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

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-20, which would implement a trade agreement with Honduras.

In 2013, when I sat on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, we studied what was happening in Honduras at length. I believe I know enough of the facts to oppose this bill.

The despotic regime that reigns in Honduras is characterized by its anti-democratic practices, its corruption, its failed institutions and its history of human rights violations.

Canada should not be signing a free trade agreement with that country. I do not understand how some of my colleagues from the other parties dare support such a treaty, considering what we know about Honduras.

In my view, when it comes to considering a trade agreement, we must determine whether the partner respects democracy and human rights. That is absolutely not the case here, as my NDP colleagues demonstrated earlier. I will add to the debate what we learned in the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.

Honduras has a poor record on rule of law, as we know. Human rights are being trampled there. There are many cases of murder and corruption, and they go largely unpunished. Professor Gordon of Wilfrid Laurier University, who testified before the committee, said that the possibility of a free election needs to be called into question. Some members of the opposition parties have been assassinated, others have been threatened and so on.

Violence and repression have reached new highs since the coup in 2009. In 2013, there was an average of 10 killings a month. According to Professor Dana Frank from the University of California, 80% of crimes in Honduras go unpunished. According to the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras, there were more than 10,000 complaints of human rights violations by security forces in 2010. The legal authorities did not follow up on these complaints.

Human Rights Watch published a report in December 2010 that mentioned that the state does not co-operate in investigations. There are widespread doubts about whether there is judicial independence. Another report published in February 2013 criticizes the fact that no progress has been made.

The NGO Freedom House ranks Honduras as the second most dangerous country for journalists. According to the National Human Rights Commission in Honduras, 36 journalists were killed between 2003 and 2013, and 29 have been killed since President Lobo took power.

In June 2013, Anibal Barrow, a TV news anchor, was kidnapped from his car and killed. No suspects were convicted.

Furthermore, a handful of companies with ties to the government own most media outlets. Self-censorship is common. It is alleged that journalists are corrupted and advertisements are manipulated to ensure that coverage is positive and to silence opponents. A recently passed law penalizes anyone for criticizing a company or unfairly criticizing the government. These conditions make it difficult to assess the real situation in the country.

These issues caught the attention of the U.S. Congress last summer. In June 2013, 24 American senators signed a letter to express their concerns about human rights in Honduras. In addition, 94 members of Congress urged the U.S. Department of State to cease all military assistance to Honduras in light of the violent repression.

Furthermore, there has been some criticism of the charter cities that Honduras wants to create. These charter cities would give foreign companies unrivalled and exclusive access to cheap labour and natural resources in Honduras. Basically, they want to create nations within Honduran territory. In all the areas where the charter cities are proposed, there are significant land issues that have been going on for decades.

The most significant area is in the Aguán valley. That area has been allocated for a potential charter city. It is also an area that has seen huge investments in tourism. There has been a significant amount of protest against the charter cities, once again because the communities where these cities will be built are being excluded from any sort of dialogue.

The individual who proposed the charter city project, an economist named Paul Romer, has since pulled out of the process, complaining that there is no accountability or transparency. This has raised a significant amount of controversy in Honduras, and yet the trade agreement we are currently debating seeks to take advantage of those charter cities.

The second criterion to take into account when assessing trade agreements is whether the agreement has any strategic value to Canada. Well, I have no idea, because this agreement was negotiated without any transparency.

Despite repeated requests, the Government of Canada refused to make the text of the agreement public during the negotiation process. I have to wonder how some members of the House can support a trade agreement without knowing the details, especially when we are well aware of the human rights situation in that country.

This agreement is stained with the blood of Hondurans. If we enter into a partnership with such a regime, we run the risk of tarnishing Canada's reputation on the international stage.

In 2011, the people of Brome—Missisquoi elected me to this place with the hope of building a different Canada. Considering the facts that I just outlined, I cannot support Bill C-20, and I encourage anyone who is still undecided to oppose it.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to visit Honduras this year to meet with some of the business people there. They would like Canadians to understand how important the free trade agreement is to them.

Canadian companies are responsible for one-third of Honduras' GDP. Gildan, one of the companies, employs 26,000 people. The company shows how Canadian companies in Honduras promote and respect human rights and work in a socially responsible manner. I would encourage these companies to have a dialogue with the opposition and those who are opposed to this free trade agreement.

I wonder if the opposition would be open to listening to some of the companies and what they have to offer with respect to human rights. The Minister of Labour has said that Canadian companies are doing a good job in this regard. The previous speaker for the Conservative Party said that having more jobs leads to less crime, and less crime helps with human rights.

I am wondering if the member would be open to hearing about some of the good things being done by our Canadian companies.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to listen to anyone, but I heard horror stories about Honduras at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.

For all the reasons I just mentioned, I would focus on countries that have high human rights and environmental standards such as Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. Canada must enter into international agreements that will have a positive impact on Canada and abroad.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member's comments, given the fact that the NDP has never ever stood in the House of Commons and voted in favour of a trade agreement. It has never done that. NDP members might say they support an agreement or something of that nature, but they have never actually stood and voted in favour of a free trade agreement.

Given the member's comments, am I to conclude that the NDP's position with regard to the trade file is that if there are human rights violations in countries, we should not be looking at trading with those countries?

China is an example. Does the member believe we should be trading with China, given its reputation?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The NDP is very much aware of the importance of trade to our economy. However, we prefer to trade with countries that are on the right path, have a certain political will and are making strides when it comes to human rights and environmental protection. Honduras is not one of those countries. I am not going to repeat what I just said in my speech. It is not a country that I would do business with.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House and talk about the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

Canada's prosperity is directly linked to reaching beyond our borders for economic opportunities that serve Canada's trade and investment. Our government is focused on the real priorities of Canadians: creating new jobs and new opportunities. That is why we continue to open new markets for our world-class exporters around the world.

With the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, we would create new sources of prosperity for Canadian businesses of all sizes and for their workers. This agreement, along with the recently announced landmark agreements with the EU and South Korea, is further proof that the most ambitious trade expansion plan in Canada's history continues to deliver results for all Canadians.

Key sectors that would benefit immediately from better market access include beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products, as well as a range of processed food products.

The FTA also signifies Canada's support of Honduras' continued democratic, economic, and social development, as lagging as that may be. Honduras continues to follow a positive path of development, and the economic and social benefits accruing from the CHFTA with Canada would help to support this process.

Overall, Honduras would ultimately eliminate tariffs on almost 98% of tariff lines under the agreement. Canada would likewise eliminate its tariffs on almost 98% of tariff lines under the agreement.

Honduras is already an established market for Canadian exports and holds significant increase potential for Canadian business. With so much expertise, Canada can take advantage of significant opportunities in Honduras.

This agreement is a comprehensive free trade agreement with obligations that extend well beyond those subjects to include other areas of importance to Canadian business. The free trade agreement would provide comprehensive obligations in areas such as financial services; the temporary entry of business persons; electronic commerce and telecommunications; and competition, monopolies, and state enterprises.

The Canadian banking system is consistently recognized as being among the best in the world. In fact, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the most sound in the world for six years in a row. This is an area where Canada is truly excelling. The Canadian financial services sector is a leader in providing high-quality, reliable financial services. Across the Americas, Canadian banks are helping foster economic growth through access to credit card and other financial services. In Honduras specifically, Canadian financial institutions such as Scotiabank have an active presence and offer a wide variety of banking services. This agreement would help those Canadian financial institutions to take advantage of opportunities in Honduras.

On financial services, this agreement would provide market access parity with what Honduras was offered to the U.S. through the trade promotion agreement with that country and contains a robust prudential carve-out. These market access commitments are complemented by key obligations that would ensure non-discrimination, provide a right of establishment for financial institutions, and promote regulatory transparency in the financial sector.

These are key elements that the Canadian financial services sector is seeking in order to ensure that it is able to compete in an increasingly competitive global market. Our Conservative government is responding to this demand.

Another important area included in this trade agreement is to ensure that businesses are able to fully maximize the opportunities in Honduras for temporary entry for business persons. Ensuring that their employees are able to work in Honduras is an important issue for Canadian businesses is a natural complement to market access for goods, services, and investment.

In recognition of the significant number of Canadian companies operating in the region, the agreement would remove unnecessary barriers impairing the ability of companies to bring in the skilled workers they need. The agreement would extend to an extensive list of professions, including various technicians, and would include provisions for spousal employment.

The strength of this free trade agreement does not stop there. It would extend into the areas of electronic commerce and telecommunications. Electronic commerce is an important addition to previous free trade agreements in light of the importance of ensuring that new digital economy issues, such as the protection of personal information, consumer protection, and paperless trade, are not overlooked.

These issues are increasingly important for businesses in the 21st century, and Canada and Honduras have recognized this fact. In the free trade agreement with Canada, Honduras would agree to a permanent moratorium on customs duties for products delivered electronically. This includes items such as electronic software, music purchased online, and digital books. This moratorium is important not only for businesses but for consumers as well.

In addition to electronic commerce, telecommunications provisions were also included to support the competitive development of the telecommunications sector. Through this free trade agreement, Canadian telecommunications service providers would be able to better compete with their American and European counterparts in the Honduran market.

Clearly, there are many benefits to this free trade agreement with Honduras that go beyond trade in goods and investment. I would like to touch on the obligations of the free trade agreement that would relate to competition, monopolies, and state enterprises.

This agreement would meet Canada's objectives of ensuring that anti-competitive business practices and the actions of monopolies or state enterprises do not undermine the benefits of trade and investment liberalization that would be achieved in this agreement. Canada and Honduras would co-operate on issues related to competition policy through their respective authorities. The obligations would ensure that Canadian companies doing business in Honduras would be treated fairly, and there are many other areas in the agreement that would offer real commercial benefits to Canadian companies.

Upon implementation of the free trade agreement, 68.4% of Honduran tariff lines would be duty free. The remaining tariffs would be eliminated within periods of five to 15 years, with a small number of sensitive agricultural products being excluded from tariff liberalization or subjected to a tariff rate quota.

This free trade agreement would create enhanced market access opportunities and bring potential benefits for Canadian exporters in many sectors where products are currently subject to Honduran tariffs, including such areas as agriculture and agri-food products, wood, pulp and paper products, industrial machinery, vehicles and auto parts, aerospace, information and communications technology, fish and seafood chemical products, and plastic products.

More specifically, for my home province of Alberta, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would benefit exporters through the elimination of Honduran tariffs in sectors of export interest, such as beef, furniture, textiles, and construction equipment.

Overall, this is a high-quality and comprehensive trade agreement. It would allow Canadian businesses to compete and excel in the Honduran market. This is a market where many key exporters are seeing enormous potential. Honduras is a fast-growing market that presents real opportunities for Canadian businesses. It is important that Canadian firms establish an early presence in this emerging market and build solid relationships that will provide them with a competitive edge.

This free trade agreement has the support of key exporters and investors across Canada, and its passage through the House will ensure that Canadian business would be able to take advantage of opportunities in this important market. I look forward to support from those interested in fostering our economic future as a trading nation.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite many requests from civil society, the government chose not to release the text to the public, thus preventing Canadians from making recommendations.

The agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. It is the government's current practice to negotiate free trade agreements behind closed doors without consulting civil society and the other members of the House.

Why is the government so opposed to transparency? Why does it not trust Canada's entrepreneurs and civil society when the time comes to make recommendations?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we consult extensively. We have been doing more free trade agreements than any other government in Canada's history. We have concluded 37 free trade agreements now, and that takes an awful lot of work from an awful lot of quarters, including people within the trade office, people around the world, and experts across Canada in various areas.

Quebec, of course, would be the beneficiary of this free trade agreement in many areas, such as chemical products, industrial machinery, articles of iron and steel, pork, and—my favourite—maple syrup.

A lot of work was done. Perhaps not all of it was to the liking of the hon. member or others, but there was extensive consultation and work. This agreement would move Canada's economy forward and move Canadian workers forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member says that the Conservative government has done more in terms of free trade agreements than any other government before it. One thing we need to recognize, of course, is that there is more to trade than just having free trade agreements. Let me provide an example.

When Jean Chrétien was prime minister, his government had the Team Canada approach to doing trade in Asia. As I was in the Manitoba legislature back then, I can recall that invitations went virtually throughout Canada, with some focus in Manitoba, because we wanted to be part of that trade mission. As a result of that particular trade mission, literally hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity occurred, and that was an initiative taken by the prime minister.

Why do I say that? I say it because when the Conservative government inherited the trade file, there was a multi-billion-dollar surplus, and the Conservative government turned that multi-billion-dollar surplus into an overall trade deficit.

My question to the member is this: why is the Prime Minister or the government not putting a high priority on looking at the bottom line of trade, on surplus versus deficit? It is great to see this particular trade agreement, but what is the government doing to ensure that Canada's trade balance is on the plus side? That in itself would generate the thousands of jobs that the middle class needs today.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that in 2008, the biggest economic downturn in the world since the Great Depression happened, which basically meant, because Canada had performed so well during that period, that other countries were not in a position to buy Canadian products as much as they did before. We are getting back out of that now. Canada is leading as we have led from the start. It is simply a matter of the world economic situation, which is improving.

In fact, as we complete, as I think we will, membership in the trans-Pacific partnership, with the EU free trade agreement and all the other free trade agreements we have brought into place, Canada will have access, and will probably be the only country in the world to have access, to 75% of the entire world's GDP. That is an accomplishment no other government in Canada's history can claim.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to further discuss the Canada–Honduras free trade agreement. From my standpoint as the critic for international human rights, I have a particular interest in the type of trade agreements that have been signed by the government.

From my standpoint as the critic for human rights, human rights must take a priority in the packaging and pulling together of any agreement with any country. When I look at the kinds of things that are important to me, is the partner we are about to do business with at a fundamental level, with an actual bilateral free trade agreement, is that a partner who respects democracy? For me, especially human rights, does it have adequate labour standards? Are these things codified in law? Is the economy of the proposed partner in balance with Canada? Are we very much higher than it is? Is there a sense of equity in that agreement?

Finally, once the free trade agreement has reached the draft form, are the terms of that satisfactory? I would suggest from the view of the NDP, it is not satisfactory. Honduras is the murder capital of the world. Think about it. More people are murdered there than anywhere else in the world. It has very undemocratic practices. Obviously, the institutions are weak because they are not able to give fundamental policing services to their people. It has very low standards when it comes to human rights and the so-called rule of law.

On this side of the House we recognize there is a significant importance to trade and to the agreements that are reached. We just do not believe the types of agreements that have been repeatedly put together by the government, where human rights and labour laws and many times environmental law are side agreements, unenforceable by law; in other words, are just window dressing to help sell this agreement.

For example, on May 15 of this year we are supposedly going to receive a report on what impact of the Colombia–Canada free trade agreement has had on human rights in Colombia. The last one we received was nowhere near the type of comprehensive report we were anticipating. When the debate on that free trade agreement happened in this place, we were told by the other side that we could look forward to a very comprehensive report. It just has not been forthcoming.

I want to draw attention to the U.S. Senate call for accountability in Honduras that took place on June 18, 2013. Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat, which will not be a surprise, a senior member of the foreign relations committee and 20 of his Senate colleagues together sent a letter to John Kerry, urging him to work to support human rights in Honduras and free, fair and peaceful elections which were slated for that November. They went on to say that “Given the ‘reported violence and impunity linked to state entities in Honduras’, the letter questions the State Department's decision to certify that the government is implementing policies to protect due process of law and ‘prosecuting military and police personnel who are credibly alleged to have violated human rights’”.

We are talking about the military and the police, the ones who are supposed to enforce human rights and protect the public and enforce the laws of the land.

They went on to say that “U.S. taxpayers demand accountability at the highest levels when their resources are used for any purpose, especially in foreign assistance”.

This free trade agreement is not about direct foreign assistance but about an even closer working relationship between Canada and Honduras.

They went on to ask for “a detailed assessment of the effectiveness of the efficacy of current Honduran government efforts to protect freedom of expression and association, the rule of law, and due process, and to investigate extrajudicial killings and abuses allegedly [again] involving police and military…”.

Many of the murders taking place in this country are by these public officials or by the military. The rampant violence in Honduras has its roots further back in history. In the 1980s, Honduras was controlled by military governments. When they demilitarized, the process that followed failed to hold to account those who committed serious offences, serious human rights abuses were overlooked, plus a culture of impunity was widespread in that country. Again, there was a coup in 2009, and there is a continuation of that sense of impunity.

When we hear today that it is the military and police who are committing these crimes, it tells us very clearly that this country is very close to a failed state.

If we are going to have a free trade agreement with this country, would we not think it sensible for us, a nation of rights and human rights observation, to ask of the other country, as part of that agreement, to establish an improvement, benchmarks for changes to the human rights in that country, and to have that codified into the agreement?

Trade has to be more about the betterment of both parties, and in a country where the people deal with governments noted as being corrupt, it is very concerning that our officials, our government, could reach and conclude an agreement with such a nation.

Further to the agreement itself, there has been a complete lack of transparency in the negotiation process of this trade agreement. Despite repeated calls by civil society in Canada, the Government of Canada has failed to make public the text of the agreement during the negotiation process.

If we look at our country, when legislation is proposed and the lack of input to the development of legislation here at home, it should be no surprise, sadly, that this is the case in dealing with this agreement. We have people who are world experts in relationships with South American countries, in particular, who could have offered insight, but they were not allowed to take part in any fashion.

The government's token environmental impact assessment of the Canada–Honduras free trade agreement, which was released in October 2013, omitted any assessment of impact of Canadian investments in Honduras because those figures were considered confidential.

We have had, repeatedly in this House, calls for corporate and social responsibility for legislation to be put into place in this House. It went to a vote here previously, on Bill C-300, which was lost, as I recall, by about 12 votes.

Very clearly, when we talk about an environmental assessment and consider the impact of Canadian companies in another country, these things should not be confidential to Canadians. We have expectations of our companies. My presumption is that they are meeting our expectations, so why not provide the evidence? Those that are good companies and performing properly deserve the respect of this House. However, those who are not, deserve the criticism of this House.

Our view of this trade agreement is that it is a very flawed agreement with a very flawed nation. It leaves us wondering how far the Conservative government is prepared to go, when we think of Colombia and Honduras, and who it is willing to do business with.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in Honduras, I learned that one-third of its GDP was attributed to Canadian companies. One of the companies in particular spoke about its respect for human rights and social responsibility. The company felt that while free trade agreements do not deter human rights abuses, human rights can be advanced by these agreements, because when one respects human rights like Canadian companies that are working there, it demonstrates good practices based on human rights.

Gildan itself would like to see its business grow and feels that a free trade agreement is important. If the member is open to hearing from some Canadian companies doing business there and what it means to them, I would like to hear his response to them, because I think it is important to hear from those on the ground trying to encourage human rights, such as he is speaking about. It is important for Honduras to have free trade with countries such as Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that important question, because there is a different perception between that side of the House and this side as to how that responsibility is completed.

The reality is that there is a belief in many circles that if we have a free trade agreement and raise all boats in that country, so to speak, human rights will float up with them. That is not the case. If we look at places that we have concluded arrangements with, there are still very troubling situations in those countries. So I am not satisfied that this is the case.

In the case of Gildan and its reputation, if we talk to social justice groups, the NGOs who work in that country, we would find a different message coming out about Gildan than what it is reporting.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue to push the idea that the NDP's position is to vote against free trade agreements. The primary reason they vote against agreements such as this is human rights, or at least that seems to be why.

There are countries around the world with whom Canada has a significant amount of trade. If we take that argument as to why New Democrats are voting against the Honduras free trade agreement in particular, can one then expect that they would also oppose any trade with that country? If not and they support trade with that country, how then do they justify having such trade, based on the arguments they are using?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the member back to the very first part of my speech where I said that the fundamental criterion for the NDP is that the proposed partner is one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values. If there are challenges in this regard, is the partner on a positive, direct trajectory toward our goal?

Is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada?

If we use the same criteria for some of the countries we trade with, and whom we do not have free trade agreements, then I would call into question why we are trading with them.

I realize that the job of the business community is to go about trade as best they can. We want corporate social responsibility here in Canada so that when our companies are trading with other countries, they take into account the human rights record and standards of those particular countries.