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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that normally in response to the Thursday question, I talk about what government business we will be continuing to debate in this place.

However, because of the NDP House leader, we have not even gotten to government orders yet today. Instead of debating government business this morning, we debated an NDP procedural motion.

Bill C-23, the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia, began second reading debate on May 25, five months ago. Thanks again to the NDP, we are still debating it at second reading.

We keep seeing the NDP leader on television, telling Canadians that he wants to make Parliament work. However, in this House, his main operative, his House leader, is doing everything she can to make Parliament dysfunctional.

I would suggest that he should either stop running his television ads or actually do what he is telling Canadians and make Parliament work.

However, in response to my hon. colleague's questions about the business for the remainder of this week and immediately following the break week, when we eventually, hopefully, get to orders of the day, we will be calling Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act, followed by Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act, and then on to Bill C-23, which I mentioned earlier.

We will continue this business tomorrow.

As my hon. colleague said, next week is a constituency week.

Finally, I would like to designate October 19, the first day back, as an allotted day.

To his question about the report, it will be coming in due course.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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 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 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.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Burlington, I enjoyed the speech from the member for Mississauga South.

I have noticed that he does not necessarily follow the Liberal line and the Liberal caucus on a number of bills. I know on Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia trade act, he has some independent thought on it as he has on some other bills. I admire him for stepping out of the box a little and not blindly following his caucus. As well, he was the only Liberal member not to say how he would vote on the bill. He spent some time talking about the issue of relevance.

I appreciate the fact that there is some latitude given here, but the members have to deal with Bill C-51 at some point during their speeches. That is what we are dealing with at this point.

I suspect he is like the person looking through the department store window. He really wants to be on this side on this issue, but he has to stand up to his caucus and say 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 to the amendment.

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.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first, in response to the last point raised by my hon. colleague, we discussed this between us earlier. I indicated to him then that we believed opposition days were the appropriate time to hold such debates. Indeed, today would have been a great opportunity to have the debate about the fisheries industry. I would think that it should have been done today rather than try to bring forward an opposition motion to force an unnecessary election onto Canadians. That is what we have been spending all day debating.

In reply to the fact that if our government does survive this reckless and unnecessary motion that the official opposition has brought forward today and the House were to continue, then obviously today we will continue to debate the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, provided the opposition motion of today is defeated, we will begin debate on Bill C-51, the second budget implementation bill, which has all sorts of great things in it to help Canadians even further.

Following that, we will schedule for debate Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, Bill C-37, the national capital act and Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act. All these bills are at second reading and have a long way to go.

We will continue with this lineup of economic legislation next week and add to the list any bills that are reported back from committee.

If I could, I would like to end this week's reply to the Thursday question by paying tribute to someone who I considered a very close personal friend.

It was little more than a year ago, July 2008, while in my riding, that I received an email from Rick Wackid explaining he had been diagnosed with ALS. The news hit like a blow below the belt. That a young man, so healthy, so active and so full of life could leave us so quickly serves as a wake-up call to all of us of how fragile our existence can be.

Although Rick Wackid, like Jerry Yanover, was always a very worthy political adversary, he was also a passionate believer in this, our House of democracy. When one party loses someone of his quality and integrity, we are all the poorer for it. He is and will continue to be greatly missed.

On behalf of the Prime Minister and our entire Conservative government, I offer my sincere condolences to Rick's wife Danielle, his daughter Stephanie and all of his friends and family.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to bring forward my contributions to the debate on the Colombia free trade proposal in Bill C-23.

I want to take us to a point where we can talk about Canada's place in the world. As the foreign affairs critic and looking at where our country is in this multipolar world, I would like to take some time to situate Canada's role as not only a major economic player, but one that should take its role responsibly and view the effects on other jurisdictions when we enter into agreements such as the proposal in front of us.

I point to recent news from other places in Latin America. People living in some of the areas with extractive industries have paid a very heavy price because of Canadian companies operating without proper rules of engagement or proper oversight. Canadians want us to be a little more responsible as legislators in our oversight of the economic activities of our businesses abroad.

I also point to the most recent news out of Honduras. Sadly, we have seen the coup d'état there. The military is reasserting itself, replacing what many would see as a democracy that had been tenuous for sure, but had existed, with an elected office of the president. Right now Canadian companies are operating and making money there. At the same time, a horrific political situation is suppressing human rights. People are being abused and are disappearing.

I had some experience in Latin America and Central America in 1986. It was a time when death squads were running rampant. On one hand, companies were engaged in operations that were turning their backs on what was happening with the political situation. A convenient contract was going on between those who were responsible for political repression and those who were responsible for profit-taking.

I do not think Canadians want to see us go into these kinds of arrangements without doing due diligence. We see what is happening in Honduras today. Canadian companies are active there. We see the effects on the population of some of the economic activity. In a sense that gives what now is a coup d'état by the military a legitimacy. Canadians want to ensure that Canada's name is not being lent to that kind of anti-democratic action.

When we look at Colombia, the same applies. We do not want to see our Parliament give its approval to a trade agreement with a government that has if not directly implicated, been complicit with some very egregious human rights abuses.

Before I was elected to the House, I was a teacher. I read of the horrific situation and the human rights abuses of teachers in Colombia. I could not believe the testimonies when I first read about this issue. It was surreal. There were stories of teachers who were taken out by death squads, much like what happened in Central America in the eighties, which I witnessed when I was there. They would disappear, sometimes found miles down the road, sometimes not at all. It was not until I met a delegation of teachers from Colombia in Ottawa that it really came to light that this was happening to real people, real teachers.

It was chilling. These teachers were not always targeted because they were members of the teachers union. Sometimes it was simply because they had spoken out against the government. At other times, it was simply their association with the teachers union. We have a responsibility as a country to ensure that, when we sign on to deals, we are not just somewhat certain but absolutely certain that the government we trade with is not complicit or ignoring human rights. That has to be a guarantee.

This has been mentioned many times, but I have to repeat it for people who are in the business of teaching children and education. To think that people are a target just because they speak out or are affiliated with a trade union or a teachers union does not rest well or easy with anyone. In this agreement, there are “side agreements”. When we have side agreements, that means they are not embedded. That means they are afterthoughts. We will have our truck and trade of goods and we will take a look at human, labour and environmental rights on the side.

If we look at other trade arrangements and co-operative economies like those in Europe, they are embedded in the trade agreement. They are embedded in the economic agreements that countries have between them. It is chilling in the sense that, for those of us who believe there has to be absolute certainty that human rights abuses will not be permitted and that there will not be a culture of impunity with the government with which we trade, we need to have these things embedded.

We do not have voluntary human rights in this country. It is not called the “voluntary charter of rights”. It is in our Constitution. It is something that is a guarantee. It is inconsistent and inconceivable that we would enter into a trade agreement with a country like Colombia with side agreements. That is really important.

For my friends in the Liberal Party, when we repatriated the Constitution, could anyone imagine that we would have said that we would have a side agreement on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? People would have been out on the streets. In fact, people were out on the streets because aboriginal peoples and women were not originally included in our Constitution. People fought hard and it was repatriated with them in it. The same standard has to apply when we are trading with other countries and that includes Colombia.

I could give a very long list of the people who have lost their lives, not because they are part of a militia or a part of the insurgency, but because they were people who stood up to the government. They were human rights advocates, members of unions and people who said that they believed the government was not doing the right thing in environmental and labour standards. These are people who lost their lives.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, my colleagues in the opposition parties and specifically the Liberal Party, we cannot have substandard agreements. We cannot have a good conscience and say that we have done our best. In fact, it means that we are taking second best. When it comes to this place and our responsibility, second best does not rank. We must do better. That is why we oppose this agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia .

First of all, I must say that our party, the Bloc Québécois, is not in favour of this bill. The main reason that the Canadian government wants to sign this free trade agreement has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with investments. This agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, making it easier for Canadians to invest in Colombia, particularly in mining. This is important to note, because we are in the middle of an economic crisis brought on by the investments made by our bankers. That is the reality.

The Conservative government let the major Canadian banks invest in certain areas, and Quebeckers and Canadians lost huge amounts of money as a result. In fact, every three months, dividends were being paid to shareholders without regard for the quality of the investments made.

It is the same thing with this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. In order to ensure a return on the investments of Canadian mining companies, who want to pay dividends to their shareholders every three months at all costs, these companies are being given free reign to invest in Colombia with no regard for such things as human rights and environmental protection legislation.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill. I must say that the Bloc Québécois, and our sister party, the Parti Québécois, have always been big proponents of both economic and commercial free trade. We were in favour of free trade, but agreements had to respect the laws and the quality of life of the people of all communities that are a party to the free trade agreement.

That was the case with the United States, and that was the case with Mexico and the United States under NAFTA. However, in this free trade agreement, the Conservative Party listened to the mining lobby without ever listening to Quebeckers. When it comes to doing business with foreign countries, Quebeckers want above all for human rights and quality of life to be respected and protected under international environmental laws. This free trade agreement does not guarantee in any way the respect of human rights and rights related to respecting the environment.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia would be ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Such clauses are especially dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best.

By protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement could delay social and environmental progress in this country, where the need for progress is great. If these Canadian companies push the limit because they want to make profits above all else, and if they do not respect human rights and international environmental laws, they could commit irreparable acts causing international relations problems with respect to offences under international law, in turn resulting in bad publicity. The reputation of all Quebeckers and Canadians would be tarnished.

We have to prevent that from happening. That is our purpose in this House. That is why we were elected: to protect our laws, our territories, our quality of life and the quality of life of those we do business with. If we want to leave our children and our grandchildren with a good quality of life, we have to start by setting an example in our business relations with those with whom we sign free trade agreements.

This agreement is all about investments. It is designed to enable companies to make money at the expense of environmental laws and laws that protect human rights and the quality of human life.

Colombia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world and certainly in Latin America. In order to promote human rights in the world, governments generally use the carrot and the stick. They support efforts to improve respect for human rights and reserve the right to withdraw benefits should the situation worsen. With this free trade agreement, Canada would forego any ability to bring pressure to bear. In fact, not only would it give up the possibility of using the carrot and stick approach, but it would be surrendering all power to the Colombian government.

The government keeps saying that this agreement would come with a side agreement on labour and another one on the environment. The fact of the matter is that such agreements are notoriously ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement, which means that investors could destroy with impunity Colombia's rich natural environment, displace populations to facilitate mine development or continue murdering unionists.

That goes against Quebeckers' values. We not only defend the interests of Quebeckers in this House, but we represent their values, one of which is respect for human rights. That applies to everyone we do business with.

The Conservative government, supported by the Liberals—because we can see they want to give their support—wants to give companies the capacity to invest. I will come back to my initial analogy. The government did the same thing with the banks, giving them the flexibility to make huge profits and pay quarterly dividends. But none of the big banks predicted the latest crisis. These people were being paid big bucks to speak to chambers of commerce and travel all over the place. They were invited everywhere. They told us that everything was just fine, but like sheep, they were caught making bad investments, and most Quebeckers and Canadians lost pension money as a result. That is what happens when the government gives companies leeway, as it is doing in this case with the mining sector or as it did with the banks, without restricting what they can do.

The Conservatives are hesitating yet again. There is an international movement to prevent bankers from collecting astronomical bonuses, but Canada is not following suit. Once again the government is prepared to trust the very people who are laughing at us behind our backs. That is what happened. They had a good laugh at our expense. That is the truth. I do not want us to sign a free trade agreement that will give mining company presidents an opportunity to line their pockets at our expense or at the planet's just because they can unapologetically take advantage of the Government of Canada's support. They can invest in Colombia without complying with international environmental laws and human rights.

That is the truth. We must be their conscience because making money at any price is the order of the day for big-time investors, just like it is for top banking executives. Their only goal is to ensure a payout for their shareholders every three months. That is how banking executives get their year-end bonuses, regardless of what might happen to people or, in the case of this free trade agreement, to Colombians.

It should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will not support an agreement that strips the government of its ability to pressure the Colombian government, which is not exactly an exemplary government. I will not repeat the examples given by other members of the House, examples to do with the assassination of union organizers and anyone else who might oppose the regime. We know that the Colombian government is corrupt to the core. Is there any reason to sign an agreement with these people other than to enable Canadian investors to collect a profit every three months?

We have to act as their conscience. We have to act as the conscience for mining company presidents. We have to tell them that this time, they will not be allowed to go too far. That is what we plan to do.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement implementation act. I have followed this debate with great interest and have listened to the arguments being made for and against.

Given my own personal experience with Colombians and having spent time in Colombia, I can appreciate on some level what is being said by those with one point of view and on the other level, I am inclined to want to fill them in on my understanding of what has gone on in Colombia over the years.

There is no doubt that this debate is about people. It is about ensuring that people have a right to live the kind of life that we live comfortably, and that they have the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy. That has been a problem in years past. That was a problem when I spent time in Colombia working with street children. There were times when young boys would be taken and destroyed. Young street boys were destroyed by the paramilitary and police because they were considered a nuisance.

However, we were there. I was working with a not for profit group and we were there to show that it did not have to be this way. It did not have to be that way then and it does not have to be that way now. I know from what I have read and people I have spoken with that progress has been made in Colombia. We will continue to make progress if we lead by example.

That is what my remarks are going to be about today. Countries like Canada have an obligation to make the point that we can lead by example. Look at what we are doing. Let us enter into business arrangements and whatever arrangements we have to enter into, so that people will understand that this is not the right way to do it. We do not take people for granted. We do not treat people with disrespect. We do not hold people up and tell them that they are no good because they cannot do this or that or make a contribution.

We as Canadians must show them that that is not the way to go. When I listen to colleagues talk about trade unionists being murdered, that is serious. The colleague who just spoke referenced information that she read suggesting that a great number more trade unionists are being murdered. That is not the same information that we have. We would not stand here supporting anything that would be detrimental to the people of Colombia.

I stand here today because I believe that we can make a difference. We can show people that the way to live is to work together and share our values with people who want to make a change in the world, and understand that we can work together to make that difference.

The people of Colombia need to feel confident. They need to know that there are people out there who care and want to help them make a difference. How do we do that? Again, we lead by example. If that means entering into business with Colombia business people, then we do that. Through building relationships and working together, we can lead by example. By building these relationships, one builds trust. When one builds trust, people come to understand that they can in fact depend on them.

I think it is really important to go down this path. I think it is important for a group of people that I spent a considerable amount of time with. I referenced street children earlier. Street children are children who were members of a family, particularly in rural parts of Colombia. Their fathers had to leave home through no choice of their own. They left a family behind. In some cases, they left 10 children behind for a mother to raise. The fathers did not leave because they wanted to leave. They left because there were no legitimate employment opportunities for them.

This is where the drug lords enter the picture. Drug lords are providing employment. The fathers never returned to the home because they knew that in doing so they would probably be putting their families at risk. They continued to work in an environment that was less than safe for them and one that they felt was probably even worse for their families should they return home because their families could be held to ransom.

We have families living without a father. We have mothers trying to raise as many as 10 children. What happened? The mother could not do it. It was just impossible to do. The young boys in the family, many of whom were not even teenagers, left home to form street gangs, and they became a member of a family. That family was the street gang. As members of that street gang, they did whatever they had to do to survive. In doing so, that was when the paramilitaries and the police and whoever else was in authority considered them to be a nuisance and more often than not got rid of them.

We need to be there. We need to do whatever we can to help those children. When I talk about not for profit organizations, they are doing tremendous work in these countries, but we cannot leave it up to the not for profit organizations. It is not fair to do that. They only have limited resources, and there is no way that they can possibly do everything that needs to be done.

All of this is to make the point that entering into economic arrangements is not only good for Canadians but it is good for Colombians. I know that, as a Canadian, I want to do whatever is good in an economic free trade agreement that is going to be good for the people I represent and for the people in our country. We do that by seeking out opportunities around the world. This is one such opportunity.

I know it works. As a previous minister of industry, I led trade missions to different countries. In fact, I could list many companies that have entered into successful business arrangements with companies around the world.

One example is Rutter Technologies in St. John's, Newfoundland, which is doing business in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, South America and North America. By doing that it is providing employment opportunities not only for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but for people in other countries.

The same will happen in Colombia. There will be those opportunities that will come that will be legitimate opportunities for the men and women of Colombia. We have a part to play. We can help to make a difference in this country and I think we need to do that. I think we have an obligation to do that.

What we have seen happening in Colombia in the last while is a good news story. Last year we saw two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia that amounted to approximately $1.3 billion. Canada exports $703 million worth of goods to Colombia in motor vehicles, manufactured goods, wheat and paper, and imports $644 million worth of goods from Colombia in coffee, bananas, coal, oil, sugar and flowers.

It is a two-way opportunity and there are benefits for both countries. That is what we need to recognize. By doing that, by entering into these kinds of arrangements, we do provide those legitimate working opportunities for Colombians.

What is just as important to me as the free trade agreement itself is the side agreement on labour co-operation. There is also one on the environment. This side agreement with an economic arrangement cannot be overlooked. As with Canada's free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and NAFTA, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement includes side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

The Canada-Colombia labour co-operation agreement recognizes that both countries have obligations under the 1998 international labour organization declaration and fundamental principles and rights at work, which requires each country to ensure that its domestic laws, regulations and practices protect the following rights: the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination.

This is an incredible, important part of this particular free trade agreement.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to focus on the current social, human and political situation in Colombia, so as to explain why the Bloc Québécois opposes Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

It is important to consider the impact and repercussions that the terms of this agreement will have on the people of Colombia. We must ensure that the rights of Colombians are respected and that their opinions will be taken into account before we ratify such an agreement.

Civil society and the people of Colombia are opposed to a free trade agreement that enhances the rights of foreign investors and exporters, but does nothing to take into account local issues in terms of development and human rights.

Yes, trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows those states that are willing to do so to promote development and protect the environment.

The uproar against this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is only growing in strength, in Canada and in Colombia. According to the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the two side agreements—one on labour rights and the other on the environment—will only exacerbate the problem of human rights violations, and the legislative provisions meant to guarantee those rights and protect the environment will not work.

We cannot enter into a free trade agreement with Colombia without looking at the human rights situation in that country. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to life, security of the person, freedom of expression and freedom of association. It is therefore incomprehensible that the Canadian government should ratify a free trade agreement given the Colombian government's deplorable record of violating human and workers' rights.

Can the Canadian people, who consider themselves a democratic society and stand up for workers' rights, sanction a free trade agreement with a country where people put their lives at risk just by demonstrating or wanting to join a union? It is regrettable that the Canadian government is supporting a regime that is heavily involved in human rights violations and mired in a huge political scandal because of its ties to paramilitary groups.

Those responsible for the crimes against union members and civilians are very seldom found guilty in court. Only 3% of the crimes committed have led to a conviction and in the meantime, the paramilitaries are reasserting control over the territory, and the government is doing nothing to stop them.

In Colombia, it is easier to organize an armed paramilitary group than a union. The anti-union culture prevailing in Colombia makes it one of the most dangerous countries in the world for union members. A number of groups are targeted. The Liberal member who said that everything is great in Colombia must be hallucinating because when we examine what is happening we see that major groups such as teachers, those involved in labour disputes, those against privatization, women, children, prison guards and farmers are being targeted. Furthermore, thousands of people are being displaced.

I would like to cite just a few statistics: 2,685 union members have been killed in recent years, 474 of them since President Uribe came to power. Thousands of men, women and children have been threatened and even kidnapped. In 2008, 41 union members were killed and in 2009, 29 were murdered, as mentioned by the NDP member. More than 300,000 people were displaced in 2007 and more than 380,000 in 2008. That is unacceptable. Such displacement occurs more frequently in rural areas.

These people are being displaced with the support of mining companies and large agricultural companies, making this a major humanitarian issue, bigger than what is going on in Sudan. That says something.

Why is Canada, and especially a government like this one, acting like this? The Prime Minister has said:

I will sign trade agreements with parties who respect the rights we respect in Canada; fundamental values like democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance.

How can the Prime Minister and the current government sign, or try to sign, an agreement with Colombia?

Earlier, we spoke about paramilitary groups, and I said that it was easier to form this kind of group than to form a union. It is true that they are now called something else. We call them militias, the Black Eagles. They go by many names, but they continue to systematically kill unionists and/or civilians who speak out against the Uribe government, which is also trying to finally sign this free trade agreement that only gives rights to investors and has nothing to do with trade.

Bill C-23 contains a chapter on investments. As the agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia is ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Such clauses are especially dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best. By protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement could delay social and environmental progress in that country, where the need for progress is great.

Canadian mining companies have to be careful not to become complicit in human rights violations or cause forced displacement of any populations, since regions that are rich in minerals tend to become theatres of violence, paramilitary control and displacements.

This chapter pays mere lip service to corporate social responsibility. Its “best efforts” provisions are purely voluntary and completely unenforceable.

As mentioned earlier, a parliamentary group studied the issue and submitted a report that was completely ignored by the current government. We made some important recommendations in that report.

As members of the Bloc Québécois, we cannot condone such stubbornness and such disdain for parliamentarians. Such behaviour stems from an authoritarian trend that is completely unacceptable and cannot become a precedent. This is not how we would like democratic institutions to operate in the future.