Bill C-20 (Historical)

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on environmental and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and done at Ottawa on November 5, 2013.
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 agreements 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 entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.
Part 3 of the enactment contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the member for Brossard—La Prairie about what it would take to make an appropriate deal for the NDP and how we do these particular trade agreements.

There is one story I would add before I ask my question. We had indigenous people from Honduras, Venezuela, Philippines, and Mexico come to my office, as I am the critic for human rights. They talked about how they were pushed off their land by their government. They felt that part of it was because Canadian mining interests were in their country. Our leader, the member for Outremont, was at one of these meetings, and he said that in the next Canadian government, an NDP government, in any trade decisions it makes, one of the lenses it will look through will be that of human rights.

My question for the member, who has just given this eloquent speech, is this: how does he feel being in the House, where we have been legislated to be until midnight, when the NDP is speaking in this debate but the government is not putting up any members at all to defend the trade agreement it is so proud of?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. More importantly, I thank him for his work on human rights. I know he cares deeply about this issue and he does an extraordinary job.

As for the fact that members opposite do not defend their own free trade agreement, that is not really surprising. They do not want to defend the indefensible. They are not able to present arguments showing it is a good thing. Therefore, they just listen to what we have to say.

Having said that, I am pleased to be here to speak to an issue dear to me, and to discuss interesting topics, even though the government wants to limit debate with its 68th gag order. It does not want us to have a debate and it does not want Canadians to hear what we have to say on its bill, which is very flawed and which they cannot defend, as we see today.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

He referred to the Liberal Party's position a number of times, but he made many mistakes in presenting our position.

The last three or four speeches were made by NDP members, and not two of them said the same thing.

I wonder if the hon. member could explain the NDP's position? I do not think his position reflected that of his colleagues. Could he comment on that?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for his question.

I am a little disappointed he did not listen to my speech, because I began by explaining our position. We said we support trade agreements and we agree on trade, but such agreements must be properly prepared and negotiated. They must not be done the Liberals' way, that is by signing them and then closing our eyes and hoping for the best.

This is a good opportunity to read what Mr. Thang Nguyen, president and CEO of BPSOS, Boat People SOS, had to say. He said:

We have a good opportunity right now through the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP to demand that the Vietnamese government must fully respect the rights of workers to form or join a free and independent labour union and to unconditionally release all imprisoned labour organizers as a pre-condition for Vietnam's membership or partnership in the TPP negotiations.

Again, we have the Liberals supporting the Honduras free trade agreement, knowing all the issues happening there right now with respect to human rights and labour rights, but they do not care.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people are lively at this late hour and that is a good thing.

I would like to start with the comments made by the Liberal member who just spoke and ask my colleague a question. To be frank, perhaps he was not listening. The NDP has been very clear about its position on this free trade agreement in the many speeches we have made.

We cannot support a free trade bill that does not provide any clear benefit to Canadians and that could worsen the human rights situation in Honduras. We must absolutely not sign any agreement that could worsen the human rights situation. The Parliament of Canada should be defending human rights throughout the world. Unfortunately, this bill would do exactly the opposite.

I would like to point out that the Liberal Party seems prepared to support all of the free trade bills that the Conservative government introduces without even seeing the text of those agreements. That is what they did with the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, the text of which still has not been tabled in the House. Nevertheless, the Liberals are already supporting it.

The bill before us deals with a free trade agreement that, once again, was negotiated behind closed doors. It came into being like all of the other secretly prepared bills the government has introduced. This bill is badly put together because it does not honour the human rights commitments that Canadians should support, and the Liberals are okay with that. They have agreed to fully support it.

I would like my colleague to take the time to read the free trade agreements before criticizing the official opposition. He could share any concerns he might have about certain free trade agreements and bills. It might be a good thing for the members of the Liberal Party to take some time to think and to ask themselves whether they are really qualified to critique the bills introduced in the House when they do not even take the time to read the agreements they are supporting.

I hope that, from now on, the Liberal Party will take the time to ensure that it knows what it is talking about and really critically analyze the bills that are introduced.

We in the NDP insist that legislation benefit not only Canadians but also those countries with whom we sign trade agreements. In the case of the FTA with Honduras, one cannot help but wonder why we are in such a rush to sign an agreement with a country that is clearly going through a rough patch. Worse still, Honduras has been singled out for not protecting human rights.

The Conservative government announced it had reached an agreement in principle with Honduras on November 5, 2013, barely three weeks before that country's presidential election.

What I would like to know is this: Is this new President really able to protect human rights in the country? Clearly, the answer is no.

During a recent debate in committee, some witnesses asked questions about human rights; some of them, including James Bannantine, CEO of Aura Minerals Inc., denied any human rights abuses. I think he ought to qualify some of his statements. When he spoke about free trade with Honduras, his go-to argument was that any type of free trade was good, because signing an FTA with a country with a spotty human rights record could only improve the situation.

I would like to point out that the United States signed a free trade agreement with Honduras in 2006.

Since then, another coup d'état took place, and such events do not normally improve the human rights situation. After the coup, a small portion of 10% of the population saw their real income increase by 100%. Poverty and extreme poverty grew by 13.2% and 26.3% respectively. The rise in poverty has been dramatic. Free trade did not improve the well-being of the vast majority of the population. We are told that the free trade agreement will produce positive economic results for the people of Honduras, but facts tell us exactly the opposite.

Worse still, human rights are threatened in Honduras. LGBT groups are targeted in Honduras. Lesbians and gays have great difficulty asserting their rights. The bill before us will not improve their lives at all.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers called for the Honduran government to dismiss four Supreme Court justices for administrative reasons, for violations of international standards and because there was a serious threat to democracy. If Honduras does not have a legal system, why are we in the process of signing a free trade agreement with that country? The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers called for the dismissal of four Supreme Court justices in Honduras. That is very worrisome. If we cannot rely on a country's judicial system, human rights are clearly at risk and will clearly not be defended. If the United Nations cannot say that human rights will be defended, why did negotiations not take place with Honduras to make sure that there is better respect for human rights?

Murder is a serious problem in Honduras. The homicide rate is 92 per 100,000 people. It is the most violent country in Latin America. It is the murder capital. In 2012, a record number of murders were committed: more than 7,000. This country does not deserve a free trade agreement with Canada.

Canada will not benefit very much from this free trade agreement. Honduras is not a significant trade partner. Clearly, if we sign the free trade agreement, the net effect for Canada will be nearly impossible to detect. There will be so little impact that very little will change in Canada. However, if we sign an agreement with Honduras, we need to be sure that minimum standards are put in place. It is imperative that Honduras complies with international rights standards, much like the vast majority of countries around the world.

Of the UN's 186 member countries, Honduras ranks 120th on the human development index. Even the United States-Honduras free trade agreement did not improve the lives of the poorest people. In fact, life has gotten worse for the country's poorest citizens. The free trade agreement with the United States did not improve things for them. Since 18% of Hondurans live on less than $1.25 a day on average, it is hard to believe that a free trade agreement will significantly improve their situation.

I think we would benefit from inviting members of the U.S. Congress, who signed the agreement with Honduras in 2006, to share their experience with us, tell us why it did not improve things for Honduras, and explain why it did not improve the American economy.

We are headed in that same direction. We should not pass this bill. We should reject it. It is a matter of common sense. We should also be protecting human rights in Honduras.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to speak in the House already on the importance of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement for Canadians and also for Honduras. I have been on the trade committee for about eight and a half years and have had the opportunity to travel recently to South America. I was in Peru. I met with our Canadians officials on the ground and the corporate social responsibility leadership of Canadian companies and we talked about the integration of Honduras.

We have had several witnesses at the committee. One of the witnesses, a gentleman by the name of Vincent Taddeo, who is the vice-president international from Cavendish Farms, said:

Whenever...you create jobs, people tend to move away from the negatives, from the drug trade, from the stealing, from whatever is negative in that society. Whenever we do this, we see an improvement in the lives of the people on the ground.

I know the hon. colleague would like to live in a perfect world, in Utopia, and have a trade agreement that would be perfect. The reality is we live in an imperfect world. One of the aspects from our Conservative government, we believe, in this engaging country is to give them hope and opportunity. I was in Colombia in 2008, and we see the improvement in the middle class in Colombia now that jobs and hope and opportunities are created.

My question, through you, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. colleague is this: why would he not engage and provide hope and opportunity for individuals in Honduras, or would he rather just leave them on the sidelines and allow this murderous society to continue?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that free trade creates a legal framework where corporations have rights, rights that can supersede individuals' rights.

We need a legal framework for that to function properly. We do not have that in Honduras. We have companies that are running amok. We have companies that will run roughshod over individual rights. A free trade deal would simply empower those corporations even more.

I would ask that member, in South Africa, during apartheid, would he have thought that free trade would have been the proper form to take to bring forward individual rights in South Africa, or does he think that challenging the state of the legal framework of that country was the proper line to take?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, which issued the following warning on April 17, 2014:

HONDURAS—Exercise a high degree of caution. Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada advises against all travel to certain regions of Valle, Choluteca and Olancho due to high levels of violence and crime.

If the Conservative MPs bothered to rise every once in a while and give a 10-minute speech, I would be able to ask them this question. However, since they do not do that and their constituents cannot hear what they have to say, I would like to ask the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine the question. I want to know why the Department of Foreign Affairs is issuing a travel advisory when, at the same time, the Conservative Party wants to send Canadian companies to get attacked in a dangerous country .

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question, which deserves a lot of attention.

In this situation, we have to wonder whether human rights have been set aside in favour of corporate rights. Are we saying that corporate rights should take precedence over human rights, the rights of real people? The question bears asking.

I believe that the Conservative government is in too much of a hurry to eliminate our huge trade deficit. It is trying to sign free trade agreements left and right in the hope that they will have a positive economic impact on Canada. However, I do not think that the government has taken the time to assess the impact this will have on real people, both individuals and families.

The Conservative government has to make sure that human rights are respected. Unfortunately, in this case, the evidence shows that the opposite is true. We should reject this bill. Instead, we should look at the issue raised by my colleague and ask ourselves how we could first improve the lives of individuals rather than the situation of corporations.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to speak late in the evening and even more so to wake up everyone in the House and everyone who is watching to say that, at this time, we are debating Bill C-20, with respect to the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Unfortunately, before I get into the specifics, I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised to see that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are participating as they should be. I am surprised but, at the same time, not so much. In fact, that is what is really happening here in Ottawa. They are not present. They say they will be in the House to participate in the debate and share ideas so that together we can properly represent Canadians, but they are not here. Only the NDP is here and it has not missed a single opportunity to speak. The New Democrats have always been here and we will sit day and night. We did it when we arrived in 2011. I arrived in 2011 and, in the first weeks, we sat day and night.

As for me, I will not fall asleep when the interests of Canadians are at stake. I will participate in the debate and fiercely defend their interests, because that is what democracy is all about. It is good that we can have this exchange when people from different parties are present. They can bring their points of view, we can bring ours, and we can strike a certain balance and find ways to really improve things, to really improve bills. I see that the Conservative government is there, and that it is not moving, not speaking and closing it eyes and ears. It is not moving and I find that unfortunate. It makes no sense. I think that the Conservatives have sunk very low.

What the NDP wants in this Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is very simple. New Democrats want to assure Canadians that we realize how important trade is to our economy. We support increasing trade opportunities and we support Canadian exporters. However, this obviously needs to be done with human, environmental and social rights in mind, and we must ensure that the agreement benefits both countries. That is what is truly important. We also want to see more trade agreements with countries that honour Canadian values and sign trade agreements that truly benefit the Canadian economy.

New Democrats want to implement a strategic trade policy in order to restart multilateral negotiations and sign agreements with developed countries that have high standards or that are implementing high standards. I am talking about countries such as Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. These are all countries with which Canada should sign trade agreements, not countries like Honduras, where drug trafficking goes on with near impunity, where human rights are regularly violated, where democracy is in jeopardy and virtually absent, and where low standards will certainly harm our Canadian companies.

We believe there are three fundamentally important criteria that we should use in assessing trade agreements. I will not reinvent the wheel; it is very simple. First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If not, is the partner trying to achieve these objectives? That is something we need to ask, and this objective is not met in this agreement. Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada? Once again, this objective is not met in this free trade agreement. Third, are the terms of this proposed agreement satisfactory? I do not think so. The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras does not meet any of these three criteria.

Since Honduras is not a democratic country with adequate standards and institutions, since it represents little strategic interest to Canada, and since it is home to serious human rights violations, the majority of Canadians would certainly be opposed to giving this country preferential trade conditions.

Several interveners agree with the NDP and support our position. For example, Sheila Katz, a representative of the Americas Policy Group, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, had this to say when she appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 22, 2013:

The Americas Policy Group has recommended that Canada refrain from concluding free trade agreements with countries that have poor democratic governance and human rights records.

...Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009...is another example of Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured, and killed. The Americas Policy Group is concerned that Canada has validated this regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach and signing a free trade agreement with Honduras in spite of its human rights record.

In Quebec, in my riding, Lawyers Without Borders has done exceptional work. I know that they were on a mission from November 21 to 26, 2013. They issued this press release:

...the executive director of Lawyers Without Borders Canada, Pascal Paradis, along with approximately 10 other dignitaries and representatives of international human rights organizations, took part in a mission organized by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). The purpose of the mission was to observe whether human rights violations occurred during the general election held on Sunday, November 24.

In a press release issued on November 25...the mission reported a number of irregularities that it felt tainted the process and could discredit the results. The mission also made several recommendations to Honduran authorities and the international community.

I also have a comment from Neil Reeder, director general of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's Latin America and Caribbean Bureau:

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, with 65% of its people living in poverty. It suffers from extremely unequal income distribution. The country also suffers from social inequality, high unemployment, poor health and education. More than 60% of all Hondurans are highly vulnerable to food insecurity.

I could go on, but I know that I do not have a lot of time. I could speak at length about people who have concerns about this free trade agreement with Honduras.

When I look at the government, I get the impression that it collects agreements just for the fun of bragging about signing so many free trade agreements. These agreements essentially represent a very small percentage of our trade. Contrary to what the Conservatives say, it is not really worth it, but they keep bragging and signing. We will not find out the consequences of our actions until later—the consequences of this Conservative government that has no idea what it is doing. It does things with its eyes closed, without listening to experts: the Canadians who travel abroad and report back these types of incidents.

I invite the Conservatives to stand up in the House and speak so that we can finally have a debate. The important thing in the House of Commons is to debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. It being 10:32 p.m., pursuant to 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. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 53.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.