpose of Canadians.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat comical listening to the musings of the member, as he was part of a government that was so bad in the province of Ontario that it almost bankrupted the province. In fact, it was so bad that the former premier of the province, who he was a minister under, left that party to join another party because he was so embarrassed by the devastation that member and his party did to the province of Ontario.

I know he does not want to talk about the people who were out of work in the province of Ontario while he was in government. I know he does not want to talk about the disastrous record that he and the other members of his party had while they were serving in the government of Ontario.

I know he knows nothing about trade. If he did, Ontario would not have suffered as it did if it had a government of which many of the members he talked about, including the transportation minister, the finance minister, the industry minister and the great chair of the citizenship and immigration committee, were all a part.

He talked about the majority of the House being in favour of this bill. That is the reality. Yet what he and his party are doing is delaying the House, delaying an agreement. Why are they not listening to the majority of Canadians?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting approach to take, given the fact that the member is so proud of the investments being made as a result of the decision to go into deficit to fight the recession, when the Conservatives did not want to do it in the first place. They were only forced to do it because of the possibility of being thrown out of office. Now they brag about it.

Floyd Laughren stood up in the Ontario legislature and said that he was going to go into deficit to fight the recession and protect Ontarians. The government is doing exactly the same thing, bragging about it, except that it did not take pride of ownership. It had to do it because it was forced to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily pleased to have to speak about this bill today. In fact, it should not be here at the moment. The committee that studied it last summer recommended a study of its effects on human rights, as my colleague mentioned.

Therefore, I am going to talk about the environmental impact this agreement could have on the beautiful country of Colombia. The primary aim of the agreement is to promote Canadian extractive companies, in other words, the people who operate mines. This sort of work is not well regulated in Colombia. The agreement could at least have defined the types of extraction allowed and the manner in which Canadians could operate there. This could devastate a country where poor people are in poor health and live in insecurity because their environment will be destroyed by this type of mining.

Have my colleagues seen pictures of the type of extractive mining carried out in certain countries in South America and in Colombia at the moment? It is disastrous. Huge amounts of material are extracted and then used to obtain precious metals or lithium, in short, things that are quite rare. The quantity of waste generated is enormous. There is no thought of recycling or returning the land to its original state. They clearcut the trees, opening the way to landslides when there are heavy rains. It is a country of sudden and fairly heavy rains producing landslides that can sweep away entire villages. These people live right next to their place of work. They live in shacks because they cannot afford proper houses. Very often, these shacks are only built for temporary use.

A mine opens and operates for three years. It closes for a year, because the price of the metal has dropped. It then reopens for another two years. So the people are always living on the edge. They do not invest in the construction of good houses.

The material exposed to the air is collected by the floodwaters, which often carry dangerous and toxic raw materials into waterways. As we know, these mines are often in the mountains and the waterways go on for unbelievable distances.

The residue of heavy metals in river water is the hardest to remove because it is so fine, and the usual filters cannot readily detect it. In this country, mine operators—I could call them exploiters—can do as they see fit. They do not have enough money to install water filters powerful enough to remove the toxic waste from river water. People drink that water. Then they say that people die early because they are in poor health, but it is because they have been deprived of the chance to lead a healthy life in their own country.

Why are we imposing that on people?

It is because there are private interests that can extract this material, export it from Colombia and import it into our country. For a treaty such as this, and before finalizing this bill, someone should have studied the environmental impacts to see how changes could be made. That has not been done. In any case, if it has been done, we do not know about it. The government may have kept it hidden, because we were not told of any study of that kind, as had been requested by the committee.

In addition to the trees being cut down, the soil and water are also being polluted. It affects not just humans, but also the animal chain. The whole biological system will be left in a debilitated condition for decades before renewal begins, because there is no effort even to restore the land. Once the mining is finished, they will simply leave the machinery where it is; they will dump out the barrels of petroleum fuels and walk away. What goes on in those mines has to be seen. It is unbelievable.

They dump a barrel of gasoline. Yet, we know that one drop of gasoline will contaminate a thousand drops of water. Imagine how much water will be contaminated with each barrel. Often, the water table emerges further along because in the mountains a water table can extend for many kilometres; but it will empty unfiltered into a stream or water course. The toxic matter is not filtered by the soil because the water currents are quite strong and the water does not pass through sand and therefore is not filtered. Even if it did pass through sand, the material passing through would leave the sand saturated with dangerous matter.

In such a deal, consideration of the environment should have been fundamental. They say that we want to respect the countries that we trade with. We are not living in 1500 or 1800 when there was no concern for the environment. In a week or so, we will be into the year 2010. In this century, it is normal to consider the consequences of our actions on the environment. That has not been done in the bill. We find that is unacceptable. Why was it not done? It is because they wanted to protect private interests. Those interests are here in Canada, and when they tell us that this will make Colombia prosperous, it is only a smokescreen over the sea of free trade.

We are not against free trade, and I want to emphasize that. We are against free trade that does not consider the actual conditions in a country like Colombia. It could have been another country, but in that country we do not consider those conditions. On the pretext that these are poor people, that no one has the will to develop the enormous mines in that country, we negotiate an agreement with that government by telling them that we will trade goods. We know what things are exported from Colombia and that our trade with that country is minimal. That will not increase as a result of this agreement because the people there will not have any more money. The people will not be made richer because mining operators tear their country apart, destroy the natural systems and ecological balance, and then leave their mess behind after paying minimum wages.

In short, we are opposed to this agreement because, in the end, it is a bad agreement; it was made too quickly and to protect interests that are too limited.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from the Bloc for his excellent remarks on this very serious subject. It is unbelievable, is it not, that the government should be concluding an agreement with Colombia, a country where there are so many murders, cases of torture and violations of human rights?

I put this question to my colleague. How can anyone explain the support of the Liberals and Conservatives for such a terrible bill?

In the name of humanity and all that is just, how can anyone explain a treaty with a country where there are so many murders? As the facts put forth by the member show, since 2008, the number of murders has been increasing. It is 18% higher than the year before. The use of torture is systemic and widespread and workers’ rights are constantly threatened.

How can he explain the support of the Liberals and Conservatives for this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for that important question. I will try to respond.

It is true that in terms of human rights, there is a great deal to be said, but other members have already spoken to that. For my part, I would like to respond to the issue of the environment. How is it that the Conservatives and the Liberals have joined in saying that the environment is not important? In fact, the answer is that the environment is not important in their eyes.

Those two parties are looking at the future through a rear-view mirror. They have not recognized that it is time to lift the rear-view mirror and look forward, especially the Conservatives, who have not stopped saying for the past two years that the Liberals did nothing for 13 years, while they have been in office for four years and they have done nothing for the environment. Four years; zero, nothing. They have no interest in looking after the environment.

The Liberals had problems with the environment. That may be why they will vote in favour of this agreement. They put forward some good proposals at one point and were ridiculed and condemned as populists by the Conservatives. Now, they have no idea where they are going. In the end, unfortunately, the environment is no longer an important value for them.

We really would like to see them wake up, find that energy again and say it is an important value and that they will vote against this proposed agreement because the environment is not protected.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my good friend, the Bloc member, who raised the environmental issues. I have a question for him regarding the environment.

Why is it that the Bloc has voted no to every environmental program that the government has proposed? The Province of Quebec wanted $300 million for its environmental programs and the federal government gave it $350 million. What did the Bloc members do? They voted against that.

The member well knows that carbon capture and storage is a technology. We went to Berlin together and we heard that carbon capture and storage is a technology that the world is counting on. The reduction of 25% of greenhouse gas emissions are coming from carbon capture and storage. What did the Bloc do? Those members voted against carbon capture and storage. They voted against fuel efficiency standards.

Does the member really believe in climate change? Does his party really support getting tough on environmental issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague who is doing good work on the environment, but he has a veil hanging over his eyes, and, unfortunately, cannot see beyond the veil. He is a fine person and a good man. He works hard. I am not attacking him personally. It is his party that prevents him from seeing beyond the veil.

That prevents him from seeing that every time we are obliged to vote on the proposals he mentioned, there are other factors that are unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois, and he knows that. He knows why we voted against them. We did not vote against the environment. For us, the environment is fundamental and we will always vote in favour of the environment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga South, Natural Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in the debate on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

My colleagues have made it quite clear that the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. As we all know, the bill will help a few large Canadian mining companies at the expense of local Colombian populations and their environment. This bill does not require Colombia to respect human rights. Yet somebody needs to tell Colombia that it has to respect human rights.

It is incomprehensible that a country like Canada would choose to sign a free trade agreement with a country like Colombia.

People have pointed out that our economies are not comparable, yet one of the basic criteria for signing a free trade agreement is that the signatories have similar economies.

Free trade agreements should do more than just foster trade. We need to be able to go visit our partner's country, travel by plane while there, drive on their roads, go out and meet people. We need to be able to get into government buildings. Even if we sign this treaty, we will not be able to go there. It is a shame that the government does not really understand what it is saying.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada's website has a page about Colombia with advice and warnings for travellers. One of the headings says “Exercise high degree of caution”. These are warnings issued by the Government of Canada to travellers about Colombia.

There is no specific information about future terrorist activities or threats against Canadian 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.

How can we conclude a free trade agreement with a country where it is dangerous to travel to airports located in major cities? How can we conclude an economic free trade agreement with a country where there could be attacks on government buildings? How can we put money in banks in a country that we cannot travel to because it is dangerous? We are talking about terrorist attacks.

In the same section it says:

Canadians should be vigilant and avoid any unattended packages or parcels and bring them to the attention of security personnel.

This makes no sense. Can we recommend that the Conservative government avoid any free trade agreements with Colombia?

Under the heading, “Regional Warning”, it says, “Avoid non-essential travel”.

Under “Official Warning”, it says:

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada [the Conservative government] 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.

Who is going to sign a free trade agreement? What minister would want to go to that country after reading this?

The paragraph goes on to say:

The exception to this would be some parts of the coffee growing area southwest of Bogota (Risaralda, Quindio and Caldas), 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.

There is more. The third warning, “Avoid all travel”, begins like this:

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against all travel to the departments of Putumayo and Narino (excluding Pasto), located along the border with Ecuador, and to the departments of Arauca, Choco, Santander (excluding Bucaramanga) and Norte de Santander (excluding Cucuta), located along the border with Venezuela.

What follows is worth hearing:

The presence of armed drug traffickers, guerrilla and paramilitary organizations, including the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) 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.

And we are being asked to enter into a free trade agreement with a country that has guerillas, armed drug traffickers and paramilitary organizations? There is said to be a high risk of attacks, extortion and kidnappings. Who wants to sign a free trade agreement with a country that has these sorts of problems?

You are also advised against all travel to the departments of Cauca, Caqueta, Guaviare, Valle de Cauca (excluding Cali) [earlier, the site said to avoid Cali] and Antioquia (excluding Medellin), to the southern parts of Meta department and to the city of Buenaventura, due to the presence of similar armed groups.

Signing a free trade agreement with a country we cannot even visit is insane. This very government says not to go there because it is dangerous. It says to avoid all travel to certain regions, to avoid all essential travel to other areas and to exercise a high degree of caution because of the possibility of terrorist attacks. I am going to list the places where attacks could occur. It is frightening.

Possible terrorist targets include military and police vehicles and installations, restaurants [Restaurants. Where will we eat? Should we bring a lunch?], underground garages, nightclubs, hotels, banks, shopping centres, public transportation vehicles, government buildings, and airports located in major cities.

We must not go to these places. This government is issuing warnings it is not heeding itself, because I imagine it is planning to go to these places.

According to the Vivre ensemble newsletter, published by Centre justice et foi, an organization that works to build a welcoming society for new immigrants:

—Canada is currently a leader in having Colombian refugees sponsored to settle permanently in the country. However, we must first look at the disturbing role Canadian companies have played in fueling the conflict, with the consent of the federal government. In 1995, the Canadian company Goldfields signed a contract to operate a gold mine with a rich local family. Until then, the mine had been artisanally mined by the inhabitants of the Río Viejo region. At the same time, paramilitaries massacred 400 people and drove more than 30,000 people out of the region. The soldiers who also participated in this atrocious carnage were known to have been trained at the School of the Americas.

This is from the Vivre ensemble newsletter. It is not pretty. It continues:

A second troubling fact is that the Ottawa Citizen recently reported that a Canadian aerospace company was working with the Colombian army to maintain its military helicopters. Vector Aerospace, a Newfoundland company, confirmed that it had received the blessing of the federal government [of Canada] to sign the $6.5 million contract. The government felt that there was no valid reason to believe that this armament would be used against civilians. [Come on. Who else would it be used against?] The Colombian army and its associated paramilitary organizations have been singled out by numerous international observers, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and found responsible for thousands of violent killings.

That was taken from last spring's Vivre ensemble.

This Conservative government does not care about the well-being of the Colombian people. A number of points make it blatantly clear that there is nothing in this agreement for the people of Colombia.

This agreement is about protecting investments. This agreement is about exploiting the local people and the Colombian environment. This agreement will not help Colombian citizens in any way.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the hon. member. I listened very carefully when she talked about the people of Colombia.

Anything we do as administrations, no matter what party is in power, we always do with the good intention of improving the lives of our people.

In this case we are moving on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement with what in mind? It is to improve the lives of our citizenry, ours in Canada and theirs in Colombia.

Does the member feel that by staying away we will improve the lives of the people in Colombia or does she agree, as I see it personally, that by going there and showing them how we do things in Canada with our rules and the administration and so on, however we do it, we can improve their lives in that way?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very pertinent question. Yes, we do sometimes wonder what came first, the chicken or the egg. Can we help a country by going there and setting an example? Or should we establish preconditions? We could say to them that we will be prepared to enter into a free trade agreement in future but that they first have to address the human rights situation, try to control their militia in the regions and rein in FARC. That is what we must say to them. Most importantly, we must require a prospective trading partner to respect human rights. That is of great importance to me.

I find the member's question a little odd because he says that by going there we can show them how it is done. And yet we cannot go there. The Conservative government opposite tells us, in its travel reports for those who would usually go there, not to go, that it is dangerous. That is what it is telling us. Terrorist targets could be government buildings, airports, restaurants, public transportation vehicles.

How do you set an example in that kind of situation? You cannot. You can tell them to come to our country to see how things work. However, before we explain how it works, all governments must be required to respect human rights. That applies to the government of Colombia as well as to any other government with which we wish to do business.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. Liberal colleague's reasoning is completely wrong. It is unbelievable. The Bloc Québécois member was quite right when she said we need to have some guarantees and promises that a country will respect human rights before we sign a free trade agreement. What the Liberals, like the hon. member for Kings—Hants, are saying is unbelievable, namely, that this free trade agreement could improve the situation regarding human rights abuses and social injustices. How can anyone agree with that argument? It is absolutely unbelievable.

Do we not need to absolutely assure Canadians and Colombians that we will demand that human rights be protected before signing any agreements or accords with that country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question and her comment about the Liberal member. He said that we should set an example by signing the free trade agreement, then going down to see the Colombians and show them how democracy is done.

Anyone can see how things are working down there right now. In Colombia, democracy is ailing at best. They are having all kinds of problems running the country and preserving social order. What kind of example would the Conservative government give them? Here is what it would tell them: “Do not do things democratically”. Even this free trade agreement with Colombia is not being done democratically. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development did not want this agreement, did not want things to happen like this, but the government went ahead despite the committee's recommendation. That is what the Bloc Québécois' amendment is all about. We want nothing to do with this agreement.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few moments. I have spoken before, but I think what prompted me to get up and speak on this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is the responses that referred to the Liberal member and also to me.

I am going to take my few moments to give some examples of what other countries are doing, what we have been doing, and what we are trying to do with this free trade agreement. We have had witnesses before our committee, and I happen to have the honour of being the vice-chair of the committee on international trade. I used to actually chair the committee years ago when we were in government. So I would like to believe that I know a little bit about this file.

The member from the Bloc talked about setting prerequisites before we sign a free trade agreement. That makes sense. I accept that. Who says that prerequisites or conditions have not been set in this agreement or this bill that is before us? We must not mislead Canadians. We did not just step up to the plate and say, “Oh, let us sign an agreement.” That is not what happened.

Here I am now, a Liberal member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, defending what? A government bill. I am not defending the Conservative government bill. What I am defending here are jobs for Canada. What I am defending here is the opportunity for Canadians to get their share of the business, if I can put it that simply.

What we are also doing is we are doing it the Canadian way. This agreement that we are signing today is exactly the same type of agreement we have signed with other countries. It is on record. I just happened to stand up to participate in this debate, and I did not bring my notes, but I know I have referred to specific examples of other countries with whom we have signed these agreements with, like Israel, Costa Rica, the United States and Mexico.

This agreement today, between Canada and Colombia, is patterned around those same agreements. If we were okay to sign those agreements then, the question then becomes, why is it not okay now?

I also had the privilege of chairing the committee when President Uribe of Colombia was here in Ottawa. The gentleman came before our committee and talked about the reality of the situation. He is not walking away from the problems that Colombia is facing today. He never said there were not problems. What we are saying is, “Let us address those problems together.”

Other countries have good trade agreements. Let me give one example. We have the European Union. It is a body of countries that decided to engage together and create a market. They keep adding every so many years to this community. Turkey is an applicant for membership to the European community.

Before they can become members, there are certain prerequisites that are set out that each country has to meet. Today Turkey is on a collision course with respect to the Cyprus issue. Cyprus is a full member of the European community, and there is a conflict there, whether it is entrance to ports, airports, the green line, or property rights. A country like Cyprus today is in the 21st century. We are not looking to conquer countries, we are looking to work with countries.

Turkey is an applicant member. Why is the European community saying no to Turkey? What it is saying to Turkey is, “Of course we want you to become a member and we want you to start meeting these targets. There is a progression until you reach full membership”.

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

You are making an argument.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I am making that argument.

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

You are making our argument.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

No, no. I am not making your argument.

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

Vote against it. Vote against Bill C-23.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

What I am saying is that we do not turn away from these opportunities which are our business people out there. Our business community is encouraging us.

There have been undertakings in Colombia to address the problems that exist: human rights violations, labour abuses, et cetera. The paramilitary has been brought up.

Frank Pearl, a highly recognized individual, was appointed some years ago by the Colombian government to help people reintegrate into society. There are tremendous amounts of money being invested so people can come out of the jungles, reunite and reconnect with their families, re-engage and retrain in order for them to become productive members of society. However, all this does not happen overnight. It cannot happen overnight. It is impossible for it to happen overnight, but it is one step at a time.

I have personally seen that the government of Colombia is very serious about taking on these challenges. What we as Canadians are saying to Colombia is yes, we are going to sign a free trade agreement, the same as we signed with Mexico, the United States, Costa Rica, Israel, et cetera.

I do not have the document with me, but I would be more than pleased to table the information I have available confirming what I just said in terms of the types of agreements we have signed with these other countries. The Canada-Colombia agreement is patterned the same way and uses the same types of parameters.

We have not lessened the conditions we are asking for as a country or the government is asking for today. I have personally expressed my support for it. If anything, we are becoming more stringent because when we signed an agreement years ago, let us say, with Mexico, between then and now we have learned, improved and fine tuned. We are always looking to better ourselves.

In response to some of the comments that were made earlier with respect to what the Liberal member said, referring to me, I can only encourage other colleagues to think of it this way as we hope to get this over and done with as soon as possible. There are several things.

The longer we delay, our country is going to lose out. We delayed in signing CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement. When the United States signed on, it was ratified by one vote. Canada lost out. Canadian jobs lost out. The Americans are looking at this agreement as well.

Earlier today representatives from the Pork Producers Association were in committee and they said the same thing, “Don't delay, it's going to cost us. Don't Delay”. They were talking about how Korea, for example, had signed a free trade agreement and we were going to lose business. Our pork products are not going to be able to compete. Who is going to lose? Canadian jobs are going to be lost.

The end result is that people will be going on employment insurance, something the New Democratic Party was promoting two weeks ago when we were talking about improving EI benefits. Canadians do not want EI. Canadians want to work. They want to get up Monday to Friday to go to work and know that they can spend the weekends with their families and be proud of bringing home their bread and butter. That is what Canadians want to do.

What is it that we have to do as government representatives? We have to create a platform or the conditions, if I may say, whereby our nation, business people, farmers and manufacturers have the ability to flourish and prosper, and as they prosper, jobs and wealth are created. The big deficit we now have, thanks to the new Conservative Party, will hopefully be eliminated. That is why I am supporting this free trade agreement, to generate revenue and bring down the $56 billion deficit.

I am in full support of it and I am asking the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party to look at it from that point of view. If we stay away, we are not really helping the people we want to help. By going there, we will show Colombia how we do it in Canada. We will insist that certain things are undertaken to ensure that we are headed in the proper direction.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my friend across the way.

Three and a half weeks ago I was in Copenhagen on an environmental conference preparing for a new international agreement. While I was there I met a legislator from Colombia and asked him if he was happy with this new agreement and how important it was for Colombia. He said very similar words as we just heard from the member, that it was important to give a country a chance to turn its back on some of the past atrocities and concerns and help it move forward.

If we bind Colombia's hands by not permitting it and Canadians to prosper, we are harming both countries. I would ask him to comment on how important it is that we work with other governments.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really moved when the hon. member talked about giving Colombia a chance. That is really what this is all about. People say that we do not agree. I think that when it comes to common sense, we Liberals at least find room to agree.

There have been many times when we have voted for legislation that has been brought forward by the government of today because we think that it is good legislation or that it makes a lot of sense. We are supporting this bill because it makes sense. We want to give, not necessarily a country, but a people the chance to get jobs, put food on the table and improve themselves.

When a nation is working, it does not engage in crime. I think we all know that when unemployment is down, crime is also down. If we are going to help put the people of Colombia to work, then we are also helping them reduce crime. If we put them to work, we are going to work toward eliminating the labour abuses and human rights violations that we have talked about.

We can only achieve that by being there. The sooner we are there, the sooner we are going to resolve this issue.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point something out to my Liberal Party colleague, who also sits on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

When the report of our analysis of Colombia was adopted, the Liberals supported us, as did the NDP, in calling for and recommending that the government ensure that an independent body is established bringing together the various organizations representing business, the economic sector, but also human rights, so we would be able to assess the situation, and when the time came, give the green light for signing this free trade agreement.

A free trade agreement can also be used to change behaviour. If Colombia is interested in having real benefits, it will also be interested in making corrections to the way things are happening in Colombia.

We all know what is happening in Colombia. We know that there has in fact been an improvement.

That being said, has progress been significant enough that we can sign an agreement? If the Conservative government and its Liberal allies were serious, they would be proposing more investment in the area of international aid, through CIDA, for example, to make sure that Colombia gets out of this quagmire, this violence, and that there is an improvement from the standpoint of human rights. That is how the situation will be improved, not necessarily by engaging in trade solely to make money and supposedly to create jobs.

We know very well that the Liberals are supporting the Conservative government in order to profit from the situation.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I used the example of Turkey as an applicant for membership to the European community. There is nothing wrong with doing a study, but we cannot afford to wait until the study is completed. We must move in parallel to whatever efforts are being undertaken.

That is why I deliberately used the example of Turkey as an applicant. There are violations that are taking place. I mentioned the Cyprus issue as one example. I do not want to mention any more, but the European community is not saying that it is not accepting Turkey's application or that it is not allowing Turkey to go through the process for membership to the European community because Cyprus is still under an illegal occupation. It is saying that it is moving along and also moving toward resolving the issue.

The same thing is being done with Skopje, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, who wish to gain membership but are being shown the prerequisites. I agree with Skopje. However, we must not stop the progress and wait for the outcome of the study.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, really, I just cannot start without making reference to my Liberal colleague and suggesting that he actually read some of the provisions that are in the European Union arrangements as opposed to the non-existent preconditions of the so-called free trade agreements that we have been signing. The level of his lack of knowledge is really quite astounding.

With regard to what we are doing here, let me provide a bit of an overview. The basic question we have to ask is why we are here debating this issue. Why are we here, when there are so many other issues we could be facing that are so much more important? More specifically, why are we, as a legislature, having to review a bill that would incorporate a trade agreement with a country that has a reputation like Colombia's?

Despite some of the other suggestions we have had with regard to our getting some minor trade advantages out of this agreement, the reality is that we are doing this for ideological reasons, driven by the ideology of both the Conservative and Liberal parties. We have seen them, in spite of promises in many cases to the contrary, consistently sign these types of agreements that have repeatedly been to the disadvantage of Canada, through which we have been taken advantage of or, in the case of agreements with smaller countries, through which we have taken advantage of them.

We continue to do that because there is this fundamental belief on the part of the those two political parties that these agreements, in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary, work. I have to assume that sometimes they have some doubts about the viability and validity of these types of agreements, but even then, they have put so much political capital into these types of agreements, into the politics of this country in particular, that they cannot back off, and I think sometimes their denial of just how bad these agreements have been is almost Freudian.

These agreements are part of the failed globalization movement driven, to a great extent, by large multinational corporations for their benefit, not for the benefit of the individual countries and certainly not for the benefit of the workers in those countries.

I will just use one small example that always struck me so strongly. After we signed NAFTA, we studied the impact on wages in Mexico. In spite of all of the trumpeting of how great a success NAFTA was, the average wage in Mexico fell by more than 10% over that five-year period. It did not go up; it actually fell by over 10%.

We saw in the same country the devastation of the agricultural community, particularly those who grew corn, because of the swamping of their markets by the United States.

We could go on repeatedly about how these agreements do not work, but we continue to drive them forward. This government does, and the previous Liberal government attempted to do the same thing. In spite of all that evidence, they do it.

However, with Colombia, we have to say, “Enough”. We have to look at that country and we have to ask how we could possibly agree to enter into a trade agreement with Colombia with the history it has which continues right to this day.

The member for Kings—Hants spent four days in Colombia listening to the propaganda of the government that was pushing for this agreement because it would benefit certain elements of Colombian society supported by that government.

This agreement will be a disaster for the average worker. It will be a disaster for environmental conditions. It will be a continuing disaster for human rights and human rights causes in that country.

The member for Kings—Hants was accompanied at that time by the member for Toronto Centre. They spent four days and became instant experts on Colombia after listening to all this propaganda. It was offensive listening to the member for Kings--Hants. I say that on a personal level because I remember the number of trade unionists from Colombia who have come through my riding over the last 10 or 15 years, some of whom went back to Colombia and were killed.

The member for Kings—Hants said that the death squads are gone and that the militia is not functioning there anymore. He said that even in the face of overwhelming evidence, report after report, that their activities continue to go on. Those death squads and those paramilitary units are closely affiliated with the full-time military and with the government of Colombia. They cannot pretend they do not know what is going on and know who is committing these atrocities.

Colombia has led the world consistently in the number of murdered labour leaders and labour activists. There has been a huge number of deaths in indigenous communities because multinational corporations and their allies in the corporate world in Colombia want to grab their land. Colombia has led the world in the number of human rights activists who have been killed or tortured as a result of the activities of those death squads and those paramilitary units.

Enough is enough. We cannot possibly think of entering into an agreement with a country such as Colombia. It is just completely foolhardy to think that by entering into an agreement, into what is really quite a nominal trading relationship, with no conditions on the environment, no conditions on labour standards, no conditions on human rights, that somehow we will magically bring that country up to the same standards as those of democratic countries. It is an argument that has no merit when one is dealing with Colombia, its government and the paramilitary. It has none whatsoever.

There are other models. There are models in South America, where some of the countries with larger economies have banded together to look at ways to increase trade between their countries without exploiting one country over another. It is a model that North America should be taking a look at.

The European Union tells Turkey and Czechoslovakia that they have to meet standards. Even after the countries have been admitted, they must continue to meet those standards.

I love the story about how the European Union said to Margaret Thatcher that her country could not be part of the European Union unless she fixed a minimum labour standard and a minimum wage. That was the big thing for her. She held out and refused to comply with that.

The European Union held out as well. It said it was not having a race to the bottom on employment standards and environmental standards. The European Union told her there would be a push to the top, that everybody would go to the top. The European Union wanted the best standards in the world and it has moved consistently on that. It is strong enough to tell those countries that are not prepared to move on that that they will not be allowed in. They will not get the advantage of the huge trading relationship it has established.

That is the model that we should be using, the model that the whole world should be using. We are seeing some of that already in South America. As the countries there began to democratize, they moved that way. It is interesting that those countries that have led the way on that have refused to enter into so-called free trade agreements with North America and they are continuing to do so. They are building their own model.

I see my time is just about up, but I will say there is absolutely no way that a country like Canada, which believes in democracy the way we do and human rights the way we do, should be signing on to this kind of an agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, yet again the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has shown why he is the most learned member in this place, as chosen by Maclean's magazine, and I hope that members in the Conservative and Liberal parties, which are willing to throw aside all kinds of principles including the basic principles of human rights and labour rights and social and labour standards to deal with an administration that has ties to both paramilitary thugs and drug gangs, will think twice and give their heads a shake about whether their constituents would actually approve of this kind of link.

This week we had yet another report on widespread torture in Colombia from human rights groups indicating that torture connected with the military arm of the Colombian regime has gone up 80% over the last five years. There have been hundreds of cases of torture commited by the military arm of the Colombian regime that the Conservative government wants to have a privileged trading relationship with.

Does the member for Windsor—Tecumseh think Canadians would find it acceptable that, with torture by the military arm of the Colombian government exploding in Colombia, he think it appropriate that the Conservatives and Liberals come together now to try to ram this agreement through the House with closure?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the question and also recognize the excellent background work he has done for us as a caucus and also the work he has done in committee to try to fight this agreement.

It is clear where Canadians stand. We are not supportive of any regime that is going to treat its people the way the Colombian government historically has treated its people and continues to treat them right up to this day. I have not had a chance to read that full report. I have seen summaries of it, and it is just shocking. As recently as this week we have received that kind of report, and yet we are here in the House somehow foolishly believing that if we sign this agreement it is going to change the situation in Colombia. It is not.

I want to make one other point. What Canadians expect from us, as they expect right around the globe, is that if we have the opportunity to do so, we should try to better the conditions of countries that we have relationships with whether through international bodies that bring pressure on them to change their practices, or through using our foreign aid. There are any number of mechanisms, whether or not there are other diplomatic mechanisms we can use to bring pressure on the government to change. That is what Canadians expect us to do. They do not expect us to just sign a blank cheque and allow this kind of conduct to continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member for Windsor—Tecumseh referenced indigenous rights. I want to refer to the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, the report of which, when referring to the extraordinary case of indigenous peoples, cited widespread acts of genocide, “imminent danger of physical and cultural extinction faced by 28 indigenous groups” and the fact that 18 of the communities have less than 100 members and “are suspended between life and death”. The report went on to set “a horrifying list of human and labour rights abuses that are shocking [to] the world”.

It is very disappointing that we have the Conservatives and the Liberals supporting the kind of trade agreement that is a direct violation of human rights, and I guess it is no surprise from the Conservative perspective because they refused to sign on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I wonder if the member could comment on that link between the UN declaration and indigenous rights violations in Colombia.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her question. It was interesting because I think a number of us received letters this week urging us to pressure the government to sign on to the UN Declaration on Rights of Aboriginal Peoples around the globe. We are one of the few countries in the world, to our extreme embarrassment, that did not sign on.

For the Conservative government and, unfortunately, the Liberals to be willing to sign on to this agreement when we know those gross violations are going on for aboriginal peoples is just shocking.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we look closely at Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, it is difficult to understand why the Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, is so bent on signing such a trade agreement.

From various viewpoints, this agreement runs counter to the concept of a responsible government working for the well-being of its citizens, but also the well-being of humanity. As my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, mentioned earlier this morning, the agreement proposed by Bill C-23 contains no significant measure that would serve, for example, to improve human rights.

In a country that has the worst human rights record in Latin America, Canada, even though it has certain economic interests, has an obligation to set conditions that might improve the situation. Until we have evidence to the contrary, the Conservatives are once again in breach of their duty.

The record on workers’ rights is just as distressing. Columbia is considered one of the worst places in the world for respect for workers’ rights: unionists there are targeted because of their activities. They are victims of threats, abduction and murder. As someone with a background in the union movement myself, I find this situation totally unacceptable.

This is not to mention the number of men, women and children who have to leave the comfort of their home because of conflicts between the state security forces, paramilitary groups and guerrillas. More and more, economic displacement is forcing small subsistence farmers and small miners to also leave their land, to the benefit of the big agri-food corporations or, once again, big mining multinationals.

Entire populations are being forced to move. Once again, there are no significant measures proposed in this agreement to correct such injustices, and it is completely false to believe that such an agreement will help the cause of the Colombian people.

Why do we want a free trade agreement with Colombia? It makes you wonder about the real reasons driving the government, not forgetting the Liberals, to want to ratify this agreement, whatever the cost.

Colombia is the fifth largest destination of Canadian exports to Latin America and the Caribbean. It is the seventh most important source of imports from the same region. In other words, Canada has more interesting preferred trading partners than Colombia.

In recent years trade between Canada and the other Latin American countries has substantially increased, reducing the proportion of trade with Colombia compared with the other countries of the region. Furthermore, Canada exports mainly automobiles and grains, and the great majority of Canadian investments in Colombia are in the extractive industries sector.

In my humble opinion, and as mentioned by some of my colleagues, to sign a free trade agreement there must necessarily be a relationship of equals between the two states. So they must be preferred commercial partners, and the level of their trade must make it attractive to lower trade barriers.

Let us be honest: Colombia is not a very attractive market, considering that trade between the two countries is particularly limited.

Could it be that the main motivation of the Conservative government in signing this free trade agreement is not trade, but rather investment?

I wonder about this because this agreement contains a chapter on protection of investment which, without a shadow of a doubt, will make life easier for Canadian investors investing in Colombia, and specifically in the mining sector. This chapter is strongly modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA, which in fact constitutes a charter of the multinationals to the detriment of the common good.

More specifically, NAFTA chapter 11, which was the inspiration for the provision on investment in this agreement, includes the following points. Foreign investors can go directly to international courts, passing beyond the filter of the public good provided by governments. Exports are so broadly construed that any legislation which allegedly has the effect of reducing an investor’s profits can be equated with expropriation and result in a lawsuit. Even worse, the amount of the suit is not limited to the value of the investment and includes all potential future profits, which is far too much and totally unacceptable in this agreement.

This chapter has been criticized by everyone. As soon as some legislation, for example on human rights, reduces a foreign investor’s profits, the government is exposed to astronomical lawsuits. It is ironic that when the Liberals were in power, they signed several trade deals with clauses similar to NAFTA chapter 11 but they were severely criticized for these abusive practices and stopped signing such agreements. There they are now, though, very clearly supporting Bill C-23. They are going backwards, therefore, and delegating to multinationals the task of judging the common good.

I hope even the Conservatives and Liberals do not think that multinationals will serve the general public by giving it the resources it needs and working to ensure more respect for human rights, the rights of workers and the environment.

When I hear the Conservatives and Liberals say ad nauseam that we should support developing countries and help them progress, they are not mistaken. The Bloc Québécois and I think we have a duty to help other societies to progress and we should give them all the resources they need to achieve their goals. However, the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement does not do this.

Bill C-23 does not contain any significant measures to improve the economic, social and environmental situation in Colombia. We should not use pretexts in order to achieve our objectives and should instead take advantage of these business opportunities to develop a concept of fair globalization that includes human rights, workers’ rights, the environment and honest trade. That is what we want in Quebec.

We should remember that free trade is also supposed to help improve the lives of working people through higher wages and better working conditions. Even in Quebec, though, we find that a lot of companies prefer to close their factories and take advantage of low wages and the lack of adequate working conditions abroad. This approach creates unemployment in Quebec while the companies themselves continue to prosper.

Should we make this worse? We do not think so.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member hit on the real reason for the free trade agreement proposal when he started to talk about the business investment aspect of it.

We know that Colombia is not a significant trading partner for Canada. It is only our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America. We know that 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008, murders were up 18% over the previous year. So far this year, 31 trade unionists were murdered. Almost 4 million people in Colombia are internally displaced persons. Sixty per cent of this displacement has been in regions of mineral, agriculture and other economic importance and where private companies, the government and paramilitary supporters are forcing people from their homes. This is not a tranquil country by any means.

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 of Colombia. This is not a healthy environment.

The government is pursuing this trade agreement for other reasons and I think the member is on to what those reasons are.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

As I stated in my remarks, this agreement is not based on trade. Earlier this morning, I heard my Liberal colleague talking about pork production and the fact this agreement would save the pork industry. I strongly doubt that.

That same colleague was with me this morning at the meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where we had an opportunity to hear Canada Pork International tell us that, at present, trade in pork meat with Colombia amounts to between four and five million dollars. That is not a significant amount and it certainly is not enough money to save the pork industry. It is proof that this agreement is really not about trade but rather about protection of investors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very clear and rational remarks. He was really convincing. I believe if someone has to have the last word on this subject today, he is the one.

I would like to speak about the whole question of energy. Now that we are running low on gasoline and have much less natural gas, I would like to ask my colleague whether this is the time to be trading in pork or other export-import commodities, except perhaps heavy metals, diamonds or other high value items. Imagine a new agreement like that that would have us transporting items to a country as far away as Colombia at a time when the amount of energy in the world is changing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I can clearly see his great devotion to the cause of the environment. I congratulate him, and I thank him.

We talk a great deal about fair trade and reduction of greenhouse gases. It is true that putting meat into containers and exporting it will not produce any gain. As one who works in agriculture, I believe that, instead of receiving containers of meat, my farming colleagues in Colombia would prefer that we send people to show them how to raise pork so that they can start to feed themselves.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are three minutes remaining before Private Members' Business. The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher therefore has three minutes to begin his speech.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me these three minutes.

As it was put so eloquently by my colleague from the riding with the name too long to repeat for someone with only three minutes, the members of the Bloc will vote against this free trade bill. We have repeated it enough, although I think it cannot be ever said enough, that the real aim of this bill is not to expand Canadian and Quebec trade with Colombia or to get the innumerable jobs that one of our colleagues in the Liberal Party claimed earlier to expect from such a bill. The real aim is to give free rein to Canadian investors in Colombia to act to the detriment of human rights and people's aspirations for development. In addition, it testifies to the usual indifference of the current Conservative government to all of these humanitarian considerations and respect for human rights.

We in the Bloc do not oppose in principle the provisions to protect investors in such treaties. We understand that investors want to be protected up to a point, but there are civilized ways of doing so.

Let us take the example of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement—I am not referring to NAFTA, but to the agreement between Canada and the United States that preceded NAFTA. It contained a chapter on investor protection, chapter 16. It was the first agreement in the world that contained a mechanism to resolve potential disputes between both sides of the agreement. The agreement worked well in its day. No case of discriminatory measures against a foreign investor was reported. No case went to the arbitration tribunal. And still the value of Canadian investment in the United States increased considerably during this period.

The clause in the treaty with Colombia is totally abusive, as my colleague explained. As a result, the Bloc Québécois will definitely oppose this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have seven minutes to conclude his remarks when the House resumes consideration of this bill.

It being 5.38 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.