Bill C-23 (Historical)

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and signed at Lima, Peru on November 21, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly was a little confused for a minute. I thought perhaps the member had the wrong notes in front of him because he talked more about stimulus than with regard to Bill C-23. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is of great concern to not only the NDP but as well to many people within Canada and abroad.

The Canada-Colombia agreement is strongly opposed by parliamentarians in Canada and Colombia, by civil society groups, indigenous people, trade unions, environmental groups and citizens from both nations.

There was a letter that was sent by over 50 prominent Canadians including activists, professors, labour groups, civil society, Stephen Lewis, Ed Broadbent and Naomi Klein to the Leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, during the party's leadership convention--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would ask the hon. member for Barrie to return to the subject of the matter at hand, which is Bill C-23.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were debating Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. All I have been hearing are stories about infrastructure. I am just wondering when the member is going to be dealing with the issue at hand.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill, as I believe it is one of many elements that have advocated prosperity in our country.

Canada is taking action during these difficult economic times by reaching out to other trading partners and reducing barriers to trade. This is certainly a mechanism to create jobs. This agreement provides Canadian companies with a competitive edge in many sectors, including wheat, paper products, mining, oil and gas, engineering and information technology. This is another example of the government's efforts to deepen Canada's presence in Latin America.

Labour and environmental standards are addressed within the free trade agreement. The side agreement with Colombia on labour and the environment will help ensure that this FTA advances the cause of human rights and environmental protection in both countries.

The labour provisions commit all parties to respect and enforce standards such as the freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively and the elimination of child labour. Environmental provisions will help protect and conserve the environment in those sectors where our companies are active. I believe this will encourage prosperity in both countries. That certainly has been the essence of our government's work in Canada since our election in January 2006.

Since we are talking about means to enhance prosperity, let me touch upon Canada's economic action plan and Canada's economic stimulus measures.

We all know a great deal about Canada's economic action plan, the $61 billion shot in the arm for the Canadian economy. More recently, we have heard about the incredible progress of Canada's economic stimulus. Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister in Atlantic Canada talk about the success of the $7.6 billion economic stimulus program.

We learned that there are 7,500 infrastructure and housing projects. More than 4,000 have begun. Of the 7,500, there are over 4,700 provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure projects. There are 1,150 projects to repair and renovate federal buildings across the country; 447 projects to improve infrastructure at colleges and universities; about 300 social housing projects; 600 projects to help communities hardest hit through the community adjustment fund; and almost 100 projects to promote culture and tourism. These are all things that are going to be major benefits to Canada and are going to stimulate communities across our country.

Sometimes when we hear those giant numbers we wonder what it means in our communities. I thought today I would mention some of the successes of the economic stimulus program in Barrie, the riding that I have the tremendous honour of representing. There has been $54 million in economic stimulus over the last year in our region of Simcoe County and I am going to talk about a few of the projects today.

There is the downtown community theatre, an investment of $2.5 million with the federal government to build and construct a theatre in our downtown, something that had been advocated for a long time by Joe Anderson and William Moore, who came to Ottawa and made a presentation last February. I know they were shocked to see how quickly this government got engaged in this project that is going to create jobs and stimulate our downtown.

I think of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, where there has been $5.3 million in investment, dealing with the reduction of phosphorus levels in Lake Simcoe through fighting urban waste runoff in areas where it can be cleaned up.

I look at the Allandale GO Train station. This is a $1.5 million federal investment that was announced last February. For a long time Barrie was without GO Train services. Unfortunately, in the early 1990s the NDP premier at the time cut the GO Train, despite its popularity in our region. To have GO Train services back, as was announced in 2007, was a tremendous boom to our community, but now to have a second station in the downtown dovetails so well with the downtown community theatre that I mentioned.

These are two major projects in our downtown. I certainly must credit the local councillor, Jerry Moore, who was very active in advocating the station, and also Jack Garner, who had sat on the GO Train board when it was taken away and remained active in the diligent fight to bring it back for over 12 years.

I think of the Barrie fire station. There was a desperate need for a new fire station in our downtown and the federal government invested $4.2 million into this economic stimulus project that was announced in June. Shovels are just beginning to work on this property on Dunlop Street in Barrie.

This was something that the city did not have the funds to do. If it were not for these stimulus investments, this is the type of project that would never have happened. Dozens of jobs are being created through this building of a new fire station. I had a chance to sit down with Len Mitchell and Kevin White from the fire force and they were so ecstatic to hear that this investment was made.

To give another example of infrastructure investment, there were five different projects announced in June in the city of Barrie. These too will create prosperity. Whether talking about the Colombia free trade bill or about infrastructure investments, this is all part of a larger picture of investment and prosperity that this government has certainly been engaged in.

Of these five road projects that I was mentioning, one was for $506,000. Another was for $992,000. Another was for $1.7 million. Another was for $1.6 million and another for $3 million. These road projects are all beginning this year. They are going to be finished within a year and a half. These are all projects that are going to have to hire construction workers. These construction workers are going to spend in our community. We are leaving a lasting legacy for our community and country.

I would be remiss not to mention the expansion of Lake Simcoe Regional Airport, the federal component of which was $4.5 million. The municipalities and province are getting involved. This is another project that is embarking momentarily and will be completed within a one-and-a-half year timeframe. This expansion is going to make our region more competitive economically, but it is also something that is going to create immediate construction jobs.

I note that there are also RInC projects in our riding. There are two of them including the tennis club and Eastview Arena. These projects are also of significant stature. They are in the million-dollar range and are desperately needed. When I sat on council in Barrie nine years ago, we were talking about upgrades to Eastview Arena.

It is one of those things that is talked about every year at budget and there is never enough money around the table to do it. This federal investment in recreation enables the city to complete this long-desired investment in recreation. At Eastview Arena, the kids had to split into two dressing rooms to change because it was so small. This change has been—

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite interesting that the member mentioned that the government is rehashing old announcements. I guess that it has learned from the previous Liberal government which did that on a number of occasions.

Regarding Bill C-23, in May the steelworkers were on the Hill lobbying Liberal MPs, asking them to honour the commitment they made in June 2008, demanding that there be an independent, impartial and comprehensive human rights impact assessment before Canada would consider entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia.

It is noteworthy to indicate that in the last 10 years, 60% of trade unionists who were murdered in the world were murdered in Colombia.

I ask the member, is it correct to think that this free trade agreement would prevent murders from happening, that trade unionists would not be murdered? I spoke on this last week and I received an email from a constituent who had just been to Colombia and had some concerns with regard to that as well.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

There has been a considerable amount of debate in the House, with arguments from all sides and, in fairness, reasonable arguments from those in support and also from those opposed. Debate has certainly been held in this place and that debate is on the record.

The official opposition believes that the time has come to move this debate and this discussion to committee so citizens can have their say and express their opinions and concerns directly. Those who have concerns, whether they are over human rights or trade issues, and those who strongly favour the trade agreement, as those in the farm sector do, would be able to express directly what they see as opportunities.

Let me be very clear. Bill C-23 should be moved to committee and it should hold hearings across the country and hear from people. The committee should do one of two things in terms of the Colombia argument: first, either travel to Colombia and hear from people directly on what they see as opportunities and what they see as concerns; or, at the very least, invite some Colombian people to come here as witnesses so they can express either concerns or what they see as opportunities in a vivid way. This trade agreement affects both of our economies and should be examined closely at committee level.

There are concerns about human rights in Colombia. The best way to understand the extent and impact of those concerns would be for committee to visit Colombia or invite Colombian witnesses to appear in this country.

There are two approaches that one could take on the conflict of human rights versus trade.

The first approach would be as we have done in China, and various governments have taken this approach. We could foster trade and encourage human rights as a result of the trading relationship. The other approach would be to oppose trade altogether until the human rights concerns have been addressed. Those are the kinds of parameters of the debate on the human rights argument.

Let me emphasize the fact that the best way for Parliament to find the balance and establish a direction and come to a conclusion is to aggressively now pursue hearings in the country and possibly in Colombia or bring Colombian witnesses here.

I can assure the House that farmers will want to be heard. They have sent letters to most of us in the House directly, suggesting how important the Colombian market is for their exports so they can achieve some economic opportunities in our country.

With committee hearings, the people of Canada, the people of Colombia and industries in both countries could be given a direct voice and direct input.

On the Colombian side, I will admit that I am very concerned, after hearing that the president has indicated he may change the constitution so he can stay in office beyond the two term time limit. That is worrisome. Has the Prime Minister raised this issue with the president? Has he said to the president that to violate the constitution in order to extend his term could have an impact in this country as to whether we would pass the Colombia free trade agreement in the House?

I will admit I have serious concerns about agreements once they are signed and the government's ability, or courage or lack thereof, to stand up for Canadians who have established rights under those agreements. The best example is that the Conservative government certainly has failed to stand up for Canadian trade rights under the trade agreement with the United States.

The U.S. is our closest trading partner. Everybody knows how the Conservative government sold out on softwood lumber, but let me explain the latest dispute. The government has failed Canada's livestock industry, beef and hog and other livestock producers, with the trade agreement that is in place with the United States. I have said in the House many times that Canada is losing the hog industry in part due to the United States' protectionist policy and the Conservative government's failure to utilize the authorities under trade law to protect Canadian producers' interests. Here are the facts.

Dr. Milton Boyd, in an editorial in the Calgary Sun, said this about the situation of country of origin labelling in the United States. He opened the article by saying:

Struggling US livestock producers--hit hard by the recent economic downturn and the drop in demand for meat in the United States--have spurred recent trade protectionism measures—

We know what the Americans are doing is illegal. We know the Conservative government should be standing up for Canadian producers. But what are the consequences of the government not challenging the United States and standing up for Canadian producers? Here is what Dr. Boyd had to say:

[Country of origin labelling] COOL has resulted in a tightened, protectionist border. Canadian hog exports to the U.S. for market pigs have dropped...60% [from last year]...

...this loss is around...$163 million over a full year... Also, slaughter-cattle exports are down 20% and feeder-cattle exports are down by 50%.

That is an extremely serious issue. We are losing an industry. The government has the authority under trade law to stand up and fight for Canadian producers, but the minister sits on his hands. When the Prime Minister had the opportunity to apply more pressure when he was in the United States, what did he do? He got in his Challenger jet and flew home at a cost of about $60,000 to have a coffee at Tim Hortons.

The House resumed from September 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

International Trade

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first item on today's projected order of business was Bill C-23, which is the Colombia free trade agreement. I know it is of significant interest to the House and to many Canadians, particularly those who are concerned about human rights abuses in Colombia and the propriety of getting into a trade deal.

For those who may have tuned in to try to understand what is going on here, I thought I should briefly explain that the members of standing committees do report to the House. In its second report, the Standing Committee on International Trade reported with regard to a pesticide dispute under chapter 11 of NAFTA. Their majority recommendation was that the government vigorously defend Quebec's pesticides management code in the case opposing Dow AgroSciences and the Government of Canada in order to safeguard Quebec's right to enact legislation and make regulations in the public interest.

That is the recommendation to the House. It is a recommendation to the government to express the view of the majority of the committee. I repeat that it is a majority, because the government members of the committee did not support this report. The opposition parties were the ones who made this recommendation. It probably hearkens back to the history of talking about NAFTA issues here. I know it has come up a couple of times in debate with regard to the softwood lumber dispute and in the debates that went on in this place for a substantial period of time.

The debate during that period really demonstrated to Canadians how rigorous this process of dispute-settlement resolution can be, how nasty it can get, how there are different pieces that can take place, how the moneys were going back and forth, and how the arguments were very nuanced and difficult. Again, it was a situation where the majority of the House opposed the deal, but the government was supportive of the resolution.

There is certainly a pattern here that raises some concern. In any case, we are debating this report, which is a recommendation of the standing committee. This debate will go on until no members rise or until three hours have passed and there is a vote on the motion. It is always nice to make reports to the House, the government and the minister, but if we do not want to have the response of the government and we just want make our point and throw it out into all of the reports that are tabled in this place, there is no onus on the government to respond to this recommendation formally.

The government members at committee made their positions known, and unless one reads the transcripts of those committees and looks at the questions in all of the details, most members will not know. This is very complicated material and the issues are very important. When we see these reports, it is interesting to know that if members do not ask for a government response within 120 days it means that they do not want a response. That means that we are just going to throw this into the pool, and whenever members come up to routine proceedings on motions, people can just say, “I would like to move concurrence on that report. Let us talk about that report”.

That is where we are right now. I wish that there had been a request for a government response on this thing, because it was the government members who opposed the majority position of the committee. We are going to be debating this. We will get on to Colombia. There are some excellent speakers on Colombia free trade who are going to be speaking on that bill, so hopefully we will get back to it quickly.

I want to share with members some of the aspects we have been talking about. There has been a lot of talk about chapter 11 and about expropriation and so on. How does all of this tie together? The best thing for me to do is to refer to an assessment on this matter done by a researcher, Meg Sears. She has a Ph.D. and is the adjunct investigator for the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. She wrote a very interesting paper which frames the issue that is before the House and which the committee considered. She is a scientist and a medical writer and she wanted to assist the committee in its study. She has examined Canada's pesticide assessment process by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA as other members have referred to it, and the assessment of the herbicide 2,4-D which is the pesticide which Quebec has banned.

There has been a challenge by Dow. She concluded that Dow's notice of challenge of Quebec's restrictions on the use of 2,4-D shows how Canada's sovereignty to protect citizens from toxic exposures is compromised by NAFTA chapter 11. That is a very significant statement. Our sovereignty to protect Canadians is challenged by NAFTA chapter 11. There is substantial information which I would be happy to provide to members if they are interested, but I would like to go immediately to her conclusion in regard to this matter. She said:

The Dow challenge to the regulation of 2,4-D by Québec directly challenges Canadians' ability to take precautionary measures to protect health and the environment. Trade agreements should bring signatories to higher levels of protection, not the opposite, compelling governments to expose their citizens unwillingly to toxic chemicals in their homes and neighbourhoods. Although it is beyond the scope of the present committee, one must also wonder about the extent of PMRA complicity, as 2,4-D was re-registered with incomplete, sub-standard data and misinterpretation of important information.

I urge the Government of Canada to defend the rights of all levels of government to enact precautionary measures to protect health and the environment, and to ensure that NAFTA puts Canadians' health before multinational corporate profits.

That is very, very significant. I commend the assessment done by Meg Sears. It shows the importance of this matter and the fact that it was just a report from a committee should not be taken lightly and we should protect Quebec's rights to do this.

I mentioned earlier when asking a couple of questions that there have been similar bans in Toronto and Halifax, but they have not been challenged. If there is an existing challenge under NAFTA chapter 11 with respect to Quebec's ban, we have to ask why that challenge would not automatically be extended. Maybe the mechanics of it is that if one can be won, maybe subsequent challenges could be fast-tracked to bans in other jurisdictions.

I also want to comment on NAFTA chapter 11. We in this place will probably have NAFTA on our agenda as long as there is a free trade deal with the United States. Members have already mentioned their concerns about protectionist measures in the U.S. precipitated by the global economic climate.

We can understand that countries want to do whatever they can to recover in their own economic sphere, but they also understand that we are inextricably linked with our trade relationships and we have existing deals. When there is this aggressiveness that we want to protect and enhance domestic trade, we put pressure on areas such as bilateral trade that occur in some of the aspects that fall under the purview of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The purpose of chapter 11 is to facilitate the flow of investment within North America. That is what it really gets down to. This is very complicated. It does so by establishing a framework of rules and disciplines that provide investors from NAFTA countries with a predictable rules-based investment climate. These are the kinds of things that happen generically.

When I looked at the rest of the briefing notes, I realized that this is a complex maze of push-pulls and it takes full-time work to really understand. I commend committee members for being able to wrap their minds and their attention around such an important matter when it is fluid and constantly evolving. Like most laws and even our Constitution it is almost like a living document. Every time there is another challenge, another precedent is set. These are the kinds of things that affect the decisions that are taken by Canada and by the provinces.

Chapter 11 also establishes a mechanism for the settlement of disputes that might arise from potential discriminatory charges. In this way chapter 11 effectively prevents governments from taking measures that amount to discriminatory nationalization or expropriation of a foreign investment without paying compensation to the investor. That is the essence of what we are talking about in terms of the current challenge with regard to 2,4-D.

People should know a little bit about the elements of chapter 11 which come up in debate. Chapter 11 is broken down into two sections, sections A and B. Section A has the main provisions.

Article 1102 refers to national treatment and it states that each NAFTA party will treat investors and investments from other NAFTA parties no less favourably than it treats its own investors and investments, in like circumstances, with respect to such matters as the establishment, acquisition, operation and sale of investments.

Article 1103 will come up. It deals with most favoured nation treatment. It states that a NAFTA party may not treat an investor or investment from a non-NAFTA country more favourably than an investor or investment from a NAFTA country.

There is also the minimum standard of treatment in article 1105 which assures a minimum absolute standard of treatment of investments of NAFTA investors based on long-standing principles of customary international law.

Article 1110 has to do with expropriation and is specifically related to the matter before the House in this report. Article 1110 states that a NAFTA party cannot directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another NAFTA party except one, for a public purpose, two, on a non-discriminatory basis, three, in accordance with due process of law, and four, on payment of compensation equivalent to fair market value.

Most committee members probably had to spend a fair bit of time to understand the meaning of the provisions. I think that is why we have had such hot debates in this place with regard to NAFTA challenges and particularly matters where dispute settlement resolution has not seemed to work.

The key issue in article 1110 is the meaning of the term “tantamount to expropriation”. This is where it gets down to the subtleties. It is well established in international law that the term “expropriation” need not refer to the transfer of title of property. A country can be considered to have expropriated property if its actions have the effect of significantly diminishing the owner's right to extract economic benefit, including profits from that property.

Members will understand that when we are talking about the expropriation issues here, we are not talking about taking away anything. In fact, it is affecting the rights that flow from this matter, to the extent that if Quebec bans the use of a particular pesticide, another NAFTA country is going to be impacted by not being able to either export to Canada products that use that pesticide or something similar to that. That is the subtlety and that is why the term “expropriation” is being used, but not maybe in the traditional sense that members would understand.

Section B of chapter 11 outlines the dispute settlement provisions. These provisions allow the investors of one NAFTA party to directly make claims against the government of another NAFTA party through the arbitration process. NAFTA outlines certain general procedures regarding the arbitration but stipulates that such arbitration must be conducted in accordance with the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, referred to as the ICSID convention, and facility rules of the ICSID or the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

The mechanism of chapter 11 dispute settlement is not without controversy, as we know. The process has been criticized for its lack of legitimacy and transparency. It also has a limited form of review and no recourse of appeal. That is a challenge. It means that we need to be very careful how we address these matters because when one is in that situation, without recourse for appeal, decisions are full and final and it does get a bit sloppy.

It is also important to note that NAFTA stipulates that no chapter 11 tribunal decision can be used as a precedent in subsequent chapter 11 cases. I referred to the Halifax and Toronto bans on this pesticide, and although there may not be the applicability of a precedent on the disposition of the Quebec issue on the same matter, certainly the arguments and the evidence would be available, although the decision may not be binding. In other words, no body of jurisprudence can be built up over time. Each case is considered to be a unique event.

I thank the members who brought this particular debate to the House for doing the work to take a position. It does raise the question though of why the government does not support the majority decision of the committee. That is very troubling to me and it should be troubling to all members. That is why I am a little disappointed the committee did not ask for a formal government response. The government must be accountable to the House. It must respond. We have missed that opportunity. Maybe the members are satisfied that they heard substantively the government arguments at committee and I hope that they are going to share them on some specific basis.

I had also raised the fact that when Quebec made the ban, it did not have a scientific basis for the ban, but as I indicated earlier and I will conclude with this, the report of Meg Sears states that the Government of Canada should defend the rights of all levels of government to enact precautionary measures to protect the health and the environment of its citizens.

That is the essence of the argument and why the committee took this position. I hope that the government will now respond to the committee report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. The government must do more to defend our international interests. It must support provincial and municipal governments, and their efforts to preserve the legislation and bills meant to protect their citizens.

As I have already said, working with provincial and municipal governments has always been a Liberal priority, for we see the importance of defending their environmental efforts, for example.

At the same time, the government can do more, but in terms of the current cases, it would be very simple to have the Department of Justice and the Department of International Trade, and I would posit that we should have ministers, before committee. We should have the Minister of Justice and we should have the Minister of International Trade to actually discuss whether or not the resources are being provided adequately. We have to have the resources there.

There will be discussion on Bill C-23 and I look forward to having that discussion. I hope that it will be a truthful discussion in which the member presents the facts and not his hallucinations about the situation in Colombia.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, and the two side agreements to that trade agreement: the side agreement on environment and the side agreement on labour co-operation. We know this as the Canada-Colombia free trade implementation act.

I think it has been said many times in this corner of the House that there is absolutely no way New Democrats can stand by and allow this kind of arrangement between Canada and Colombia to go ahead. This is a despicable international agreement to be proceeding with at this time, given the excesses of the government in Colombia.

We do not need to go any further than to look at the record of the Government of Colombia when it comes to trade unionism. The number of trade unionists who have died in Colombia in recent years is in the thousands. Even in this very year, 2009, so far we know that about 27 trade union activists have been murdered in Colombia. That is an incredible record of oppression and violence.

As we are debating strengthening our ties with Colombia and opening more opportunities for doing business with Colombia, I wonder how we can explain that to the families of people like Adolfo Tique, who was murdered in January, or more recently, Mauricio Antonio Monsalve Vásquez, who was murdered just last month in Colombia. What do we say to their families, as Canadians, when we are proposing to enter into this kind of agreement, establishing this kind of relationship with the Republic of Colombia when these kinds of excesses are being perpetrated against workers, families, the people of Colombia?

I do not think there is any way we can possibly justify proceeding with this kind of agreement with Colombia at this time.

There are some very serious problems with this legislation. I have already mentioned the failure on labour rights protection. It is without a doubt that Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries on the planet for trade unionists. They are victims of violence, intimidation and assassination by paramilitary groups, some of which are said to have links to the Colombian president himself.

There are no tough labour standards in this agreement. The labour agreement is a side agreement to the main trade agreement. We know that these side agreements are the least effective parts of such international agreements.

There is nothing in this trade agreement that would enforce human rights protection for trade unionists, for instance, in Colombia. In fact there is a penalty clause, which amounts to the ability for Colombia to actually pay for ongoing human rights violations. There is nothing that says Colombia has to stop the violations; it can pay a fine and those violations can continue. It is not a particularly effective mechanism for improving the human rights situation in the country.

There is also a side agreement on the environment that is related to this. Again, side agreements are lesser agreements. They are not effective. They have been proven ineffective. There is no serious enforcement mechanism that would force either Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. Some people have called this a smokescreen in the agreement, that it is not a serious part of what was undertaken in terms of the development of this accord between Colombia and Canada. It is something that leaves an awful lot to be desired before we would enter into this kind of agreement.

This agreement also includes the same investor chapter we have seen in NAFTA's chapter 11, investor rights, which gives powerful rights to private companies to sue governments. The private companies' interests are enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. We have seen this used to override the democratic interests of Canadians, for instance, when it comes to enforcing our democratic interests in our agreements in trading relationships with the United States. Now we are proposing to enter into a similar kind of agreement with Colombia, with all the extra problems an agreement with that particular country involves.

There is also a serious problem with agricultural tariffs in this bill as well. We know that Colombia has severe poverty and that poverty is directly linked to the agricultural development sector in Colombia.

If tariffs are removed, what will that do to the Canadian agricultural sector, especially to cereals, pork and beef? I—

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-23.

I am proud of my party's position. I am particularly disappointed, however, in my colleagues from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. To them, a free trade agreement has become a panacea to allow globalization to take form and evolve. What they do not seem to realize is that if the agreement does not include provisions on workers' rights, the right to a safe environment and human rights, then we are in serious trouble.

Having examined the provisions in this agreement, I see that it is not actually a free trade agreement. I can say this to my colleague who spoke earlier and who is doing an excellent job on this file. We hear a lot of talk from the other side of the House, and on this side from the Liberal Party, about trade. It is very important. However, this is more of an investment agreement. When it comes to investments, we really want to protect Canadian investors and make sure that they do not become victims, for example, of nationalization. For instance, after they have invested their money, from one day to the next, the government could decide that the investments belong to the government from now on. We therefore understand the importance of reciprocity treaties between two economies to ensure that these things do not happen.

However, when it is associated only with doing business to the detriment of the environment, the workers and human rights in that country, we must put a stop to it. And that is the case with Bill C-23 before us.

When a government in a developed country, a western government like Canada or the United States, signs this type of treaty, it must ensure that it is able to put pressure on a government that does not respect human rights, workers or the environment. However, this treaty does not contain such provisions. The economy is given free rein. We are told that it will work itself out, and a side agreement or additional agreement will be added for the rest. Yet past experience shows us that this never works. It never happens like that. The free trade agreement is signed with a promise to add an agreement on the environment or on human rights later, but as time goes on any agreement is seen as so minor that it is not worth the trouble.

The Canadian government is therefore renouncing the carrot and stick approach. Such an approach would allow us to tell a government that we will withdraw whatever it was we were offering if it does act responsibly, and if things improve, we can tell that government that other things will be added. That goes hand in hand with Canada's vision, or the vision of any forward thinking society.

We therefore do not believe the argument that the agreement can be signed now, and the side agreements on the environment and human rights will follow at a later date.

There have been some problems. For example, chapter 11 of NAFTA is rather explicit. It covers a lot. I remind members that the free trade agreement we are negotiating is fairly similar to what is in that chapter.

The problems with chapter 11 of NAFTA have been pointed out; for instance, foreign investors could proceed directly to the courts without going through the government. When a government has a social conscience, it acts as a filter. It tries to ensure that any developments are fair and just. But in the agreements, the investors are able to go directly to the courts, regarding present or future investments, to dispute the fact that a government did not do its job and that the investor was harmed.

Suppose that there are children working in Columbia and we do not agree with this, but the investors claim that they earn more when they hire children, or when they ravage the environment, and that those things are not important because they want to increase profits. That is what it could come to.

There are also amounts for legal action that are not necessarily related to current investments, but that could be related to future ones. It will be a free-for-all. From then on, as soon as there are social or environmental measures that go against the interests of investors, they could take legal action. This was a problem contested and criticized by many people, and the previous government stopped including chapters that let the investors run the show.

Allow me to explain what I mean when I say that this is not a trade agreement. Usually, two countries that sign an agreement are on a par financially. But Colombia's GDP was $256 billion in 2007. Canada's was $1,610 billion. This is not the same level. Colombia is not in the same league as Canada. I believe that what the government wants is not necessarily a trade agreement, but an agreement on investments. Colombia has attractive mines. Investors want to invest in these mines. Therein lies the problem. Investors will be able to challenge more progressive social policies and environmental protection measures that the government wants to put in place. They will be able to challenge such measures in court.

Colombia's per capita GDP is $5,314, while Canada's is $48,000. What is in this sort of agreement for Quebeckers and Canadians? Nothing. It is not a trade agreement. It is an agreement on investors. Investors have a major stake in this type of treaty. That is why we are opposed to this agreement.

Colombia is a poor country where 47% of the population lives below the poverty line. Will this agreement improve the lives of Colombians? Will it lead to greater respect for the environment?

No, it will not. It will have a negative impact on our companies, because they have standards to comply with in the areas of human rights, workers' rights and the environment. And will we allow these countries to do whatever they want? They will make children work for 15¢ or 20¢ an hour. How will our companies stay competitive in the face of such measures and such lax standards? This is a negative step. I call on my colleagues to come to their senses.

In addition, there is an incestuous relationship between the famous paramilitary groups and the government. It is said that Colombia has become a narco-state. I believe it is true. Last week, I read that 30 members of the Colombian Congress had been arrested and that 60 others were under investigation. There is an incestuous relationship between the paramilitaries and the government of this narco-state. We need to wake up.

I call on my Liberal and Conservative colleagues to amend Bill C-23 and not pass it as is. We say yes to investors and trade, but not at the expense of workers, the environment and human rights.

I hope that our colleagues will take their lead from the Bloc Québécois, which has a very enlightened position on this bill, in my opinion.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise in the House today and speak on behalf of this bill; in support of my colleague the Minister of International Trade, who is doing an absolutely fantastic job on this file; and on behalf of our Prime Minister, who is espousing the virtues of trade around the world and doing a great job on the international stage.

I want to touch on something that is near and dear to my heart and near and dear to the hearts of my constituents: the agricultural sector. That is the part I will be focusing on in my remarks today with regard to Bill C-23. Our government is pulling out all the stops to help ensure that Canadian farmers succeed and to build a strong future for the agricultural sector as a whole.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is a strong example of how the government is working to maintain and expand markets for our agricultural exports. Our Conservative government has been working very hard to build new opportunities in global markets for our producers. Our government has negotiated free trade agreements with key markets including: Colombia; Jordan; Panama; the European Free Trade Association, including the countries of Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein; and also Peru.

During the constituency break that we all had just recently, farmers and producers, particularly in my riding of Wetaskiwin, told me how happy they were with our progress on market access and the initiatives that we put forward. We produce so much more beef, pork, grains and oilseeds than we could possibly use here in Canada. Because we are an exporting nation, it is absolutely critical and fundamental to our producers that we have market access and a level playing field for our producers to trade and compete on. That is absolutely vital to the producers that I represent. I am proud to represent them and I am proud of the work our government has done on this file.

The government signed the Canada-Colombia bilateral free trade agreement on November 21, 2008. This free trade agreement will strengthen our existing trade relationship with Colombia. It will provide Canadian exporters and producers with improved access to this very important market.

Colombia has been an important partner in agricultural trade. In 2008, Canada exported agrifood products worth $212 million and imported $297 million worth of products, mainly coffee, bananas, flowers and sugar. In fact, Colombia is the second-largest market for Canadian agricultural exports to South America. It is a very important trading partner indeed.

Canadian producers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on exports into Colombia. Many agricultural exports such as wheat, barley, lentils and peas will receive immediate duty-free status. That is very important. Commodities such as beef and beans will also benefit from immediate duty-free access within specified volumes. Canada is not alone in pursuing an ambitious bilateral free trade agreement agenda. Colombia has concluded similar agreements with the United States and is negotiating another one with the European Union.

Allowing Canadian agricultural exporters to remain competitive with other preferential suppliers to Colombia is key to maintaining a competitive sector. This free trade agreement will ensure that Canadian exports compete on par with exports from the United States to the Colombian market for products such as beef, beans, whisky, vodka and maple syrup.

To the benefit of our processors and consumers, Canada will immediately eliminate tariffs on nearly all agricultural imports from Colombia. Signing a free trade agreement with Colombia has also provided momentum for Canada to engage the Colombian government in substantive technical discussions toward lifting Colombia's ban on Canadian beef and cattle.

Step by step, our government is reopening markets to Canadian producers. This strategy is sending a strong message to the rest of the global community that it is time that their consumers once again enjoy our top quality Canadian products.

Our government looks forward to exploring new and expanded opportunities for Canadian agricultural exporters and farmers. As we move forward, the government will continue to consult closely with the entire agricultural industry regarding how best to advance Canada's interests. We are working with our trading partners to establish bilateral and regional agreements and we are working with industry, all with the common goal of building our agricultural trade and opening up new opportunities for our farmers and processors.

Opening and expanding markets around the world creates opportunities for our producers to drive the Canadian economy. During this time of global economic uncertainty, we have to maximize trade opportunities on the world stage. As our Prime Minister has said:

Canada will be watching how the United States implements the “Buy American” clause in its stimulus package, because it could quickly send the world economy from recession into depression.

That is how serious the threat of protectionism is at this time. That is why it is so important that our country engages other trading partners around the world. It is good for Canada. It is good for the partners that we trade with and it is good for their respective citizens.

Furthermore, protectionism does not help farmers or Canadian businesses, but our government's trade initiatives do. They help all farmers and all Canadians by creating jobs and long-term prosperity.

The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It would be nice if members would demonstrate a little bit of respect for me as we did for the hon. House leader from the official opposition when he was making his statement a few moments ago, if he would not mind.

Whether it is the issue of the NAFO deadline, which I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is seized with, as she is with all fisheries issues, or whether it is trying to negotiate a way forward to expedite the passage of Bill C-50, we need to ensure that we do it right. We need to ensure that that particular bill, which is so important to workers and their families, is passed. However, we need to ensure that the help we are all seeking to provide unemployed people across the country is done in a proper and expeditious manner.

I believe that we will be successful. I am certainly hopeful. I called a special meeting after the two motions from the two opposition parties that made motions this morning. I called a special meeting of the House leaders in my office some two hours ago. I was hopeful that we would have an agreement by now on how to proceed with Bill C-50. That has not happened. One of the parties is still taking a look at a compromise that I have suggested to wrap up debate by tomorrow on this bill and then see it sent off to the committee. I am hopeful that we can perhaps arrive at such a compromise.

That addresses my hon. colleague's issue with Bill C-50. Obviously, as he noted, the House is currently debating second reading of Bill C-50. That will continue after question period.

Tomorrow, pursuant to a special order adopted yesterday, the House will vote on ways and means Motion No. 9 that implements certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009, and to implement other measures.

Following the vote, we will continue and hopefully complete second reading stage of Bill C-50, so that it can move on to committee as quickly as possible. Backup bills for tomorrow, should they be needed, are Bill C-37, the National Capital Act, and Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act.

When the House returns after the constituency break, I have planned to call, but not necessarily in this order, Bill C-37, the National Capital Act; Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement again; Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act; Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act; and the Budget Implementation Act, No. 2, that flows from the ways and means motion that will hopefully be adopted tomorrow.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with interest but also with great concern that I am rising today for the third time to address Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to mention again that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement, because a free trade agreement with Colombia raises very serious issues, particularly since that country has the worst performance in its hemisphere when it comes to human rights.

As with the agreement signed with Peru, the Conservative government presented Parliament with an agreement that had already been negotiated and reached with Colombia, before Parliament even had the opportunity to review it in depth. At the time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We visited Colombia and we met with a number of stakeholders from that country, including unions, social groups, businesspeople and government members. The committee was to submit a report to the government, along with recommendations on the situation in Colombia. However, the Conservative government signed an agreement before the report was even tabled. That is really a waste of public money. A delegation of committee members is sent to Colombia to review the situation and then the government signs an agreement without even taking into consideration the committee's recommendations. Once again, the Conservatives, who claim to know how to run this country's affairs, squandered the taxpayers' money.

It is important to remind hon. members that the free trade agreement with Colombia was announced on June 7, 2008, when the committee was carrying out its study, prior to submitting its report to the House.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade and I did make that trip to Colombia. We travelled through that country and we met with socio-economic stakeholders, union leaders, social groups and members of the government. We were shocked and appalled by the scope of the tragedy created by population displacements. Mining companies and agribusinesses have displaced some 250,000 persons and these people are currently parked on an area of about 50 square kilometres. The government does not care. These people are given bread and a bit of water, and some measures are quietly being taken to support them, so that they do not die.

I did not hear anything on that from government members. What is going to happen to the 250,000 people who were displaced? That issue is not raised in the House. We know that there is a trade agreement, supposedly to promote free trade with Colombia. It is not a trade agreement that we are talking about in this House, but an agreement that helps protect the investments of some Canadian businesses in that country. Indeed, the agreement as such talks a bit about the trading of grain from western Canada, but in the end it has a lot more to do with Canadian mining companies in Colombia.

We know very well that these companies have supported the displacement of communities and have no respect for environmental standards. In the previous session, I was distressed as well to see a Liberal member moving a motion to encourage companies to be socially responsible in the course of their activities.

I note in this House that while we are voting and the Liberals are moving this sort of motion on social responsibility for companies, they are voting in favour of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It is shameful to see that over 300,000 persons were relocated in 2007-08 and that over 380,000 persons have had to flee their homes or workplaces because of violence.

To close this debate, we reported today the number of assassinations of trade unionists in the past two years. We have here a long list, which includes the assassination of Rafael Antonio Sepúlveda Lara on August 20—just recently.

Since the agreement was signed, union members in Colombia, people who want to protect their rights and interests, continue to be assassinated. The human rights of these people are not respected. I am convinced that the signing of a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia will in no way reduce the number of union members assassinated. This is not what is needed. An agreement in this House will not ensure a better fate for the 300,000 people who have been displaced by mining companies and agrifood businesses. It will not.

It will simply benefit certain mining companies by offering better protection of their investments. Some people in this country may become rich as a result. Thirty members of the current government in the Congress are facing court proceedings for associating with Colombian paramilitaries. Increased revenues for the state does not mean the government will help the most disadvantaged or ensure better conditions and quality of life for the victims of violence in the society.

This government will not see to it that the 250,000 or 300,000 persons who have been displaced and are dying of hunger in shantytowns will have a better life. It will not. I am convinced this agreement will not resolve this situation.

How will we help Colombians? The government talks of humanitarian aid here, of support for this country to help it build a fairer democracy and a fairer and more just society.

It talks too about fairer trade. It is intervening to bring this debate to a close. It is intervening in various countries. It talks about Afghanistan. It says it is intervening in these countries in order to support and defend women's rights. We know that this hides other things, but the peacekeepers intervene. I wonder if this is not what is needed in Colombia given all the assassinations and the number of people displaced.

I reiterate that, for all these reasons and many others, this is not a trade agreement but an agreement to protect the investments of businesses. We in the Bloc will oppose this agreement, which in no way meets the needs of the people of Colombia and even less the needs of the people of Quebec and Canada.