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-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think what Canadians see is what we all see in this House, that the current iteration of the Liberal Party is virtually indistinguishable from the Conservative Party, in terms of major policies. That is, of course, when we can discern what the policy of the Liberal Party is, because it often takes contrary positions. The members contradict each other day to day and year to year and it is difficult to determine what they actually believe in.

I must say that the members opposite, the government, at least have the courage of their convictions and are actually consistent with their beliefs, philosophies and principles. I give them credit for that, however much I may disagree with them from time to time. However, the Liberal Party is completely adrift.

Again, by pursuing a policy indistinguishable from that of the government on deepening and embracing trade with countries that have horrible human rights records and terrible, deep social inequality is a sad testament to where the Liberal Party is today.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have breaking news.

Just a few hours ago the Liberals floated this trial balloon of somehow letting self-monitoring take place, so that the Colombian government would monitor itself. I would just like to read the first of the press releases that seem to be coming in.

This one is entitled, “Liberals sell-out on human rights with amendment to Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement”. It is by the Council of Canadians, Canada's largest citizen organization, with 100,000 members, five times more than the National Citizens Coalition the Prime Minister formerly headed.

It says the following:

A Liberal proposal that would fast-track the passage of a free trade agreement with Colombia would put Canada at odds with international allies and betrays a parliamentary commitment to perform an independent human rights impact assessment first.

A council trade campaigner adds that:

The Belgian government today rejected a new investment treaty with Colombia because of ongoing and often unchecked human rights violations, and spying on NGOs by the Colombian intelligence agency. Incredibly, the Liberals are ready to ignore all this by letting the Colombian government monitor its own human rights violations.

The council also states:

The Liberal proposal flip-flops on a previous commitment...that the free trade agreement should not be ratified until an independent human rights impact assessment can be carried out first.

Carleen Pickard, one of several Canadian members of the pre-election monitoring group that went down to Colombia, states that:

Canada entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia now not only sends the wrong message to Canadians and the Colombian regime, it also may make Canada and Canadian companies complicit or passive supporters of continued violence in Colombia.

I would like the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway to comment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to express the gratitude of millions of Canadians for the fine work the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done on this file.

There is a fundamental lack of logic in the position that we should trade with known human rights abusers because we can make things better that way. If that were the case, then we would have no principles whatsoever when determining whom we are going to trade with. We could take the worst violator of human rights in the world and believe that we should start trading with them from the mistaken logic that if we trade with them somehow it will improve things.

Another grotesque lack of logic is that we can let a country like Colombia self-monitor. Talk about letting the cat among the pigeons. One simply cannot do that.

We talk a lot in this House, and I hear a lot from the other side, about responsibility and accountability. Well, to me responsibility and accountability mean that one put one's actions before one's words, that one puts up before one shuts up.

Colombia should demonstrate to the world over an extended period of time that it respects international norms of conduct. Then and only then ought it be considered as eligible for the benefits of a free trade agreement with our country.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to inform the New Democrats, who of course do not support any free trade agreement, that this agreement actually requires the Government of Canada and the Government of Colombia to both author a report that will be tabled both in their congress and our Parliament on an annual basis.

We will be able to debate that report at the trade committee and actually hear from the authors of that report there, where we can question them and also hear from NGOs, civil society representatives, the business community and labour unions on an annual basis. This actually sets a gold standard for engagement.

Will the NDP stop misrepresenting this and calling it—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I must give the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway a few seconds to respond.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the question by the hon. member is one that continues to perpetuate an absurd lack of logic.

This deal will open up Colombian territory to foreign resource extraction. It will worsen Colombia's refugee crisis. There will be no Canadian jobs created by this agreement. It will be a benefit for corporations, not workers. It will make things worse for workers in Colombia.

The trade unions do not want it. The human rights organizations do not want it. Civil society does not want it.

I wonder why the member is pushing so hard to trade with a country that is—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, today is March 25, 2010, and the negotiations between Colombia and Canada began in 2002.

On June 7, 2007, the international trade minister at the time announced that the negotiations with Colombia and with Peru had been resumed.

On November 27, 2007, a motion was introduced to study the future agreement with Colombia, and in April 2008, we started hearing testimony in committee.

There were two years of negotiations and several months of consultations between the civil societies and representatives of the Canadian and Colombian governments.

In May 2008, our committee had the opportunity to go and visit Colombia and conduct consultations there. We were in Colombia in May 2008 when we heard that the government had finalized its negotiations and would sign the free trade agreement. However, the committee had not finished its consultations. We were in Colombia consulting people. The trip was actually much appreciated by the opposition members, who were deeply moved by it.

It seemed at the time that even the Conservatives were profoundly affected. Every time witnesses told us about human rights violations, the displacement of people and killings, especially of union activists, the Conservative members seemed touched by their cause.

We also visited a small municipality where displaced people had gone. We had an opportunity there to hear the deeply moving testimony of people who had seen their fathers or husbands killed and who had been displaced by military forces, probably FARC, paramilitary forces or guerrillas. We could not help being very moved, because these people were talking about things that had happened to them.

I thought at the time that the Conservatives and the Liberals had been touched by what they heard. Lord knows how many times the Liberals have changed leaders over a short period of time. We know now that though the leaders may change, the ideas remain the same.

Returning to the Conservative government’s denial of democracy, we were in Colombia when we heard that the negotiations had ended and that the government wanted to sign the agreement. We know what ensued: prorogation, an election, prorogation and a motion to limit debate and not continue the discussions.

In actual fact, it was good that Parliament was prorogued again, because it enabled us to start the debate on Colombia all over again. We are not starting right at the beginning. Some members think seriously about these things, and their position has not changed because the situation has not really changed.

The NDP is against this free trade agreement for reasons on which the vast majority of us actually agree. The NDP tends to oppose free trade, but we do agree with the NDP about human rights, the environment and everything that could happen in Colombia.

I had the opportunity to meet President Uribe twice. Unfortunately, he failed to convince me that he was sincere. In Colombia, I found it hard to understand the high levels of public satisfaction with that government and its president. He was first elected in 2002. Thanks to changes made to the constitution, he managed to run a second time and get re-elected in 2006. He then tried once again to amend the constitution.

The French daily Le Monde wrote the following on February 27, 2010: “On Friday, February 26, Colombia's constitutional court invalidated a law passed in September and designed to organize a referendum which, if it had been approved, would have changed the constitution to allow the head of the state to run in the May 30 presidential election. This means that Alvaro Uribe, who left his mark in that country with his firm stand against FARC guerrilla forces, may not be able to run for a third mandate.”

There are some who are very pleased about that. Civil society and unions are among those of course, and also those people who have been suffering for eight years. In fact, they have been suffering for longer, that is 40 years during which they were caught in a corrupted system. However, members of the international community thought there was a real will to change things, including the Conservatives, who blindly believed this to be the case. The will to change things had little to do with improving the plight of the overall population and acting as quickly as possible. The president's goal was primarily to change the constitution and get re-elected for a third time.

Let me again quote Le Monde: “In July 2008, his government snatched from the FARC fifteen of their most valuable hostages, including Franco-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt. That year, some observers were even talking about FARC's demise. However, guerrilla forces have been gaining ground since and remain present on half of the territory.”

So, some efforts were made, but they were minimal and they only sought to project a positive image to foreign countries that, of course, President Uribe wanted to welcome to his country to engage in free trade.

Just to show the lack of seriousness of President Uribe, who said he was an angel and was doing everything he could to ensure that democracy would prevail and that violence would disappear, here is another excerpt from Le Monde: “The constitutional court decided to invalidate in its entirety the law under which a referendum was going to be held, said the president of the court. Before that, the judge had harsh words for this legislation which, in his opinion, seriously violated the basic principles of a democratic system. These violations included irregularities in the funding of the campaign to promote the adoption of this legislation, and also during the legislative process.”

We came back from Colombia in May of 2008.

We continued hearing witnesses and holding committee meetings and produced a report that does not really correspond to the position taken by the Liberal Party today. I would like to read a few of the recommendations made in that report, recommendations that the Liberal Party supported. I will not read them all, because there are a number of them, but I will read the main recommendations.

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada should not sign and implement a free trade agreement with the Government of Colombia until the Canadian government has taken into account the recommendations contained in this report, including those of the dissenting reports.

The second recommendation reads as follows:

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada maintain close ties with Colombia without signing a free trade agreement until there is confirmation that the improvements noted are maintained, including continued improvement as regards displacement, labour law and accountability for crime, and until the Colombian government shows a more constructive attitude to human rights groups in the country.

And the third recommendation states:

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada draw on the work of the organization Rights and Democracy to give an independent body the mandate to conduct studies regarding the impact on rights and the environment when it is negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, as in the case of the agreement with Colombia.

Clearly, what the committee recommended was not signing this agreement as long as there were no policies in place and no ongoing improvements in terms of human rights, labour rights, the environment and impunity, and until there was an end to violence and murders of trade unionists.

Yesterday we learned that the Liberal Party was going to assess the situation and that it might support us, but that assessment will take place on March 31 each year. How can we accept a government's claims that everything that is happening in Colombia will automatically work itself out as soon as we begin trading with them and have a free trade agreement? That is impossible.

The government should have used that to—I would not say impose, because Colombia remains a sovereign state—ensure that Colombia improves the situation for its citizens, maintains this improvement and demonstrates it.

The Conservative government has a plan for South America. At one point, it held negotiations with groups, but there is now a plan to move step by step, country by country, without no other thought than to take advantage of the situation.

I always come back to this, and it is pretty much my pet subject when I talk about free trade and globalization. On the subject of globalization and the actions of the multinationals, which moved pretty well across the globe in a mad dash, to whose benefit or disadvantage did it all take place? This is what happens in a number of countries. They exploit the labour force and the environment and often, unfortunately, even undermine human rights. This is blatant.

Now, imagine what it would be like if we could put a human face on globalization where all these elements were included in a free trade agreement and would provide the necessary tools or even give teeth to this agreement to ensure that people respected human rights, the environment and the workers, too.

But that is not happening. Why show this great interest if for no other reason than to develop a piecemeal policy to enter into free trade agreements with South America?

The United States signed the agreement in 2006, but never ratified it. It was never passed in Congress because of the human rights aspect. Just before the election of Barack Obama, I travelled to Washington, where I met senators and people from Congress. They seemed to want to change their mind, but did not do so. One of the reasons Canada wants to move as quickly as possible is to get the edge on the United States and negotiate tariff reductions that are more favourable to Canada than to the United States.

Statistics on crime in Colombia paint a very grim picture. In 2008, while we discussed the free trade agreement in committee, crime committed by paramilitary groups rose by 41%. The Conservatives, however, told us that things were going well and the situation was improving. Crimes committed by the government security forces rose by 9%. Despite the increase in crime, impunity remains unchanged. Only 3% of crime ends in a conviction.

Since 1996, 2,690 trade unionists have been killed. While murders of trade unionists have declined somewhat since 2001, the murders have resumed since 2007. There were 39 murders of trade unionists in 2007 and 46 in 2008, while we were hearing witnesses in committee. The Conservative Party said the situation was improving, when it was worsening. They said trade unionists had made progress.

Colombia does not have a legal framework to govern collective bargaining. On that point, about 95% of the public sector workforce is not covered by legislation governing collective bargaining. The situation is similar in every field, but I am sensitive to what the Colombian community is experiencing. Blindly signing whatever free trade agreement is presented is not the way to help them. We need to have a genuine desire to help these people get out of this stagnant situation and treat them as equals. Conditions have to be comparable and the agreement has to help both parties.

At present, we have the impression that the Canadian government wants to exploit Colombia. Colombians have enough problems already. I hope Canada will not make things worse.

In the past, we could count on the Liberal Party, which had genuinely demonstrated compassion and a desire to improve the situation in Colombia before doing business with it. The Conservative government said we had to hurry up because we needed to do business, to export and import.

The figures show that no free trade agreement officially applies, but there has been an increase in trade with Colombia between individuals. The fact that no free trade agreement applies has not reduced transactions between the two countries. In the normal course, they increase.

Some members of the committee have changed because the party leaders changed, but I recall that the previous leader of the Liberal Party was very sensitive to this situation. I think this kind of agreement would not have been accepted. The environmental aspect was important to him, and it still is.

There is also the human rights aspect. It is inconceivable that we would sign a free trade agreement without making sure that effective policies have been implemented. We must not act like Uribe and blow smoke in our eyes for a brief instant. It is known now that he will not be there any longer, so it is increasing.

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

Madam Speaker, we now know what the government was doing while it was recalibrating after proroguing Parliament. It was basically cooking up a deal with the Liberals to support Bill C-2. Make no mistake, this agreement could not pass in the House if it were not for the Liberals' changing sides and cooking up a deal with the government to support it.

In 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken, but that was under the previous Liberal leader and the previous Liberal critic. There was a change of leader and a change of critic, and the new critic has been quoted as saying that Colombia has more robust labour rules than Canada does. I could go on. We have numerous quotes from the member.

We know that Colombian labour laws stifle workers' rights. The rate of unionization is less than 5%, the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere. It seems to me that the Liberal Party has turned completely 180^o in its position on this issue in the last year.

Could the member somehow enlighten us as to what is going on with the Liberals?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is asking me to enlighten him on some of life's mysteries and on some political mysteries that are often impossible to explain.

There are flip flops. A party gets a taste of power and at some point, the tide turns. And then the tide turns again and that party is left wondering what it would do if it were in office. It thinks that it can ill afford to be against the free trade agreement because, after all, it supports free trade and trade is important. God knows how dangerous that kind of thinking can be. I find it difficult to understand that kind of behaviour.

However, it can be explained by the fact that that party wants to return to power and has often acted a little or I should say a lot like the Conservatives. The Bloc Québécois made a lot of proposals to the Liberals when they were in office. It is strange to see that today, they support practically all of them whereas when they were in office, they rejected them categorically.

In short, life's mysteries are easier to explain than Liberal mysteries.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-2, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act at second reading. As members know, we are here hopefully to put onto the table fundamental facts, which should be driving the conservation and building up the case that, if this matter gets approval in principle at second reading and goes to committee to hear from expert witnesses, there will be a body of evidence coming from members here. Unfortunately, second reading is being used for something a little different, and that is unfortunate because I know there are many hon. members here who do have this kind of information.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member if he has anything to contribute to the understanding of the bill, whether or not he has any evidence that other jurisdictions that were discussing trade relationships with Colombia have had second thoughts or there has been emerging information that there is some reluctance now, and whether or not there are jurisdictions, in fact, that have announced they will not be proceeding at this time, notwithstanding what leaders of countries said. These are important factors the House should be aware of, and we should use this time wisely. I ask the member for his comments.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

To ask the question is to answer it, Madam Speaker.

By shying away from signing this free trade agreement on the basis of human rights, the United States are acting somewhat contrary to their nature. Some European countries have also done so while we were considering this proposed agreement. I encourage the hon. member and those who might not be aware of what transpired to read the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade and its recommendations. I am tempted to say that the recommendations received 100% support from the Liberals, but I could be mistaken, so I will say 99% support. I want to give them some leeway, because I am really not that mean.

I urge all members of this House to read this document carefully and, then, talk to their colleagues who came with me to Colombia and ask them what they saw there. The people with whom we met did not have any direct interests like mining companies or businesspeople in other sectors do. These were people who experienced oppression, violence and reprisals. It could go as far as murder, depending on what stand they took in that society.

In my riding, we have many people who came from Colombia. Sherbrooke is home to many immigrants. In fact, I think it is one of the cities in the region with the most immigrants. We have many Colombian immigrants. Some of my constituents have experienced things similar to what the hon. member for Joliette described earlier. There are also students from Colombia who are being constantly oppressed. This is still a reality in 2010. More often than not, where does change come from? From university students with a craving for justice and freedom, who are oppressed and under constant threat.

I encourage all members of the House to read the report. Through efforts in terms of international assistance to help the various sectors of activity dig themselves out, something could surely be done and a free trade agreement could be signed with the people seeking to be free.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask this of the hon. member who has so much experience with South America. There are countries in South America that are committed to progressive values. They are democratizing their countries. They are trying to raise the standard of living of their citizens, and they are making human rights progress. I am thinking of countries like Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and even Venezuela. I am wondering if my hon. friend would comment on why he thinks the government has chosen to sign a free trade deal with Colombia, probably the worst violator of human rights in South America, as opposed to these other countries. I am wondering if he thinks Canada's trade policy might be better directed at dealing with trade with other countries including Brazil, notably, which is one of the most powerful emerging economies in the developing world.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not from a trade point of view that this free trade agreement is beneficial to Canada, but rather from an investment point of view. The investment agreement is the twin of chapter 11 of NAFTA. The best resource lands are those from which people were forcibly removed or for which they were simply killed.

These lands were taken without their owners' consent. The day those people decide to claim their rights with regard to those lands after they have been sold to a Canadian company, can one imagine what kind of situation this will create? Once again, the Conservative Party's main focus is to protect the financial interests of those who invest in Colombia, whatever they do.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to this agreement, which the Bloc Québécois opposes. We could not possibly be in favour of it.

It is hard to understand why the Liberals jumped ship and say—as an hon. member did this morning—that there is less violence and fewer murders now in Colombia when our colleague tells us that 48 trade unionists were killed in 2008, which is not so long ago.

Is it because the Liberals think life is less valuable now than it used to be or that lives in Colombia are not worth much? Is that how we should take it? Or should we assume they are afraid of being accused during the next election of opposing the agreement with Colombia?

In my view, it is probably the latter. It is still too bad, though, that they fail to see how valuable the lives of Colombians are.

We in the Bloc have always been in favour of free trade when it is with countries where the standard of living is roughly comparable to our own. That was true of NAFTA but it is not the case in the agreement with Colombia, where 77% of the people live below the poverty line and 12% in dire poverty.

This means that 17% of the people live in a certain amount of comfort and that real wealth is concentrated in the hands of 1% or 2%. This is the tiny proportion with whom the government wants to sign an agreement. A few Canadians would also like to be able to operate mines and factories without being bothered by the Government of Colombia, which might bring legislation forward that would place restrictions on their operations.

What we need to remember about this free trade agreement is that it will enable Canadians and Quebeckers who have the money to develop new mines or factories to get around potential legislation passed by Colombia.

If the Conservatives were sincere—and I will return to this point—and really wanted to see the situation in Colombia improve, they would start by providing aid and helping to reduce drug trafficking. When poverty in Colombia has been reduced, they could then sign a free trade agreement more or less between equals.

The Liberals are really feeling guilty—at least that is what I heard them saying this morning—and say they will require a report to be submitted every year in order to see whether the situation has improved. Just imagine. They sign an agreement and then they study the reports.

Once the agreement has been signed with the Government of Colombia, are they really going to change their minds and backtrack because of a report? That is nonsense. A report certainly will not change anything.

There is extreme poverty throughout Colombia.

It is really unfortunate and there has to be help in this regard. This country is heavily in debt, has 43 million inhabitants and has wealth concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. So it is hard to imagine respect being given to people working in difficult areas, such as mines, and human rights being upheld. It is also hard to image that the unions will have the power to change the government's attitude.

I would like to quickly go over conditions which prevent the country from readily adopting legislation. We are told it is for trade. Let us take a look at one thing. Colombia exports grain and beef. We have those here. That is their primary production. We are not going to trade cattle for cattle and grain for grain. Is it not really for the extraction of precious metals? I think that would be much more likely. So, it is not a trade agreement, it is an agreement to avoid legal proceedings if damage to the environment results.

The environment is global and important. In other words, the government does not want Colombia to pass restrictive legislation on the environment that would reduce the production of Canadians investing there. In terms of the environment, consideration must be given to potentially dangerous waste from a number of open-pit mines. Deforestation occurs as well. Trees are cut without proper replanting because the mine is open. If there were legislation requiring replanting, some would not be pleased because it would cut into their profits. Landslides are a risk as well. When open pit mines are created over vast areas, mudslides can occur in heavy rains, such as we see increasingly with climate change, which can bury villages built below the cliffs where people go to work in the mines. There are no town planning regulations, it goes without saying. The investors do not like that.

As concerns water, a number of factors may have an impact. What is taken from the mines can impact surface water, drinking water. We have seen this in mines in South America owned by Canadians. The water is so polluted that people can no longer drink it or use it for laundry. Naturally, underground water and the water table can be contaminated. It can have even more sinister effects because water some 40 or 50 kilometres away in another village can be polluted along with all the wells.

So we can see where this leads? Only the word environment and binding environment protection legislation can lead us further. The sole purpose for this free trade agreement is to save investors from having to face too many environmental constraints.

As for labour laws, the situation is the same. It means that people would be given respectable working conditions, that the unions could make demands so that it would cost investors more a few years after they set up. It is too restrictive, so they do not want to hear about it.

Let us talk about health laws now. Whether we are talking about open-pit mines or underground mines, in the long term, health can deteriorate when minerals this dangerous are being extracted. They prefer to let people’s health deteriorate rather than allow a government to enact binding legislation.

Let us also talk about pension laws. We would have to look long and hard to see people being looked after once their career is over. The government could enact pension legislation, and the companies would then have to pay. That is among the things that would not be welcomed by companies that prefer no constraints.

Once again, this is all aimed more at protecting investments than at trade. These are not negotiations between equals. I have described the extent of the poverty in that country. It is quite obvious that we are not going to be selling General Motors cars to the population. We will sell some to a few people who are very rich, and we will sell a few commercial or utility vehicles to people on the ground to promote investment from Canada. It is quite obvious that this agreement is not about free trade with the people. Thinking that amounts to putting on a blindfold.

There is a certain hypocrisy in this kind of agreement. Obliquely, we imply we will be opening up. Yesterday afternoon, I even heard a member of cabinet say that this kind of agreement would allow Canada to develop its foreign trade. That is not the case. Signing an agreement with Colombia is not going to develop Canada’s foreign trade. Be serious! We have to have agreements with Europe. We have to have agreements with people who have money. We have developed our foreign trade with the United States because there are people there with purchasing power; and still there are ups and downs. Because of the current crisis, globalization has had some setbacks.

Other members said earlier that it was time to sign this agreement because of the current global crisis. In a global crisis, poor countries are much harder hit than wealthy countries. Let us now go and see, in Colombia, how hard the Colombians have been hit by the crisis. This is not the time to go and exploit them more, it is the time to help them. If we really wanted to help those people, we would lend them money, we would help them to get on track and develop their country, we would not be proposing to sell them things. It is entirely improbable that this is going to happen.

This kind of agreement will not produce any improvement. Globalization has not improved the situation in every country, but it has greatly improved the situation in the big countries: the United States and its satellite countries.

Let us go and see whether globalization has brought well-being to Africa. The United States sells them rice that is subsidized and grown using super-mechanized methods. In those countries rice growing has been killed off. Elsewhere, countries have killed off the garment manufacturing industry by dumping cheap clothing.

So globalization is not automatically an improvement, particularly for smaller or less wealthy countries like Colombia, whose economic equilibrium is fragile.

Canada is able to make products cheaply and wants to sell them those products, and this will destroy the commercial fabric of those countries, which is very fragile.