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

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-2, 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 third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again speak in the House to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. This agreement is an important part of the government's ambitious free trade agenda, an agenda aimed at supporting Canada's economy, Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and building prosperity for our economy.

The fragility of the global economy emphasizes the value of expanding trade and investment relationships by improving access to markets abroad.

Our government is committed to pursuing this initiative and building Canadian prosperity through bilateral and regional trade relations. Canada's economy is export-focused, and as such, it is in our best economic interest to find as many new foreign markets for our producers and exporters as possible.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we support economic growth and create new jobs for Canadian workers. That is the experience of the North American free trade agreement and the experience of new free trade agreements under this government with Peru and with the European Free Trade Association.

We have had other free trade agreements, one before this Parliament on Jordan and another one recently signed with Panama, and we are currently negotiating a very ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. This Canada-Colombia free trade agreement before the House today is an important part of that agenda.

Canada's exporters, investors and service providers are calling for the opportunities that all of these free trade agreements provide, and this government is listening.

Colombia is a significant trade partner for Canada. In 2009, our two-way merchandise trade totalled $1.3 billion and, over the past five years, Canadian merchandise exports have grown by over 55%. Clearly, Canadian businesses and producers see potential in this market.

However, the reality is that Canadian exports, particularly commodities, are at a disadvantage when compared to many of our main competitors, like the U.S., for geographic reasons.

Speedy implementation of our agreement with Colombia will help our exporters strengthen their position. Canadian exporters are in danger of finding themselves at an even greater disadvantage in this important market. Once in place, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will benefit Canadian exporters by removing a number of major trade barriers to the Colombian market. For example, Colombia will eliminate duties on nearly all current Canadian exports to Colombia, including wheat, pulse crops and mining equipment.

In 2009, Canada exported agri-food products worth $247 million to Colombia. In fact, Colombia is the second largest market for Canadian agricultural exports in South America.

Once this free trade agreement is in place, over 85% of Canadian agricultural exports to Colombia will be duty-free immediately. The removal of these duties is a significant advantage for Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers. This government is standing up for Canada's agricultural producers. This sector is critical for Canada. It contributes about $100 billion to the country's gross domestic product and employs over two million Canadians.

The benefits of this deal extend across the Canadian economy. It is also expected to have a positive impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector. This sector has been hit particularly hard during these recent difficult economic times and it is a sector that would benefit from new market opportunities.

With rapid growth in the Colombian economy in recent years, Canadian companies made important investments. The strong presence of Canadian companies has also created many export opportunities for Canadian exporters of industrial goods, particularly oil and gas and mining equipment manufacturers.

Some of Canada's leading exports to Colombia include off-road dump trucks and auto parts. The manufacturers of these products would benefit under this agreement, and I need not point out the obvious, that auto parts manufacturers in the auto sector have been hit hard in recent years and the workers in this sector would appreciate the economic opportunities this would present.

Knowledge of infrastructure needs and the production of industrial goods are areas in which Canada excels.

These export sectors are integral to our economy. They are part of every Canadian community, large or small. That is why our government is seeking access to new markets.

Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment, and two-way investment is an absolutely critical driving force in today's global economy. It is important for Canada to maintain both inward and outward investment with our global partners, partners including Colombia, with the stock of Canadian investment in Colombia reaching approximately $800 million in 2009, and thanks in great part to Colombia's oil and gas a mining sectors, this number is expected to grow over the coming years.

Those are just a few areas where Canada has significant interests and can offer a lot to our Colombian partners going forward.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement offers both Canadian and Colombian investors an unprecedented degree of stability, predictability and protection.

This agreement establishes a stable legal framework and strict obligations to guarantee freedom of investment capital transfer and to protect investors from expropriation. Thanks to this agreement, investors will also have access to transparent, enforceable and impartial dispute resolution procedures.

In terms of services, this sector is a primary driver of the Canadian economy. It is responsible for 71% of our gross domestic product and for three in four Canadian jobs.

The Colombian market holds many opportunities for growth across this service sector in areas such as financial services, legal services, engineering and architecture, and high technology, for example. Canadian service providers already have a substantial presence in the Colombian market. Our services' exports to Colombia are in the area of about $80 million to $85 million each year. Propelling these numbers are Canadian financial, mining, engineering, petroleum extraction sectors and tourism.

Service sectors like these in Canada have a lot to gain. This agreement would afford service providers a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment, and would provide an added measure of confidence.

Under this agreement, Canadian service providers can plan for the future knowing that they will receive the same treatment as Colombian service providers.

In addition, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will provide direct benefits in other areas that are important to Canada. Thanks to the procurement provisions in the accord, Canadian suppliers will be able to bid on requests for proposals for goods, services and construction issued by most Colombian federal departments.

There are also comprehensive provisions covering the temporary entry of business visitors, intra-company transferees, traders and investors, spouses, technicians and an extensive list of professionals. This would ensure timely processing and transparency in the review of temporary entry applications. Businesses would directly benefit from this expedited process and the people to people movement would mean that Canadian investors and Canadian professionals would be better positioned to benefit from the opportunities offered in the Colombian market.

Those are just a few examples of the many benefits that would be achieved and accomplished by this free trade agreement.

In difficult economic times, we cannot hide behind walls or behind barriers. We need to seek out new opportunities on the global stage, and that is why this government has been committed to securing access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses through negotiations with the European Union, Ukraine and others across the Americas.

It is now time to move ahead with this legislation. it has been debated at length by this Parliament, by numerous speakers and by extensive evidence at committee. It has been studied as thoroughly as any other agreement, perhaps even more than the North American Free Trade Agreement, I hasten to suggest. Of course, we believe that in this agreement, our parallel agreements on environment and labour help address the concerns that some have raised with regard to Colombia.

I ask for the support of all hon. members for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements. This would be a great step forward for Canada, another addition to our overall free trade agenda, which is leading to growth and prosperity for the Canadian economy and for the benefit of Canadian workers, which is why we think this is a long overdue agreement.

Canada would lead the way, ahead of those in the European Union and in the United States that have agreements in place but have failed to ratify them as yet. We would be in a position to do that. This agreement would provide an advantage and an opportunity to our Canadian workers, an advantage that this government is committed to capitalizing upon.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was little comment in the minister's speech. The minister is a failed minister with a failed trade strategy.

It is not just the softwood lumber sellout that killed tens of thousands of jobs right across the country. It is not just the buy America sellout that has been condemned as the second worst agreement ever signed by Canada. It is not just the shipbuilding sellout. It is not just the consistent, wrong-headed policies of this government. The reality is that when we have signed bilateral trade agreements, our exports to those markets have gone down in real terms. The minister has tried to hide behind that by using inflation-related dollars but, in real terms, our exports go down to those markets after we have signed trade agreements in every case except one.

The minister simply cannot defend the record of his government and he certainly cannot defend what the Conservatives and Liberals have done on this agreement. They refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress, from some of the largest unions in the country and from the Colombian free and democratic labour movement. The only labour movements they would hear from were the government affiliated labour unions. They refused to hear from African Colombians and aboriginal Colombians.

Now we find out that this secret report the government has been hiding for the last six months refers to the murders, which are directly government-related to those communities, and also lesbian and gay Colombians.

We have a systematic obstruction, a refusal to get any sort of real input from the people who would be affected by this agreement and now we have closure. What a shame. I say shame on the Conservatives and shame on them all.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I give the hon. member credit for consistency. He has always been against free trade and continues to be, and I do not expect that will change regardless of what changes are brought forward on any trading ground.

First, I will address his contention about this report. The report to which he was referring was not prepared for the Canadian government. It was being prepared for the United Nations and it was the United Nations that chose to cancel that work. That being said, the draft report and the benefit the United Nations had of it did not change the fact that the United Nations International Labour Organization, actually for the first time in 21 years, moved Colombia off its list of countries that it watches for violations of international workers' conditions and rights.

That indicates that the United Nations believes, as does the Canadian government, that Colombia is making considerable progress on that front. That is the position of the International Labour Organization. I know the hon. member is sometimes at odds with the International Labour Organization and does not stand with workers the way we do. We stand with workers by ensuring they have opportunities for free trade.

The hon. member suggests that somehow free trade agreements have resulted in less opportunity for Canadian workers. The fact is that two-thirds of our economy is trade related. That tells us that there has been significant growth in our economy because of trade that has resulted and why Canada is now posting the strongest economic growth and job growth of any major developed economy in the world. The reason we have posted hundreds of thousands of new jobs at a time when economies all around us are losing jobs is because of our commitment to a free trade agenda that creates opportunities for Canadian workers and marketplaces around the world.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his support of this agreement and the importance of it to Canadians.

I would note that just recently there was an election in Colombia and a new government was elected. In those elections, the party that represented the anti-free trade faction garnered 7% or 8% of the vote in Colombia, less than 10% of the vote, and they are still complaining about the free trade agreement.

That reminds me of the position of the NDP members in this House. They have obfuscated, delayed, obstructed and have moved dilatory motions. They have done everything possible to prevent this from moving forward. However, it is obviously time for democracy to prevail, which is a notion I know the NDP really do not agree with, and for members to vote on this important issue.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will resist the invitation from the hon. member to comment on electoral processes in other countries, particularly since Colombia is in between rounds in its successive elections. However, I believe all the leading candidates who will participate in the runoff elections are supportive of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as is the overwhelming majority of Colombians, which is not surprising. This agreement offers tremendous benefits for Colombians.

Free trade is always a win-win proposition, where there is economic growth on both sides. If people are genuinely concerned about the living conditions of the Colombian worker, then they would want opportunities for more jobs, higher incomes, a better standard of living and a greater opportunity to build brighter futures for their children. Colombian workers are looking for that. That is why they so strongly support the Canada-Colombian free trade agreement.

I know the approach of the New Democratic Party has always been to raise walls and isolate and cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. That is why it opposes every free trade agreement that comes along. However, we know the world has changed. That perspective was thoroughly discredited in the 1930s when walls of protectionism and an economic downturn brought the world to its knees in the greatest depression ever and saw the workers of the world suffering more than ever before.

This time around, the world has resisted that protectionism, resisted the siren calls of the left and the socialists to do exactly what the NDP is saying today. As a result, the world is now heading into economic recovery with more opportunities for workers everywhere.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as you would know, farmers in parts of Saskatchewan are unable to put their crops in the ground. It is a difficult time. While cattle and hog prices have improved, they have gone through a very difficult time.

We all know the trade agreement will help bolster the income of farmers, not only now, because it will take some time to enact, but at times like this in the future. Yet members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc have blocked this agreement. I do not understand why they would have so little concern for farmers across the country. They have to know, because they have been paying attention, that this agreement will help the income of farmers in the livestock and the crop sectors long into the future.

The minister referred to this in his speech. Does he have some idea as to why those two opposition parties are showing so little regard for the farmers of our country?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply put it down to them doing the job of representing their constituents, none of whom are Saskatchewan wheat and pulse farmers.

Those who stand to gain from this are the farmers across western Canada, in particular, who grow and produce the exact products of which the Colombian market already obtains in large numbers and wants more. Canada will now have a privileged access that many of our competitors growing the same products will not have should this agreement pass. Those farmers are not constituents of the NDP and the Bloc and that is fair.

If people are representing organized labour and have an agenda of resisting any kind of free trade agreements anywhere, they are doing their job. Quite frankly, though, it is a job and a perspective with which we disagree. We believe in creating opportunities for our farmers and workers who are looking at trading on the world stage, selling their products all around the world, offering Canada's high-quality agricultural products to markets around the world.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister speak to the participation of Liberal Party, in particular of my colleague from Kings—Hants, that resulted in an addition to this free trade agreement with respect to human rights, of which Liberals are very proud? I believe it was singularly important in being able to get our support for it.

Could the minister speak to Liberals' very constructive participation in the process?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition trade critic, the member for Kings—Hants, and the Liberal Party put forward an amendment proposing the exchange of annual reports on human rights between this Parliament and the Colombian Parliament. Our government did not believe it was necessary. We believe there has been very sound and solid progress on human rights. However, we recognize there are some critics still looking to be convinced and, as such, we are agreeable to the proposition of this amendment as a way of providing assurance to those individuals.

The result is we now have an amendment, a parallel treaty, on human rights with Colombia. Through the ratification of that amendment with the vote in the House on report stage, we believe the treaty has now been given the approval of the House to go forward and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Willowdale.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I commend the efforts of all our colleagues in the House because of our very strong collective interest in the promotion of human rights elsewhere in the world. My thanks go to everyone for the spirited debate, the substantive discussions that have taken place in the House with that as an end.

In some cases I know we disagree very much on the how, but I want to stress that I believe very sincerely that there is a view among all members of the House that human rights are very important and, in particular, that the rights and protections of Colombians are very important to us all.

I want to thank all my colleagues in the House, because I know we have not necessarily always agreed during our debates, but I want to assure the public that I believe all members in this House want to see human rights respected all over the world. We are now talking about Colombia. We all want to ensure that human rights are respected in Colombia as well. We now have differing ideas and opinions as to how we can accomplish what we want to do in terms of human rights.

I will to speak now on why we have those differences and perhaps why I, in particular, feel strongly that the Liberal Party supports the free trade arrangement with Colombia. We believe very strongly that in the support of increased human rights, there is the option to say that we will put up walls and allow human rights abuses and other activities, which we find abhorrent. We can encourage the building of walls so people can hide behind them, or we can participate in the opening of windows through which we and the world can see and through which daylight can shine.

We can engage in avoidance. We can pretend that bad things are not happening and we can say that we are going to carry on with our own activities, or we can actively engage.

My view is that engagement is the opportunity to participate in encouraging, not just improvements in trade, not just improvements in the economic situation of both countries, but improvements in human rights in Colombia. We can engage in criticism. We can wag our fingers and say that they must do better, or we can engage in support of action and wherever possible support improvements where we see them.

As I said, I believe that all members in this House want to improve human rights, but the question is how to go about it. We have options. We can help build walls so people can hide behind them, or we can participate in the opening of windows through which we and the world can see and through which daylight can shine. We can pretend that bad things are not happening or that they are not our problem, and we can say that we are going to carry on with our own activities, or we can actively engage.

With my speech today, it is clear that my view—and I believe the view of the Liberal Party—is that engaging with Colombia is much more important. We can criticize. We can stand here and say they are doing things we do not like, or we can give our support when we see progress and the possibility of improvements. That is exactly what I want to see Canada participate in by supporting progress wherever we see it.

It ultimately comes down to a philosophy of whether it is better to encourage human rights. I absolutely believe in free trade on the basis that it will encourage economic prosperity in Canada and in all the countries with which we engage in free trade, and in this case with Colombia. Free trade is an avenue to greater economic prosperity for both countries and for the people.

However, clearly the issue, as has been discussed in the House with great emotion, has been the concern about human rights in Colombia. Therefore, I will focus on that. It is, without question, a philosophy of whether we believe that if we engage, it will help the cause of human rights in Colombia, or whether it is better to retreat and to avoid. I firmly believe engagement is the right direction for us to take.

I will use China as an example, and I know some of my colleagues may find it a bit odd. We all know that China still has major human rights issues about which we are all very concerned. However, I have a little anecdote. My mother travelled to China 30-35 years ago. When she came back, she had all sorts of very interesting stories, but one had to do with the control. It was not even a question of freedom of speech; it was a question of speech at all. Everywhere she went, she had someone controlling her move. She was prevented from speaking with anyone locally on the ground. It was not a question of freedom of speech, it was a question of speech alone.

I will look at what has happened with China over the last 35-40 years. It has been extraordinary. We know there are still significant concerns with regard to human rights, but the situation has so massively improved. I will venture to say that it has to do directly with the incredible growth of engagement, primarily on an economic level between China and the rest of the world. I will stress again, things are not perfect, but they are far better now than they were a mere few decades ago.

On that basis, I will speak about the issue of whether we need to focus on the status quo, or whether we need to focus on the current specific situation in Colombia, or whether we have an opportunity to look at the importance of the direction of the progress. Again, I refer to China. It is far from perfect, but the direction that country has taken in the last number of decades, the improvement in the rights people and the improvement in economic opportunities, has been extraordinary.

It is that progress and improvement that I hope all our colleagues can focus on rather than what has happened in the past in Colombia. We need to look at the significant improvements in that country, not only in terms of economics, but also in terms of democracy and the improvements in human rights and treatment of civilians in Colombia. Again, it is not perfect, but Canada has an opportunity, with this agreement, to participate in a significantly greater way with Colombia and Colombians. If we engage in more trade, if we engage in more investment, not only will we allow a greater opportunity for economic advancement and jobs, but we also allow an opportunity for more and more Colombians to see how the rest of the world operates, how Canada operates and how we stress the importance of human rights.

I firmly believe there is an opportunity for Canadians. When we engage more in trade and economic activity, it gives us that many more opportunities and occasions to engage in discussions and debate.

Not too long ago one of my colleagues suggested that if we put up those walls and said no to the windows, in a very short period of time Canada would end up focusing on something else, the European Union for example. That would be our focus in terms of trade negotiations.

Very quickly, nobody in this House will even be speaking of Colombia anymore. Colombia, as a country, will disappear from our radar and that would be a real shame. This is an opportunity for Canada and for Canadians to increase the level of discussion, to increase the level of engagement with Colombians through greater economic activity that can lead to greater exchanges and greater engagement on the educational front, the cultural front, and simply in terms of more people working and discussing with each other. This is a real opportunity.

I would like to talk about the improvements that could be made through stronger engagement. I will use China as an example. Some of my colleagues may find it a bit odd that I am using China as an example to talk about human rights. However, I am not talking about the current situation, but the difference between today's China and the China of 30 or 40 years ago.

I would like to tell a short story. My mother travelled to China 30 or 35 years ago. It was incredible; not only was it impossible to speak frankly and openly, she was not allowed to speak at all. There was someone with her at all times, controlling her entire visit. She could not speak or even have informal conversations with the locals on the ground.

I am using this example because I feel it is an example of engagement. The difference between the China of 30 or 40 years ago and today's China is incredible. We know that there are still issues with human rights, but things are evolving and progress has been made.

We now have the opportunity to ask what we can do. Do we want to build walls and do nothing because the situation in Colombia is not perfect? Even though there are issues, there has been significant progress in Colombia. We have the opportunity to support this progress. Canada, by engaging in more trade with Colombia, is improving that country's economy. And we have the opportunity to help with that progress. We can help Colombians contribute to this progress and ensure that the progress already realized in Colombia will continue.

That is a fundamental philosophical view that not all of my colleagues share.

There is a tremendous opportunity for Canada either to put up walls and wag our finger, and tell Colombia that we will not play with it until it does better, or we have an opportunity to engage because it has worked hard to improve, it has made progress even though it is not perfect, but we are there to engage as much as possible so that we can help the country to improve.

I will conclude with the fundamental view that it will not be Canadians who will ultimately change Colombia. It was not Canadians who changed China. In the case of Colombia, it will be Colombians. In the case of China, it was the Chinese.

Canada does have a role to play in engaging. I am proud of the role that Canada played with respect to China, in encouraging engagement, in encouraging the Chinese to demand greater opportunities for themselves within their own country. Canada has an opportunity to do the same thing with Colombia. We know it is not perfect. We know Colombia is making progress. We know that if we can engage even more with Colombia in terms of trade and economics, and in all of the other engagement that encourages, then we have an opportunity to help Colombians to help themselves economically and also with regard to human rights.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her comments and I would like to add a few comments to maybe flesh out a little more some of the things that she talked about.

I appreciated her comments regarding China and the comparison. I would like to make the comparison that when we were studying Colombia at the international trade committee, we went to Colombia. The Colombian government was only too eager to talk and to show us Colombia, to have us travel in Colombia and to meet people. It was more than accommodating on finding people who did not agree with the free trade agreement and ensuring that we had access to those individuals at committee, to know that there was a protest among a minority of Colombians, but still a protest among some Colombians who were against the free trade agreement.

I would say that I appreciated the intervention by the member for Kings—Hants regarding the side agreement on human rights in this agreement. We were, quite frankly, stymied at committee. We were not moving forward. It enabled us to move forward.

My question for the hon. member is this. The Colombian government itself is made up of various fractions, from the centre left, from the centre right, from the far right and the left, and they represent a total makeup of Colombian society. To me, that speaks of democracy and that speaks of individuals who want to improve upon--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Willowdale.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I will point out that earlier, the minister had said that the addition in terms of human rights was not necessary. I am glad to hear my colleague now acknowledging that in order to move this through and to get approval, in fact, the work by my colleague from Kings—Hants and the Liberal Party was instrumental in getting this to the point of getting it through the House, so I thank my colleague for that.

I will also say that when the government first came to power a few years ago, the attitude was not the one that I have been promoting. There was an element of sitting here in Canada and wagging our finger at other countries that did not engage in activities the way we preferred them to be. The government, to its credit, has acknowledged and has realized over the last few years, and it has a long way to go but at least it is making some progress, in recognizing that Canada cannot accomplish what it sees to be opportunities internationally by wagging our finger, but rather through engagement.

I will also comment on the reference to democracy in Colombia and reiterate what other colleagues have said. It is a democratic country. It is not perfect, but in the elections that we have seen, we have seen an overwhelming support by Colombians for free trade. They understand the value of engagement.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Liberal member a question. How can she explain such a drastic change in the Liberal Party's position since last fall, both in committee and in the House, regarding possible support for a free trade agreement with Colombia?

This support was very clearly expressed at the Standing Committee on International Trade. Unanimous consent was reached regarding the need for an independent study—before Canada ratifies the agreement—on the Colombian government's respect for human rights and what it is doing to prevent human rights abuses.

Why such a difference between the Liberals' position last fall and their current position, whereby a report submitted a year later will suffice? With all due respect, their words sound like empty rhetoric to me. This seems to completely contradict their position, which was well argued, entirely plausible and reasonable.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I would like to say two things. First of all, I am proud to be a member of a party that brings together people with different opinions, a party in which we can have discussions in order to achieve consensus and one that is able to find common ground that we can support. In the end, we determined that it was better to adopt this position for Canada and for people elsewhere.

I would also like to say that the speeches given by my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants on human rights greatly helped convince other Liberals that, as a party, we can now support that position.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, as far as the Conservatives are concerned on agricultural policy, after the vicious attacks on the Canadian Wheat Board, after the fact that Alberta has the lowest farm receipts in the entire country, and after putting supply management on the table in the Canada-E.U. negotiations, this party takes no lessons from the Conservatives on agricultural policy.

I would like to go back to the member now. The Conservatives' record is very clear. Alberta has the lowest farm receipts in the country. So, farmers are not being well-served by the current government.

I like the hon. member. I find her a little disingenuous, to say the least, on this particular issue. I know that she is not a member of the trade committee and has not been to Colombia. However, the reality is the Liberal Party systematically obstructed and refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress; refused to hear from the National Union of Provincial General Employees; refused to hear from the Public Service Alliance of Canada; refused to hear from the free and democratic labour unions in Colombia, where over 90% of Colombians who are workers and unionized are in that sector; refused to hear from African-Colombians; and refused to hear from aboriginal people in Colombia. It shut off all debate before the committee.

Two years ago, when we went down to Colombia, the trade committee came back with a unanimous recommendation to not proceed with this agreement. That is the one time when the trade committee did its job.

It did not do its job on Bill C-2 because of Liberal interference and Liberals refusing to hear from the groups that actively requested to come before the committee.

For the Liberals to say they are for human rights when they have accepted and in fact promoted closure, and cut off all of those important witnesses who wanted to come before the trade committee is disingenuous, at best.

I know that many activists have expressed this to Liberal members. The Liberal leader has simply said to all of the members within the Liberal Party caucus who have misgivings about this tragic turn of events with no human rights override at all in the Colombia trade deal, that the only thing the Colombian government is obliged to do is produce a whitewashed report on itself once a year.

My question for the member is very simple. Will her leader allow a free vote on the Colombia free trade agreement? Will her leader actually say that those many Liberal MPs who have expressed misgivings about this Liberal sellout on human rights will have the opportunity to vote on this agreement without being bludgeoned through a whipped vote here in the House?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his initial kind words.

Despite the temptation to descend into a more personal approach, because I believe very strongly in our obligations here in this House to work together as much as possible with as much respect and civility without personal labels, I will say that in addressing the one issue about the trade committee's position on this issue I will repeat what I said in my answer to my other colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

We have been able, through the hard work and the excellent work of my colleague from Kings—Hants, to address significantly the fundamental concern that so many people have had with regard to human rights through the amendment, through the extra portion of this agreement on human rights, specifically. I am very proud of that fact. It was because of concerns raised by members of our own party, it was because of concerns raised by members of the public, that we were able to address those specific concerns. That is why, now, the Liberal Party is in a position to support this free trade agreement.

I want to commend all the colleagues who participated in that. I want to commend the colleagues on the opposite side of the House who appreciated the fact that that intervention, that amendment, that focus on human rights, was in fact what we needed to allow this to move forward. I would hope that my colleague would understand that we are at least trying to make progress.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is now at third reading, and I would like to begin by saying that I find this rather strange and even a bit anachronistic. I am very disappointed that we have gotten to this point.

Both in committee and in the House of Commons, we have seen the Conservative government use closure to put an end to extremely important, interesting and relevant debates, especially about respect for human rights, and to prevent witnesses, including Colombians, from testifying about what their lives are like. The issue of human rights affects them directly, yet the government is using procedural tactics to prevent them from talking to the committee and is putting an end to this debate to prevent witnesses from being heard.

Moreover, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster raised a question of privilege in the House about what happened in committee, where, with the Liberals' support, the government denied members access to the committee clerk to check some information.

So it is disappointing that this bill is at third reading today, especially since the government has imposed closure to put an end to this debate. With the issue of human rights a top priority, it is particularly significant that the government is using closure, seeing as how it is bound, bent and determined to do whatever it takes to implement an extremely controversial bill.

What the government is doing goes completely against the unanimous position of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which had unanimously recommended two years ago that the government wait before implementing this agreement, because the Colombian government's respect for human rights was highly questionable.

A number of people have still not had a chance to be heard to this day. Even though Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America, the Conservative government keeps on saying that Colombia's human rights situation has greatly improved.

In all honesty, the situation may not be as bad as it was a few years ago, but it certainly is not ideal or worth celebrating, as the Liberals and Conservatives are doing by implementing a free trade agreement with a country whose trade with Canada is quite insignificant compared to other countries.

Is trade the real reason the Conservative government is so eager to implement such a trade agreement with support from the Liberals?

It begs the question. We believe that the government is not trying to promote trade through this agreement. The government is instead trying to help Canadian mining companies exploit the natural resources of another country.

They want to go after the natural resources at the expense of human rights. I said earlier that Colombia has one of the worst human rights records. It is a country where the government tolerates extreme violence. I will continue after—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have 15 minutes following question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, 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 third time and passed.

CANADA-COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain has 14 minutes and 30 seconds to complete his remarks.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off by recapitulating. I was telling the House that I was terribly disappointed to see this bill making it to third reading, thanks to the Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, imposing closure twice, once at the Standing Committee on International Trade and again in this House, in order to limit debate. Such reversal of position is disastrous and very disappointing coming from the Liberal Party.

The Conservatives keep telling us over and over that, in their opinion, the human rights situation in Colombia has greatly improved. I agree that the situation may not be as disastrous as it used to be, but it is far from ideal. People continue to be displaced and unionists to be murdered. Canada's former ambassador to Colombia, Mr. Matthew Levin, from whom the current ambassador took over, basically said the same thing. On the Colombian economy, he had this to say:

The [Canadian] government knows that the Colombian reality is not ideal. There is poverty, violence, lack of access to services.

There is more. When he appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, Pascal Paradis, of Lawyers without Borders, said that the UN and the Organization of American States considered that the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet was still going on in Colombia.

It is hard to believe that a government would push us and cut the debate short to incite us to pass this type of bill. If it passes, it will do so with the support of the Liberals alone and not the Bloc Québécois. We will do our utmost to keep opposing this bill and to say to the people of Quebec and Canada that this agreement is completely unacceptable due to human rights violations.

At the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Conservatives and Liberals often say that they have been there. I was not a member of the committee at that time. They say that the situation has improved, that workers' rights are better respected, that there is less displacement of people and fewer murders. That is what we hear from the people who have been there, but there are also people who are saying the exact opposite.

How can it be that there are credible people who are testifying that the situation has not improved that much? It is impossible that Canada—which was once regarded as a leader for its defence of human rights in various countries—is now promoting a free trade agreement with a country like Colombia.

In order to get an idea of the situation, since I did not go to Colombia, I have read a lot and listened to witnesses. I know that there are four people who think the opposite of what the Conservatives and Liberals are telling us. They say that the situation has not changed. I would like to lend them my voice and my speaking time because they also need to be heard. They were silenced when the debate was cut short. They were not able to appear before the committee.

In 2008, four Canadian public sector union leaders went to Colombia. They were: John Gordon, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada; George Heyman, international vice-president of the National Union of Public and General Employees; Denis Lemelin, national president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers; and Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

They toured the country and produced a document with joint and individual statements about the status of human rights in Colombia. Their report paints a totally different picture than what the Conservative and Liberal members are telling us in the Standing Committee on International Trade.

In July 2008, these four public sector union leaders made a one-week tour of Colombia. What they saw and heard there prompted them to share their observations in the hope of making as many people as possible understand the dangers workers in this South American country face.

Having seen the damage unregulated commercial activity causes most Colombian families, the Canadian union leaders promised to deliver a message of concern, solidarity and resistance to their millions of members in Canada—which is nothing to sneeze at—the Canadian government and all Canadians.

This document and other measures are part of that process. The document contains comments and personal observations from the leaders, who met with many Colombians and listened to their concerns about the harmful effects of free trade with Canada on the Colombian people.

These union leaders were inspired by the hope these people cling to and the growing resistance movement they witnessed. During their tour, the leaders focused on human rights.

I am delivering this message on their behalf, because the Bloc Québécois' greatest concern is that the government is ignoring human rights violations. It needs to ignore them if it is going to ratify an agreement that makes no sense.

The union leaders focused on human rights and labour rights, working conditions and the impact of privatization without guaranteed human rights and labour rights. They shared their concerns with representatives of the many sectors of Colombian society, including the Colombian interior minister and other senior officials, the Canadian ambassador and members of his staff, leaders of the central union of workers or CUT and union leaders at all levels, members of the opposition party—the Polo Democrático Alternativo—leaders of the indigenous peoples' movement, members of NGOs, groups representing Afro-Colombians and other displaced persons, as well as journalists and ordinary people.

Although three of the four leaders had never travelled to Colombia before, their unions were already familiar with the struggles of Colombian workers. All four have been working at the international level with Colombian unions for a number of years. They have been cultivating union relations as part of projects funded by their international solidarity funds and through exchanges of Canadian and Colombian workers.

You might wonder why they would embark on such a tour. After returning from Colombia, they followed up with a video on how the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which was only a proposal at the time, would be disastrous for these workers.

All the unions opposed the signing of such an agreement, especially in light of the horrifying human rights and labour situations in Colombia. The leaders knew very well that more trade unionists had been assassinated in that country than anywhere else in the world.

To strengthen the arguments against the free trade agreement and to consolidate the union solidarity already established, the leaders decided to go to see for themselves what the Government of Colombia had done to this South American country since President Uribe gained power in 2002. What they saw convinced them that they had to oppose the free trade agreement even more vigorously and in very clear terms. The leaders were asked many times to be the voice of the Colombian people and to oppose the agreement as long as the government of Alvaro Uribe has not shown that it has solved the problem of the permanent repression of trade unionists and other activists and guaranteed their protection.

This document gives them a voice and proves them right.

What we heard from the people who took this trip to Colombia gives even more weight to the fact that, in 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade also adopted a resolution that an independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights impact assessment should be carried out before the Conservative government considered introducing its bill in the House.

Proof was needed, coming from an independent study, that human rights were being respected. Now, it is the opposite. The Liberals and Conservatives are breaking their word. A Liberal member even proposed an amendment suggesting that we wait for the agreement to come into effect and the bill to be passed.

They will be happy with an assessment of the situation by the Government of Colombia. Colombia will be both judge and judged, and Canada will be satisfied with that. This will allow the agreement to be adopted, when we know very well that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does not necessarily propose any major increases in trade between Canada and Colombia, but instead, aims almost solely to protect the investments of Canadian mining companies that will exploit natural resources and workers in Colombia.

It is truly unfortunate to watch this going on. The Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement at third reading.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a relatively new member to the committee for international trade and I appreciate his interaction on that committee. However, I am sure he read over previous reports and studies from the committee and therefore would be well aware, although he said in his statement that there was no preliminary study on this bill, that there absolutely was a preliminary study on this bill in the last Parliament.

The committee travelled to Colombia. I travelled to Colombia myself on this study. We met with Colombians, labour leaders, union officials, human rights groups, Afro-Colombians and indigenous Colombians. All the very groups that the NDP has said that we never met with, we did meet with, and then we met with them again at committee hearings.

My question for him is quite simple. For the first time in 21 years, Colombia will not be included in the United Nations International Labour Organization's list of 25 nations to be examined for failure to comply with international workers' conditions. That is absolutely in recognition of the fact that Colombia has moved forward on workers' rights and on the protection of union leaders. The Colombian government officials will tell us that things are not perfect there yet but that they are moving in the right direction.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the member's question and comment, I realize that we can get statistics to say whatever we want.

The member missed part of my speech earlier. He said I was not on the Standing Committee on International Trade at the time. I want to point out that, just as there are two sides to a coin, there are always two versions of the same situation. The Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, say that all is well in Colombia, as I mentioned in my speech. But others take a different view. Other people have travelled to Colombia and say the opposite is true. That is the point I was making by quoting these individuals earlier.

They told us that the reality was not all that rosy. It is far from being as rosy as the government purports it to be. The situation has not changed, far from it. Murder and forced displacement continue. All this agreement is about is favouring and benefiting mining companies. It is far from being a true free trade agreement. The Bloc Québécois is not against free trade agreements, but this particular one does not ring true.

Since there are two different views of the human rights assessment, we believe that, when in doubt, the thing to do is to abstain. It is better to vote against this bill and wait for a real, independent preliminary study to be conducted.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the United States-Colombia free trade agreement that was signed four years ago in 2006 under the Bush administration, it is still to this day sitting in the U.S. Congress and it is in no hurry whatsoever to pass that agreement.

Therefore, it is true that this agreement would not be passing in this House either had it not been for the good luck on the part of the Conservatives that the member for Kings—Hants became the new critic for international trade and basically flipped on the issue from the previous critic's position and decided to endorse the Conservatives' position. That is why and how we find ourselves here today.

We would be no further along the path than the Americans are in the United States had it not been for the change in Liberal leadership and the change in Liberal critics, which moved the Liberals' position on international trade to the right, right in line with the Conservatives' own position on foreign trade. The one and only reason this deal is moving forward now is because of the Liberals. Otherwise, this deal would be as dead as it is in the United States.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member compared the Canada-Colombia agreement to the agreement between the United States and Colombia. He reminded us that responsible members of the U.S. Congress realized they had to negotiate further before pursuing the agreement, all the while keeping an objective eye on the human rights situation in Colombia.

The Americans put the agreement on hold. The agreement was negotiated, but the American people's representatives have not yet signed it into law. They realized that this would be like rewarding the Colombian government for its indifference and for being unable to enforce human rights on its territory.

The U.S. government is to be congratulated on its foresight and proper management of the situation. It was able to stand up to a country like Colombia, which many consider to be one of the world's worst offenders.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member wants to argue with me about whether the American Congress is prepared to entertain moving this agreement forward.

I do not know who he has been talking with in the United States, but the member for Kings—Hants and myself were part of the U.S.-Canada visitation program back on February 19 and 20. In fact, we met with perhaps 40 senators and congresspeople and, in the case of at least three Republican legislators who support the agreement, have great respect for the Uribe government and who would do anything to have this agreement proceed, they told us straight out that this agreement was dead, that it was going nowhere.

Therefore, why has the Conservative government put this as one of its top priorities? It is very curious that the top priorities of the government are to close down the six prison farms in Canada and to deal with issues such as a Colombia free trade deal. One would think there would be many more initiatives that a government would want to be pursuing rather than a free trade deal with Colombia that is going nowhere in the United States, contrary to what the government member was trying to insinuate.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made another interesting comparison. He pointed out that the United States is conducting a thorough and objective analysis of what is going on in Colombia.

The Americans do not appear to be interested in signing an agreement that would have a negative effect on human rights, particularly because they know that the Colombian government cannot or will not do anything to control violence in its country.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members have spoken to the fact that this free trade agreement is really all about investment for big companies. I wonder if the member could confirm that.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this agreement does contain a provision to protect the investments of Canadian companies planning to exploit Colombia's natural resources. Considering current trade volumes between Canada and Colombia, it seems to me that there are other priorities that the Conservative government—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really thrilled to be speaking again. I am sure that this time around the hon. Conservative member will be recognized for a question when that time comes. I am sure he will be very eager and feverishly working on a question or two over the next 20 minutes. Nevertheless, he will have to wait for 20 minutes before he gets to ask his question.

We have gone through a very, very lengthy process dealing with this particular piece of legislation. I certainly want to compliment our critic for his enormous efforts over the last year or so on this issue. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been tireless in his efforts to stop this free trade agreement. It took the combined coalition of the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition to crush his efforts, and they did it in a very unsavoury way at the end of the day. The fact of the matter is, they denied key witnesses who should have been able to present on the bill.

Many key witnesses from Colombia, as well as Canadian and Colombian trade unions, were denied the right to appear at the committee, including the CLC, which represents 3.5 million workers. The National Union of Public and General Employees, NUPGE, one of Canada's largest unions with over 340,000 members, was refused. Several other organizations were cut out of the process by this unholy alliance between the government and its Liberal servants in this case.

I only have to look back to two years ago historically to see that there was a point at which the Liberal Party was on side, more or less, in terms of opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Under the previous leadership and the previous critic, the Liberals were in agreement to have an independent human rights study, which is what has been demanded and still is being demanded as something that is absolutely necessary in this process.

As soon as the Liberal Party changed leaders and the leader changed the critic, the position of the Liberal Party on the Colombia free trade deal turned right in line with that of the Conservatives. The Conservatives received a bit of a gift, because they knew that the deal was dead. They knew this deal was as dead as the Colombia-United States deal.

Let us deal with that for a moment. The George Bush administration signed the agreement with Colombia and the United States in 2006, four years ago, and the U.S. Congress to this day has still not ratified that deal. The member for Kings—Hants and I were in Washington on February 19 and 20 meeting with up to 40 individual members of Congress and the U.S. Senate.

While we did not include this item on our agenda, we let them bring it up. There were at least three Republicans, not Democrats, but Republican members of Congress who said, “We love Uribe. We love the Colombian-U.S. free trade deal, but it is dead. It will never make it through the Congress of the United States. It is very sad, but it will never happen”. Why does the Conservative member opposite cling to this hope that passing it here in Canada will somehow revive it in the United States? Maybe that is the government's intention, to basically show, in the Conservatives' own minds, leadership and pass the Canada-Colombia free trade deal and ratify it so that it will be an example. Perhaps that is the strategy here. The Conservatives could go to the United States Congress and say that Canada passed it and the U.S. should follow suit.

We have argued all along that this is absolutely the wrong way to deal with free trade, particularly with a country like Colombia. As I indicated before, this deal was dead in the House in terms of ratification until single-handedly the member for Kings—Hants resurrected the whole process through some late night partying with the Colombian leadership. I think he claimed he was dancing until the sun rose. He did get a signature on an amendment which he felt would make the agreement fly.

The Conservatives were only too willing to go along with this because they had nothing to lose. They were going nowhere until the member for Kings--Hants saved them. He has brought in an amendment which essentially says that the Colombian government will make up its own human rights annual reports. Is that not sweet? That is the standard to which the Liberals are prepared to hold the Colombian government. Essentially it would put full trust and faith in the Colombian government to police itself.

It is going to be business as usual in Colombia. There is no real incentive now for the Colombian government to clean up its act in terms of human rights. Before we ratify this free trade deal, we have the power over the Colombian government to say that unless and until it can show that it has changed its approach and cleaned up human rights abuses we will not ratify this agreement. What have the Conservatives done? They have simply laid down, given up, and rolled up the white flag. The government is going to ratify the agreement regardless of what happens in Colombia. Colombia can come up with its own annual reports and self-assess its progress on human rights.

That is a terrible way for the Liberal Party to approach agreements like this. I feel worse for the Liberals than I do for the Conservative government because they actually believe all this stuff and they got what they wanted.

It has been pointed out that the NDP has given more speeches than there are members in the NDP caucus. The government said that 40 NDP members have spoken but there are only 36 members in our caucus. I have no idea how the government does its math. Suffice it to say that we have fought this agreement for as long as we could.

People must wonder why this agreement is such a high priority for the government. In 2008, two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia totalled more than $1.3 billion. We have always said that there is trade with Colombia and there always will be trade with Colombia, but there is just no reason to implement a free trade agreement.

Canadian merchandise exports to Colombia totalled $703.8 million in 2008. Major exports include agriculture goods such as wheat, barley and lentils, as well as industrial products, paper products and heavy machinery.

Canadian merchandise imports from Colombia totalled $643 million in 2008. Major imports consisted of coffee, bananas, coal, sugar and flowers.

Bill C-2 has attracted considerable attention from the media and various civil society groups, many of which were opposed to Canada's implementing a free trade agreement with Colombia because of its human rights record and because of the fear of the impact of free trade on investments and the environment.

We have experience. We have dealt with NAFTA for a number of years now and in the case of agriculture, for example tomato growers, in certain parts of Mexico, we have found that indigenous farmers have been put under a lot of pressure and put out of business because of the free trade agreement. If that could happen under NAFTA, it can be suggested that the same could happen under this type of free trade agreement.

I will deal with this later if I have enough time, as it is hard to fit in all of the points, but the fact is that there are indigenous farmers all over South America and certainly in Colombia who have sustained themselves for many years with their small farms. Free trade will flood that market with imported foreign food and will put those farmers out of business. That is what happened in Mexico and that is not good for the long-term sustainability of the local population.

We seem to think that somehow trucking produce around the world and spending a huge amount of money on fossil fuels, gasoline and trucks to get the produce there is the way to go. The reality is that we should probably be pulling back and trying to produce as much of our product in the local market. We should be encouraging the Colombian farmers to improve their farming methods but also certainly to produce the products there so they become more sustainable, rather than simply specializing in nothing but one product to export to Canada, and then of course have other products sent from Canada to Colombia, as opposed to developing independent self-sustainable enterprises.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Why do you hate Canadian farmers, Jim?

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

My good friend from Brandon—Souris is getting excited about something I have said.

In terms of the young people, I am very impressed with a lot of the young people's approach to sustainability. I do see them on an individual basis embracing vegetarianism, embracing healthy lifestyles, embracing fair trade products, for example, fair trade coffee. They are prepared to pay a little more for the product as long as the product is being obtained through proper channels and not being produced by slave labour at really low prices. That is where we should be going in terms of free trade agreements.

The Conservatives love to argue with us and say that we would never support a free trade agreement. The fact of the matter is that we would. If attention is being paid to sustainability, the environment and labour rights, if an agreement is promulgated that includes all of those items, then not only the NDP but progressive parties will in fact support free trade agreements. It is only the Conservatives who are being hijacked by transnational big business, who sign on slavishly to big business, who continue to push these sorts of free trade agreements that we have in force right now. We see the negative effects of those agreements as we progress.

I want to deal with some of the companies that are involved in Colombia. For example, 43 companies have been accused of having ties with paramilitary groups in Colombia, with forced displacement of communities and assassination of trade unionists. Among those companies, according to the Colombian trade union movement, were Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Chiquita Brands. However, I found one of great interest, which was BP. What have we recently heard about BP? British Petroleum is involved in the gulf drilling oil wells, very unsuccessfully at this point, and trying to clean up a major spill, which is enormous in size and damage it will cause to the world environment.

Bloc speakers have mentioned in a lot of their speeches that the real reason for this free trade agreement is to protect investment. We are going to be protecting the investments of companies such as British Petroleum that not only has caused an oil spill and huge environmental damage in the Gulf of Mexico, but has also accused among the 43 companies of having ties with paramilitary groups in Colombia. That is hardly an example of corporate responsibility, but those are the kinds of companies we are dealing with in this environment.

There are many reasons why Canada should ditch this free trade agreement. For example, more labour leaders were killed in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined. There have been 470 labour leaders killed since 2002 and 2,865 in the last 25 years.

In terms of Colombian labour laws, members have said that they are very good and strong. The fact is they stifle the rights of workers. The rate of unionization in Colombia is less than 5%, which is the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere. Few of the crimes against workers and other civilians have ever been investigated by the government. In fact, thousands of demobilized paramilitaries have formed new groups.

This is a really important point. The member for Kings—Hants points out that there are on no more paramilitary groups because they have all been demobilized. I do not know what planet he has been on or where he lives. He assumes that just because he is being told by Colombians that they have demobilized the paramilitary groups, all of a sudden these groups have disappeared. Why would he want to believe something like that?

The fact is the paramilitaries did not disappear. They have now formed new, even more deadly groups than they were before. Sixty-two criminal networks control economic activities and political institutions in many jurisdictions. In fact, 27 high-ranking army officers were accused in 2008 of kidnapping and executing civilians and dressing them up as FARC guerrillas. That was the false positive program about which many members have spoken.

Colombian unions have said no to the NAFTA model because it will create more poverty and unemployment. Signing a deal with Colombia will simply legitimize state terrorism and undermine the struggle for democracy in the country.

In 2008 the Standing Committee on International Trade pushed for an impartial human rights assessment before any agreement was signed. This was crucial because this was when the former Liberal critic for international trade was onside with the Bloc and the NDP in opposing the deal. Had we proceeded with that and had the Liberals not changed leaders and critics, we would be having an impartial human rights assessment carried out. That is what we really wanted. That is what we should have had. That is what Canadians deserve in this. However, the Liberal leader single-handedly changed the critic and the critic changed the position to mirror exactly what the Conservative government wanted him to do. I know he was a former Conservative in the past and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona could have used another 20 or 30 minutes to put his case fully. Just like all the rest of us in the New Democratic Party, he feels very strongly about this issue. The fact that the debate is coming to an end today is profoundly disappointing to all of us, especially since the end is coming as a result of a time allocation motion. We are not even allowed to fully debate this issue in the House. However, I will ask the member one brief question.

I was surprised that in my home town of Hamilton, some of the biggest proponents of putting an end to this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement were people affiliated with the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. They saw a critical nexus between this issue and their advocacy for corporate social responsibility, particularly in the global south.

I want to commend some people for their work on that issue. Father Ted Slaman, in particular, was a prime mover of the petition campaign and card campaign that was launched in our community. People like Rita Dugas and Kathy Somers were instrumental as were students at Catholic high schools right across my riding. In particular, I single out St. Jean de Brébeuf high school. Students there care passionately. They believe this is an issue of fundamental human rights. It is an issue of corporate social responsibility.

Could the member address those concerns?

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question. Specifically, I will deal the question of time allocation. The Conservative government, when it was in opposition for many years, decried the Liberal government's use of closure. I believe the Liberal government were quite excessive in its use of closure. I think someone said that it used closure perhaps 150 times. The Conservatives were suitably outraged about that. Those were in the old days when they were Reformers and they believed in free votes and in transparency and democracy, all of the things that they have dropped and forgotten about since they have become government.

However, the Conservatives have gone back on their previous word that they would not bring closure into the House. What are they doing? They are doing it now on a routine basis. My prediction is that we will see more and not less of the current government's—

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Complete disdain for Parliament.

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

Yes, it is a fundamental disdain for Parliament.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House going on to my 14th year, so I would think nothing would surprise me. However, every once in a while I am.

The member opposite was stating what it would take for the NDP to support our free trade agreement. He said that it would take an agreement on the environment, on labour and on human rights. All three are side agreements to the Colombia-Canada free trade agreement, but the NDP does not support that.

The reality is his party has never supported a free trade agreement. It does nothing but criticize trade agreements, which supply jobs for Canadians, and has no option set aside for what it would do.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, at committee, stated:

We had another massacre a few weeks ago. Twelve representatives of the Awa first nation were brutally killed....I understand that you're not here to testify on human rights issues, but if you would care to comment on how the Canadian government should act when an arm of the Colombian government brutally massacres 12 of its citizens...

The hon. member very clearly implicated the Colombian government in this massacre. When we found out the truth about it, it was the FARC, which is their socialist colleagues and their insurrection in the jungle in Colombia, that brutally murdered two families, twelve individuals in total, of Awa indigenous peoples in Colombia.

What does the hon. member think of someone misleading committee like that and refusing to apologize for doing it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member asked about the kind of a free trade deal New Democrats would support. I did explain that in my speech. We support fair trade policies to protect the environment by encouraging the use of domestically and locally produced goods, which involve less freight, less fuel, less carbon, and by promoting environmentally conscious methods for producers that ship to Canada. By contrast, free trade policies, even those created with the environment in mind, do little to impede multinational corporations from polluting with abandon. The environmental side effect of NAFTA, for example, has proven largely unenforceable, particularly when compared with other protections for industry and investors.

A system of fair trade can encourage the growth of Canadian jobs, both in quality and quantity. In fact, fair competition rules and tougher labour standards will put Canadian industries on a level playing field with our trading partners and slow the international race to the bottom, which has resulted in the loss of Canadian manufacturing jobs. That is the type of free trade deals the Conservatives have signed up until now, which really end up in a race to the bottom.

Fair trade can also protect labour rights by fostering the growth of workers' co-operatives and labour unions. The environmental side accord NAFTA labour agreement has gone mostly unenforced, giving industries that are willing to violate workers' rights incentives to relocate Canadian jobs. The member knows that is a big issue not only in Canada but in the United States. Fair trade policies that favour co-ops, unions and equitable pricing will protect workers in the developing world, who might otherwise be exploited, and take away reasons for Canadian producers to exploit jobs.

In addition, fair trade rules will also protect societies and human rights around the globe. Although some predicted a human rights benefit from unrestricted free trade, this is yet to be seen. Regardless of what the member for Kings—Hants would like to pretend that somehow this will improve human rights—

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am baffled that the so-called law and order government wants free trade with Colombia. There is a big difference between fair trade and free trade. We are certainly not against fair trade. However, with Colombia, it is a national pastime, killing trade unionists, raping women and children and kidnapping people.

The interesting thing is the product that we import the most from Colombia is beef. We are a beef producing country.

First, why would we want to deal with a government that believes in killing and raping women and children? Second, why would we want to import its beef when we have lots of beef in Canada? That certainly would help the beef industry in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is clearly the Americans, who signed the agreement four years ago in 2006, have no appetite to ratify the free trade agreement with Colombia. They have refused to do it. Now under the new presidency of Barack Obama, the current Congress is refusing to ratify the agreement. It will not ratify the agreement, regardless of what the Conservative member thinks will happen.

What is happening is he and his friend from Kings—Hants are now going to take this ratified agreement and they are going to be on the phone to the United States, trying to stir up their Republican friends in the Congress. They are going to try to give them encouragement and get them to ratify the agreement in the United States. However, the member he is wrong, wrong, wrong. They will not have the votes to do it.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement again. I have spoken to it several times already. However, after listening to the member opposite, it gives me an opportunity to correct the record.

The great thing about the Parliament of Canada is that everything we say is on the record, all the facts can be checked. It is important for Canadians and for people interested in the debate to actually go back, see what has been said, and then go check the facts.

Of course, they have to go to appropriate and proper websites. They cannot just go to bogus, make up what they want websites. They have to actually go to authorities and they have to respect statistics, being careful when they read the statistics to understand that often statistics lie and sometimes liars state statistics. That is always a caution.

There are two things I wanted to finish up on in the short time that I had to ask the hon. member a question. I will touch on them. I have 20 minutes and then 10 minutes for questions and answers, so I think I have enough time to get my statement out.

My question was not answered, and I did not expect it to be answered, so I will put it out in full this time. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster, the NDP member who sits on committee, came to committee full of bluff and hyperbole and stated to our witnesses:

Obviously there are fundamental concerns about labour rights, about human rights. We had another massacre a few weeks ago. Twelve representatives of the Awa first nation were brutally killed. Human rights groups and eyewitnesses say that the Colombian military killed them. There has been no investigation. There is virtual impugnity for this kind of crime. I understand that you're not here to testify on human rights issues, but if you would care to comment on how the Canadian government should act when an arm of the Colombian government brutally massacres 12 of its citizens--

That was stated by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. It is on the record at the committee for international trade. It is patently false. We later found out that the hon. member's brethren, the socialist insurrection in the jungle, FARC, because of their narco-trafficking, brutally murdered these 12 unfortunate individuals. There has been no apology to the committee. There has been no apology to the House. I just find that repulsive, actually, that anyone would attempt to mislead the committee in that way.

The other thing he said was about some type of bogus support for a free trade agreement that does not exist. This free trade agreement has everything in it that the hon. member mentioned. It has a side agreement on the environment and labour. Very strong and modern side agreements, I might add.

Finally, with the help, quite frankly, of the member for Kings—Hants, we agreed on a side agreement in this particular trade agreement on human rights. It is still not enough to satisfy the NDP, or the Bloc, I may add.

There is nothing that will satisfy them. It really does not matter what the agreement is, they will find an excuse. They will make up something. They will accuse somebody of some outrageous crime that would horrify any citizen in this country to find an excuse not to support something.

He talked about the cattle industry. Members of the Canadian cattle industry are some of our strongest supporters for this agreement. Do we think for a moment that they would be our strongest supporters if they had any worries about this agreement, that somehow they would be disadvantaged?

The reality is, we have a bilateral trading situation, not an agreement. We have bilateral trade today, not tomorrow, not next year, not five years down the road, not 10 years ago, but today, of $1.3 billion between Colombia and Canada.

We are proposing stronger, more stringent, and clearer guidelines and rules around this agreement. I am breaking it down to the lowest common denominator so the hon. member will understand it. We are trading right now with Colombia. We are going to put clearer guidelines around that trading so it is rules-based.

To further enhance this agreement, we have a side agreement on labour, so there can be no child labour, no forced labour. There have to be clear labour standards that protect workers.

On top of that we have a side agreement on the environment to ensure companies react in environmentally responsible ways. We also have a side agreement on human rights to ensure that all proponents in this agreement obey and follow human rights guidelines.

I know that is not enough for the party opposite, but when it is clearly explained, it is enough for most Canadians.

What do we have in Colombia? Colombia is a nation of 48 million people, many of them living in poverty, who want jobs, opportunities, and a future for their children. They want basic human rights policies and they want those policies to be followed and obeyed.

The government in Colombia has been maligned and accused of horrendous offences by the opposition. President Uribe and his ministers will tell us that the situation in Colombia is not perfect. Each and every single one of them will say the same thing, that the situation is not perfect, but compared to where the country was in the late eighties and early nineties, it has moved forward light years.

There was a time in Colombia when there were 30,000 paramilitary in the countryside. Those 30,000 paramilitary have been disbanded. The government will tell us that its own numbers indicate that 8,000 or 9,000 have been reinstated, but the Colombian government is working hard to ensure they are disbanded again.

Unfortunately, because Colombians do not have access to the global economy the same as other countries, they have been forced into narco-trafficking and the drug trade to make money. There is very little else for Colombians to do. We can continue to force them into narco-trafficking or we can actually help them find jobs in other areas.

We have to really look at the individuals in the Uribe government. Members of the NDP and the Bloc tell us that they are all nasty, fascist, right-wing dictator types. I ask people watching this debate today to go on the website and find the names of the individual members of the Uribe government, and look at their backgrounds. The Colombian government is made up of a hodge-podge of individuals.

A member of cabinet was a former left-wing newspaper editor. He was kidnapped and held by the paramilitary for I think two and a half years. He had a long period of time to worry about his personal safety. He was finally released. The foundations of democracy are strong enough in Colombia to allow him to run for elected office and become part of a government that is largely right of centre. He is certainly not right of centre.

Other members of cabinet have been kidnapped by FARC, the socialist insurgency in the jungle. People from every political stripe and every possible background make up the government in Colombia. They have one commonality: they all want a better Colombia.

They all want a better life for themselves and their families. They all want increased personal safety. They want the ability to travel on their roads and railroads, and in their buses and on their streets, the same as we expect to do in Canada. They have, by and large, been given that by the Uribe government. That is why he has 80% support. That is why we have an anti-free trade political party, the Polo Democratico party in Colombia, with less than 8% support. There is no question about what Colombians think.

I listened to the opposition talk about the welfare of Colombians. I will give just one small example of what this free trade agreement holds for the welfare of Colombians. It may not be important to the members of the Bloc. It may not be important to the members of the NDP, but it is important to me. It is called healthy, nutritious food that is affordable.

Right now, red beans, which are a significant source of protein, are imported into Colombia at 50% tariff. That tariff will be reduced over a 10-year time frame to zero. The reason for the time frame is to assist local farmers in growing red beans themselves, to actually protect local agriculture. Even at the beginning of that time period, I think it is reduced by 20% of 25%, so we have a significant source of protein, healthy food for men, women and children, at an affordable cost, that will do nothing but help Colombians. Somehow that is a bad thing for the opposition parties.

I really have difficulty understanding the logic of what is wrong with rules-based trading. I have difficulty understanding the logic of what is wrong with cheap, affordable, healthy, and nutritious food. I have difficulty understanding what is wrong with Colombia being taken off the ILO's watch list, the first time in 21 years that the United Nations International Labour Organization has said that Colombia has moved forward far enough with respect for labour rights that it will not be on the international watch list.

Instead of applauding that, we have two parties in the House that say, “There is a chance to take a kick at these guys. We will penalize them for good behaviour”. What would happen if we did that in our school system? What kind of children would we raise in this country? It just goes on and on.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Unanimous consent to resolve that Jack Layton is the leader of the official opposition, agreed.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I will give an example that is close to me. I have a small fabricating company in my riding of South Shore--St. Margaret's that has a niche--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Oh my God, the Liberals are back. We were just about to make Jack Layton the leader of the official opposition.

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

Speak intelligently. Has it ever happened to you?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

If the hon. members would only listen, I am trying to help them out here.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Glad the Liberals showed up for work.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

They have a niche market--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. There seems to be another debate taking place in the chamber and the Speaker would appreciate it if members could hold off on that or take their conversation outside the House because there are still a few minutes left for the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that this particular company works in partnership with another fabricating company in Calgary. It also has a company in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia that partners with a company in Calgary. The company produces equipment for oil and gas companies and it has a multi-million dollar contract in Colombia. It also has a sub-company in Mexico that has a contract for the oil and gas sector in Colombia. Do members know where the company is seriously looking at building and producing that contract? In Mexico because it can ship its product from Mexico to Colombia tariff free.

Those jobs will not be Bridgewater, Nova Scotia jobs or Calgary, Alberta jobs. If we do not pass this bill, they will be Mexican jobs. This will be good for Mexico, as it needs jobs and opportunities for its citizens, but it should not be at our expense.

The other thing that is totally ignored by the members opposite is how we got to this position today. We just did not pick Colombia out of a hat. Colombia is one part of a much wider strategy.

When we came to power in 2006, we had a number of issues before us. One of them in international trade was our global commerce strategy, how we would work, interact and trade with the rest of the world. The other one we called re-engagement with the Americas. We were part of the Americas but all of our trade was basically going into one basket, or NAFTA, the United States and Mexico. That is important trade, without question, but we needed to look beyond the United States and Mexico.

What do the rest of the Americas think of Canadians? I can tell the House that they want to do business with us. The agreement that we looked at, the re-engagement with the Americas, was based on the fact that Canadian foreign investment in the Americas was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion. We wanted to follow the money and get some of it back in bilateral trade between these nations.

When we started our free trade agreement discussions with Colombia, the United States had already signed. This was an opportunity to actually get ahead of the U.S. for once. The European Free Trade Association has already signed with Colombia and countries like Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are trading with Colombia. The Europe Union is on the cusp of signing its free trade agreement with Colombia. Everyone holds up the European Union, as do all of us on this side of the House, but it is not asking for a human rights side agreement on its free trade agreement with Colombia.

We have these opportunities. We have signed free trade agreements with Peru and Panama and we are continuing to work on what is called the Central American four: El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala. For my socialist brethren in the NDP, Nicaragua—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I would ask the House to give unanimous consent to make the member for Toronto—Danforth the leader of the opposition for the rest of the day.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure that is a motion that the Speaker can entertain at this time. I doubt that consent would be granted anyway.

There are only a couple of minutes left, so I will give the floor back to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade to conclude his speech.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that I have a little bit more time left but I do have a lot more to say that cannot be crammed into a bare 20 minutes of discussion on this important issue.

I was talking about a re-engagement with the Americas. When I was at the WTO talks in Delhi, Bolivia wanted to talk about Canadian investment. Even the NDP would understand that Bolivia certainly does not have a centrist government, that it would be a left of centre government, but it wants the Canadian extractive sector in Bolivia because we are the best in the world at what we do. We have very high corporate social standards and many countries want to do business with us.

I have tried to understand but I cannot wrap my head around why two parties in the House cannot see the advantages in this agreement. They can only see the disadvantages in this agreement. The disadvantages will be quickly left behind once this agreement comes into force because we will then have a clear set of rules and a clear set of guidelines. We will have enhanced rules on the environment, enhanced rules on labour and enhanced rules on human rights, all of which I would expect they would be happy about.

I have worked on this trade agreement for three years, including visiting Colombia, listening to over 122 witnesses at committee, speaking in this House a number of times and listening to over 50 speeches on this issue. It has been debated to death. Now it is time for democracy to actually prevail and have members in this place vote on it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 1:38 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, June 9, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 14, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, 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 third time and passed.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The House will now proceed to the taking of deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-2.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #74

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 10, 2010, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 5 under Government Business.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.