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.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report stage amendments but I must say that these are the most egregious circumstances imaginable.

As we well know, the trade committee, which was supposed to vet and hold, as the Liberal Party promised, full and comprehensive hearings on Bill C-2, did not do that. The Liberals and Conservatives combined to shut down the hearings. It is for that reason the NDP is bringing forward these report stage amendments.

The Liberal and Conservative majority on the trade committee refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress and some of the largest trade unions in the country, such as the National Union of Public and General Employees and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. As we know, these are labour activists, people simply trying to improve the working conditions of themselves and their co-workers.

More trade union activists are killed in Colombia than anywhere else on earth. One would expect that the promise by the Liberal Party to have full and comprehensive hearings would have come to pass, but that was absolutely betrayed.

The Liberals not only refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress and labour activists from some of Canada's largest unions, they also refused to hear from any members of the labour movement from Colombia. These are people who often give their lives trying to improve working conditions in Colombia because of the immense brutality of the paramilitary organizations that are affiliated with the Colombia government. They refused to hear from any of the non-government activists affiliated with the labour movement.

Labour activists in Colombia, who often do their work as volunteers with threats to their lives and those of their families, simply wanted to go before the trade committee and give their points of view on 90% of the remaining labour movement in Colombia, not the government-affiliated labour movement but trade union activists who comprise 90% of the labour movement there. The Liberals and Conservatives said no to hearing from those labour activists. They said no to hearing from Afro-Colombians, individuals suffering the brunt of the brutal government-linked paramilitary groups that, there is no other way to put it, brutally slaughter hundreds of activists every year.

Rather than the trade committee hearing from African Colombians, aboriginal Colombians, the free labour movement in Colombia, not the government-sponsored part of the labour movement, rather than hearing from Canada's largest unions and labour activists from the Canadian Labour Congress, it closed out debate on Bill C-2. Through a pretty thuggish process, it simply shut out all of those groups and many civil society organizations and individuals, all of whom had written to members of the trade committee to appear before the committee. Then, in the space of just a few minutes per clause, it moved to rubber stamp this trade bill.

As we know, there is the so-called Liberal amendment that requires nothing more or less than the Colombian government to report on itself annually. I guess one of the reasons the Liberals moved closure on this issue before committee was that the witnesses who came forward were very clear about the fact that this amendment, which would force the Colombian government to report on itself, is simply not credible given its lies and deception.

What the committee heard from the CCIC, no less, was that there could be a historic precedent to put in place some independent and impartial human rights monitoring and evaluation both prior to and during this process. Quoting from the organization's testimony before the committee, it stated, “...the damage from a non-credible process is high...”.

What we have are no full and comprehensive hearings and a non-credible process that has been added in allowing the Colombian government to report on itself. The Liberals and Conservatives rammed this bill through without the due and appropriate consideration, without even hearing from the folks who the trade committee is bound to hear from. It is absolutely outrageous.

Our report stage amendments endeavour to tackle these issues: the lack of credibility and lack of process around this; and the fact that the Liberal Party has completely betrayed its past. I think it is fair to say that in the past, under previous leaders, the Liberal Party did have some legitimate connection to human rights. When we look at the history of the Liberal Party, there were times when the Liberal Party stood up for human rights issues. However, that is not the case today under the current leader. I believe profoundly that is one of the reasons that the Liberal Party is in such difficulty in the polls. People in this country want to choose between something more than far right to extreme right points of view.

In the Colombian trade deal, we have a government that, through its secret police, through its military and through its affiliated paramilitary organizations, has been nothing less than brutal with dissidents, the people who stand up for labour rights and human rights.

The NDP offered about 100 amendments to this trade agreement. What we talked about and what we put forward at committee stage was the very clear desire from the labour movement and human rights organizations across this country and in Colombia to have an independent and impartial human rights assessment prior to any implementation of this trade deal.

Given the fact that there are more serious human rights violations around labour activists in Colombia than anywhere else in the world and that, according to many sources, there are more forced and violent displacements and thefts of land in Colombia than anywhere else in the world, most of it done through organizations affiliated with the Colombia government, as well as human rights violations by the guerrillas operating in Colombia, no one is proposing offering a reward for those human rights violations. We, in this corner of the House, steadfastly resist offering a reward to the Colombian government for repeatedly bad behaviour.

The Colombian government might have a slick public relations firm but, quite frankly, the violations and the many reports speak for themselves. The fact is that we had more witnesses asking to come before committee than the trade committee has seen since I have been in Parliament in the last six years, and yet there was a closing off and refusal to hear systematically from human rights organizations, from activists involved in human rights work, work with the aboriginal community and work with the African-Colombian community, and labour activists.

Our many amendments that were brought forward called for an independent and partial human rights assessment, among many other things, prior to this bill being implemented and also to put in place a system so that if the Colombian government did not keep its commitments the trade agreement could be abrogated.

All of those amendments were refused despite the fact that two years ago, when the trade committee actually went down to Colombia, we had a unanimous recommendation that the Conservative government not proceed any further with this trade agreement until an independent and impartial human rights evaluation could be undertaken to determine to what extent this would have a negative impact on human rights.

Although that was unanimously agreed to at the time, the Conservatives stepped back within 24 hours and tried to, under pressure, I imagine, from the PMO, distance themselves from the report. However, it passed unanimously at committee. It is only the change in Liberal leadership that has led to the Liberal Party completely betraying its tradition of standing up on human rights.

The fact that we brought forward these amendments, that we were very clear about the importance of rebuilding the bill with a human rights focus and that so many organizations throughout the country said that they wanted to step forward and speak to this issue, I think attests to the fact that Canadians are profoundly concerned about the direction this Parliament is taking.

I have had the privilege of speaking at a number of public events throughout this country. I have been speaking about this issue at public events in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and western Canada. Canadians are very concerned about this issue.

To close, I will give one example in the riding of Davenport where 200 people came out to speak to the issue of concerns about the Liberal Party's stand on human rights and this pushing forward of the Colombian trade deal. People in Davenport and so many other ridings across the country want to see this bill receive the sober second thought these report stage amendments are designed--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster talked about the fact that there has not been ample discussion. I assure him there have been over 38 full speeches in opposition to the bill and currently there are only 36 NDP members. I am assuming my hon. colleague has probably spoken a couple of times, and maybe more than that. There have been at least three full speeches by the member for Burnaby--New Westminster. There have been over 31 committee meetings. Over 98 different individuals have testified on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Over 18 of those witnesses have actually testified more than two times.

What new information does my colleague from the New Democratic Party think we are going to receive? We have been studying this bill for a couple of years. I appreciate his concerns, but I am not sure exactly what new revelations we hope to find on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the member as an individual, but I profoundly disagree with him on this question.

Two years ago we had hearings and it was a unanimous committee recommendation not to proceed any further with implementing the Canada-Colombia trade deal. Just a few weeks later the government gave the back of its hand to members of Parliament from all four parties who said at that time that we should not proceed and it moved to sign a trade agreement with Colombia.

Since that time we have had a first series of hearings. Those hearings were comprehensive. There were people heard from all sides. All members of Parliament realized this was the wrong road to take, all members of Parliament from all four parties. At the time, the Liberals had a very progressive leader and that consensus was very clear. We fast forward to the committee hearings over the last few months, particularly last fall. We heard without exception from only one side. Before the bill had even been debated and passed by the House, we heard from pro-government witnesses, from only one side. Only one side was heard. It is very clear that when the labour movement both in Colombia and Canada wants to come forward, and civil society activists want to come forward, the promise the Liberal Party made for full and comprehensive hearings should have been kept. It was not.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work on the bill. It has exposed a serious misgiving we have with regard to trade. We have to keep in mind that we are not talking about ending trade with Colombia. We are talking about providing it with a privileged trading relationship. Instead of getting tough on crime, we are rewarding those who abuse and kill other people. We are going to reward them with a privileged trading agreement that we do not even provide other countries that have better human rights records. I would like to ask my colleague about the irony of that.

Once again, we are not talking about ending relations with Colombia. We are talking about giving it a privileged status and rewarding its behaviour.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. Over the last few weeks we have seen even more revelations of the bad behaviour of the Colombian government. I talked about the human rights violations, the labour rights violations, the forced and violent displacement from land. Those are all a matter of public record. There is no doubt that had those witnesses from the free Colombian labour movement, not the government-sponsored part, that little 10% part, been allowed to come before the committee, those voices would have been heard.

Recently we have heard even more revelations of the involvement of the secret police, the DAS in Colombia, in the systematic killings of labour activists. The DAS passed on that information to paramilitary organizations. It went around the world. All members of Parliament have to take that into consideration. There were revelations a few days ago just before closure was brought in that President Uribe's brother was actively involved in the paramilitary killings that were taking place. Those allegations came forward and now we have another reason for members of Parliament of all parties to say, “Whoa, there is a fundamental problem here”.

We are seeing members of the president's family involved in human rights abuses. Those allegations need to be investigated. On the secret police involvement, very clearly we should not be rewarding bad behaviour. That is a repudiation of a fundamental Canadian value.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-2.

I want to speak to the point that my friend from Windsor West raised in terms of trade. We need to make it very clear. Canada already does trade with Colombia. There is some $1.3 billion in two-way trade right now, with $602 million in Canadian exports and $734 million in imports.

It is important to understand that the purpose of the free trade agreement is to institute some rules-based trading. To say that there is no trading going on right now would be disingenuous and quite frankly misleading. There is trade right now. We are trying to make sure it is rules based so that we can move forward on a stronger footing.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement because it is an important agreement for Canada. It has been the subject of extensive debate and study by the House and the Standing Committee on International Trade.

At the standing committee alone there has been over 35 hours of witness testimony on the free trade agreement. In the House, opposition members have spoken 99 times to Bill C-23 which was in a previous Parliament, as well as Bill C-2.

The New Democratic Party members have made it clear that they are opposed to free trade. As a matter of fact, they have never met a free trade deal they did not oppose. They have spoken 40 times to these bills despite only having 36 members. We can do the math on that one.

The committee has heard from over 90 witnesses who have shared their knowledge and views on this agreement. Some organizations have appeared more than once. This is in addition to the visit by the standing committee to Colombia to study Canada's commercial relationship with Colombia. During this visit alone, members of Parliament were able to meet with over 50 Colombian stakeholders.

What have members of the House and members of the committee heard time and time again during their discussions on the free trade agreement? They have heard that this is a strong commercial agreement for Canada and for Colombia.

Certainly no one is saying that Colombia is a country that has fixed all its problems. While we were in Colombia listening to testimony, people talked openly. The government talked openly of the struggles the country has had in terms of civil unrest and civil war over the years. We would be hard pressed to find anyone with the government or civil society who has not said that conditions have improved.

That is one of the things we are talking about here today. As we heard from SNC-Lavalin when it appeared before committee, more and more engagement of Canadian companies and good Canadian values are more likely to help the situation than to make it worse.

We must move forward now with the passage of this free trade agreement. Canadian business is looking to Parliament to do everything we can to open doors for Canadians, to create new commercial opportunities around the world and to work with our partners to help our citizens succeed.

To allow this to happen, Canadian companies need improved access to markets in order to compete. That is why this free trade agreement is such an important accomplishment. Trade between our countries is significant.

In 2009, as I mentioned when I started my speech, our two-way trade in merchandise totalled $1.3 billion. Key Canadian products such as pulse crops, paper, wheat, barley, machinery and motor vehicles are exported to Colombia. Canadian companies and producers of these products are counting on the passage of the free trade agreement. Colombia is a vibrant and dynamic market for Canadian exporters and foreign investors. It is a growing market of 48 million people.

As soon as the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement comes into effect, exporters and investors in Canada will enjoy lower trade and investment barriers in the Colombia market.

Colombia will eliminate tariffs on nearly all current Canadian exports, including wheat, pulses and mining equipment. The competitive advantage that will be provided for Canadians with the removal of these tariffs is significant. The removal will help Canadian workers, farmers and businesses stay ahead of their global competitors.

Canadian exporters, particularly of the commodities, are already at a disadvantage compared to their U.S. counterparts due to higher transportation costs. These disadvantages could become even worse if the U.S.-Colombia agreement comes into force. As well, Colombia has been aggressively expanding its commercial relations with other countries, having recently concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement with the European Union and it is currently in negotiations with Panama and South Korea. If we wait to implement our agreement, we risk seeing Canadian exporters further disadvantaged in this important market.

Colombia maintains tariffs averaging 17% on agricultural products, with tariffs ranging from 15% to as high as 108% for some pork products, 80% for some beef products and 60% for certain beans. Indeed, agriculture was a key driver for these free trade agreement negotiations, and a successful outcome of agriculture was absolutely critical.

Tariffs on 86% of Canadian agricultural exports will be eliminated immediately when the free trade agreement comes into force. That translates into about $25 million in annual duty savings in sectors such as wheat, barley, lentils, beans and beef. Clearly, this is a significant amount and will certainly provide additional incentive for Colombian companies to buy Canadian goods.

During one of its appearances before the standing committee, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was quite candid with its views:

I'm interested in making the lives of Canadian beef producers better. I think this agreement and other trade agreements do that.

This government echoes these remarks. We are working on trying to support Canadian farmers and to make the lives of Canadians better by creating jobs and ensuring the long-term competitiveness of this country.

The benefits of this trade agreement extend beyond agriculture. By creating new market opportunities for Canadian exporters, this agreement is also expected to have a positive impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector, growth that can be achieved in Colombia. Off-road dump trucks, auto parts and machinery are some of Canada's leading exports to Colombia. These products will benefit from increased market access through this agreement.

We need to listen to Canadian businesses and help them expand their reach into this exciting market. The time for Canada to act is now. Our trade with Colombia is complementary. Both countries have a lot to gain.

It has been mentioned by members on the opposite side that there is a number of issues facing Colombia. They talk about the paramilitary, the FARC. One of the things they forget to factor into the equation is the extensive illegal drug market in Colombia. What this deal does is it helps Colombians rely less on drugs and more on trade.

This is trying to provide opportunities for Colombians so that they do not need to rely solely on the illegal drug market that has plagued Colombia. This is about trying to create additional opportunities. When we say we will not provide opportunities or will not give them an opportunity to trade, we remove the chance for them to be able to transfer out of the illegal activities into legal activities where they could make sustainable long-term differences.

Colombia is making significant advances to ensure it becomes a stable democracy. However, one cannot have a democratic and secure nation without jobs and opportunities. Colombia is working to create opportunities for its people, and the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will assist in those efforts.

Our businesses can compete with the best in the world. It is certainly time we listened to our Canadian companies and worked to ensure that they maintain their competitiveness in this market and have the chance to pursue new opportunities.

I would also mention the fact that during the polling that has been going on with the presidential elections coming, of all the parties that are running there is only one party that opposes free trade. Let us think about that. There is only one party out of all the parties that are running for re-election and to run the country that actually opposes free trade. Ninety-six per cent of those parties support free trade. That is what the polls show.

We talk about what is not good for Colombia. I think Colombians understand what is important for Colombia. If there was such an opposition to free trade, do members not think that would become an issue during the campaign? Do members think any political party in Colombia would be supporting free trade if they believed this was going to hurt their chances of winning? That bears out in the results of the polls which show that only one party, which actually has less than 4%, opposes free trade.

It is for this reason and the many benefits to our Colombian partners that this agreement brings that I ask all members to support the passage of this free trade agreement.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like all members, I, too, have received many communications from constituents and others.

I have a two items to mention today.

First, there was a proposed amendment to the bill, which would require an assessment being done of the impact of trade on the human rights situation in Colombia. Could the member advise the House when that would happen and what the process would be in terms of making that assessment? Is any funding provided for such an activity in Colombia and/or Canada?

Finally, could the member identify whether the United States has decided to move forward at this time with its free trade deal with Colombia?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South has raised a number of important questions.

We have parallel agreements in the free trade deal about labour co-operation and the environment. This is one of several instruments that the Government of Canada has been able to develop in terms of working through some of these free trade deals, which are among some of the strongest in the world.

The Liberal member for Kings—Hants put forward a motion at committee to strengthen that. We look forward to having separate human rights agreements dealt with on a yearly basis.

These two factors will strengthen this deal and make it work for the Colombian people. The motion passed through committee and it was brought forward in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a fairly laughable pretension, that somehow the Colombian elections, which were fraught with a whole variety of issues raised by election observers, were somehow only focused on an agreement with Canada, that every Colombian voted on that basis despite paramilitary involvement.

We have seen a meltdown in the Mexican rural economy as a result of the final corn tariffs being taken off because of NAFTA. NAFTA was the same kind of spin, that somehow it would help rural Mexicans. Rather than helping or strengthening the Mexican economy in rural areas, the NAFTA agreement has done exactly the opposite. It has led to the colombianization of rural Mexico and an explosion of the drug trade.

Could he comment on that? We are hearing the same old bromides that this agreement will help Colombians when there has been absolutely no due diligence, no impartial human rights assessment. Neither the Conservatives or Liberals, who are cheerleading this agreement, can say that.

I have a final question around trade strategy. We have signed bilateral agreements and our trade has actually gone down in places like Costa Rica, Israel and Chile. We sign these bilaterals and our exports to those markets go down. What is wrong with the government's trade strategy?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the situation as it evolved in Colombia, we see that things are definitely better now eight years later than they were when President Uribe started.

The member talks about the challenges with which Colombia still has to deal. I do not think anyone in the House would disagree that there are still challenges with which the Colombian government needs to deal. If we look at just one story, anecdotally, that was written in the newspaper some time ago, when the troops showed at the border of Venezuela and the U.S. asked President Uribe if he needed some military support, he said no. He said that he needed a free trade agreement with the U.S. He said that this was not the way he wanted to do business as a country as it move forward. He realized that Colombia had issues with drugs and with productivity.

Colombia has signed a number of trade agreements. It believes that this agreement will help it move out of its current situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, I have said that we cannot let ourselves be blinded by ideologies that assume all free trade agreements are good, or on the other side, that all free trade agreements are bad. Instead we must judge each agreement, and in this case, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, in terms of how it will really affect in the long term the people of Canada and Colombia.

In Canada, farmers, factory workers, small businesses and families across the country will benefit from increased trade with one of Latin America's fastest growing economies. In Colombia, thousands of lives have been destroyed by decades of civil war and narcoterrorism. The decent, hard-working people of Colombia deserve a better future, a future driven by legitimate opportunities from trade and investment, which can help free Colombians from the violence and human rights abuses fuelled by the drug trade.

Colombia has made significant progress over the last decade. Security has strengthened and human rights abuses have declined. Earlier this year, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, tabled her annual report on Colombia. In her report, she recognized the “significant progress Colombia has made in human rights”. President Obama has also recognized the progress that has been made.

The foundation of this progress is Colombia's strong, independent judiciary. President Uribe's acceptance of the Supreme Court decision, which limited his presidency to two terms, as well as the vibrant presidential election that is now taking place, also help to underscore and demonstrate Colombia's democracy and respect for the rule of law.

However, Colombia's social progress remains fragile and incomplete. Much more needs to be done. Poverty, unemployment and lack of legitimate economic opportunity force too many Colombians to turn to the violent life of the drug trade. For too many Colombians, it is the only way they can make a living and provide for their families, but we can help. In fact, we have a responsibility to help.

Canada has a moral obligation to help Colombia build its legitimate economy, and we have a long history of providing foreign aid to Colombia. These Canadian aid dollars have helped in building vital social infrastructure in Colombia. We have helped protect vulnerable Colombians by improving security programs for women and children. We have helped Colombia with foreign aid to help train labour inspectors, to strengthen the enforcement labour laws and the respect of human rights. Canada has helped in the area of resource development. We are helping to strengthen environmental protection and improving community engagement.

These are a few examples of how Canada and Colombia are working together now, but aid dollars are not enough. Foreign aid does not provide the economic levers that a developing country needs to become self-sufficient. For that we need trade. We must encourage investment that is socially and environmentally responsible, investment that provides economic opportunities for all Colombians, including the most vulnerable, while respecting and strengthening human rights.

A free trade agreement with Colombia can create real jobs and real opportunity for Colombians. The agreements on the environment and labour co-operation will help ensure that our trade is conducted in a socially and environmentally responsible way.

As Liberals, we recognize and have a history of understanding that economic engagement can help strengthen human rights engagement. Prime Minister Trudeau was certainly no slouch when it came to human rights, but he was also the first western leader to engage post-revolutionary China, even before President Nixon.

Throughout our discussions on free trade with Colombia, the Liberal Party focused on the human rights situation. For us, it is vital that free trade with Colombia strengthens and improves the protection of human rights for all Colombians, including the most vulnerable. The Liberal Party listened to the concerns of Canadians and Colombians and we acted. We insisted on a human rights amendment to this free trade agreement. That is why we now have a binding treaty on human rights, a treaty that was signed by both the Canadian and Colombian governments last month. That is why the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is now the first trade agreement in the world to include an ongoing human rights impact assessment.

Under this agreement, Canada must measure and analyze the effect of the FTA on human rights in both countries. In fact, both Canada and Colombia must table annual reports in their Parliaments, analyzing the impact of this FTA on human rights. When these reports are tabled in Parliament, they will be public. These reports will be examined in committee, where civil society organizations and other expert witnesses from both Canada and Colombia will be heard.

This will ensure that we do not stop focusing on human rights when this FTA goes into effect. It will ensure that, on an ongoing basis, we will have constructive engagement on human rights for years, perhaps decades to come.

This Liberal amendment and the treaty on human rights and free trade has received support in Canada and Colombia and around the world. Dr. James Harrison, a professor at the University of Warwick told our trade committee that:

—the Canadian proposal is exciting and could become a model in this area, because no other country has yet included this within the scope of a trade agreement....I think the idea of a human rights... assessment is a great endeavour to be embarking on...

Mr. Gaétan Lavertu, a former deputy minister for Foreign Affairs for Canada and a former Canadian Ambassador to Colombia spoke about this human rights agreement. He said:

I think it's great that we have an opportunity to review the impact of the agreement. We should probably do that for all agreements. It's not enough to just sign agreements; we have to see once in a while what the implications have been, what the results have been, and I think that will be very useful. It will provide us with an opportunity to discuss human rights not only multilaterally but also bilaterally on a much more extensive basis.

Another former Canadian deputy minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter Harder, called the Liberal amendment a:

—significant innovation in free trade agreements in that it provides both the Colombian and Canadian legislatures the opportunity to annually review and assess the human rights implications of the agreement. I expect that future parliaments will build on this precedent when they consider proposed free trade agreements.

Colombians have also expressed support for this human rights treaty. For example, Dr. Leon Valencia, executive director of Arco Iris, a human rights organization, has stated:

I think it is interesting and useful...This will provide an important yearly forum to discuss the situation in Colombia, and will give Canadian citizens the opportunity to monitor human rights violations in our country.

Dr. Gerardo Sánchez Zapata, president of Colombia's textile and apparel industry trade union spoke on behalf of several Colombian unions, private sector unions, when he said:

This procedure is welcomed by Colombian workers and we are thankful...it helps strengthen a mechanism already in place that monitors and evaluates the progress in matters of human rights and freedom of association in our country...

Our Parliament has discussed this free trade agreement at length. Since 2008, free trade with Colombia has been the subject of well over 100 hours of debate at second reading and testimony at committee. In fact, the House of Commons has devoted more time to the Colombia-Canada FTA at second reading and committee than it did to each of the federal budgets since 2008.

Many witnesses on this FTA have appeared before committee two or three times already. The discussions that have taken place have been extensive and nobody can say that the ratification of this agreement has been rushed. Democracy requires a fulsome debate that makes every reasonable effort to ensure that all views can be heard, but this debate must be followed by a vote. It is time for that vote to take place.

It is clear that a majority of Colombians support this free trade agreement. Of all the Colombians mainstream political parties, only one opposes these free trade agreements, whether it is with the U.S., the E.U. or with Canada, the Polo Democrático Alternativo. In the congressional elections of May 14, the Polo Party garnered a paltry 6% of the vote. In the most recent presidential elections, the Polo candidate, Petro, won only 9% of the vote.

All of the other parties in Colombia, the Green Party, the Party of the U and all the others support free trade agreements. If there is to be sustainable progress, the people of Colombia know that they need legitimate economic opportunities to unshackle them from the violent narco-economy. This trade agreement, in combination with the Liberal amendment and the binding treaty on human rights, offers Colombia economic progress as well as human rights progress.

This agreement represents hope and opportunity for Colombians to have a better way of life. It also offers Canadians the opportunities to be a partner in progress with the people of Colombia in that progress. For these reasons, the Liberal Party is proud to support this amended FTA and its accompanying treaty on human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his support of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. I certainly thank him for his intervention on behalf of human rights in Colombia, because it has allowed this bill, quite frankly, to move forward.

I know that the hon. member was in the House when the NDP member was speaking. Beyond the fact that the NDP has never supported a free trade agreement at any time, in the current Parliament or in any other Parliament, part of what really bothers me about the NDP approach to this particular piece of legislation is that there has been some fundamental testimony at committee that has misled the committee.

I have one example. The hon. member was there, and I would ask him to recall it.

The NDP member in this place came into committee and said that there had been a massacre of 12 Awa citizens, indigenous people in Colombia, who had been murdered by the government. We later found out that they had not been murdered by the government. They had been murdered by the FARC, the socialist insurrection in the jungle. We still have not had that corrected. It has not been corrected at committee, nor has it been apologized for.

That is the type of opposition we have. I wonder if he would want to draw some comparisons from that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been disturbed by the amount of misinformation that has permeated and dominated the important and legitimate debate on this issue. I have repeatedly corrected the NDP member of the trade committee when he has made incorrect and false testimony.

At the time of the murder of 12 members of the Awa nation, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster actually accused the Uribe government of conducting the murders. Then, because the murders occurred when the hon. member for Toronto Centre and I were in Colombia, we were accused of condoning murder. That was the deeply personal and grossly biased and inaccurate type of argument made.

As it turns out, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has reported that the murders of the 12 members of the Awa nation were committed by FARC, because they were living on grounds contiguous with a FARC drug operation. It was not the Uribe government, so I think that the hon. member from the New Democrats should apologize to me and to the Uribe government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at the ignorance of the members who are not aware that there have been systematic massacres not only of members of the Awa nation in Colombia but of other aboriginal nations. Indeed, the government and paramilitary and military forces have been involved. It is a matter of public record.

I will turn to other issues, because it is obvious that there is not a very high level of understanding of the human rights situation in Colombia. How could there be? Liberals and Conservatives shut off debate on Bill C-2. They refused to hear from human rights organizations in Colombia who asked to come forward. They refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress, which asked to come forward. They refused to hear from some of the largest labour activist unions in Canada, which asked to come forward. They refused to hear from the free and democratic labour movement, which is over 90% of the labour movement in Colombia. The Liberals and Conservatives said that they did not want to hear from those organizations. If they had heard from those organizations rather than having cut off debate, their level of ignorance would have been improved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that the constructive intervention from the hon. member has contributed something new to the debate, but I would like to help him with an intervention from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who recognized:

[T]he significant progress made in terms of a drastic reduction in the number of complaints of extrajudicial executions and the continuous prosecution of members of Congress and public officials for alleged links with paramilitary organizations.

She is saying that there has been significant progress. She also said that they recognized:

[T]he [Uribe] Government’s openness to international scrutiny...[and] the spirit of cooperation that exists between the Government and OHCHR-Colombia and the commitment of the Government to address human rights challenges.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is June 2010. Exactly two years ago, in June 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade published a report entitled “Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia”.

All parliamentarians probably received a letter today from Canada's National Director of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. This represents a fair number of Canadians who are against the free trade agreement with Colombia. I will quote Canada's National Director of that union, Ken Neumann:

The United Steelworkers continues to support the 2008 recommendation of the Standing Committee on International Trade for an independent, impartial, third party assessment of human rights in Colombia before this legislation is signed, sealed and delivered to the Colombian regime.

This position reflects one of the main recommendations in the 2008 report, which stated that we would go along with a free trade agreement, provided that Colombia could show continued and stable improvement in the human rights situation.

Now we have a proposal from the Liberals, who are putting the cart before the horse. They claim to agree with the Conservatives that a human rights assessment should be done after the free trade agreement is signed with Colombia.

I remind my colleagues of some comments made in the dissenting opinion of the Liberal Party in June 2008:

A trade agreement with Colombia should be contingent on an independent human rights assessment which clearly demonstrates the progress of the Colombian Government on these important issues...It has long been the position of the Liberal Party that trade and human rights should not be done in isolation.

As it turns out, the Liberal Party is doing exactly the opposite of what it said. This change happened when the current Liberal Party leader took over and the agenda changed. We must not forget that even the United States has refused to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia and that it is still waiting for significant improvement in the human rights situation there.

It is clear that the government does not respect the will of parliamentarians as expressed in the report. Had we already begun the analysis and assessment process with independent human rights groups, we would already be in a position to describe with absolute certainty what has really been going on in Colombia for the past two years.

Have things improved? Are all of the necessary systems in place to foster continuous improvement? Given an opportunity to study a report produced by an independent group appointed to carry out the assessment, the majority of the House would already be prepared to support the agreement. However, I must repeat the following, just as I do every time I speak to the Colombia free trade agreement bill.

During the time that I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I never once saw a report that offered a credible assessment of the impact on Canada and Quebec's economy or that of the partner country, which in this case is Colombia.

We are all well aware and should not have to be reminded of what happened in Colombia. In terms of human rights, it was the world's worst offender. It may no longer be the worst, but it is probably close. The people are against this agreement because of the human rights situation in that country.

The committee listed a number of recommendations in its report to the Government of Canada. Clearly, the Conservative government did not respect the will of parliamentarians. The Canadian government flat out rejected some of the recommendations and made decisions based on ideology without taking into account the will of those who represent the people of Quebec and Canada.

I want to point out that the Bloc Québécois wrote a dissenting opinion. We confirmed our strong opposition to the signing and ratification of such a free trade agreement. We believe that the committee's report was misguided and biased and did not reflect the committee's opinion.

We disagree with this bill for several reasons. First, it is bad trade policy. The free trade agreement with Colombia has almost nothing to do with trade. It is mainly about investment. The investment agreement with Colombia looks strangely like the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. The government is trying to promote and protect investment.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of protecting domestic and foreign investments, but we know Canada is involved in developing Colombia's greatest resource: minerals. As an aside, the government says Canada needs to do business abroad and that since we began studying this report on the free trade agreement, trade with Colombia has changed for the better.

It is clear to us that trade between Canada and Colombia is limited. The agreement will therefore have limited benefits. This agreement is not about trade, as I said earlier. It is about investments in the Canadian mining sector.

When it comes to free trade agreements and especially the agreement with Colombia, the Conservative government has a deplorable attitude, like the one we saw too often in the early days of this vast world development. Companies went abroad and set up shop in the name of globalization. Multinationals tried to take advantage of poor working conditions, pitiful human rights recognition and weak environmental regulations. They wanted to make the most of the often negative discrepancies that leave countries' populations and economies unprotected.

Armed groups forced the displacement of huge segments of the population. More than three million people were displaced. Rebel forces stole people's land and took ownership of it. If the Colombian government wanted to put things right and restore land to the people who were displaced, the Canadian companies that bought that land would prevent the government from improving the human rights situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the speech by the member for Sherbrooke. He knows a great deal about these issues and this free trade agreement with Colombia. He did a great job as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

As the member is well aware, representatives were sent to Colombia and when they came back, all of the members from the four parties agreed that we should not enter into a free trade agreement with Colombia given the human rights situation in that country. That was two years ago. Then, the Conservative government decided to simply ignore the information that the committee presented here. Now, we are in a situation where the Liberals and Conservatives refuse even to hear witnesses from the Canadian labour movement, the Colombian free labour movement, Afro-Colombians, aboriginals and all of the other civil society groups that asked the Standing Committee on International Trade to listen to their testimony on these issues.

I would like to hear what the member for Sherbrooke thinks about this. What has changed in the past two years, from the time when the Liberal Party recognized the human rights situation to present day, when it no longer recognizes the human rights violations? Is it because there is a new Liberal Party leader?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the dates do in fact seem to coincide. The new Liberal leader's attitude seems oddly similar to that of the Conservative government, particularly that of its leader and perhaps even the Reform ideology that permeates the Conservative Party.

I will never forget the support and backing we had from the Liberal Party in committee when we presented the report and the recommendations. We must be honest and transparent, and admit that the Bloc had the support of both the Liberal Party and the NDP. The Liberal Party supported several of the recommendations. Furthermore, regarding the main recommendation—calling on the government to ask a third party to assess the human rights situation and examine any positive changes—of course the Liberal Party supported us in that regard. Now it is doing the opposite. It wants Canada to sign the report and worry about the rest later.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the member's comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Kings—Hants who in the very beginning, and if one did not listen very closely one would have missed it because he kind of skated over it, mentioned that this trade agreement really honours the government's support for balancing the environment, development and sustainability.

I would have liked the opportunity to ask him a question about that but I did not have the chance. However, I am sure the hon. member was listening to what he had to say in the ongoing debate about these trade agreements, these free trade as opposed to fair trade agreements.

As I mentioned before in the House, I had the honour of being the first head of law and enforcement for the NAFTA Environment Commission. There was a lot of concern that even that side agreement to the NAFTA agreement was not binding, the same way that the actual NAFTA agreement was binding, but still provided for a full-time secretariat. It provided for a council of all the environment ministers, as there should be for Colombia and the environment if this is truly a sustainable--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there. There are only 40 seconds left for the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at this in terms of geometry, we all know that parallel lines never meet. They are always the same distance apart. Indeed, parallel agreements associated with a free trade agreement rarely merge with the main point of that free trade agreement.

Furthermore, for all practical purposes, we should have taken the time to negotiate with the Uribe government, the government of Colombia, in order to send a clear message that we would be willing to sign a free trade agreement if the situation improves in terms of both human rights and of course environmental rights. We know very well how some mining companies conduct themselves here, so we can only imagine what they might do to the environment in a country like Colombia.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation again. Having been involved in not quite all of the hearings of this committee, which have been fairly extensive with over 130 representations by around 100 witnesses, the international trade committee has studied the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement in a very thorough and solid way.

This trade agreement is good for Canada and that is the predominant reason why we as members of Parliament should vote to support this trade agreement. In particular, this trade agreement is really good for agriculture, an industry that is of prime importance to my province of Saskatchewan. The way that this free trade agreement is structured there will be an immediate elimination of certain tariffs on certain agricultural products that come from Canada. This would affect our lentils industry, barley, wheat, oats, grains which are predominantly not produced in Colombia, but grains that we compete against other countries such as Argentina, Brazil and the United States in exporting to Colombia.

This is very important because it deals with one of the criticisms that opponents have made against the agreement, that it will somehow devastate small Colombian farmers. To those critics I should point out that under the structure of the small Colombian farm, the predominant crop is beans. Under this agreement the Colombian government rather prudently protects its small one, two, three acre farmers with a much slower 20-year reduction of the tariffs on beans. Since Canada does not export great amounts of beans to Colombia, it is not of major importance to us.

This agreement is also good for Canada because it helps our manufacturing industry. While we do not always think of ourselves as being in head-to-head competition with the United States when we export Ford, GM or Chrysler products, in the situation with Colombia we right now face the same tariff, but that tariff would be eliminated. So car dealers and car manufacturers from southern Ontario will be able to export and the 35% tariff would be eliminated, so they can then export directly into the Colombian market. This will give them a massive advantage over United States exporters who wish to follow up, particularly as the United States Congress is dragging its feet when it comes to the implementation of its free trade agreement.

One of the advantages that has not be noted too often in this debate is the advantage that Canada will incur under this agreement in the area of services. Services as investments are important engines of the Canadian economy. For example, the service sector contributes to 71% of Canadian GDP and three out of four jobs. There will be opportunities in Colombia for Canadian companies in areas such as financial services, legal services, engineering, architecture and high technology. Canadian service providers are already providing services to help develop the Colombian economy, estimated to be about $80 million to $85 million per year.

This is important in areas such as engineering. Colombia is a country that has had severe civil wars over the last many decades, but it is starting to rebuild its infrastructure. If anyone has been there recently there are highway construction projects. The building of infrastructure in Colombia is very important and Canadian engineering firms can be a part of that development. Therefore, being able to recognize credentials back and forth would save both Canadian and Colombian providers time and of course money.

This agreement removes barriers to entry at the border such as quotas and labour market evaluations which makes the entry of investor service providers and traders into both countries easier. With the ability to move key personnel to different positions with reasonable timeframes, businesses can operate more successfully.

We already know that this agreement gives Canadian service providers greater access to the Colombian marketplace than ever before. It is therefore now time to ensure that Canadian service providers can take advantage of these opportunities and remain competitive in the Colombian market by passing this agreement.

At the end of 2009 the stock of Canadian direct investment in Colombia was $773 million and this trade agreement will establish a stable legal framework for Canadian investors in Colombia. Strong obligations will ensure the free transfer of capital and protect against expropriation without prompt and adequate compensation.

Another element of this free trade agreement is the recognition of the role of governments to promote corporate social responsibility principles with investors. We had the privilege in committee of listening to corporations, including the largest mining company in the country of Colombia, and what it is doing to promote education and social well-being in and around the regions where it works. It was encouraging to hear about the development, to hear that Colombian enterprises, on average, re-invest 3% of their sales into corporate social responsibility compared to 1.5% in Europe, for example.

Overall, investment links mean business to global value chains, and to the technology and expertise they need to forge a wide range of commercial links with our partners around the world. Investment with our partners, inwardly and outwardly, is incredibly important and that is certainly the case with Colombia.

Over the last few years we have seen increases in the security and stability of Colombia, and that has been important. These are some of the factors that are helping to drive Canadian investment in this new frontier market with new opportunities.

Canadian investments in Colombia are expected to grow, particularly in the oil and gas and mining sectors, and Canada has significant interest and expertise to offer our Colombian partners going forward. For Canadians and Colombians alike, the free trade agreement offers an unprecedented level of stability, predictability, and production to assist in taking our investment relationship to a new level in the years ahead.

Since the beginning of the global economic downturn, this government has been very clear that trade and investment hold the key to world economic recovery. That is why the government is continuing to move forward with aggressive free trade agendas around the world that put a focus on creating new partnerships with key nations around the world.

To create new commercial opportunities around the world, we need to do everything we can to open the door for Canadians and that includes promoting free trade agreements, not just with our traditional partners in Europe and the United States but everywhere around the world.

I would like to deal with some of the criticisms that have been addressed in regard to this agreement. While I believe that the predominant purpose of the House is to vote according to the interests of Canadians, the arguments against this legislation have been based on the fact that it is a bad deal for Colombians.

Having watched the results of the first round of the presidential election and the elections for congress earlier this year, I am a little puzzled as to why critics continue to say that because the Colombian people have overwhelmingly voted for parties and candidates who are favourable to this agreement. In fact, the two candidates in the runoff for the presidency, Mr. Mockus of the Green Party and Mr. Santos of the La U Party, are both supporters of this agreement. They both see this as enhancing the prosperity of Colombia.

Critics have said there are supporters of this agreement who have abused human rights, but I would also note that there are opponents of this agreement who have abused human rights. To argue that this is the major basis to vote for or against it is stretching logic as to why we should be for or against it. We should be in favour of this agreement because not only does it enhance the economics of Canada but also job creation for our country. It does the same in Colombia.

It makes a better life for average Canadians and Colombians. Undoubtedly, this agreement will have a greater impact on Colombia than it will on Canada, but it is a positive agreement that will help our farmers, manufacturers and service industries.

I ask all members to vote for this agreement, an agreement which respects human rights and builds the economy in both countries.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that there is not much disagreement that bilateral trade is a good thing intrinsically. The member is aware that the concerns are with regard to what happens to the people. Specifically, the information that has come out is that much of the proposed activity would involve the significant displacement of persons.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on how we would ensure that the people who would be displaced by some of the aspects of the trade arrangements would be taken care of.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question goes to something that has been a mischaracterization of elements in this trade agreement.

The critics of this agreement have made two allegations in regard to what the hon. member is alluding to: one, that there will be major displacement caused by Canadian mining companies going in; and, two, that commercial large-scale agriculture will be put into place and will cause displacement.

With regard to the hon. member's question about displacement, when it comes to agriculture, this agreement should not have any effect in causing those displacements. Why is that? Because of the nature of Canadian agriculture exports to Colombia, we will not be displacing the small-scale farmers. The Colombian government has set up tariffs to protect those small-scale farmers. They will not be displaced by crops coming into the markets to compete directly with them.

The second thing is in regard to mining operations that, it has often been said, displace persons. I invite the hon. member to read some of the testimony we have had from one of the mining companies in Colombia. The witness was a Colombian citizen who dealt with social responsibility and discussed the ways that he helped to build the country. I would also invite the hon. member to directly contact some of the mining companies that are working in the social responsibility areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the Colombian elections. He should be aware, even though the committee did not have the full and comprehensive hearings into this bill that the Liberal Party had promised, that impartial election observers had flagged widespread fear among the Colombian population around the elections. They said that a number of factors impede free and fair elections, such as vote-buying and selling, the misuse of identity documents, illegal possession of identity documents, coercion and intimidation of voters and fraud committed by polling officers. I could go on and on.

To say, on the one hand, that these elections did not have problems would be inappropriate, but to say, on the other hand, that somehow, as we have heard in a couple of interventions, the few Colombian voters who did make it to the polls around this issue were only voting on the Canada trade deal, is absolutely bizarre. It is absurd. It is kooky. However, if that is all they have, it shows the paucity of the arguments from the other side.

I will not go into the human rights issues. I will just go into the issue of the failure of the government on trade issues. Every bilateral trade agreement that we have signed, we have actually seen a reduction in exports to those markets after signature, and that has been systematic and, in some cases, taking years to get back to the point of departure.

Why does the hon. member think the Conservative government has failed on this? Why do our exports consistently go down when we sign these bilateral trade agreements?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will first deal with the hon. member's assertions about the elections.

The Organization of American States sent 80-some observers down there and they said that the elections were substantively free and fair. An independent electoral monitoring organization, with 2,400 electoral monitors in Colombia, stated that the elections were much better than the congressional elections. They said that there was a considerably lower level of shenanigans, which I think would be the proper way to describe the overall description of the way Colombian elections have been handled in the past. In fact, the number of cases that the prosecutors were looking at and charges being laid for election fraud, misrepresentation, et cetera, were considerably lower than normal. Even the presidential candidate who was trailing the Green Party was not alleging electoral fraud by the winners.

The hon. member has made some allegations without having the facts to back them up.

In respect to the hon. member's cherry-picking--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. The time has expired for questions and comments.

We will resume debate with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide a few comments on Bill C-2.

It is interesting that this is the first bill the government brought to Parliament. We have been on quite a journey with this bill and it bears some reflection on where we came from.

First, I want to indicate that there is no question that rules-based bilateral trade deals are intrinsically a good thing. When we enter into these arrangements, as we have with a number of countries, it is a win-win situation. There are synergies and things that happen that make value come between the economic inputs that each can bring.

In fact, I was much swayed by the argument that other countries that are doing this will have the benefit of the tariff arrangement that would be entered into and that if Canada does not do this, then our businesses that want to do business in Colombia will be impaired. It is an interesting argument. I do not think I have heard the answer to the question on whether we should proceed at this time or whether there is a point at which current bilateral trade with Colombia might be impaired because of that.

I was also intrigued that the standing committee looking at this in the first instance came back to the House with a recommendation that the first thing that should happen is an independent human rights assessment. That was the starting point and all the parties said that but it did not happen. Canadians probably want to know why. I do know that I had read where Amnesty International was reluctant to participate or to conduct such an independent assessment. I do not know why.

We have had a number of debates on this matter for some time and the issue of human rights has often been raised. I gave a speech at second reading after doing some work. I was looking at what was happening in the United States, which was also working on this. I was looking at some of the reports out of Colombia that talked about judicial corruption. I was talking about some of the reports from Colombia that showed that the number of prosecutions and convictions of those who had participated in human rights abuses and murders was almost nothing.

I could not understand how, if we had a situation that was improving, we could have circumstances where the judiciary was corrupt, where prosecutions were not being followed through on and where people were being disrupted and displaced from their homes. This is part of the partner with which we are looking at in terms of doing trade.

If I am not on the committee, when I look at any bill I have to depend on the committee to provide that information. I can only do so much research myself. I do know I still have questions about the agreement to have Colombia do an assessment on human rights as a consequence of the trade that would happen as a result of Bill C-2; the incremental or the specific impact of additional trade on human rights in Colombia. We would hope that it would improve it. However, from the standpoint of due diligence and of doing the kind of work that would be necessary to prove it, we need a mechanism. I think one of the Conservative members said that we need a rules-based free trade deal.

I understand, and I stand to be corrected, but the understanding is that the Government of Colombia will do an assessment of its human rights situation and the impact of trade on that, how trade has impacted human rights as a result of this deal, and report to its government.

I think we would get a copy of that, but I am not sure. However, when it was first introduced, it sounded like both governments would do their own independent assessments and report to their Parliaments. The other interpretation was that Canada and Colombia would work together on an assessment and would each report the same report to both Houses. I do not know where that is right now but I do know that it is a big question. I do not know whether there is a mechanism in place that could actually make an assessment of the impacts on human rights.

The fact is that the government wanted to have this amendment to the bill, an amendment that it had not contemplated. If we think about it carefully, it is not just an appeasement. It probably reflects a concern that there will be a major constituency out there concerned about the human rights element here.

As parliamentarians, we have heard from Canadians right across the country about the human rights aspect. I know they are in the same position as many parliamentarians who are not on this committee. They do not have all of the facts. However, when parliamentarians do not have all of the facts and the government says that we should trust it because trade is a good thing and it will deal with this, I am not sure. So, as a parliamentarian, we would look at what other countries are doing.

In the United States, President Obama was very aggressive in saying that getting out of the hole in the United States will be by promoting bilateral trade. I read the article on his speech and he had made a list but he did not mention Colombia, even though his country was working on a free trade deal with Colombia. I then heard congressional leaders saying that they would not go there and that it would be a long time before they looked at it. I do not know the precise reason but my understanding, from the media reports, is that the Americans are not proceeding aggressively with their free trade deal with Colombia.

Again I have some questions and parliamentarians should not be left with questions. We need to have answers. We need to have credible, reliable, verifiable information from all of the stakeholders in this matter and that includes from all the various human rights groups that have expressed concerns and who wanted to appear before the committee.

I understand how committees work and I know that sometimes it is very difficult to hear from everybody, but if there were any issue that we had to identify that was the principal concern that some people have about Bill C-2, it is about human rights. I have not heard many challenges to the benefits of trade, whether it be in agriculture or mining, but there has been some concern about that. I would have thought that the committee would want to ensure that the principal representatives of stakeholders across the country related to human rights issues would have had an opportunity to present their case to the committee so that the committee could ensure that Bill C-2 would contain measures to help mitigate or in fact eliminate the concerns that may have been raised. Those are the questions that as parliamentarians we wish were answered. It is fundamental.

I do not have to stand here and give a technical speech about the bill. The bill is about doing a free trade deal with Colombia. I hope that we can do many free trade deals that are rules-based and that take into account all of the factors that cause certain stakeholder groups concern. However, the fair way to do it is to listen to those stakeholders.

When we start this House, every day we say a prayer in this place before it is open to the public and the last line is that we make good laws and wise decisions. There is still time.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for my hon. colleague.

First, does he feel that 130 representations on a subject is sufficient? In his experience as a parliamentarian, which predates mine, does he feel that is more than most legislation would receive?

Second, in regard to whether we should go ahead with this agreement, does the hon. member accept that Colombia's elected representatives are the persons, from the Colombian perspective, who should have the final say?

third, does the hon. member also accept that many Colombians who support the agreement are working toward improving human rights and social development in their own country?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that there are good people in Colombia who are working very hard to address a very difficult situation. They have been in an awful situation politically and economically and from the standpoint of justice issues.

However, the member will know that each one of us has a responsibility to at least have some assurance that questions are asked and answers are given and that the members can look at the transcripts of committee meetings and follow the debates in the House, which I have.

When we receive hundreds and hundreds of e-mails from people who are passing on those questions, we want to at least bring them to the House and bring them to wherever we can find those answers. We are still working on it, as far as I am concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I admire the member for standing up in the House and saying what he said.

This is extremely important, because as he referenced, there are a whole range of questions that need to be answered.

Before I ask a question of the member for Mississauga South, I have a comment. The comment is very clear, because this has to be on the record. Members of Parliament are citing the recent elections. They have to cite the fact that most Colombians could not vote or did not feel comfortable voting. Most Colombians could not vote or did not feel comfortable voting in those elections. That is a fact that any member of the Conservative side who tries to reference the elections has to take into consideration. Most Colombians were not able to vote in that election.

My question for the member for Mississauga South is very simple. Is his recommendation to the committee that the committee should be hearing from the Canadian Labour Congress, NUPGE, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Colombian free and democratic labour movement, aboriginal people, and African Colombians?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, I do not think that I could do a proper assessment of who we have heard and not heard and who we should hear. The committee members are the ones responsible for that.

Having said that, when it comes right down to it, I really have a problem when there are people who want to appear who are credible and whom we have relied on in the past for their expertise, and for some odd reason, we decide that it is not necessary to hear from them, possibly, again. It might have been that they appeared in previous discussions.

However, the member is asking a question that I cannot answer. The committee has to justify its actions. I only raise the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, was the hon. member aware of the agreement tabled in the House recently? It is the binding human rights treaty signed by Colombia and Canada, which states:

[E]ach Party shall provide a report to its national legislature by May 15 in the year after the entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and annually thereafter. These reports will be on the effect of the measures taken under the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia on human rights in the territories of both Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

I just wanted to ask him if he is aware of the nature of that mechanism and the fact that Canada will be writing human rights reports on Colombia. It will not be Colombia reporting on itself.

Second, is the member aware of the support of two former deputy ministers of foreign affairs for this mechanism?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually here when the member for Kings—Hants proposed it to the government and I listened to it. I questioned it at the time, because I did not understand it.

I know that it has changed since, so I am glad that I questioned it at the time. I also spoke about it in my speech at second reading.

The question that has been raised, though, is whether the Colombian government can actually objectively assess the impact of trade on its human rights.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement as a member of the international trade committee and as someone who had the opportunity to travel with the committee just over two years ago. This is a very important initiative for our government and our global commerce strategy.

As a side note, it was two years ago today that then minister of international trade, David Emerson, announced formally that we would be entering into these negotiations. I know for a fact that we have had considerable debate from both sides of the House and through committee. It is time that we move on as a government and as country to provide opportunities for our businesses. This agreement is a great opportunity for Canadian businesses.

We know that there are challenges within Colombia. We have heard today and through our committees over 130 different testimonies and 98 different witnesses. The fact is that there has been progress over the eight years that President Uribe has been president. We know that there are new leaders coming on stream who support the general principle of trade agreements and of moving forward and fostering opportunities for Colombians as well as Canadians.

Once this free trade agreement is implemented, Canadians will be able to expand their presence in this important market. This is exactly the kind of opportunity Canadian industries across the country have been asking for.

One of those associations was the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, which testified to our committee, “Colombia has the potential to be an important future market for beef exports”.

The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters stated, “Colombia is a very good example of a market that is growing very rapidly where we have been successful in expanding our presence in that market...supplying them with Canadian products and services”.

Hon. members of the House should recognize just how important the Colombian market is for the businesses in their regions. As the member of Parliament representing Kelowna—Lake Country and the Okanagan, I know that British Columbia will benefit from this agreement, as will Ontario, Quebec, and all parts of the country. We are looking to expand trade and to yield customers new opportunities. In particular, British Columbia's machinery and paper industries stand to benefit most from this agreement.

We have heard already that Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba will benefit from this agreement. Specifically, the prairies and the agricultural producers are a key building block of our economy. The immediate removal of Colombian tariffs from groups such as wheat, barley, and pulses will make these products from the Canadian prairies even more competitive in the Colombian market.

In addition, Alberta enjoys a significant investment presence in the Colombian market, thanks to oil and gas projects. By providing greater predictability and protection for investors, our free trade agreement with Colombia will help secure Canadian investment in the region. We have heard over and over again that rules-based trading is secure, safe, regulatory protection for investors, which is key to continuing to help grow our markets as well as Colombia's.

These investment provisions will directly benefit those Alberta firms that are investing in Colombia. In Ontario and Quebec, manufacturers need all the opportunities they can get to grow stronger. That means opening doors in new markets, such as Colombia. With this agreement, Colombian tariffs on all machinery and industrial goods will be eliminated. Canadian manufacturers of mining equipment and heavy machinery, concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, will benefit from the immediate elimination of Colombia's 5% to 20% tariffs on products in this sector.

This is a significant opportunity for all Canadians. With over 42 million dollars' worth of vehicles, 15 million dollars' worth of mechanical machinery, and 10 million dollars' worth of electrical equipment exported to Colombia in 2009, companies in Ontario have a lot to gain, as well, from this agreement.

This is a very important agreement for Quebec, as well. Quebeckers employed in industries such as paper, paperboard and other forest products, copper, and machinery will clearly benefit from free trade with Colombia. After all, 21.6%, or over one-fifth, of Canada's exports to Colombia last year were from Quebec. That is a significant figure.

In total, Quebec's exports to Colombia amounted to $130 million in 2009, including $29 million worth of machinery and $27 million worth of paper and paperboard.

On the east coast, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador exported about $52.84 million worth of products to Colombia.

By deepening our trade relationships with Colombia, important industries will benefit, such as paper and paperboard and machinery exporters. With these kinds of benefits across Canada, it is no wonder that Canadian businesses, investors, and producers alike have been calling for closer commercial ties with Colombia.

This agreement is a result of this government listening to Canadian businesses and strengthening this country's economy. It is clear that this agreement makes commercial sense, and not just for one specific region or one province; it makes sense for all of Canada. Colombia is a significant trade partner for this country. In 2009, our two-way trade in merchandise was worth over $1.3 billion. That is right; it was over $1.3 billion. Over the past five years, Canadian merchandise exports have grown by over 55%.

By eliminating tariffs on a range of products, Canadian exporters and producers will become more competitive with other nations that are also trading with Colombia. This trade agreement will have significant benefits for important sectors of the Canadian economy, such as forestry, manufacturing, agriculture, energy, resources, and mining. These are all areas in which Canada excels, and they are integral to our economy. These sectors are economic drivers of both small communities and large urban centres across this great nation. In particular, in the agricultural sector, Colombia is an established and growing market for Canadian exporters.

In 2009, Canada exported agriculture and agri-food products to Colombia worth $247 million. Colombia is the second largest market for Canadian agricultural exports in South America. Key stakeholders in Canada's agricultural sectors have spoken out about how important this deal is for their businesses. Pulse Canada has testified that Colombia is a critical market for Canadian pulses and special crops. The Canadian Pork Council has said, “it would be critical, for us to be a player in the Colombian pork market, to see this great agreement passed”.

This government is listening. Once implemented, most Canadian agricultural exports will benefit from immediate duty-free access to Colombia. This includes wheat, barley, and pulses, which in 2009 represented 35% of Canadian merchandise. Exports to Colombia are currently subject to tariffs of up to 60%. Duty-free access to Colombia for these products is an important achievement.

This agreement is also expected to have a positive impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector by creating new market opportunities for Canadian exports of manufactured products.

Canadian companies, in particular the extractive and explorative companies, have made important investments in the Colombian market. As I mentioned, having had the opportunity to travel there, we saw first-hand those investments and the corporate social responsibility leadership those Canadian companies are providing the Colombians.

Canadian companies, with their presence, have created many opportunities for Canadian exporters of equipment and other manufactured products.

One of the leading exports to Colombia in recent years has been off-road dump trucks, for which immediate duty-free access would apply with the implementation of the free trade agreement. Who would have thought; off-road dump trucks? However, it is a great market, and it is an expanding market and opportunity.

Canada has also shipped a substantial quantity of auto parts to Colombia in recent years, which will receive the same tariff treatment as the United States exports, including on remanufactured products. The free trade agreement with Colombia will strengthen these types of linkages by fully eliminating Colombian tariffs on these and many other products.

Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment, to the point that the stock of Canadian investment in Colombia reached $773 million in 2009 alone. This agreement establishes a stable, legal framework for Canadian investors in Colombia.

The oil and gas and mining sectors will also benefit from provisions, directed by governments, to promote principles of corporate social responsibility in their business communities. The promotion of corporate social responsibility, something that is near and dear to my heart, fosters better relations between companies and local communities and contributes to a stable business environment. Canadian companies have indicated their strong belief that their increased engagement in Colombia, bringing with them good Canadian values, would help advance local conditions with respect to corporate social responsibility. Canadian service providers, in particular for financial, engineering, mining, and petroleum extractive services, will also benefit from more secure, predictable, and equitable treatment in Colombia.

The Standing Committee on International Trade has heard from many companies, associations, and individuals regarding the direct benefits this agreement will have. Without export markets, our industries will be unable to expand, compete, and grow. That is why I ask all hon. members to show their support for Canada's businesses from coast to coast to coast by supporting the passage of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member's comments, but I do appreciate them.

My colleague knows that two years ago the trade committee had hearings in Colombia where we heard from the labour movement. The committee was unanimous in its recommendation that the government not proceed with trade negotiations with the Government of Colombia until an independent human rights assessment was done on the impact of the agreement on human rights in Colombia given the egregious constant and ongoing human rights violations taking place there.

The member well knows that we are not talking about 2008. From January 1 to April 30 of this year, 30 trade unionists were massacred. Thirty of them died standing up for better health and safety conditions in their workplace, for better working conditions for Colombian workers. We are not talking about five or six years ago. We are talking about what happened a few weeks ago.

Given that the recommendation of the committee was unanimous and that those people who talked to committee two years ago wanted to come back on Bill C-2, my simple question is: Why do the Conservatives refuse to hear from the free and independent labour movement in Colombia and the labour movement in Canada, as well as the many activists who wanted to come before the committee?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for his passion. We have some major differences. He has an ideological position that our government does not agree with. I believe that in the best interests of Canadian businesses we need to continue to provide opportunities to expand our markets. We are a trading nation. Over two-thirds of our market are elsewhere. Our global economic strategy calls to expand these opportunities through the EFTA and numerous other agreements. There are about 11 agreements that we have signed or are working on, including the Colombia free trade agreement.

Specifically to the human rights issue and the situation in Colombia, my heart goes out to those who have lost their lives. It is definitely not a perfect situation there.

This agreement is the first one in the history of trade agreements to include side agreements on labour, the environment and human rights. We are setting a precedent. We want to make sure that we do this right. We are working together. I would like to thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants for his initiative to help bring the issue of human rights forward.

While we were in Colombia, the hon. member heard things firsthand. Do we engage or isolate these individuals? We need to engage them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country for his hard work on the trade committee and for his support for this piece of legislation.

My question for the hon. member is extremely straightforward.

We heard from dozens of witnesses at committee. When I listened to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster speak, I would swear that no one attended trade committee on this important subject, but that is far from the truth. We have had 31 committee meetings. Nearly 100 individuals have testified. Eighteen of those witnesses have actually testified twice and another seven have testified three times.

I would ask the hon. member if there is any more to the NDP opposition to this bill, or has that party simply taken an ideological position and refused to allow democracy to prevail and vote on this piece of legislation?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade for his hard work on the trade committee and his dedication in helping to expand market opportunities for Canadian businesses.

Specifically to the question of the NDP and its ideological difference, I believe in free and fair trade but that party has a different definition. It has never supported any trade agreement. No matter how long we went on with this, we would be looking at stalling, delaying, dithering and dodging by the NDP. We need to move forward for Canadian businesses.

We are looking at the human rights issue. We are providing hope, opportunity and jobs for Colombians. I believe from the bottom of my heart that this agreement is in the best interests of Colombians and Canadians as we move forward.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is more one of process. Eighteen months ago, the Conservative government prorogued Parliament so it could recalibrate, to use its term, its legislative program. After a long wait while it recalibrated, we came back and the very first piece of legislation tabled, the top of mind, number one priority for the government was not the global economic crisis. It was not housing or social programs. It was Bill C-2, a free trade agreement with Colombia--

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will have to stop the hon. member there.

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country will have a similarly short period of time to reply.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had ample opportunity to hear from unions. We have heard from people across this country. Ideologically the NDP is opposed to this agreement, but as I said before, it is in the best interests of Colombians to provide hope, opportunities and jobs for the folks of Colombia. As we move forward, we will continue to assess the human rights, look at the environment and labour situation and build a bridge for all of us.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have spoken to Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It was introduced in the second session of this Parliament and then again after prorogation.

The Bloc Québécois will again say no to this bill because certain amendments should have been made. We have difficulty understanding why the Liberals accepted certain amendments in committee. The Liberals have backtracked on their position. We consider the amendments to be cosmetic and not at all relevant to the issues in this matter.

The compromise is acceptable to the Liberals. They have agreed to let the Colombian government assess the human rights situation. A number of companies will invest or do business with Colombia even though some human rights are not respected there. Given that the Colombian government is being asked to conduct its own assessment of the human rights situation and to report only annually to the Government of Canada, the Bloc Québécois believes that the Colombian government is both judge and judged in this situation.

Some very serious human rights violations take place in Colombia. I will talk about some of them and provide statistics.

After Sudan—where we find Darfur—Colombia has the second largest number of people displaced by threats, reprisals and violence. In addition, 2008 was one of the worst years for this. Since 1986, 2,970 trade unionists have been assassinated. In 2008, crimes committed by paramilitary groups rose by 41%. In 2006, 47% of the population lived below the poverty line and 12% lived in abject poverty. The unemployment rate is one of the highest in Latin America.

The situation in Colombia is thus very disturbing and makes us wonder about the Liberals' support for an amendment that would have the Colombian government perform a self-assessment of the situation.

The Bloc Québécois believes that an impact study should be conducted by an independent international organization, which would give us the straight goods. It would be more likely to provide a critical and pertinent assessment. It would also be more objective because, by report on itself, the Colombian government becomes both judge and judged.

We are left wondering about the position of the Liberal Party, which said it was worried about human rights and, in particular, respect for those rights. We wonder why the Liberals have done such a radical about-face and agreed to these amendments.

The issues in the side agreements are tied to the main agreement on trade. But we have to wonder about the merits of the bill. The Conservative government is keenly interested in investment, which is why they support the agreement and have introduced this bill.

Something does not add up with this bill. The provision on investment protection is modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA. It will not contribute to improving human rights and general living conditions in Colombia. Allow me to explain. The fact that some aspects of this infamous bill are consistent with chapter 11 of NAFTA means that foreign investors may apply to the international tribunals themselves, bypassing governments.

We are in favour of having investment protection provisions, but not at the expense of the people. The bill could also have some provisions on the environment. Under the agreement, if an investor has put money into a company and that company pollutes or violates human rights, this will not be dealt with between governments. The investors themselves will turn to the courts, where they could seek compensation if their investments stop being profitable enough.

There could also be an inquiry into a lack of return on their investments.

We wonder what the government's intentions are with this bill. We have very little trade with Colombia. We trade much more with other countries. Why are they so absolutely keen on passing this bill?

Canadian investors would be able to take legal action against the Colombian government if it decided to make life better for its citizens or improve its environmental protection regulations. There, too, the investors have a say regarding the suitability of the government's actions.

When President Clinton was in power, the United States renegotiated Chapter 11 of NAFTA. They included the issue of human rights in a side agreement, which is not directly related to trade. Side agreements are ineffective when they are not part of the free trade agreement. We have to wonder why the Liberals did not pick up on this ploy. We know very well that this will not be included in the free trade agreement. They are just side agreements, which will have no direct impact on trade.

The purpose of this bill is simply to open the door to investments. We know that some Canadian mining companies that will go to Colombia could not care less about protecting the environment.

We believe that human rights are non-negotiable. We cannot have an investment free-for-all; we must be vigilant. The Bloc cannot understand why the Liberals are following the lead of the Conservative government on this issue.

We will vote against this bill because it is not in line with the expectations, priorities and values of the Bloc Québécois in terms of human rights.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the comments made by the previous speaker, to the effect that this free trade agreement with Colombia sets a precedent for future free trade agreements. My recollection is that the NAFTA set the precedent, especially with the rich side agreement which provided for a separate council, a full-time secretariat, the opportunity for citizens to file complaints of failed enforcement and the potential for penalties to be imposed.

What does the hon. member think about the ratcheting back and evisceration of environmental conditions to these trade agreements?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that this agreement does not meet certain conditions, especially when it comes to the environment. The government could not care less about the environment, as it proved in Copenhagen, where it wilfully ignored numerous environmental issues.

The fact that there is a side agreement that deals directly with human rights indicates that the Conservative government is not committed to dealing with this issue as part of free trade. And it shows in this bill.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report stage

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. This agreement has been a long time getting back to the floor of the House. Quite frankly, we were worried that perhaps it would just be held up forever, in particular by the NDP. However, that is not going to be the case. Parliamentarians will finally get a chance to debate and vote on this important issue.

The implementation of the free trade agreement is a priority, as all free trade agreements are a priority for the Government of Canada. It demonstrates our commitment to helping Canadian businesses compete in markets abroad. Pursuing bilateral and regional trade agreements is essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians.

In light of the recent difficult economic times, expanding trade and investment relations through improved market access is more important than ever. Opening our market and pursuing preferential access abroad sends a clear signal that protectionism is not the right way to achieve increased global stability and prosperity. We cannot ignore this global economic downturn that our country has been caught up in, along with the rest of the world. The only way to find our way out of this global economic downturn is through increased trade, increased jobs for Canadians, and increased opportunities for Canadian businesses.

In particular, this free trade agreement demonstrates a commitment by our government to expand opportunities for Canadian businesses. In this age of fierce competition, emerging economies continue to climb the value chain and establish themselves in a wide range of sectors. This is why we continue to seek out more trade and investment opportunities for Canadian businesses and to level the playing field for our companies in an ever more complex and competitive commercial environment.

This government recognizes those challenges, and I am proud to say that we continue to take concrete steps to support the development of these new opportunities. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, along with the parallel agreements on the environment and labour co-operation, is essential to our larger commitment to free trade, and more broadly, to Canada's foreign policy goals.

Canada has already established free trade agreements with the United States and Mexico under NAFTA, and agreements with Israel, Chile, and Costa Rica. Our government took the initiative to implement new free trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association, Peru, and Jordan in 2009. In continuing with our successful trade efforts, this government also signed a free trade agreement with Panama, on May 14, 2010.

We continue to look ahead to other key global partners, including the European Union. We are also committed to advancing economic co-operation through our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners, including South Korea, the Ukraine, the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, the Caribbean community, and the Dominican Republic. This further illustrates this government's ambitious and active trade agenda.

Our government is dedicated to pursuing trade relationships that work for Canadians. Moving forward with building economic relationships, we are working to launch negotiations with new partners, such as Morocco. We are also continuing to enhance our great relationships with India and Japan.

Why is an ambitious trade agreement important to Canada? By eliminating barriers to trade and investment, our government is building new opportunities for Canadian businesses in global markets by helping them compete in an increasingly competitive and interdependent world. As a result, these actions stimulate the Canadian economy. By passing the free trade agreement with Colombia, we are helping Canadian businesses compete on the international stage.

Upon its implementation, Colombia will eliminate tariffs on nearly all current Canadian exports, including wheat, pulses, a variety of paper products, certain machinery, plastics, vehicles, and furniture. In addition, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will expand opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers.

Canada already values Colombia as a significant trading partner. In 2009, two-way trade with Colombia was more than $1.3 billion. We recognize that Colombia is an established and expanding market for Canadian products. Since 2005, Canadian merchandise exports have increased by over 55%, reaching over $600 million in 2009.

Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment. The overall stock of Canadian investment in Colombia has reached $1.1 billion.

In promoting this active trade agenda, our government recognizes that Colombia is a strategic destination for Canadian direct investment in mining and oil exploration, among other sectors.

Canadian companies are seeing a lot of potential in the Americas, and this free trade agreement will assist them in maximizing their opportunities. Furthermore, Canadians can offer much expertise. Services such as engineering, mining, energy, and financial services are areas in which Canadian businesses can thrive. Our government recognizes that these sectors are the mainstay of our economy in all communities across this country.

With rapid growth in the Colombian economy in recent years, Canadian companies have made important investments, and Canadian exporters of industrial goods have found ample export opportunities.

This agreement is an important achievement for Canadian exporters, as Colombia has signed a similar free trade agreement with the United States, Canada's main competitor in the Colombian market. Once in place, that agreement would place Canadian exporters at a significant tariff disadvantage compared with their U.S. competitors if Canada's own free trade agreement with Colombia were not implemented in a timely manner.

As well, Colombia recently concluded negotiations with the European Union, and that agreement could enter into force as early as 2011. Colombia is determined to pursue ambitious free trade opportunities with others. Our government will not stand by and put Canadian companies at a disadvantage. We will fight to ensure that businesses have what they need to compete abroad.

There are benefits in this agreement for all regions across Canada, with significant exports to Colombia coming from all regions. For example, the elimination of Colombian tariffs on most machinery and industrial goods, especially mining equipment, which generally range from 12% to 25%, will help Ontario and Quebec exporters maintain and expand their competitiveness compared to suppliers from other countries. I will give the House a personal example that applies to machinery.

I have a fabricating company in my riding in Nova Scotia that makes deepwater equipment for the oil and gas industry. It works in partnership with another company in Calgary. The company is looking at producing the equipment they presently ship to Colombia in Mexico, because Mexico has no tariff on equipment shipped to Colombia. This Canadian company is paying 15%, so we are penalizing it by 15% for trade that it is already carrying on with Colombia. This free trade agreement would allow it to compete on a level footing, and that will certainly help its business opportunities and its potential in Colombia.

The immediate removal of tariffs on wheat and pulses, Canada's main agricultural exports to Colombia, will greatly benefit the prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba by making these products more competitive in Colombian markets. On that point, let me comment.

On red beans, we currently pay a 50% tariff. Red beans are a significant source of protein. The ability to bring those beans into Colombia in three or four years' time, tariff-free, because there will be a gradual elimination of that tariff, would allow Colombians to access cheaper and more available food. It is not just food, it is good food. It is food that is easy to store, and food that is high in protein. All Colombians will be able to access more nutritious food. With more nutritious food, men and women who are working can do a better job, and the youth of the country can prosper, attend school, get educated, and find jobs in an economy that is growing. They will be able to move forward with the rest of the world. Colombia has sorely been waiting to take its place among the nations of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the fiction from the parliamentary secretary. Obviously, the fact that he and his Liberal colleagues cut off debate at committee and refused to hear from so many representatives from labour unions, civil society groups, the Colombian labour movement, and of course, aboriginal people and African Colombian groups has not helped his lack of information about Colombia.

He was mentioning earlier that the Colombian government and the paramilitary and military forces have not been involved in any massacres of aboriginal people. Therefore, I would like him to answer, on the record, does he deny that the Colombian military or paramilitary forces have been involved in the massacres of aboriginal peoples? It is a very straight-up question.

The second point I would like to raise is the issue of the government's wrong-headed trade strategy. We saw the softwood lumber sellout, which was one of the worst trade agreements ever signed. All of the other agreements the Conservatives have signed have led to a decrease in exports to those markets. Therefore, the economic arguments do not hold water either.

Is the parliamentary secretary aware that constant dollars are different from current dollars, so we have actually seen a reduction in trade?

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

On the second question, Mr. Speaker, which is the idea that free trade agreements have seen a reduction in trade, everyone in the House, even the hon. member, knows that this is just patent nonsense. It really does not deserve or require an answer.

On the member's question about the Awa first nation, he is wrong about that also.

I am not talking about the Colombian government. I am talking about what that hon. member said at committee. I have it here in front of me. He said:

Obviously, there are fundamental concerns 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. It is virtual impunity for this kind of crime. I understand that you're here to testify on human rights--

This was his statement to the witnesses.

--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...

We found out later that this was patently false. He gave false information to committee. It is a good time now for that hon. member to rise and apologize to committee members and the rest of the House.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was also very pleased to hear my colleague's intervention on this very important free trade agreement for Canada.

One of the things my colleague knows is that the NDP members have not voted in favour of one free trade agreement. Not one. They always come up with a reason for voting against. One day it is the big corporations. The next day it is human rights. The third day it will be labour or the environment. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to comment on how ideological the NDP members are in their approach to free trade agreements that are so critical to our Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member not just for that question but for his interest in this case. If he does not mind, I am going to diverge from his question a little bit and go on to democracy in the House. It is time that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois allow members in this place to vote on this important issue.

We have debated it ad nauseam with over 100 witnesses at committee, with over 50 hours of debate in this place. We debated it as well in the last Parliament.

We have one party that continues to filibuster, continues to obfuscate, and continues to delay the democratic process. If members believe in democracy, it is time to vote.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this free trade agreement. As we know, Canada is one of the great free trading nations of this world. We have immeasurable natural resources and human capital. We are a well-educated country, among the best educated in the world.

We have so much to offer to the world. In fact, perhaps the greatest export are the four defining Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. That is what we can export to other countries that may have been lacking that for decades, perhaps centuries.

Our government has an ambitious free trade agenda to help Canadian businesses compete in international markets. This free trade agreement with Colombia is one of many efforts by our government to expand opportunities for Canadian business.

As we know, in this era of global competition, we must develop more investment and trade opportunities for our businesses. In fact, the world has faced perhaps the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. It is exactly during times like this when the economic challenges are so great that Canada must seek out new trading opportunities, new opportunities to connect with other countries to build our respective economies. Our government recognizes that these economic challenges are critical if Canada is going to compete in the world.

In fact, the Standing Committee on International Trade has recognized that. In 2007 the committee asked the government to identify countries where Canadian companies were operating at a disadvantage and to pursue defensive free trade agreements with them. Our government has done exactly that. We have responded by launching negotiations with Colombia and Peru in 2007 to ensure that Canadian businesses were not displaced out of these markets by their American competitors. We have this huge giant to the south of us that would love to pick up the business that is available out there in the world.

It is now three years later and while the Peru agreement has been implemented for almost a year, the business community continues to wait for the implementation of the Colombia free trade agreement. Of course, the reason for the delay is the obfuscation, delaying and filibustering on the part of the New Democratic Party that does not understand what free trade agreements are all about. New Democrats are isolationists. They love to build barriers. They would love to a build big wall along our border to ensure that nobody can trade with us.

By passing this free trade agreement, we are listening and responding to the needs of Canadian businesses to stay competitive. As the Canadian Council of Chief Executives indicated in its presentation to the standing committee, the passage of the free trade agreement will help Canadian workers, farmers and businesses stay ahead of their global competitors. A closer economic partnership with Colombia would reduce tariffs for Canadian exporters and also expand opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers.

Colombia is already a significant trading partner for Canada. In 2009 our two-way merchandise trade totalled $1.3 billion. Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment. The Colombian market is an exciting one with 48 million people, much greater than the population of Canada. Considering the sound macroeconomic policy and security improvements achieved by its current leadership, which have generated favourable economic conditions, a country like ours with so much expertise has a lot to offer to Colombia.

The potential for Canada goes beyond traditional areas such as oil and gas to also include infrastructure, agriculture and industrial goods, and services like engineering, mining, energy and financial services. We are a leader in the world in these areas and we have a chance to share this expertise with other countries around the world.

These are all areas where Canada has significant experience and where we shine. Our business community recognizes the opportunities in Colombia.

In fact, the Grain Growers of Canada noted:

The future in countries like Colombia is that there is a large young population. That's a market for the future. If we are in there and working with the Colombians, there's huge potential growth.

Clearly, this agreement is about strengthening our partnership with Colombia.

Beyond the commercial partnerships, the free trade, labour and environment agreements are also meant to complement our ongoing political relationship with Colombia.

I mentioned to start off with that Canada is known around the world. It is a lighthouse for the prevailing values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is incumbent upon us to export those values to countries that have not had those kinds of traditions.

To help solidify ongoing efforts by the government of Colombia to create a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy, we are taking the steps of engaging the areas of labour and the environment.

In 2010 the government of Colombia took the first step toward joining the voluntary principles on security and human rights by becoming an engaged government. That is good news. It is progress. It is the kind of progress that Canada wants to see. These voluntary principles provide guidance to mining companies on maintaining security in their operations in a manner that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms that we as Canadians take for granted.

Colombia has also demonstrated its continued effort to curb violence against trade unions and to promote prosperity and peace. Our government recognizes that challenges remain in Colombia and is committed to working with Colombia to address these issues.

Canada is not the only country recognizing the improvements in Colombia and working to increase economic relations with that country. In fact, that country is moving forward on an ambitious agenda that includes free trade agreements with many other countries. That is why we should not be left behind.

The European Union and the European Free Trade Association are advancing with their own trade agreements with Colombia. We have to compete with those economic unions. It is very important for us to stay up to speed and ensure we secure those trading relationships.

Our firms and workers expect that their government will work for them and put in place trade agreements to allow them to compete in the international markets on a level playing field. We cannot put our exporters at a relative disadvantage.

That being said, there are clear expectations of our companies.

The Government of Canada takes matters of corporate social responsibility very seriously. That is why this free trade agreement, as well as parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, includes provisions on corporate social responsibility.

Responsible business conduct reinforces the positive effects that trade and investment can have on the communities in which they operate.

At its very core, corporate social responsibility incorporates social, economic and environmental concerns into the daily operations of businesses for the benefit of the communities in which they are operating. Corporate social responsibility can improve human rights, labour standards and the environment, while increasing the competitiveness of businesses.

Given that Canada and Colombia have a significant investment relationship, it was critical to recognize corporate social responsibility in our free trade agreement and we have done that. Not only does this free trade agreement advance our policy to promote corporate responsibility in Canada, it encourages our treaty partners to increase corporate social responsibility promotion within their own countries.

Provisions in the free trade agreement encourage both governments to promote voluntary principles of responsible business conduct within their business communities. The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters highlighted the importance of this responsibility:

Canadian companies are nevertheless committed, especially in Latin America, to being socially responsible. Canadian companies are recognized around the world for adopting sound practices. A number of Canadian businesses are genuine role models in this area.

I will end my time by simply saying this agreement is critical to economic prosperity in Canada. We are, as I said earlier, one of the great free trading nations. We need to continue to seek out new trading relationships around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to just ask a question of my colleague and I want him to flesh out some of the history behind this and dig deeper into what he was saying. When he talked about the agreement, he talked about growth and economic growth and how this is going to be of great benefit to this country, as far as the economy is concerned, and I am assuming in sectors such as agriculture being one of them. I would like the member to focus just for a moment on the responsibility aspect, and perhaps he can flesh out in his mind or give the basis of why we are creating what we call parallel agreements for the environment, for example.

I particularly paid great interest to the social aspect of it because of things like workers' compensation, which I brought up earlier. I think that is going to be of great benefit to all countries. But in this particular case, what makes this side agreement so special and why is it going to be beneficial to Colombia? Why was it so necessary?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, as does the House, Colombia has had a very difficult labour situation. It had a very problematic human rights environment. There are many indications in Colombia now that it is making progress in trying to address some of the issues of violence, violence against unions, and making progress in the area of social responsibility.

That is why these parallel agreements on labour and the environment, and the incorporation of requirements for social and corporate responsibility within the free trade agreement, allow us to export our values that I already articulated in my speech to a country that has not had that legacy that we take for granted in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech defending and promoting this agreement, the member opposite said that the Government of Colombia had demonstrated that it wants peace and that it is able to respect human rights.

Has it demonstrated that by the fact that 39 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and 46 were murdered in 2008? Is that the kind of absurd proof he is talking about?

I would like to know what the member was talking about when he said that the government had demonstrated that it was committed to finding peace.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are two perspectives on the issue of engaging with countries that have had problematic human rights regimes and problematic labour regimes. One is to isolate them. One is to keep them out of the international trade community, set them apart, perhaps even impose sanctions.

The other perspective is to say these are countries that desperately need our knowhow, our knowledge, our technology, and above all they need to understand the values that make strong democratic countries and societies. We have chosen to follow the route of engaging with these countries.

What is really interesting is that one would expect that if the country of Colombia were so opposed to expanding its human rights framework that it would resist efforts to impose conditions on issues such as labour, corporate responsibility and the environment, but Colombians have welcomed that engagement. They have said they want to become more like the Canadas of this world. They embrace those values of freedom and democracy, and especially human rights. They want to partner with us to help build those democratic institutions.

In response to my colleague across the way, I would say the proof is in the pudding. I would say look 10 or 20 years down the road. I am confident that 20 years from now Colombia will look quite different. It will have a much more robust human rights framework. It will have a much more robust labour framework, one that all of us can be proud of, and can say that we were a part of.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement on numerous occasions in the House. I am delighted that, through the incredible leadership of my NDP colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, we so far have been able to stop this bill from becoming law. Now the government is shutting down debate through a draconian time allocation motion because it knows it cannot win its bill on its merits.

While I still can, let me explain again why we feel so strongly about this ill-conceived trade deal. In fact, in the roughly 10 minutes that I have to participate in today's debate, I will give 10 reasons why the Canada-Colombia trade deal should be scrapped.

First, Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world for unionized workers. More labour leaders are killed in Colombia every year than in the rest of the world combined. Trade unionists are terrorized to put a chill on union organizing. This keeps unions weak and wages miserably low. It benefits businesses' bottom line and keeps Colombia attractive for foreign investment.

Who is being targeted? The prime targets are activists who are trying to organize or join a union and bargain collectively or who are engaged in industrial disputes or in fighting privatization. They are teachers, prison guards, agricultural, food and health care workers and others from almost every sector. Who is killing these union organizers? Most of the murders are committed by paramilitary death squads. Paramilitaries are illegal armies that fund their operations through Colombia's illegal drug trade and illegal contributions from some companies like Chiquita Brands International. The paras have been classified as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government, along with other armed groups, such as the FARC leftist guerrillas.

The second reason is that Colombian labour law is simply not up to ILO snuff. A union-busting culture dominates Colombian society. Colombia's labour laws stifle unions and workers' rights. Recently, in order to show it is doing something positive, the Colombian government passed two labour code reforms, one on the right to strike and one on “associative labour cooperatives”, but even with recent changes, they still do not come close to International Labour Organization minimum standards.

Colombian workers face huge legal and bureaucratic obstacles to register a union and to bargain collectively. Some say it is easier to form an armed group than a trade union in Colombia. These anti-union laws, plus the violence and terror directed at unionized workers, have helped keep Colombia's rate of unionization at less than 5%. With its huge informal sector and high unemployment rate, which is officially over 11%, it means that only one in every 100 workers can negotiate a collective agreement, the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere.

Third, there seems to be impunity for the killers in Colombia. Not enough is being done to bring them to justice. Very few of the crimes against unionized workers and other civilians have been investigated. Even fewer of those responsible have been convicted. This is called impunity. The victims are often accused of being guerrilla sympathizers. Their murders are then not questioned. Ninety-seven per cent of the murders of union activists remain unsolved.

That brings me to the fourth reason. Simply put, no justice, no peace. The government insists that it has demobilized the paramilitaries so that they are no longer a threat. Under a program called the justice and peace law, paramilitary combatants were supposed to hand in their arms and admit to their crimes in exchange for reduced sentences, but thousands of the demobilized have simply walked away from the program and formed new, deadly groups, like the Black Eagles, who terrorize the poor and anyone who dares to dissent from Uribe's security plan. The Black Eagles even sent a nasty threat to the Canadian embassy in Bogota. This is a far cry from Colombian's demands for a process that exposes the truth of paramilitary crimes, delivers justice and ensures reparations to the victims.

Reason number five is the shocking government ties to paramilitaries. Today, 62 mafia-like ex-paramilitary drug trafficking criminal networks control economic activities and political institutions in 23 of Colombia's 31 provinces.

Violence and insecurity prevail in the countryside. Colombia's independent supreme court, one of the country's few bright spots these days, has launched a series of groundbreaking investigations into paramilitary presence in the Colombian congress. More than 60 congress members from Uribe's coalition, 20% of the congress, are being investigated for crimes like collaboration with paramilitaries, getting rich from drug trafficking and collusion in election fraud. Thirty of them have been indicted.

That leads to reason number six. The army and the government are implicated in crimes against humanity. In a suspicious move in August 2008, Uribe extradited 14 jailed paramilitary bosses to the United States on drug trafficking charges, a much lesser crime than their crimes against humanity. These criminals are now conveniently out of the way of supreme court investigations into their links with Uribe's and his officials' involvement in atrocities. The International Criminal Court of the Hague is looking into these events.

In November 2008, the world was outraged to learn that 27 high-ranking army officers were accused of a horrifying crime known as false positives. This involves the soldiers kidnapping and executing innocent civilians, dressing them as FARC guerrillas and claiming they were killed in combat. This practice developed in response to President Uribe's demands for results in fighting the FARC insurgents and offers of bonuses based on a body count. These revelations are just the tip of the iceberg in a series of charges of army involvement with executions, extortion, ties to drug traffickers and other crimes against humanity.

It is no wonder then, and this is the seventh reason, that diverse Colombian peoples are vehemently opposed to this trade deal. Colombia's unions have said no to the NAFTA model because it will cause more unemployment, poverty and hunger. Signing a free trade deal with Uribe will signal that state terrorism and killing trade unionists is okay.

Colombia's paramilitary opposition, the Alternative Democratic Pole, or PDA, opposes free trade because it will annex the economy to multinational corporations. For example, it will provide new land grabs for Canadian mining companies that get powerful new rights but not responsibilities. The Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca carried out a popular referendum in 2005 in which 98% said no to free trade. In October 2008, tens of thousands of people protested the free trade model, linking it to the death of mother earth.

This brings me to reason number eight. More trade and investment will hurt, not help, human rights. Independent human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and others, warn that this deal could actually undermine the struggle for democracy in Colombia. Without international pressure, the Colombian government will have no incentive to make improvements in human rights.

The ninth reason for opposing this deal is that Canada's own parliamentary trade committee said that human rights must come first. In 2008, Parliament's Standing Committee on International Trade undertook an in-depth study called “Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia”. Committee members even went on an official mission to Bogota to hear first-hand what people thought. The international trade committee report said:

The Committee recommends that an independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights impact assessment should be carried out by a competent body, which is subject to levels of independent scrutiny and validation; the recommendations of this assessment should be addressed before Canada considers signing, ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia.

Last, we come to reason number 10, specifically for my colleagues across the way, who first introduced this bill solely to support the international efforts of George Bush. Well, there is a new president south of the border and Barack Obama says yes to workers' rights. There is no way that this trade deal will pass south of the border anytime soon.

Let us do the right thing here in Canada, too. Let us put human rights before free trade and carry out an independent assessment of human rights violations in Colombia before ratifying and implementing this deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the New Democratic Party does not represent much of rural Canada. Maybe there is a reason for that. I listened to the presentations by the NDP members and not a bit of concern did they show for farmers across this country. This free trade agreement would mean that my neighbours and other farmers right across Canada would have a better market for their peas, lentils, wheat, barley and other agriculture products.

Do the NDP members even consider that in opposing this free trade agreement? Not at all. They oppose all free trade agreements. Every one of the free trade agreements that our government has negotiated will help provide a market for more agriculture products. That helps farmers. That helps my friends and my neighbours. The members of the NDP do not seem to care what it does to farmers in their constituencies and in neighbouring constituencies.

Why does the member not show a bit of concern for farmers and new markets that would be available for them, particularly at this time of low farm prices?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to take that question seriously when he says that New Democrats do not represent rural Canada.

Has the member actually looked at a map of this country? I would encourage him to have this conversation with the member for Western Arctic. He should have a look at the map and see how much of Canada we actually represent. He should have a look at northern Ontario. All of those seats are NDP seats. Please, have another look at the map.

With respect to the member's question, we know that exports have actually gone down after we have signed free trade agreements so this agreement is not going to help the farmers in the member's riding. Moreover, if the member is so absolutely certain that this free trade deal has nothing but benefits on all of the points that I raised, then why is he so afraid of putting this deal to an independent assessment before it is ratified and implemented?

I would encourage the member to do that. The member should stand up and say that he is willing to do that if he is so certain he is making legitimate points in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to help the hon. member with a little bit of a fact check.

She said that the agreement was a George Bush agreement, that Canada was following the Bush administration. In fact, negotiations between Canada and Colombia on this free trade agreement began in 2002 under former prime minister Jean Chrétien. In fact, they preceded the discussions with the Bush administration.

Second, with respect to the Obama administration, President Obama has commended the Uribe government for its progress on human rights. On the congressional side, we received a copy of a letter this week, which was tabled at the trade committee, from a large number of Democrat and Republican congressmen who support the FTA and urge President Obama to move forward with the legislation.

Third, 91% of Colombians voted for political parties both in the congressional and in the most recent presidential elections that support of all of these FTAs that Colombia has been signing. So, Colombians support it.

Last, the ILO has taken Colombia off its labour black watch this year. That is a significant move forward.

I know the hon. member is a fair, honest and unbiased member of the New Democratic Party, and as such she will agree that these facts are important and that all members have a responsibility to adhere to the facts. I would appreciate the member's input in this very important matter.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, due to the motion moved during routine proceedings today, a number of members were unable to table petitions. There are people here in Ottawa to witness the presentation of those petitions. Therefore, I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings for the sole purpose of allowing members to present petitions, provided we return to government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member does not have unanimous consent. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite realize how important it was to the member for Kings—Hants to put on the record that it was actually Chrétien's relationship with President Bush that started the free trade agreement, but I am certainly happy to confirm that. Yes, absolutely, we will set that record straight.

I am also sure that organizations like the steelworkers and the CLC will be delighted to know about the member's support for this free trade agreement.

There are a couple of other things. With respect to the letters he claims to have gotten from the Democrats and Republicans in support of this free trade agreement, I know there were also letters in opposition to the free trade agreement. While it may be right that the ILO is investigating the situation in Colombia right now, I am not sure that that investigation has come to a close.

I hope that clarifies things.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I note that there are a lot of enthusiastic individuals in this House who would love to speak to this. We have heard many debates and certainly one of the most comprehensive debates, so no one in this House can justifiably say that this has not been debated and that the witnesses have not been to committee and argued all sides of this.

The only thing I would argue is that we probably did not have enough farmers at committee to hear how important it is to them.

However, Canada has negotiated a comprehensive and high quality free trade agreement with Colombia. Canadians can be proud of the market access provisions and the comprehensive rules that we have secured for business people to make them more competitive in this market.

Canadian companies are already active in Colombia. In 2009, two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia totaled over $1.3 billion. Canadian merchandise exports to Colombia have grown by over 55% since 2004. Colombia is also clearly a strategic destination for Canadian investments which totaled over $773 million at the end of 2009. However, I am pleased to report that this free trade agreement will increase opportunities for our exporters, investors and service providers in the Colombian market.

In terms of market access, Colombia will eliminate the majority of its tariffs on all industrial products, including paper, machinery and equipment, and certain chemical products, as well as textiles and apparel.

In the agriculture sector that I referred to earlier, Colombia will also immediately eliminate tariffs on a majority of agricultural exports from Canada, including wheat, barley, peas and lentils. That is very critical, as the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright just told us, not only for western farmers but for farmers all across this country.

The NDP members actually suggest that they represent farmers. If they represented farmers, they would actually listen to what farmers are telling them. Farmers are dependent upon exports and dependent upon imports. We all realize that is what makes this country operate. I will retract that. Most of us in this House realize how important that is for our economy.

We continue as a government to promote free and fair trade all around the world. I have no idea why the NDP stands in this House, as our former trade minister said, in its ideological straitjacket and tries to stop good deals that promote trade and promote a strong economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:13 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting speaker, Mr. Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #66

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 1 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 2.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the same vote, the Liberals will be voting no.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote in favour of this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote against this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #67

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 2 lost.

The question is on Motion No. 3.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will be voting against the motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP will be voting yes.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote against this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #68

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 3 lost.

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party will vote in favour of the motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc will vote against this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP are proud to vote against this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of this motion.

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

Vote #69

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.