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

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak today to Bill C-23. A number of Bloc Québécois members have spoken before me to say just how opposed we are to this free trade agreement.

We must make no mistake and most certainly not fall into the demagoguery of the Conservatives. We in the Bloc, unlike the NDP, support free trade agreements, except that we favour agreements that are well prepared, well structured and concluded with countries with which we will have a useful exchange and a real advantage in doing business.

The Conservative government's prime motivation for concluding this free trade agreement has nothing to do with trade. On the contrary, it has to do with investments. As the agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining.

One reason the Liberal Party proposed a bill on the social responsibility of mining companies is that they have a huge problem in Latin America—and we have seen this repeatedly—establishing a minimum of decorum and respecting the environment and local populations. I will come back to this.

Colombia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world and certainly in Latin America. In order to promote human rights in the world, governments generally use the carrot and the stick. They support efforts to improve respect for human rights and reserve the right to withdraw benefits should the situation worsen. With the conclusion of this free trade agreement, the Conservative government will deprive itself of extraordinary means to improve the economy and human rights in regions greatly in need of such improvement.

The government keeps telling us that it is combining the agreement with a side agreement on labour and another on the environment. Such agreements are notoriously ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement and so investors could destroy the rich Colombian environment unpunished, move communities to make it easier for themselves to establish their mines and continue to assassinate trade unionists.

As for the free trade agreement itself, the Bloc Québécois is not prepared to trade the ability of the government to exert pressure to promote respect for human rights for the ability of Canadian companies to invest abroad.

I will provide a few figures to discuss Colombia's investment with Quebec. Imports for 2008 amounted to $88 million. This figure is half a per cent lower than that of 2007. Quebec's imports from Colombia represent some 14% of Canada's overall imports. Exports in 2008 amounted to $120 million, which represents 17% of Canada's exports to Colombia. Quebec's exports increased by slightly less than 2% over 2007. This means that Colombia is fifth in terms of Canada's exports to Latin America and the Caribbean. It is seventh in terms of imports from this region. This means that Canada has much more favoured trading partners than Colombia. Here lies the interest. Why conclude such a botched free trade agreement with Colombia, when we have far more attractive partners in Latin America? The Conservative government, however, wants nothing to do with these alleged parties, such as Brazil and Venezuela, which are far too leftist or socialist for its tastes.

In recent years, trade between Canada and other Latin American countries has increased considerably, reducing trade with Colombia proportionately compared with other countries in the region.

Canada's main exports are cars and car parts, along with grains, which affects only western Canada. There is absolutely no advantage for Quebec. In 2007, those exports totaled 23% and 19% respectively. The vast majority of Canadian investments in Colombia are in the mining sector, which, as I was saying earlier, is facing serious ethical problems in terms of the environment.

In light of this information regarding trade between Canada, Quebec and Colombia, we in the Bloc Québécois are having a very hard time understanding why Canada would want to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia.

When two countries enter into free trade agreements, it usually means they are special trading partners who trade sufficiently to make it worthwhile to lower tariff and trade barriers. Proof of this lies in the fact that Quebeckers were the greatest advocates of the free trade agreement with the United States in the 1980s. In particular, the former Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, comes to mind. He was a major supporter of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement for one, very simple reason, namely, that Canada and the United States have always enjoyed a very good trade relationship benefiting both sides. We are talking about two countries with very similar economies overall, which facilitates a certain degree of synergy. Therefore Canada, and Quebec in particular, stood to gain a great deal from doing business with the Americans without any tariffs.

In this situation, we have to admit that, quite frankly, the Colombian market is not a very big one, and that trade between Canada and Colombia is extremely limited compared to what we can do with other Latin American countries. Canada's primary export there is western grain, which we have no trouble finding takers for because of the food crisis. Exporters in Quebec and Canada will benefit only marginally from this agreement.

We can see how some Canadian companies might find this tempting, but we do not see how the people of Quebec will benefit. That is the crux of the debate. The government wants to sign this free trade agreement not because of trade but, as I said earlier, because of investments. This agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, making it easier for Canadian companies to invest in Colombia.

The moment any legislation—such as environmental protection legislation—cuts into a foreign investor's profits, the government will open itself up to staggering lawsuits. But over the years, Ottawa has signed a number of bilateral agreements modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA. There was so much criticism that the Liberals—who were in power at the time—stopped signing such agreements. I find it very strange that the Liberals, who realized back in the 1990s that it was a bad idea to sign agreements like the one the Conservative government has just introduced, are once again flip-flopping.

I have to say that we are getting used to the Liberals' 180s. Under the Conservatives, Ottawa is now on the offence and is negotiating all kinds of agreements like this one. In this case, the Conservative government is handing responsibility for deciding what is in the best interest of the people over to multinationals. Things are getting very dangerous.

The Bloc Québécois opposes the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Colombia because it contains clauses based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. Our party is asking the government to revert to the old treaty formula, which did not give multinationals control at the expense of the common good.

As I was saying earlier, free trade agreements are generally signed with countries that have similar economies. The reason is quite simple: investment protection measures can hold back development in a poor country because they give corporations the power to take a government to court if it adopts legislation or regulations that would diminish the returns of their investors. It is quickly apparent from the socio-economic data that Canada and Colombia are very different. For instance, in 2007, 47% of the Colombian population lived below the poverty line and 12% lived in abject poverty. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, poverty is most prevalent in rural areas. In 2006, poverty affected 68% of rural areas, which is completely different than the biased data provided by the Conservatives in order to pass this bill. The latter came from the Colombian government and not from data based on facts, such as the UN data.

I am told that I have one minute remaining. Therefore I will move along fairly quickly.

I would like to provide a few figures. The Conservatives said that Colombia has made great progress in social terms. Since 1986, 2,690 unionists have been killed, 39 were murdered in 2007 and these murders have increased by 18% in 2008 to 46%.

This means it is time to come to our senses and to vote against this bill.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the member for Sydney—Victoria and his insight and expertise in this regard.

I am honoured today to speak to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, Bill C-23, for some very good reasons as I will outline. Not just for the benefit of the great Kenora riding but for regions across Canada this is another important step in opening up trade throughout the world.

Canada is taking action during these difficult economic times by reaching out to our trade partners in reducing barriers to trade. This is not just about Latin America. This agreement provides Canadian companies with a competitive edge in many sectors, including wheat and paper products, which in northwestern Ontario, in the great Kenora riding, we feel we have an advantage in this regard. Mining is another strong economic driver in the great Kenora riding, as well as oil and gas, engineering and information technology.

These are just some of the examples of the government's efforts to strengthen our own economy and deepen Canada's presence in Latin America.

I understand some of the concerns outlined by our colleagues. Labour and environmental standards are important. However, labour and environmental standards are addressed within this free trade agreement. The side agreement with Colombia on labour and the environment will help ensure that this free trade agreement advances the cause of human rights and environmental protection in both countries.

The labour provisions commit all parties to this agreement to respect and enforce standards such as the elimination of child labour, freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively.

Environmental provisions will help protect and conserve the environment in those sectors where our country is active.

Obviously, during these tough economic times, it is more important than ever to open up new markets for Canadian companies. That is why our government has negotiated new free trade agreements, like this one with Colombia that we are debating today.

This agreement will create new jobs for Canadians and for Colombians as well. There are very strict labour and environmental standards included in this agreement. These standards help guarantee that these agreements will help advance the cause of human rights and the protection of the environment in the country. Colombia cannot make progress if we isolate it. We believe that political involvement, development assistance and free trade are all key to achieving success in Colombia.

Over the past six years, the personal situation of the vast majority of Colombians has improved. Illegal armed groups have been weakened and that progress is acknowledged by global communities and international organizations that are present in Colombia.

The February 2008 report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia stated:

[It must be] recognized that Colombia has made progress in restoring security throughout the country in recent years, and the visibility given to human rights in the public agenda is a solid achievement

While important progress has been made, the Government of Canada continues to recognize that there are challenges in the overall human rights situation in Colombia. However, it is important to look at some interesting recent history, the context in which this agreement has arisen and the key content of the agreement that helps to serve some of the concerns we have heard from members of different political stripes in the House today and those that concern us as well.

In 2007 two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia totalled more than $1.1 billion. That is significant by anyone's standards. It is certainly an important part of our history. Between 2005 and 2007, Canada provided over $33 million in development assistance to Colombia, mostly to address the rights of these vulnerable populations, which concern us not just in Colombia but throughout the world.

Articles 1603 and 1604 in chapter 16 of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement set out the two countries' objectives and obligations with respect to labour. Annex 2 of the parallel agreement on labour co-operation sets out a maximum fine of $15 million for failing to respect the obligations set out in the agreement.

It is worth noting that the international labour agreement represents the highest grade of labour standards. The labour agreement covers the right to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of discrimination, providing protections for occupational safety and health and minimum employment standards such as minimum wage and overtime pay.

Things are improving in Colombia right now. Colombia's social and security improvements since 2002 under the Uribe government are getting better. Between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings decreased by 87%. Homicide rates dropped by 44%. Moderate poverty has dropped from 55% to 45%. Colombia has attained coverage of 94% in basic education and 31% in higher education. These are important achievements.

We have an obligation to be there vis-à-vis this trade relationship to help it further its causes in these important areas. As a registered nurse, this is something that is close to home. We recognize that some form of health system currently covers 90.4% of the population, while the population subsidized by the state has doubled over the last five years to 23 million people. Universal health care coverage is expected in 2010.

I would submit that with solidified relationships, again vis-à-vis this free trade agreement and other important activities in which we engage in Latin America and Colombia, we can hopefully show them the way. Having advanced the cause of universal health care for some time now, we are leaders in the world with respect to providing some of the best universally accessed health care coverage in the world.

The Canadian International Development Agency is continuing with important ongoing assistance. Between 2006 and 2008, CIDA provided more than $32 million for projects and initiatives in Colombia. Since 1972, the total amount of CIDA contributions is $355 million.

There are more than 350,000 internally displaced persons with comprehensive protection and access to base social services in that country and training programs for more than 12,000 civil servants in the new Colombian law, on children and adolescents.

There are several other examples of how we are working in important areas. We have talked about health, education, improving conditions and outcomes for poverty and our relationships in these regards.

Through this free trade agreement, I am confident we will be able to continue to strengthen and build on this important relationship, not just in Colombia but throughout Latin America and other parts of the world. These kinds of free trade agreements would benefit not just Canada or the great Kenora riding but also the countries that we engage with in these important trading relationships.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-23. I join with many of my colleagues in our attempt to deal with an amendment which would deny second reading to the bill at this point because of the failure of the government to follow procedure when it comes to the development of such an important endeavour.

The amendment moved by the Bloc and the subamendment by the NDP speak to the importance of the work of the committee which was engaged in the discussions around a free trade agreement with Colombia.

It is paramount that the issues have full examination. We have heard the debate. We have heard the divergence of views that exist on this issue. This bill is not well understood by the Canadian public. It is not accepted by many people within the Canadian public. Groups and organizations have spoken out vociferously against it. I have been receiving emails for months from individuals who would like this free trade deal stopped. I have received countless letters from my constituents on the subject.

This issue needs much further examination. The minister has pushed this bill forward without proper examination and without proper analysis. The result is that today in the House of Commons we are speaking to an amendment that would block the bill moving forward at second reading.

Why is this amendment important, and why do I support it? We have broken with our democratic practices. We are not fully taking into account the process for examination of significant legislation.

As well, we need to give full weight to evidence from civil society. That will not happen before the committee has completed its work, completed its evidentiary gathering, written its report and presented it to the House of Commons. Those steps are missing. They make up an absence of understanding around this particular bill.

Without that report in front of the government, the government will not be required to do a proper analysis on the legislation regarding the free trade deal. It has not done an analysis on many of the free trade deals that have come before this Parliament over the last year and a half. It is patently absurd that we enter into free trade deals based on ideology. I would like to turn that argument around on the Liberals and Conservatives who keep coming after us saying that we are against free trade and that we are standing up over and over again based on ideology.

The government is supporting free trade based on ideology, not on the analysis of the impact of the deal on the particular sectors that are going to be affected, not on the analysis of free trade arrangements as they have impacted Canadian society. That work has not been done. That work will not be done if the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition continue to support free trade on an ideological basis rather than on a practical and pragmatic basis.

The amendment as it stands is important. It takes away from the government the right to bring this bill forward without the kind of work that needs to be done. That is why NDP members and Bloc members are standing up to speak to this amendment over and over again. We want to see Parliament work correctly. We want to see Parliament work for all Canadians. We want legislators to act with a rational and reasoned approach based on correct analysis rather than a simple ideological commitment to free trade.

I will now turn to the larger issue of the essential elements that would be involved in a free trade arrangement with Colombia. This is something that has occupied much of the debate and I certainly will add to it.

Why does Colombia want a free trade deal? Why is it that Colombia is pushing for a free trade deal with Canada? Is it that the free trade arrangement it was looking for with the United States has been unsuccessful? Is that why the emphasis is on Canada now? Is it hoping to go through the back door to get what it wants? Is that what is going on with this deal? Is that why the emphasis has been on moving ahead with this free trade arrangement rather than taking the appropriate steps, rather than doing the proper analysis? We are creating an opportunity not only for Colombia to move ahead with the free trade deal but put pressure on U.S. legislators right now who, quite clearly, are asking why they would want to support a free trade deal with a country that does not meet the minimum standards of labour and environmental practices, of common decency toward its society. There is a lack of criminal action at the highest level within Colombia. The Colombian government for all intents and purposes has been led by quasi-criminals for the past dozen years. It has an incredibly bad record when it comes to dealing with its citizens. It has a record of turning a blind eye to the most malignant forms of oppression that occur in any part of South America and Central America.

Conservative members have talked about the improvement in the number of people who have been killed in Colombia. They have talked about the improvement in the number of trade union people who have been killed. Do they not think that the wholesale slaughter of trade union members over the past dozen years has led to people taking their own steps to avoid repression, to avoid being killed? That government in Colombia and its leadership has taken so many actions against people that people have had to be very circumspect in how they deal in their own society. Is that not more likely the case? The repression that has occurred for so many years in that country has now played out to a point where the number of murders committed by death squads and the number of potential victims has been reduced. That is what has brought down the numbers, I am sure. It stands to reason.

With that society and that repression, the Conservatives talk about going into a free trade agreement. They say that things are improving.

Do we not have a minimum standard that we should apply to any country before we enter into a preferred trade arrangement with that country?

It is not good enough to talk about improvement in the number of people killed. We need to examine the nature of the society that we are proposing to link up with. That is the kind of analysis the Conservative government has not done and will not do, because it does not believe anything should stand in the way of free trade.

The U.S. Congress has a different point of view. The members of Congress are not NDPers. We join with our colleagues in the United States in standing up against this proposed free trade arrangement,

Mr. Speaker, I see that I am running out of time. I am sure there will be many other New Democrats who will stand to continue this argument, because this argument is important to Canada, it is important to this Parliament and it is important to the people of Colombia as well.

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.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a democratic country that respects the rule of law, a country that respects human rights. We must ensure that we support countries that seek these objectives and that work to reach them. That is one of the reasons why Canada must try to sign bilateral trade agreements and to improve economic opportunities for Colombia's businesses. We must reconcile this goal with the responsibility to promote human rights.

We feel that a free trade agreement would encourage the Colombian government to undertake other reforms to promote economic growth, public safety and human rights. Over the past few years, Colombia has made real progress regarding the economy, and also social and public safety programs, but it is a fragile process. FARC terrorists, drug traffickers and attacks from the Chavez regime in Venezuela are all constant threats. Colombia is a beautiful country where honest people live and where natural resources abound. It is a country where the situation has been catastrophic for over 40 years, a country that has been paralyzed and divided by a civil war that began as ideological differences, but turned into a war without any ideological basis between drug traffickers, a war that has generated nothing but greed, despair and violence.

Since 2002, huge progress has been made, particularly with regard to public safety. Eight years ago, people were afraid to walk in the streets of Bogota and 400 towns were still controlled by FARC. This progress must continue, and so far it has been supported.

Some members of civil society have said they are opposed to Bill C-23 for reasons of human rights. There has been corruption and human rights violations in Colombia for years. Human Rights Watch, however, has noted that “under US pressure related to the FTA, Colombia has started to take some positive steps on impunity for anti-union violence”, although these improvements are incomplete.

Progress has been made since 2002, although violence continues. Corruption is also chronic in Colombia: more than 30 members of its Congress were under arrest in 2008 and more than 60 were being investigated on suspicion of ties to the paramilitaries. Despite these investigations, it is important to note that the paramilitaries are financed by Colombian drug trafficking and that they themselves help to perpetuate it. Civil society members agree that Colombia cannot fight effectively against drug trafficking and corruption or make lasting improvements in public safety unless its legitimate economy improves, jobs are created and there are opportunities for marginalized people.

Bill C-23 is opposed by labour unions such as the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress, but they have opposed all of Canada’s free trade agreements. The Canadian unions say that the Colombian government has implicitly encouraged anti-union violence and that the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Colombia signifies that we accept this. Human rights and labour rights groups do not want to see the Government of Colombia “rewarded” with a free trade agreement. Much remains to be accomplished in Colombia. This country needs our help.

If we close the door on a country like Colombia that is making progress, especially at a time when leaders of civil society, labour unions, governments and victims of violence by paramilitary groups and FARC guerrillas are trying to make progress, if we isolate Colombia in the Andes region and leave it exposed and vulnerable to unilateral, ideological attacks from Chavez’s Venezuela, we will just be allowing evil to prosper.

There is no moral justification for Canadians to do nothing. If a single member of Parliament or a single Canadian is concerned about the human rights situation in Colombia, then we must demand more of this country.

The free trade agreement creates a strong, regulated system to monitor the rights of working people, human rights and the environmental progress made in Colombia and to help Colombians manage and improve these rights and this progress.

Workers' rights and the problems in this area occurred without any free trade agreement. Trade links between Canada and Colombia exist already, but no regulated system exists to direct this relationship.

The provisions of this new free trade agreement are the strongest yet with respect to workers and the environment. In fact, none of the agreements signed by Canada to date contain such provisions. Accordingly, as Canadians, we must ask ourselves how such an agreement could do anything but strengthen our ability to influence human rights and workers' rights in Colombia positively.

Overall, most people and groups, including human rights NGOs, support ratification of the free trade agreement with Canada. They do not think this agreement would have a negative impact on the economy or human rights in Colombia. Many even believe that the agreement could increase Canada's oversight of workers' and indigenous rights thanks to its framework, which provides rules, and to the two side agreements in the areas of labour and the environment.

Canada has noted the difficulties faced by the Uribe government in its fight against the production and trafficking of narcotics and against FARC and emerging criminal gangs. Canada has noted as well the progress made in disarming paramilitary groups and reducing violence in general and violence against unionists in particular. The Colombian senators also spoke of a tripartite commission comprising the government, the unions and employers. This commission, under the supervision of the International Labour Organization, is helping Colombia honour its commitments to the ILO. At its annual meeting in 2009, the ILO reported progress in Colombia.

Finally, and this is the most important part, most of the senators that Canada met acknowledged that a free trade agreement with Canada would strengthen and improve living conditions in Colombia. Such an agreement would help to reduce poverty, prevent the resurgence of illegal armed groups and keep more Colombians from becoming dependent on the narco-economy.

The Canadian delegation met a group of Colombian economists who indicated their support for a rules-based free trade agreement with Canada. They pointed out how vital it was for Colombia to conclude this free trade agreement, especially since countries such as Chile and Peru had managed to conclude such agreements with key trading partners, including Canada. They stressed the need for Colombia to diversify its trade relations away from countries such as Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. The threat that Chavez represents for Colombia was a recurrent theme throughout Canada's meetings in Colombia. They said as well that there are increasing numbers of FARC guerrillas in Venezuela, who are protected by the Chavez government so they can continue to launch attacks against Colombia and against companies and individuals there.

A number of unions in the private sector in Colombia support the union movement. There, the union movement represents 6% of the labour force, and opposition to this agreement comes primarily from the public sector within the union movement. The trade unionists in the public sector have nothing to lose by supporting a rigid anti-free trade ideology. Those with the most to gain from the free trade agreement, however, are the workers in the parallel economy, who represent 56% of the labour force.

In conclusion, since I have less than a minute left, I would like to say that now is the time for Canadians who are so concerned about the welfare of Colombians to give them a chance to be a part of the economy and not let them be the victims of an ideology. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Legitimate trading activities can help the people of Colombia replace the forces of evil with the forces of hope. Now is the time for Canadians to reach out to Colombians and help them build a more peaceful, prosperous and just future.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are debating the subamendment put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan to amend the amendment presented by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, which basically calls on this House to refuse to give its consent to Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

With this subamendment, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is asking that we consider this refusal, “including having heard vocal opposition to the accord from human rights organizations”. The member is therefore asking this House to refuse to grant its consent based on comments we have received from groups asking us not to support this bill. I must say there are many such groups, both in Canada and in Colombia.

I would like to name a few of those groups: the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the FTQ, Development and Peace, KAIROS, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Lawyers Without Borders, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

These are but a few of the organizations in Canada and Quebec calling on us to not support the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. I must say that, even in Colombia, civil society is trying to mobilize to show its lack of support for this agreement. However, we will agree that it is harder to organize in the rather difficult situation in Colombia.

I would point out that a number of members of our caucus met last February with members of the coalition of social movements and organizations of Colombia, which includes the national indigenous organization of Colombia, the popular women's organization, the national agrarian coordinator, the Christian movement for peace with justice and dignity, the national movement for health and social security, the Afro-American African roots movement and the Black Community Process.

It is extremely important in making a decision to check with a number of the players to see whether there might be a consensus regarding this agreement. Unfortunately, in this matter, I believe a number of voices were raised against the agreement.

In June 2008, here in Parliament, the Standing Committee on International Trade tabled a report entitled Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia. The report made a number of recommendations to the government, recommendations the government did not implement. It decided to have the agreement ratified without considering the very sound recommendations made by the committee, including that Canada not sign the free trade agreement with Colombia until it was confirmed that the improvements in human rights were maintained and continuing.

The government nevertheless decided to proceed with the agreement, even though according to the information available to us, Colombia's record continues to be disastrous.

The committee also recommended that governments mandate an independent body to study the impact on rights and the environment of such an agreement. Canada has not done any study. And if studies have been done, the public has not been informed of them.

As well, the committee recommended that a competent body be established to examine the repercussions on human rights comprehensively, impartially and independently.

All of this is part of the process that would have led Canada to sign this trade agreement with a concern for its potential repercussions on the Colombian people. These recommendations came from parliamentarians. Once again, we note the Conservative government's propensity to ignore majority proposals from the House. We have seen and identified a number of proposals right here in this House during the two mandates of the Conservatives. I have to say that this is not the first time the Standing Committee on International Trade has been rebuffed. Last year, the government decided to categorically reject the committee's report calling on it to exclude water from all trade agreements.

Once again, the government decided to ignore the opinion of the House. As members of Parliament, how are we supposed to support such an anti-democratic attitude? Parliament is the voice of the people. When parliamentarians unite to make recommendations to the government, it seems to me that the government should take note and act accordingly. But ironically, in the case of the free trade agreement with Colombia, the government says that it has to go through with its draft free trade agreement to support democracy in Colombia. How are we supposed to trust the government when it comes to signing a Canada-Colombia free trade agreement when it will not even listen to its own Parliament?

Of course such agreements have to protect investments. We are not opposed to that. However, we must ensure that these agreements respect both partners. The government is calling this a free trade agreement, but free trade agreements are usually negotiated between partners of similar size. In this case, the agreement seems designed to protect investments. In many cases, that makes sense because it creates a predictable environment and ensures that assets belonging to foreign investors will not be taken over in the event of nationalization. In this particular case, we have to ensure that such protection will not be detrimental to the country where the investment is made.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows some investors to initiate legal proceedings against countries that seek to change or improve their human rights or environmental laws. It is clear that the contents of this proposal are not in line with what members of the House called for in committee. The government's refusal to heed the recommendations of civil society groups is appalling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-23, a bill that has taken on great importance here in Parliament this week. In many respects, it is a bill that announces to the Canadian people that the most unlikely of alliances may yet come into being. The Conservatives and the NDP are twisting themselves in knots trying to put the best spin on all their flipping and flopping.

Let us talk about the text itself. This bill has its beginnings in the summit meeting that occurred last November in Lima. At that time, the Prime Minister said “...free and open markets are the best way to ensure the global economy can quickly rebound”.

Regardless of what has happened between November and now, I and my colleagues would like to take the Prime Minister at his word and believe that he meant what he said back then. However, for those of us who have been following the government's approach to Asian markets over the last three long years, it could only be seen as an eleventh hour conversion. If the Prime Minister had always believed what he said in Lima, the last three years would have been very different. He would have been aware of other points of focus in international trade, other borders beyond Colombia and the Americas.

This was an issue earlier this month when my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, and I sat down with some of our key stakeholders in the Pacific Rim export markets. The fact is that the last time there was any significant trade negotiations with an Asian country was back in 2001.

In all this time, three governments have completed six free trade agreements with countries in the Americas. These deals were structured much like this one. However, with a little research, we soon discover that the Americas account for only 11% of the world's GDP growth, while Asia accounts for 42% at 2008 purchasing power parity rates. To make things worse, almost twice as many Canadians are from Asia as are from the Americas. Our focus is misplaced considering the strength of our cultural ties.

In economic times like these, we cannot help wondering how much better positioned Canada would be if we had actually engaged in Asian markets over the last three years, never mind the Americas.

Perhaps the Prime Minister was afraid that the more time he spent in Asia he would become less Canadian or maybe someone would run ads saying that he was just visiting his own country.

However, perhaps I should just keep the focus on the bright side. Here we are and the government is doing something at least to open up Canada's markets to the world. If doing something means Colombia, let us get down to it and do it right.

Colombia needs to engage with us. The past 40 years of its history tells of illegal drugs fuelling paramilitary groups in one of the most destructive conflicts in the hemisphere. The conflict caused massive displacements, murders and human rights violations. No member of this House is under any illusion about Colombia's past. Our task now is to shape its future.

Now we see that this the very issue of human rights abuses, the one that Conservatives used to explain their failure on the China file, is not the sticking point it once was. With this Colombia agreement now a part of a confidence vote, it is no longer an issue with our New Democratic friends either. This is quite a flip-flop for them, needless to say.

Just this May, they were saying, “The NDP is standing on the side of millions of Canadians who oppose murder, torture and human rights abuses. We oppose the blood that is on this agreement”.

I guess those millions will hear a different story from them in the coming months or coming days.

They also claim that this deal makes a mockery of human rights. For members of the NDP, I guess it is a better mockery of human rights than the mockery they make of Parliament, lying in bed with the Conservatives at the first opportunity. So much for empty rhetoric. Let us look at the facts.

As a member of the international trade committee, I visited Colombia last year with my colleagues to talk to the people of Colombia. We heard from experts, businesses, NGOs, trade unions and officials. Our committee found that there has been progress in Colombia since President Uribe was elected in 2002: violence and murders are down 50%, kidnappings are down 90%; union member killings are down 70%; displacements are down 75%; tens of thousands are being reincorporated into civil society from demobilized paramilitary groups; 92% of children are in primary school; and 30,000 hectares have been reforested. However, against this progress, paramilitary groups continue to violate human rights, environmental programs lack adequate resources and corruption remains a major problem.

We must ask ourselves how we can build on our progress and engage Colombia on human rights. The Liberal Party has always believed that economic engagement helps build Canadian influence on human rights. People on the ground in Colombia agree.

The United Nations told us in Bogota that Canada can use the agreement to promote dialogue and improve accountability on human rights. Human rights activists in Colombia told the committee that trade agreements are an effective means to pressure Colombia to live up to its international human rights obligations.

To sum up, the Conservative government is squandering the tremendous potential of the Asian market and spending all its time and resources in the Americas.

It is clear that Saskatchewan is the only province in Canada that had a surplus budget last year. The success story is that it is the only province that deals with other countries besides the Americas and that is where its goods and commodities are going. We should all be learning from that province.

With this deal, Canada must support Colombia's efforts to tackle the drug trade, security and corruption. Let us make sure of it.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this important initiative of free trade with our South American neighbours, the people of Colombia, in Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, and the measures and agreements on the environment and labour co-operation that are part of that agreement.

Canada has always been a trading nation, and a great portion of our economy and wealth historically came from selling goods that are mined, sourced and manufactured in Canada. As far back as the Hudson's Bay company, our historical wealth, which began hundreds of years ago with fish and furs, developed into manufactured goods and a high-tech industry. Canada could always produce more than our people need, because we have the resources and because Canadians are an industrious people.

I think of Daniel Massey, who in 1850 founded the Massey farm implement company in Newcastle, Ontario, and his son Hart, my mother's great-grandfather, a brilliant businessman who took over the family business. Having developed the most advanced farm machinery in the world, for example reapers and threshers that were sold all over Canada, Massey Manufacturing took on the world and won. It became one of the world's largest farm implement companies, and it continued to grow.

Hart Massey was one of the original masters of the corporate takeover. He managed to absorb the Ferguson Tractor Company and later Harris manufacturing company to create the world's largest farm implement company, Massey Harris.

This was accomplished despite the tariffs that existed. One can only imagine how much further Massey Harris might have gone had there been true free trade, as will be accomplished in this agreement.

I also think about one of Canada's leading companies today, Research In Motion, which makes the BlackBerrys that are so ubiquitous on Parliament Hill and business worldwide, a current example of how Canadian entrepreneurs, given a level playing field, can take on the world and win. Those entrepreneurs have always provided thousands of jobs in Canada, and increasingly, value-added high-tech jobs, the jobs of the future.

In so many cases, such as our high-tech industry, software industry and even in mining and resources, it is important for governments to sometimes get out of the way of our most industrious and creative citizens by lowering barriers that are not benefiting the economies of nations with which it should be trading more.

This agreement opens the door, without trade barriers, to Canadian wheat, paper products, mining, oil and gas, engineering and information technology. I think of two of the world's largest engineering firms with head offices in my riding of Oakville: Amec and Acres International. They are already world-beaters. They already engineer projects all over the world, but they will have better access to Colombian business as we move forward and deepen our presence in Latin America.

Trade creates new jobs and new wealth. All one has to do is look at Ontario's auto pact, which has existed since the 1960s. It is one of our earliest free trade agreements. In my riding of Oakville, we make four Ford models currently, including the Ford Edge. Eighty per cent of the cars and sixty per cent of the auto parts manufactured in Ontario are sold in the United States. Thousands of jobs in Ontario depend upon car and car parts sold in the U.S. The auto industry knows what we know, that Canadian workers are reliable, hard-working, well-educated, healthy and productive.

This industry is totally integrated. I have a constituent in Oakville who runs a plant in Brantford, Ontario. They make engine manifolds that go to plants in the United States and Mexico. They are installed on the engines and come back to Oshawa and other parts of Canada where they are installed in cars that are then resold in the United States.

This is how far a free trade agreement can integrate an industry and create wealth. That is why one out of four jobs in Canada today comes from free trade. Canada has prospered mightily from free trade.

Our largest trading partner, the U.S., has been hit hard by this recession. Its debt-to-GDP ratio is more than double that of ours. Many of its financial institutions have failed. The sales of our producers who sell to the U.S. are down. The place that was our greatest source of trading wealth and jobs has now become weaker.

However, we have been overdependent on the U.S. market for years. The U.S. economy will recover, as will ours, but I have always wondered why the previous government, in 13 years, did not pursue more free trade agreements to lower that dependency on our American neighbours.

We now have a leader with a long-term vision for Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and a government that is doing that, working with our democratic allies to open doors --

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

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

I want to set the frame for my own involvement in this debate by saying that this was a difficult bill for me at first. I have met with delegations from Colombia and union organizers here who have expressed concerns about the human rights in that country. I take that seriously.

Colombia is a violent country. There are many instances of corruption and human rights violations, which is consistent with a narco-economy. It is indisputable that there is instability in Colombia and there have been human rights violations. It is also indisputable that there have been improvements economically, socially, and in terms of safety, so we balance off those two different issues.

The question for the people of that country is: How will things get better? Is the move more negative or positive for countries like Canada to engage Colombia? Of course, we have heard Canada is not alone. Many other countries are doing the same thing, looking at trade agreements with this country.

As members of Parliament, balance is something we deal with all the time on issues. We balance local concerns with national concerns. We are always looking at what our constituents want with what we consider to be the national interest. Also, the party under whose banner we were elected plays a role as well.

We balance the time that we spend on constituency work with the time we spend on national issues or perhaps party responsibilities, being a minister, a critic or work on committees. One of the difficult things about politics is finding the right balance.

On issues, quite often, it is a matter of finding a balance as well. We deal with issues that challenge us. There are pros and cons on both sides of an issue. How do we work within Parliament and even within our own parties to move the ball on things and to advance not only Canadian interests but the interests of people with whom we deal?

I want to pay tribute and offer my thanks to the Liberal critic for international trade. On a number of issues, he and I have had very serious discussions about concerns I have had and maybe issues on which we differed in the beginning. It is through working with him and the leadership that he has provided the Liberal caucus that we have been able to come up with solutions that make sense.

There have been a number of contentious issues on the trade front. The EFTA deal was one. It was difficult for me, my colleague from Halifax West, and those of us who have been actively supporting the shipbuilding industry with the negligence that has been shown by the government. A potential negative impact in the EFTA deal was its impact on Canadian shipbuilding. This Colombian deal is difficult because of the human rights violations, the allegations but certainly the violations of human rights that have happened in Colombia.

On EFTA, the Liberal critic, the member for Kings—Hants, the member for Outremont, the critic for industry, the member for Halifax West and I worked on this issue. How do we know what the right thing is? We are concerned about the impact on shipbuilding with EFTA.

Our critic sat down with us and we asked what the real problem was? The real problem for shipbuilding is that there is no national strategy for shipbuilding and that is what Canada needs. That, above all else, is what we need. That is why a country like Norway, which was the concern in the EFTA deal, has supported, advanced and consistently invested in the shipbuilding industry. It has gotten to a point now where it presents a bit of an issue for us.

My colleague from Halifax West, our industry critic, our free trade critic and I went to see our leader. He said, absolutely, he would commit the Liberal Party to having a national strategy on shipbuilding, that we would look at things like tariffs, the structured financing facility, those things that will make a difference to shipbuilding.

In the summer, just after the House adjourned in June, the four of us met with representatives of the shipbuilding industry, with companies, shipbuilding associations and workers. We came to an agreement that there were certain things we could do to advance shipbuilding, to make sure that everything is taken care of, that workers, management and shipbuilding associations can come together on a shipbuilding strategy that a Liberal government would facilitate, would lead, and that would make sure that shipbuilding retains its rightful place in the industrial structure of Canada.

On this deal, our critic and I had some discussions. Our critic for international trade and our critic for foreign affairs worked diligently on this file. They met with many Colombian stakeholders. They went down to Colombia, not with blinkers on but to study what is happening in that country. They met with trade representatives, think-tanks, unions, with President Uribe himself and with the UN High Commission and human rights representative in that country, to find out whether this deal would help or hurt.

Through all that work and the leadership that was shown by our critics on this file, I believe this free trade agreement can improve conditions in Colombia, conditions that have to some extent improved already, as the members for Niagara West—Glanbrook, Toronto Centre and others have pointed out.

We know we need to be vigilant. We know there is much work that has to be done. We know there are people who have been killed, people from labour unions, labour organizers and many others. The question is, how do we have a positive impact on that? How do we make sure that what we are doing is right, not only for ourselves but for other people with whom we share this world?

Many of the progressive forces in Colombia in fact look to Canada to assist and they believe this deal can actually enable them to make things better for the citizens of that country, to improve the lives of people who struggle in that country. They consulted extensively and with an open mind.

As we have heard as well, we are not the only progressive country in the world. Many of the countries with whom we do business, to whom we compare ourselves on human rights, labour conditions, fair wages and international development, are also negotiating with Colombia. Of course, in the United States, the Obama administration has signalled that it is perhaps readier to move now on this than it had been before, that this is important to the people of that country as well as the people of Colombia. So we have similar goals.

Generally, as a Liberal, I support freer trade. Among the organizations that are supporting this deal, I see Canada Pork International and the Cattlemen's Association. There are organizations in this country that, as my colleague from Malpeque has pointed out, need help. He called for an emergency debate earlier today on agriculture. These are organizations that can benefit as well.

We should be supporting freer trade. That is what we do as Liberals, but we always want to make sure that we see the whole picture and that we are not ignoring things that are going on in a country with which we choose to do business. We think, though, this deal can have a positive impact in reducing human rights abuses and helping to build and strengthen the social infrastructure in that country, strengthen the social foundations and actually make things better for the people who are suffering now.

At the end of the day, when we look at any kind of free trade bills, there are some in this House who will always oppose them. Perhaps there are some who always support them. I think it is important that we look at every bill, at the global picture as well as the national picture. We have to look at the people we are dealing with as well as the people in this country. We have to make sure that we are doing things for the right reasons, that we are protecting citizens wherever they live in this world, not just to the benefit of ourselves.

To support Canadian industry is not a bad thing. To support industry in other nations is not a bad thing. On balance and from the discussions we had, I have come to the very firm conclusion that this bill needs to go forward and it needs to go forward quickly.

The House resumed from September 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in saying that I do not support Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

Knowing Colombia's current social situation in terms of human rights and politics, one can understand why the Bloc Québécois does not support the Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia. It is crucial that we analyze the impact and repercussions that the terms of this agreement will have on the people of Colombia, for there will be many. We must ensure that the rights of Colombians are respected and that their opinions will be taken into account before we ratify this agreement.

Civil society and the people of Colombia are opposed to a free trade agreement that enhances the rights of foreign investors and exporters, but does nothing to take into account local issues in terms of development and human rights. Yes, trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows those states that are willing to promote development and protect the environment as well. At present, the uproar against this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is only growing in strength, in Canada and in Colombia.

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

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

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

There seems to have been a major governance problem in Colombia and a questioning of the government's legitimacy since the parapolitics scandal broke in 2006. I am not here to judge Colombia's domestic politics, but we have to be honest. A number of politicians were arrested for having ties with the paramilitary forces responsible for carrying out thousands of assassinations, imposing a regime of terror and expropriating land. In addition, those responsible for the crimes against union officials and civilians are very seldom found guilty in court. Impunity remains in Colombia. Only 3% of the crimes committed led to a conviction.

In the meantime, the paramilitaries are reasserting control over the territory, and the government is doing nothing to stop them. Anti-union culture prevails in Colombia, and human rights violations and violence towards unionized workers are common. This is a serious problem. It is very risky to be unionized in Colombia. Union members are terrorized, as are activists who are trying to form a union, to join one, or to engage in collective bargaining, taking part in labour disputes or fighting privatization. Since 1986, 2,690 union members have been killed in Colombia. This number increased by 18% in one year, going from 39 homicides in 2007 to 46 in 2008, not counting the activists who are threatened or kidnapped. Most assassinations are carried out by paramilitaries. Anti-union laws, along with the violence and terror, have helped keep the rate of unionization below 5%.

The serious human and labour rights violations are not the only problem in Colombia. The effects of the introduction of the extractive industry are damaging the way of life of Colombians and often forcing them to leave their land.

The free trade agreement has a chapter on investment. It tends to give greater protection to Canadian companies that invest in the mining sector and exploit resources. The Bloc Québécois worries that these investment protection measures give far more protection to Canadian investors than to the local population and the environment.

According to the CCIC, this chapter is nothing more than wishful thinking when it comes to corporate social responsibility. In fact, the provisions simply require companies to give it their best shot. They are purely voluntary and are absolutely impossible to enforce.

Extraction companies have a social responsibility toward the people of Colombia. Canadian investments in Colombia, which are primarily in the oil, gas and mining sectors, total $3 billion, and will probably reach $5 billion within two years.

Canadian mining companies have to be careful not to become complicit in human rights violations or cause forced displacement of any populations, since regions that are rich in minerals tend to become theatres of violence, paramilitary control and displacements. A few Colombians have been killed after they opposed the Colombian government's concessions to a Canadian industry to begin mining operations.

In Colombia's current environment, in which the state cannot seem to guarantee the security of its territory, the Colombian government and security forces are unlikely to be capable of maintaining proper control of the foreign companies that are exploiting resources there.

According to the KAIROS group, Mexico's experience with NAFTA demonstrates how free trade agreements favour corporations to the detriment of the rights of individuals and communities. Foreign investments based on NAFTA's chapter 11 rules often fail to recognize aboriginal peoples' right to be free, informed and willing participants in the activities that take place on their territory.

According to Amnesty International, over 60% of the three million displaced people in Colombia have been forced from their homes and lands in areas of mineral, agricultural or other economic importance.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported the adoption of mandatory standards and accountability measures with respect to the activities of mining companies abroad.

The Bloc Québécois agreed with the national roundtable advisory group when it called for the adoption of mandatory corporate social responsibility standards for mining companies operating abroad, for punitive measures for offending companies, and for the creation of an independent ombudsman to conduct impartial investigations to validate complaints.

However, the Minister of International Trade chose to reject most of the national roundtables' recommendations and implement voluntary standards. The Conservative government is not doing anything to compel Canadian companies to implement socially responsible practices when investing abroad.

In its June 2008 report to the House, the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended creating an independent organization to assess the impact on rights and the environment when negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, like Colombia. But Canada carried out no such assessment. Or if it did, it did not make the results public.

The Bloc Québécois is open to trade, as long as it is fair. Trade agreements must include clauses mandating compliance with international standards for labour rights, human rights and the environment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to participate in the debate, as many members have, simply because so many constituents have responded to Bill C-23 about the free trade deal with Colombia. I wanted to share with the House, though members have probably heard these arguments before, that the issue here for those who are opposed to this bill is human rights. That is the issue.

If I may put some context into the background, I have a letter which states:

Contrary to claims that “respect for human rights has improved under President Uribe” and that “engaging Colombia through free trade will give Canada more leverage to influence the Colombian Government in the area of human rights” the situation has not significantly improved and the premise that free trade will lead to greater influence is tenuous at best.

That is an interesting assessment. We have seen this before in discussions on trade arrangements with other countries. A number of members have raised labour law issues and the fact that labour leaders have been targeted. Indeed there have been some serious questions that have also been raised by the committee that studied this.

It would appear to me that the questions still have not been fully resolved. For that reason, I really believe that this bill is not being advanced by speculation about whether a side deal is as good as a clause in the agreement itself. One member referred to it being equally robust, and that is fine.

We have had experience in this before and the issue of side deals has come up many times before. That goes maybe to the heart of it. If the basis for the bill is that the side deal is going to provide the tools necessary to ensure that progress is being made on some of the issues of concern to many Canadians, it should be understood and accepted by virtually all who have the facts. That does not seem to be the case in the House, and the issue of human rights has been raised.

The parliamentary committee recommendation was that the deal not proceed in its current form. A big part of that argument was because of the uncertainty and questionable assertions with regard to the human rights conditions in Colombia right now.

The letter states:

...international human rights organizations continue to denounce the daily horrors in Colombia.

I would think that the history of Colombia, in terms of the characterization of the problems that the country has, is generally known. It is a country in fact that has a population of some 46 million people. Its population is 50% larger than that of Canada, but our trade is about the same. We have a balanced trade position with them.

The assertion that somehow this trade deal is going to put us in a position where we will be able to influence the human rights situation of Colombia is, to me, a stretch. I think it is better that we are certainly at the table and able to demonstrate and work with the UN and other parties, but even the U.K. has recently backed off in its support for Colombia.

It is extremely important for the House to assess these questions and to make an informed decision not only on whether this is going to be an instrument that is going to provide the opportunity for an improved trade situation, because to the extent that Colombia enters into trade arrangements with other countries, there will be situations established in which Canadian exports will not be competitive, and we will lose the work.

Everybody wants Canada's economy to do better, but at what price? That is the question being asked by many members. What comes first, or can we have it both ways, and can we have assurances that somehow we can have a situation in which Canada, in fact, can play a meaningful role in improving the human rights situation in Colombia?

As I indicated, there are other countries that, as a consequence of the current facts in Colombia, are revoking their support for the Colombian regime. That is serious. The U.K. ended its military aid to Colombia because of the systemic crimes committed against the Colombian people. When the U.K. makes that kind of move, we have to question whether there is a fundamental soundness to the argument. This is not known and it is not accepted.

I do not have the other background material, but as I read through some of the other assertions, there is a reference to the practice by the Colombian army of dressing up thousands of murdered civilians as guerillas in the government's rush to show results in the country's conflict. That is very plausible. These are the kinds of things that happen in countries where there is oppression of other human beings.

Burma is another example, one that our colleague from the Yukon is very involved in. He has helped the House become more aware of the plight of civilians, and in this case labour leaders, who have been systemically dealt with in a way with which we would not want to be involved, quite frankly.

There is a question as to whether our investments in Colombia will contribute to improving human rights. That is a question. We say we hope it will. We hope it is because we are at the table, and we hope it is because we have the ability to communicate and discuss in a bilateral way some of these issues, but I am not sure whether Canada is in a position to tell another country what to do. I am not sure what influence Canada can bring.

Historically, Canada has had an excellent reputation for being a model of a proud, generous, tolerant nation that has a history of peacekeeping, conflict resolution and all those good things, but that reputation has been strained under the current government, quite frankly. There is the suggestion that we have to do this because Colombia is making deals with others. There has to be a balanced approach.

The assertions of the minister in his speech on May 25 painted quite a rosy picture about the significant progress that has been made. I have read about some of the allegations of complicity by some with the Colombian government and about the fact that there have been systemic murders of people. These are the kinds of things that make it absolutely necessary for us to have the necessary tools to have the influence we would like to have and still have this deal. I understand that trade is important, but at what price? The issue of side deals is also of concern to me.

Quite frankly, after listening to the debate today, I am of the view that this matter should go back to the committee. There are still some open questions and they are not going to be resolved by people asking their questions and giving their answers in this place without getting more facts or the facts. Somebody has to be accountable for this. It is time for Parliament to be accountable, and I believe that getting information and testimony from expert witnesses on the key questions raised by hon. members today will help this process enormously.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say hello to the people I represent in Terrebonne—Blainville and Ste-Anne-des-Plaines as Parliament resumes.

We are here today to discuss Bill C-23 at second reading. This bill concerns the implementation of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill for various extremely important reasons.

When two countries sign a free trade agreement, it is because they are preferred trading partners and the volume of trade makes it worthwhile to reduce trade barriers. But the Colombian market is a small and not particularly lucrative market for Canada. Canada has limited trade with Colombia. Of course, we export western grain there, but when the whole world needs grain, we are not going to export the most grain to Colombia.

Colombian investment in Canada amounts to $1 million, while Canadian investment in Colombia totals roughly $1.058 billion, which can essentially be attributed to the extractive industry.

The Colombian subsoil is extremely rich. Ore and energy resources such as coal account for 31% of Canadian imports. Colombia is therefore extremely attractive to Canadian extractive companies. It is also rich in natural resources.

In concluding this free trade agreement, the government is motivated not by trade, but by investments and the mining sector. This agreement will make it easier to protect Canadian investments in Colombia.

The Bloc Québécois is not against protecting Canadian investments in another country, but we want the agreements protecting those investments to be fair and equitable and take into account the common good. This is not true of this Canada-Colombia agreement.

The current agreement contains many clauses based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. This chapter had favourable results at least a decade ago, but for some time now, it has been misused, because it allows foreign investors to turn to international courts when a country wants to amend and improve its laws.

It is also possible under chapter 11 to use the threat of court action to prevent a government from improving people's living conditions. Lawsuits can be for an unlimited amount.

First, Colombia is not on an equal footing with Canada in terms of living conditions. Second, the proposed agreement uses chapter 11 of NAFTA, a chapter that has been roundly criticized everywhere and poses problems everywhere.

As I was saying earlier, free trade agreements are generally signed by states with similar economies. The economies of Canada and Colombia are completely different. Colombia is an extremely poor country. It is estimated that 47% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2006.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, poverty is most prevalent in rural areas and affects 68% of the population. In addition, the current unemployment rate is one of the highest in Latin America. In view of this fact, what is the value of a free trade agreement that benefits mining companies and that will not necessarily improve the standard of living for the country's population given that they must work for the mining companies? We know what these companies do. I will come back to that later on.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. In June 2009, witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade and told us that the worst humanitarian crisis was unfolding in Colombia.

The impunity prevailing in Colombia has led human rights groups to believe that there is collusion between the Colombian political class and paramilitary groups.

Colombia is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to workers' rights. We know that union activists are assassinated and that thousands of people have disappeared. People are displaced because small farmers and miners sometimes own land that is coveted by big mining companies. In most cases, these people receive no compensation.

There is a great deal of opposition to this free trade agreement. Canadian civil society is opposed to this agreement, Colombian civil society is opposed to this agreement and many organizations in Quebec are also opposed to this agreement. A committee called the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive industry in Developing Countries was created in 2007. This committee made recommendations to the government. What did the government do? It rejected them outright. It did nothing and did not implement any of the roundtables' recommendations.

Recently, members of this House who sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade also wrote a report based on their deliberations, their trip to Colombia and their meetings with witnesses. This report reproduced some of the conclusions of the famous round tables.

What did the government do? It rejected the report out of hand and gave us a slap in the face, saying that it had signed this agreement and asked only that we vote for it. That is irresponsible, and it shows disrespect for the members who sit in this House and the companies that sounded the alarm and warned the government that the situation in Colombia was not exactly what the government thought.

But we know that this government protects major investors, and this agreement protects Canadian investors abroad who will not be punished for the crimes they commit against the Colombian people and Colombian companies.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement and speak out publicly against it.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has given me the terribly difficult task of trying to get into the heads of the Conservatives. Clearly anybody who has been following the debate closely will know their position makes absolutely no sense.

The points raised by my hon. colleague are obviously spot on. This is not an agreement that anybody in the House should be able to support. In fact the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has taken a leadership role in rallying people, not just in the House but right across this country, and indeed internationally, in opposition to this trade agreement.

Let me remind members of the House why that is. It is because they all agree with New Democrats that there is a failure on labour rights protection and environment protection. The investor chapter should scare anybody who has taken even a moment to read the bill before the House today.

I cannot get into the minds of the Conservatives; I cannot explain their position to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. But frankly I cannot explain the position of the official opposition on the bill either. It makes no sense. We should all be united in our opposition to Bill C-23.

I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his leadership in trying to persuade as many Canadians as possible to join us in this important cause of fighting for human rights, not just in Canada but around the globe.

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