Bill C-2 (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-Columbia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I note how the government's position is so radically different than ours in the NDP. What is the problem with understanding the nature of human rights complaints in Colombia? What sort of vision do Conservatives have over there of the situation in Colombia in which they can ignore the facts?

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

They don't care.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

As my hon. member says, is it simply that they do not care? Is it a real desire to see this Colombia trade deal move ahead before the next election so that the present regime in Colombia can hold it up like a flag saying, “Canada supports us, we must be doing something right?” What is going on with this?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I heard my colleague across the aisle talk about the NDP being locked in the 1950s and 1960s with its ideology and it certainly comes out again in this comment.

I do not know what the NDP thinks. Is it that we will build some sort of wall around Colombia that will all of a sudden change things? We already have companies trading with Colombia. We already have investment in Colombia. This is an agreement that will insist on Colombia moving forward with respect to its labour and social obligations. This is good for Canada but it is also good for Colombians, and I wish the NDP would at least get into this century.

Like I said, my colleague across the floor was absolutely right. The NDP is locked in the 1950s and 1960s.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to revert to a question I asked one of his colleagues earlier. For reasons of consistency I will do much of the same. The parallel accord regarding labour and some of the fundamental policies that will ensue from the nation of Colombia regarding labour practices certainly are about to fall in line, according to this agreement, with what we are doing here.

Perhaps the member would like to provide the House with an example of some of those labour policies that we have in this country that he hopes that the nation of Colombia will adopt as well.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague has actually hit the nail on the head where those parties that are opposed do not seem to grasp. With the opportunity for Colombia to move ahead by leaps and bounds to the standards that we have in this country, some of these issues will be far better for Colombia and Colombians in that we will have that opportunity.

With the economic boost to them, to their labour, and to their social opportunities, this is tremendous. It is also good for Canadians. It gives us opportunities to trade with Colombia in a free trade agreement. As I said previously, we currently trade with Colombia. There is no reason why we cannot enhance that trade. As we do it, it will be of benefit to both countries.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, and I thank him for his intervention, the NDP and Bloc members are opposing this basically because their opposition is rooted in an isolationist, socialist ideology.

My friend also knows that the NDP members today are couching their opposition in terms of human rights and labour laws, but back in the 1980s, when we were debating the North American Free Trade Agreement, they were actually opposed to that agreement as well when those issues were not at play.

Perhaps my colleague could comment on that and the fact that there probably is not one free trade agreement that the NDP has ever supported in the House.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The NDP has been opposed to every free trade agreement that I know of that has come before the House. This is just one more step in that long list of complaints that it has about free trade.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I understand completely the efforts on the part of members of the other opposition parties in expressing the concern regarding human rights. I indeed applaud them for ensuring that this is such a significant part of the debate.

I want to stress that we as Liberals share all of those same concerns. This is one of the ironies of this debate, and I would suggest that this is true for most members of the House in its entirety, that we are all very concerned about human rights, that we all want to see significant improvement in human rights for all Colombians.

I suggest that the differences lie not in our collective desire to see improvement and our collective concern for human rights but our views on how to accomplish that, and in this case in particular for Colombians. It comes down to a difference of approach, whether we support the approach of using walls as opposed to windows, of avoiding versus engaging, and engaging in criticism as opposed to providing support.

I completely agree with the members of the opposition parties about human right in Colombia. We know that respect for human rights is a problem in that country. The Liberal Party wants to see change, and I believe the same can be said for most members in the House, no matter which party they belong to.

We know that there are problems and of course we want to find solutions for Colombians with respect to the human rights situation, but the question is how. How can we really help Colombia? Is it better to use walls or windows? Is it better to criticize or to provide support when that country takes action to improve the situation? Is it better to deny there are problems or engage in fixing them?

I want to speak a bit about those three different approaches.

If we talk about walls versus windows, is it better for the people of Colombia to have Canadians says that this is a problem, that we disagree with it, that we see human rights as a big problem so we will not participate? Is it better to tell Colombia to put up its walls so we will not see what goes on behind them? Is it better to say that windows are a better approach so we can see through them, so they will shed daylight on what goes on, so they can be opened and allow in fresh air?

These are serious issues. These analogies may seem somewhat simplistic, but they do make the point, in my view, of whether it is better to raise walls and hide behind them and pretend that we do not see what goes on, or whether it is better for Colombia to have an opportunity to open those windows to allow the light in, to allow us to participate in a dialogue.

Is it better to criticize, or is it better to support Colombia? We could say no to this free trade agreement thereby limiting our economic engagement with Colombia. We could say from that perspective that we do not agree with what happens there, that it should be changed, but it is all just criticism.

The alternative is for Canadians to provide support, and the only way for us to support Colombia is to engage with Colombia. It is absolutely a difference between a philosophy of trade and an opportunity to engage, as opposed to some people unfortunately viewing trade as somehow encouraging behaviour that we do not support.

I stand here on not only a very personal basis, but on behalf of the Liberal Party as well. We feel very strongly that trade gives us the opportunity to participate and support the government of Colombia, the businesses in Colombia, the Colombian people when they engage in activities that further human rights as opposed to us standing back and criticizing. I would venture that it is all too easy for us to sit back and criticize rather than get involved, do the work and provide support when it is needed.

The other option is avoidance versus engagement. We could just avoid the problem, or we could engage.

As one of my colleagues said a little while ago, if we do not sign this free trade agreement with Colombia, we could all go home and pretend that the problem never existed. However, what on earth would Canada and Canadians be able to do to further human rights and enhance them if this agreement goes off the table? If anybody in the House believes that Canadians and Canada will have any further influence, that there will even be any attention paid to the challenges faced by Colombians, then he or she is naive, with all due respect. It will simply not be part of the discussion any longer.

On the contrary, if we engage, if we sign this free trade agreement, if we involve Canadian businesses with Colombian businesses, if we involve Canadians with Colombians, then it would give us the opportunity to work on a regular basis with the Colombian government, Colombian businesses, Colombian non-profit organizations, Colombian labour movements and the Colombian people to move the whole issue of human rights further. It would give us the opportunity to enhance economic activity, which we believe is fundamental to improving human rights, and to continue, rather than avoiding, rather than having it disappear from anybody's radar screen.

Thanks very much to my colleague from Kings—Hants, we now have an amendment to the agreement that would force an additional level of engagement specifically on some of these issues.

I have full respect and admiration for all of my colleagues who have engaged in this conversation, because this is an issue about which we are all concerned. It is a difference of approach.

I will therefore be supporting this bill, specifically because in our view those concerns warrant a much greater level of engagement than simply saying that we are not interested any more.

The Liberal Party truly believes that fuller economic engagement will allow Canada to exert its influence over Colombia in terms of the human rights situation we are currently debating.

Since the election of President Uribe in 2002, Colombia has made progress in reducing violence and human rights violations despite an armed conflict fuelled by the drug trade.

This progress is largely due to close collaboration with international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Progress has already been made because international organizations have become involved and people are participating in commercial enterprises.

I will stop there because I want to answer my colleagues' questions. We have to decide if we want to build walls or windows; if we want to criticize and deny the problems or become engaged.

In order to truly improve the human rights situation in Colombia, I choose engagement. I will be voting in favour of Bill C-2.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Liberal member's heartfelt comments, but I do not agree with her walls versus windows analogy. Another possibility would be to build different windows. Colombia has an embassy in Canada and Canada has an embassy in Colombia. There are many ways this debate could move forward.

I have to wonder about the progress made in that country since President Uribe came to power in 2002, as the member mentioned. Are fewer people being killed and imprisoned? Is that progress?

It is strange to hear such arguments. I would like the member to talk about the argument that alternative solutions already exist. However, we must not go from putting up a wall that is a trade barrier to putting up a wall of misunderstanding that would only encourage a government that completely denies civil liberties.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Some progress has been made, but the situation is not perfect. That is why we are taking part in this debate. We want to improve the human rights situation in Colombia. Is it better to go on criticizing or to offer our support, to show them that we have seen some progress and we want to help them continue in that direction?

I am not the only one saying this. The American President, Mr. Obama, congratulated President Uribe for the progress made in terms of human rights in Colombia and the in fight against the murders of trade unionists in that country. He noted that there had been appreciably fewer deaths related to the labour movement and increased prosecution of individuals who commit egregious human rights violations.

Some progress has been made. Are we going to encourage Colombia or continue criticizing?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it looks as if there will not be free and fair elections in Colombia on May 30.

The international pre-electoral observation mission, an international organization which is in Colombia observing the first round of elections, cites the following violations so far: human rights violations; illegal and armed groups interfering in the electoral process, creating fear and intimidation; and illegal campaign financing, using federal social programming to influence and coerce citizens. It has found a number of problems already before the presidential election on May 30. It is also calling for the Canadian government to back away on Bill C-2 until after the elections.

In light of these observations by this international organization, is the member content with her and her party's stance on Bill C-2?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point is things are not perfect. I will point out that President Uribe in fact respected the democratic requirements to not run for another term, but that is not the point.

The point is we engage in trade with all sorts of countries that do not have perfect electoral situations. Women do not have the right to vote in a number of countries with which we promote trade. Do I object to that? No. I support engaging in trade as much as possible because of the firm belief that the more we engage in trade, the more we can highlight the fact that we expect to see democratic reforms and improvements to human rights. Rather than hiding behind walls, rather than pretending they are not there and simply not engaging, by engaging and supporting our trading partners, we are also helping them to improve the democratic process and human rights.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this issue. Many of my colleagues will not be able to do so now after the shenanigans on Friday, when the opportunity for us to express our opinion on this issue, an opinion that is backed up by groups across the country, was taken away. The support for our position from people right across Canada is very strong. Our voice has been muted in the House by the actions of the Conservative Party. The government has taken that away from us.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the bill. I would like to focus on two aspects of the free trade deal.

We have paid a lot of attention to the aspect of human rights, environmental protection and labour rights. Those issues stand by themselves. Canada should not legitimize a corrupt regime in a country where trade unionists and human rights defenders are murdered with impunity and where drug cartels and paramilitary death squad leaders have infiltrated the government. We should not be doing that. That is pretty clear. Why are we doing it? That is a good question.

The agreement is based on the much discredited NAFTA model of trade and investment that enshrines investors' rights over democratic processes. If we look at all the other countries in South America when it comes to investor rights over a democratic process we will see that they are a little different.

In its submission to the committee studying this bill, the Canadian Labour Congress said:

Authentic democracy and the respect for human rights are not the direct outcome of free trade. If human rights and the security of the person are not upheld, neither are the democratic rights of millions of Colombians. Since January 2007, there have been 115 trade unionists murdered.

Rather than being a trade agreement, this is a trade and investment agreement. Something we have to understand is that this is Canada and the free traders' toehold in South America. There is virtually no other country in South America that is going to put up with this kind of agreement.

These countries want control of their own resources. They want to build their own states. They are a little tired and a little turned off by the last 30 years of imperialism on the economic front throughout South America. That has led to democratically elected governments in many of these countries that are standing up for their rights to control their resources, to control their economies and to make the right moves so that their people can move ahead.

That is what is happening in the rest of South America. The free traders have a toehold in South America where the rules that we thought were great will still be upheld by a corrupt and decadent government that has nothing in comparison to the human rights that we espouse.

What is it that we are going to accomplish for Canada with this action? We are going to fight a rearguard action in South America against the direction the democratically elected governments of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Chile and Venezuela have all said they are interested in going. They are interested in controlling resources and in returning investment to their people.

Now, that is a problem for those who are free traders, who want to protect multinational corporations' investing in other countries. That is a problem and we need to strike a balance. However, the balance is not going to be struck in Colombia. The balance is going to be struck with the majority of the countries in South America. What is Canada doing with this agreement with Colombia? It is painting itself into a corner and I do not think that is correct.

The Conference Board of Canada said:

Our annual trade with Colombia is about the same level as that with South Dakota and is actually smaller than that with Delaware or Rhode Island. Compared to other markets much closer, Colombia is not really a major player. Eighty per cent of Colombia’s imports to Canada are actually duty free already. The gains from free trade are probably not as great as they would be in other cases.

It is really not about the money. It is not about the $1.3 billion that we trade with Colombia. That is not going to be much altered by that. What we are not doing is reaching out for a new future in South America as people are doing right now in all those other countries. We could talk about a better arrangement with South America. That is what we should be discussing here.

We have been accused of being Luddites or of living in the past, but we are living in today. We are not living in a past that said our goal in this world is simply to exploit other countries. It is to have other countries grow as we want to grow. That is a New Democratic position. I hope that position can permeate some of the other parties. I am sure there are many people here who support that.

There is a regional trade agreement among Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay founded in 1991. They want a common market in South America. They want to work together in that region to build their economies and to make a better future for their people. Why are we not supporting that kind of effort? Why are we not engaging with those countries? Why are we engaging with Colombia?

The countries under Mercosur are Canada's largest export market in South America and home to significant Canadian investment already. We are working there. They are the countries we should be actively engaging with. Colombia is the odd man out.

Comments have been made to me by my constituents about the nature of the amendment that has been put forward by the Liberal Party and supported by the Conservative Party for assessments by individual countries on this particular deal. My constituents are saying that they will not be satisfied with anything less than an independent impact assessment conducted by an independent third party. Reports generated by the Colombian government are not satisfactory. They are not trustworthy. We cannot go ahead with an agreement in that fashion.

The haste to move ahead with this for political purposes perhaps, with the election coming up in Colombia at the end of May are not reasons for us to move ahead with this agreement.

There is no great rush for increased trade with Colombia. There is a great rush to keep that toehold in South America.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech. We know that the government has sent the RCMP after a person who had a business dealing with a man suspected of illegal activity, but it is prepared, without restriction, to sign a trade agreement with a corrupt government that is suspected of committing abuses and murdering union leaders. What is wrong with this picture?