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.

[Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, committee members. It's a pleasure to be in front of the committee again in the context of your study of Canada-South America trade relations.

I was before the committee back in April 2008 as part of your study of free trade negotiations at the time between Canada and Colombia. At that time, I detailed what we described as a disturbing human rights situation in Colombia, one that was nothing short of a crisis. During the 19 months since, Amnesty International has continued to carry out detailed monitoring of the human rights situation in different regions of the country, and we have had numerous on-the-ground fact-finding visits.

The evidence we've gathered continues to paint a dire picture, certainly not in keeping with claims by the Colombian government and others that the country has overcome its troubled human rights past.

Some indicators of conflict-related violence, such as kidnappings and hostage-taking, for instance, have improved. This means that the security situation for some has perhaps gotten better. However, other important indicators of conflict-related violence have deteriorated.

One of the most worrying trends is a dramatic increase in the number of Colombians forced to flee from their homes. As many as 380,000 people were forced to flee their homes in 2008 alone, an increase of more than 24% from 2007. That brings the total number of internally displaced people in Colombia now to somewhere between three and four million, amongst the highest in the world. Additionally, at least half a million Colombians have fled to other countries. Displacement has become an extreme crisis.

Many of those displaced have been deliberately targeted by guerrilla groups, paramilitaries, or state security forces as part of strategies designed to remove whole communities from areas of military, strategic, or economic importance. The great majority of those affected are small farmers, Afro-descendants, or indigenous peoples, many of whom live in areas of economic interest.

In particular, threats against and killings of indigenous people by all of Colombia's warring parties have increased over the last several years. More than 1,000 indigenous people have been killed in the last six years alone.

As the committee may know, in July of this year, James Anaya, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples visited Colombia. His preliminary report repeats some of the conclusions described by his predecessor five years earlier, in 2004, particularly that “Colombia's Indigenous people find themselves in a serious, critical and profoundly worrying human rights situation” and that “this description still applies”, despite some initiatives by the Colombian government.

Among concerns he draws attention to are ongoing violations committed by FARC, such as the massacre of Awá indigenous people, which Amnesty denounced as well in February. He also warns that “extensive corporate interest in the natural resources in Indigenous territory often threatens the rights of Indigenous peoples”.

He highlights that lack of regard for free, prior, and informed consent, as stipulated in international law and Colombia's own constitution, remains a persistent problem.

Amnesty International has issued a series of recent urgent actions about threats and attacks on vulnerable Afro-descendant communities and indigenous peoples that appear aimed at securing control of areas of economic potential.

For instance, on October 9 we issued an urgent action after three indigenous leaders from two reservations in Risaralda received a threat that said “You have 5 working days to withdraw...otherwise we will kill your families”. It was signed the “Southern Bloc”. The threat from this paramilitary group came a few days after the Risaralda Indigenous Regional Council had launched a report in which the indigenous communities said they are being driven out of their lands by powerful people looking to exploit the area's significant mineral resources. The indigenous leaders fled from the area in order to protect the lives of their families.

Then, on October 22, a fax signed by the paramilitary group Black Eagles New Generation arrived at the Valle del Cauca office of the Trade Union Congress, known by its acronym CUT. It warned that members of the CUT in that area were now military targets. The threat stated, “it is necessary to expand the fight against those who hide in social organizations such as CUT Valle, human rights defenders, NGOs.” It specifically accused the trade unionists of stopping economic development and progress by opposing “entry for the multinationals”. The death threat named others as well, including the group the Black Communities Process, whose leader, Carlos Rosero, I believe you heard from on Tuesday of this week.

These and countless similar cases make it abundantly clear that paramilitary groups continue to operate in many parts of the country, sometimes in collusion with sectors of the security forces, despite government claims that they had all laid down their arms following a government-sponsored demobilization that began in 2003. In fact, Amnesty International's information suggests that these groups, which have adopted a variety of names, appear to have become more organized and consolidated over the last year.

We have also documented a worrying increase in the use of death threats against human rights defenders, again attributed mostly to paramilitary groups.

In March, a fax signed by the Capital Bloc of the Black Eagles paramilitary group arrived at the office of the internationally respected Colombian Commission of Jurists, accusing one of their lawyers, Lina Paola Malagon Diaz, of being a “bitch guerrilla working for the defence of trade unionists”. The note said that paramilitaries were looking for her and for members of her family. She was given this warning: “Leave or we will kill you. You have one day to leave Bogota and do not come back.” She did flee the country. Notably, she had produced a report about human rights violations against Colombian trade unionists by all sides in Colombia's armed conflict, which was used in a hearing in the U.S. Congress a few weeks before that.

More than a dozen human rights defenders and 46 trade unionists were killed in 2008 alone. The scope and gravity of ongoing attacks and threats against trade unionists or those who speak out about violations of the rights of trade unionists is clear. It does not come down to a mere matter of statistical analysis. I think much is always made of the numbers when we talk about these issues, but I would urge you to recognize that this is about quantity and quality, not just quantity. I would urge you to keep that in mind as you analyze arguments you hear from other witnesses, for instance, who do bring it down to simply a statistical consideration, many of whom do not have particular expertise in the area of human rights monitoring.

We and others remain gravely concerned about what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights described in her March report, that “The worrying practice by some senior Government officials of publicly stigmatizing human rights defenders and trade union members, as biased and sympathetic to guerrilla groups, continued.”

This same concern has been highlighted following recent high-level UN human rights visits to Colombia, including by the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders in September and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions in June.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also stressed that such comments from senior government officials not only increase the risks that human rights defenders face, but “could suggest that the acts of violence aimed at suppressing them in one way or another enjoy the acquiescence of the governments”. Indeed, death threats, attacks, and even assassinations have often followed such public statements.

As this committee will know, human rights defenders who are under threat have long enjoyed a comprehensive program of assistance from the government. But in April of this year, a media investigation revealed that the civilian intelligence service, the DAS, which answers directly to the Colombian president and was the agency responsible for providing bodyguards and other protection to human rights defenders, has for at least seven years carried out a massive illegal espionage operation—including surveillance and wiretapping—against human rights defenders and others, including opposition politicians, judges, and journalists, with an aim to “restrict or neutralize their work”. Members of the diplomatic community, the United Nations, and foreign human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, were also targeted.

There is much more at play as well. The “parapolitical” scandal continues with 80 congress people, most belonging to parties from the ruling coalition, under criminal investigation for alleged links to paramilitary groups. Several magistrates investigating that case have been threatened, placed under surveillance, and had their communications intercepted.

Revelations in 2008 that the security forces had extrajudicially executed dozens of young men have now led to investigations by the attorney general's office of some 2,000 extrajudicial executions carried out over the last two decades. However, lawyers working on these cases, as well as a number of witnesses and family members of those killed, have been threatened and attacked.

Those are the immense challenges of confronting impunity in high-profile cases. More widely, justice remains the exception and impunity the norm, giving a green light to those who continue to abuse human rights.

So considering all of these concerns--and there's much I've left out--in the context of the free trade agreement, Amnesty International's key recommendation has remained the same for several years. We believe it is of critical importance that the agreement be subject to an independent human rights impact assessment, certainly before passage of Bill C-23, and that any negative findings be adequately addressed before proceeding further with the legislation and the entry into force of the deal.

We were pleased that this committee also called for an independent human rights impact assessment in its June 2008 report. We also have recommended that the deal not be finalized and that Bill C-23 not be passed until we have in place enforceable standards for Canadian companies operating abroad, which we of course hope will soon be the case if Bill C-300 becomes law. I must stress that we do not consider the hearings you are conducting now nor the more comprehensive hearings on Bill C-23 that would follow second reading of the bill to constitute that independent human rights impact assessment. The assessment would be an expert process that would take place outside of the parliamentary context. We would, however, very much urge that any body conducting such an assessment report back to Parliament.

In the context of grave and systematic human rights violations in Colombia and a pattern of ongoing serious abuses in areas of economic interest, an independent human rights impact assessment of the provisions of the trade agreement is, in our view, an essential step of due diligence. While it is not yet standard practice, there is growing interest in this tool, and there is a growing body of practical examples, analysis, proposals, and academic work to draw upon. Notably, even at the World Trade Organization, there's now significant discussion about this. In September, there was a session at the WTO's public forum in Geneva, moderated by counsel at the office of the WTO director general, entitled “Human Rights Impact Assessments: A Pertinent Tool for Informing and Improving Trade Governance?”

In 2006, Thailand's National Human Rights Commission considered the potential future human rights impacts of the free trade agreement that Thailand had been negotiating with the U.S. In 2007, the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, in collaboration with the FoodFirst Information & Action Network, commissioned studies to consider the impact of trade liberalization on the right to food for rice farming communities in Ghana, Honduras, and Indonesia. The European Union systematically conducts economic, social, and environmental impact assessments of all major multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations. These are known as sustainability impact assessments. And over the last decade the United Nations Environment Programme has developed an impact assessment methodology that incorporates integrated environmental, economic, and social assessment.

Finally, I do want to highlight that Canadians are concerned about this. For instance, I have here a copy of a photo petition put together by a member of Amnesty International in Edmonton. She gathered the pictures of hundreds of Canadians from communities across the country, of diverse backgrounds, all of whom believe an independent human rights impact assessment is essential. This petition has already been sent both to the Prime Minister and to all three party leaders in the opposition.

In ending, I do feel I must signal some disquiet and concern about the way in which debate about the Canada-Colombia deal is progressing. It is certainly our hope and expectation that sessions held as part of this committee's general study of Canada's trade relations with South America will not in any way substitute for thorough and rigorous consideration of Bill C-23 itself when it is referred to committee. At that time, we urge that the committee hear from a full slate of balanced witnesses representing all relevant stakeholders, certainly including the most vulnerable sectors of Colombian society likely to feel the impact of this deal. Among others, Amnesty International would welcome an opportunity to appear at that time and offer specific recommendations with respect to Bill C-23 itself.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my comments.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's deal with Colombia is good for Canadian business but economic opportunities and human rights are not mutually exclusive. We are talking about an agreement that will bind Colombia to tougher labour and environmental standards and improved human rights. More important, we are creating legitimate jobs and opportunities for Colombians looking for alternatives to narco trafficking.

I want to join the Council of Chief Executives and Canadian manufacturers and exporters in urging the opposition parties, all of the opposition parties, to pass Bill C-23 without any further delay.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement provides a unique opportunity for Canadian exporters to secure duty-free access to a market where their main competitors have none. This kind of advantage is critical for exporters relying on tight margins to survive and grow, but the NDP and the Bloc, with support from the Liberals, have been holding up this important economic bill for more than 33 hours.

Could the minister of state tell the House why we need to stop the delays to get Bill C-23 moving?

Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is a committee member as well. We look forward to continuing to move this agreement through our committee, hopefully much faster than the Colombia agreement, Bill C-23.

From a business perspective, Jordan is a growing market, at about 5.6%. It is fast growing. It is very stable. There are enhanced opportunities for Canadian business. We can look right across the country, from province to province. In Ontario there was almost 29 million dollars' worth of two-way trade in 2008. In British Columbia it was $11.8 million. In Saskatchewan it was $8.1 million. In Jordan it was $1.7 million. It is about $92 million of two-way trade.

We can look at the example of the U.S. The Americans had a trade agreement in place for many years. We are trying to level the playing field. That is a business case in itself. It would give our Canadian businesses an opportunity to be competing on a fair basis. They have had an exponential growth almost tenfold.

We are looking at the fact that we have opportunities for Canadian businesses. We would level the playing field. At the end of the day consumers would be paying lower prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the floor again so that I may continue to talk about the Bloc Québécois' observations of Bill C-57.

We agree with Bill C-57, Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, but we have a few small comments to make that we hope will be considered by the government.

Considering that Canada has already entered into a trade agreement with Israel, signing a similar agreement with a neighbouring country, whose relations with Israel can be difficult, would help show a certain balance in our interests in the Middle East region. Such an agreement with Jordan would also send a positive message that Canada is open to cooperation.

Concluding this agreement would send a signal to other Middle Eastern countries wanting to develop better economic relations with the West.

The Bloc Québécois wants fair globalization. It is something to strive for and I hope the Conservatives will agree with us on this.

For the Bloc Québécois, it is out of the question to accept a free trade agreement that would be a race to the bottom and ignores human rights, workers' rights and the environment, not unlike Bill C-23, which we have been debating for a long time: the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. That agreement is a very bad example of fair globalization.

The absence of environmental or labour standards in trade agreements puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, mainly our traditional industries. It is difficult for them to compete when products are made with no regard for basic social rights. It is difficult to compete with that type of business.

It is therefore increasingly important, at a time when we are still trying to define globalization, to have fair and balanced trade agreements. Let us choose a multilateral approach and limit bilateral agreements that do not allow for standards to be set to civilize trade.

That is what the Bloc Québécois really does not like about the Conservative government's strategy and its approach to negotiating trade agreements. Bill C-57 is no exception.

Quebec is not in a position to implement protectionist measures and rely solely on our domestic market. We have to pursue fair trade opportunities in the context of multilateral agreements.

Someday, Quebec will be a fully independent country, and we will represent ourselves internationally. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois would like to propose some changes to Canada's trade priorities. Canada has moved toward trade liberalization and must now concentrate on developing regulations that will promote fairer trade. The Bloc Québécois believes that our trade policy must focus on fair globalization, not the shameless pursuit of profit at the expense of people and the environment in certain countries that clearly need help.

If Canada wants to maintain its credibility on this front, it should immediately sign on to the International Labour Organization's principal conventions against various forms of discrimination, forced labour and child labour, as well as those in support of the right to organize and collective bargaining.

The Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to change its position on trade agreement negotiations to include provisions ensuring respect for international standards with respect to labour law, human rights and the environment.

In their current form, side agreements on minimum labour standards and environmental protection lack a binding mechanism that would make them truly effective.

The Bloc Québécois also wishes to reiterate its full confidence in the multilateral process. We believe that this in the only forum in which countries can work toward adopting regulations that will foster fairer globalization.

In closing, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will only support future bilateral free trade agreements if it believes that they will benefit Quebec's economy. We want to see future free trade agreements contain provisions ensuring respect for minimum standards with respect to human rights, labour law and the environment.

That is what the Bloc Québécois calls fair globalization.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-57, Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act.

If we were to complete that, I would intend to call Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I would point out to my colleagues that this bill has already received more than 30 hours of debate in the House and yet the NDP and the Bloc continue to delay the proceedings and hold up this agreement that would create new business opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast.

As I indicated this morning, tomorrow will be an allotted day.

Next week we will once again focus on our justice agenda beginning with the report and third reading stage of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code followed by Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. Then we will have Bill C-54, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act; Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker act; Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions); Bill C-53, Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act and finally, Bill C-35, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. All of these bills are at second reading.

On the issue of a NAFO debate, I would remind the hon. House leader for the Liberal Party that is what opposition days are for.

Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is the only party on Parliament Hill that truly defends the interests of Quebeckers, and it is the only party that has remained faithful to its values and principles. We are the only party with integrity.

The provisions of Bill C-57, to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, are such that the members of the Bloc Québécois can vote in favour of the agreement.

However, we want to express some criticisms that we hope will be taken into account and will help the Conservative Party and maybe even the Liberal Party change their approach. Despite the fact that we support Bill C-57, we feel that the Conservatives are wrong to negotiate bilateral agreements at the expense of multilateral agreements.

Why do we support this bill? Despite the fact that Jordan is, quite frankly, a small trading partner, an agreement with the country is in Quebec's best interests. In this time of economic turmoil, with a forestry industry in crisis, this agreement can give private woodlot owners and the forestry industry in Quebec a leg up.

The Conservative government's refusal to help the forestry sector as much as it helped Ontario's automotive sector is doing nothing of course to improve the situation facing thousands of workers who have been hit hard by the current forestry crisis.

Considering the fact that out of the $35 million worth that Quebec exports to Jordan, $25 million comes from the pulp and paper sector, the agreement in question would allow us to maintain this situation, for one, as well as offer new opportunities to our pulp and paper producers and to our private woodlot owners, of whom there are 130,000 in Quebec. It is also important to consider the fact that our trade balance with Jordan is in Quebec's favour.

Unlike Bill C-23, which we have been discussing for quite some time now in the House, that is, the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the agriculture that goes on in Jordan does not present a threat to Quebec farmers. The proof is that the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, of which I was once president for my region, supports this bill. However, despite the fact that natural ground and surface waters, in their liquid, gas or solid form, are excluded from the agreement by the enabling statute, the Bloc Québécois noted that this exclusion is not written into the text of the agreement itself.

That is why the Bloc Québécois would like to ensure that Quebec's major water resources are clearly excluded from the agreement, so that control over their development remains in the hands of Quebeckers and the Quebec nation.

Considering that Canada has already entered into a trade agreement with Israel, signing a similar agreement with a neighbouring country, whose relations with Israel can be difficult, would help show a certain balance in interests in the Middle East region.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I would ask my good friend Mr. Holder to identify next time who he is referring to, not just members opposite.

The members opposite include us, as the Liberal team. As he knows very well, we are very much in support of moving Bill C-23 as soon as possible.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the members for the opportunity to appear this morning to talk about trade with South America, and obviously with particular reference to Canada-Colombia. My colleague Sam Boutziouvis is with me and will help me with any questions that come up.

Obviously, it's no secret that the Canadian Council of Chief Executives has been and remains a strong and consistent supporter of international trade and investment liberalization generally. Obviously, we were heavily involved in the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement onwards into the North American Free Trade Agreement. And I think more recently, we supported trade and investment liberalization multilaterally, regionally, and through bilateral agreements as well.

The reason we consistently support free trade and investment liberalization is simple: open markets are good for Canadians. Open markets create more high-quality jobs for our people. They open doors for Canadian exporters. And of course, by supporting business growth, they help to generate the tax revenues governments depend on to fund public institutions and social programs. So in a very real sense, Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to do business in both developed and developing markets around the world.

I think our country's most immediate opportunity in South America is quick implementation of the free trade agreement that Canada has negotiated with Colombia. I am going to speak directly this morning to Bill C-23, and urge members from all parties to support prompt passage of this legislation. I'd argue that this bill deserves your support for four major reasons.

First, enhanced international trade is vital to help our country recover from the global economic downturn. At the moment, Canada is experiencing a bit of a lopsided economic recovery. Domestically, there are signs that we're beginning to make progress. But our international trade performance continues to disappoint. The strong Canadian dollar and weak demand in our largest market, the United States, have combined to make life difficult for many of our exporters. We're also seeing a rising tide of protectionist measures, such as the buy American provisions in that country's stimulus legislation. Looking ahead, Canadians know from our own experience in the 1990s that the huge government deficits being run up in the United States create a real danger of prolonged weakness both in future American demand for our goods and services and in the value of the American dollar.

In this environment, I think it's vital for Canadian companies to continue to do everything possible to diversify their export markets. Passing Bill C-23 would reinforce these efforts. Conversely, further delays in passage of this bill would undermine the goal of improving Canada's global trade performance and slow our return to strong economic growth.

The second major reason for supporting this bill, Mr. Chairman, is that it will produce real benefits for Canadian workers, farmers, and companies. The agreement is going to benefit companies and workers across a wide range of industries, including the automotive sector, steel, chemicals, public infrastructure development, oil drilling, environment and engineering services, information technology products and services, agriculture, fertilizer, paper and other forestry products, copper products, textiles, apparel and footwear, mining, and advanced manufacturing.

Equally important, Bill C-23 is going to help level the playing field for Canadian workers and farmers, stimulating growth in commercial relations, raising awareness, and further opening this dynamic and growing economy to Canadian know-how and Canadian ingenuity. Upon implementation, the agreement will eliminate tariffs on nearly the entire range of Canadian exports to that country.

Colombia's tariffs on Canadian goods currently range from 15% to 108%, which obviously represents a huge disadvantage right now for Canadian exporters. Passage of Bill C-23 would erase that disadvantage and help Canadian workers, farmers, and businesses stay ahead of our global competitors.

I have to add that Colombia is not standing still here and waiting for Canada to get its act together. Just this past week, President Uribe signalled his interest in pursuing a free trade agreement with South Korea, and spoke of working towards an enhanced relationship with Japan. Investment talks have already started between Colombia and China. Meanwhile, Colombia and the European Union are aiming to wrap up negotiations on an economic partnership agreement by next March. Colombia has already completed negotiations with member states of the European Free Trade Association.

By the end of 2010, the Government of Colombia expects to have completed nine trade agreements, representing 45 countries. In our view, it is only a matter of time before Canada's number one trading partner, the United States, secures its own free trade agreement with Colombia. At a meeting on June 29, President Uribe and President Obama instructed their teams to renew efforts towards such an agreement. President Obama expressed confidence that a deal can be struck that “is good for the people of Colombia and good for the people of the United States”.

Some commentators have referred to Canada's trade agreement with Colombia as a defensive form of FTA. We do not agree. Rather, we believe that implementing the Canada-Colombia agreement quickly represents an opportunity for Canada to get out in front of our international competitors.

The third major reason this bill deserves your support is domestic policy. It's going to benefit the people of Colombia. Domestic policy reforms introduced over the past decade have served Colombians well. Colombia experienced accelerating economic growth between 2002 and 2007, thanks in part to improvements in domestic security, rising commodity prices, and market-based macroeconomic policy reforms.

Over that period, poverty levels declined by 20%, and unemployment fell by 25%. Naturally Colombia's economy, like all of ours, is being hit by the global downturn. But the good news is that, like Canada, Colombia has come through 2009 relatively well. As the recession took hold, President Uribe's government took many of the right steps. It cut capital controls, arranged for emergency credit facilities, promoted investment incentives, and encouraged exporters to find new markets.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will signal Canada's strong support for the pro-growth initiatives of President Uribe, and it will further increase confidence in doing business in Colombia. In doing so, the Canada-Colombia FTA will reinforce efforts to promote greater safety, peace, and confidence in Colombia.

On the subject of security of Colombia, the facts are inescapable. After decades of turmoil, violence has dropped to levels not seen in a generation. Tens of thousands of paramilitary fighters have demobilized, and education enrolment has increased dramatically. I think people around the world are recognizing this growing sense of security and safety. One notable result, for instance, is that more than 200,000 cruise passengers docked in Cartagena in 2008, almost double the number in 2007. Significantly, Colombia now attracts more than $1.2 million visitors every year, double the number in 2002.

Earlier this year, the board of governors of the Inter-American Development Bank chose to meet in Colombia on the occasion of the bank's 50th anniversary. Scheduled to take place in Colombia is the 2010 World Economic Forum meeting on Latin America. Recent improvements in security in Colombia have had tremendous impact in attracting foreign investment. Between 2005 and 2009, foreign direct investment into Colombia has averaged over $9 billion U.S. a year.

The fourth and final argument I would suggest in favour of passage of this agreement quickly is that it meets the highest global standards. Officials of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development have concluded that “the agreement signed with Colombia represents the most comprehensive labour agreement in the world today”.

Canada in fact has achieved labour protection provisions that go beyond those even being sought by the United States and the European Union. A speedy resolution mechanism embodied in the Canada-Colombia labour side agreement will in a very real sense help to improve conditions for Colombian workers.

Officials of the Department of Finance, for their part, have concluded that “this free trade agreement tries to support corporate social responsibility, environmental laws and labour laws”. In addition to its strong provisions on labour standards, “the corporate social responsibility aspects of this agreement are the first time Canada has included such commitments” in a trade deal.

These provisions are included in both the investment and the environment chapters of the Canada-Colombia FTA.

The Canada-Colombia agreement will also enhance the impact of Canada's development aid programs in Colombia. Certainly there's a case for more aid to support marginalized communities—women and indigenous groups—legal assistance, and judicial reform. Failure to implement our free trade agreement would instead undermine our ongoing development efforts to strengthen Colombia's social and economic fabric.

To summarize, Canada should be doing everything possible to deepen commercial relations with developing markets such as Colombia. The prompt passage of Bill C-23 would help Canadian workers and businesses, of all sizes, both in stimulating economic recovery in the short term and in building sustainable competitive advantage. Implementing the free trade agreement would also benefit Colombia's economy and society, and it would signal Canada's strong support for countries and governments committed to democracy, the rule of law, peace, and security.

This is a deal that is good for Canadians. It is a deal that is good for Colombians. It sets an example for the world. We should just get on with it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

International Trade

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade act, has been filibustered in the House for over 30 hours. The NDP and the Bloc, with the support of the Liberals, are wasting Parliament's valuable time, holding up an agreement that would create new business opportunities for Canadians, create jobs and encourage economic growth across Canada and in Colombia.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade tell the House why the Liberal Party should finally stand up and support this free trade act?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.