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.

Motions in amendment

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP's deputy international trade critic, I am pleased to rise at report stage of Bill C-20, which has to do with the trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

I found my Liberal colleague's speech very interesting. My colleague from Victoria raised a particularly relevant question about whether human rights, environmental standards or health and safety standards would prevent the Liberal Party from voting in favour of a trade deal. He can say what he wants, but I attended two sittings of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The question came up regularly, and at no point did the Liberal member even mention this topic, except when the NDP invited witnesses who spoke about human rights.

As for the agreement between Canada and Colombia, which my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster mentioned, I was not a member of the House at that time. I did, however, follow closely what was going on in the House, since I was very interested in its work. Once again, I can say that the Liberals were probably among the biggest supporters of the agreement and among the fiercest critics of those who opposed the agreement because of Colombia's human rights violations.

My speech will focus on explaining the NDP's approach to international trade to our Conservative colleagues in government and our Liberal colleagues. The stories we keep hearing are 10, 15, 20 or 30 years old. Things have changed and we have also changed. As an economist, I have many times told committees, both in the House and outside, that I am not opposed to trade agreements. On the contrary, I support them. They play a very important role in Canada's economy. We cannot support and sign every trade agreement without considering some factors: what is the content of these agreements and what is the human rights and environmental situation? All of those questions should be taken into account.

At this time I can tell my friends in the House of Commons that the NDP's approach is to examine trade agreements under three different lenses. The first is human rights, which is essential, followed by environmental rights and workers' rights.

In the case of the Colombia agreement, for example, we were told that this type of agreement is vital in order to give the Colombian government an incentive to improve its human rights record. Nothing has changed since the agreement was signed. Furthermore, the Conservatives and the Liberals are collaborating in order to block a proper consideration of the reports on trade agreements that would indicate the progress made. We regularly receive reports, as that is a requirement that was introduced, but we do not even study them.

With respect to Honduras, the situation is problematic. We have said this many times in the House. It will be even more problematic in the future. Honduras is one of the most difficult countries to live in. We have often spoken about the number of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. It is one of the highest rates, if not the highest, in the world. I am convinced that we will be discussing this topic again. There are also other elements.

At one of the meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I cited the case of a journalist, Carlos Mejía. He was a member of the reflection, investigation and communication team for Radio Progreso, which is affiliated with the Jesuits. He really cannot be considered a radical, and he was working on the ground. Carlos Mejía was stabbed to death in his home. This crime has not yet been solved. He was the 34th journalist to be murdered since the 2009 coup. Some of them have been murdered since the supposedly democratic elections in 2012.

On a number of occasions, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked for protection for him and that the government take a special interest in his safety because he was in danger. The government did nothing.

I believe that 15 of these 34 cases were specifically tied to the work these journalists were doing on the ground, for example for the opposition or on the issue of corruption, in a supposedly democratic country.

The Honduran government has problems with governance and protecting human rights, yet we are being asked to support a trade deal with the country without adequately addressing that issue.

On this side of the House, unlike the Conservatives and Liberals, we feel that human rights is an important issue. I am not surprised by the Conservative stance because it is in line with their overall approach: they sign just about anything because these are side issues that are not overly important. I understand that. At least they are consistent.

However, their arguments are not coherent. We are being told that a free market will help the country strengthen its democracy, as though there is a connection between the two. History has shown that there is no direct link between a democratic political regime and the free market. In case there is any doubt, I have two specific examples.

The first example is that of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, a country that served as a testing ground for neo-liberal policies in the late 1970s after Salvador Allende was overthrown. It was such a popular experiment that the University of Chicago and its infamous school of economics sent researchers there to establish a free-market economy. The first delegation was led by Milton Friedman. Those who went were known as the “Chicago Boys”.

Was Augusto Pinochet democratic? Definitely not. He was the head of a totalitarian regime. Did Chile's free-market approach result in democracy? No one can seriously claim that. Augusto Pinochet remained in power a long time, until well after those policies were implemented. In the case of Chile, it is clear that totalitarianism and the free market went hand in hand.

We can go as far back as Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, which was a good friend to businesses. Once again, it was an undemocratic, totalitarian regime that fully embraced the free market at the time.

The government is telling us that free trade is absolutely essential to the progress of democracy and democratic governance, but that is nonsense. On several occasions, I asked the companies that testified before the Standing Committee on International Trade and our Conservative and Liberal friends to show us some kind of evidence that countries that have problems in the areas of democratic governance and respect for human rights have made any progress in that regard as a result of a free trade agreement, but no one was able to. Our friends seem to feel that it is enough that they believe it is true, but there is no evidence to support it.

I will not dwell any longer on the issue of human rights because I know many speakers want to address that issue, but it is of the utmost importance to us. That is why we responded favourably to the trade deal with Europe. That is why we are open to a trade deal with South Korea. It is because these two examples do not pose a problem in terms of human rights.

The second lens under which we examine free trade agreements helps us determine whether the potential partner is a strategic one. Of course, Europe and South Korea are strategic trade partners for Canada. However, of all the countries in the world, Honduras is currently Canada's 104th largest trading partner, so from a strategic perspective, I do not think that the government can argue that it is so urgent that we sign a trade agreement with Honduras that doing so should take precedence over the extremely important matter of human rights.

The third lens, which does not apply in this case, allows us to examine the content of trade agreements. The reason we are withholding judgment with regard to the agreements with Europe and South Korea is that we do not know the terms of these agreements. Nevertheless, we are going to use this approach with all trade agreements, rather than just blindly supporting them based on the unfounded principle that trade agreements are essential to the progress of democracy and democratic governance.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his participation in some of our trade committee hearings in the last few months.

There are two points that I will make.

The member mentioned Honduras and other trade deals that we have negotiated. However, Honduras is in our hemisphere and Canada is the sixth largest donor to Honduras. We firmly believe that with development and diplomacy, comes trade and betters the quality of life for Hondurans.

The member also referenced Colombia and mischaracterized its record in the last few years immensely. It has doubled the size of its middle class in recent years and doubled its GDP. Part of that is attributable to the free trade agreements that Colombia has signed with countries like Canada. In fact, its crime is down, governance and human rights are improving in that country and the people are benefiting on the ground.

As an economist, does the member not promote an expanded middle class and opportunity for Colombians and Hondurans by engaging with countries like Canada in our own hemisphere?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support trade agreements that benefit both signatory countries. That is not the case here.

I am pleased that Colombia's economic situation has improved somewhat, but has the human rights situation in Colombia improved? My colleague from Durham did not say anything about that. The answer is simple: no.

If he really wants to say that Colombia's human rights situation has improved dramatically because of the trade agreement, then he should let the committee look at the reports on the subject. We do not even have access to those.

Is he saying that the trade agreement with Colombia has improved human rights? His question was not even about that; it was about economic progress. We know that union people are still being killed in Colombia. We also know that the government is still having problems with democratic governance.

Canada should use its bargaining power because Colombia would benefit economically and so would we. We would probably benefit to a lesser degree because our economy is more advanced.

However, we should use our bargaining power to ask—no, to insist—that our trading partners enhance their environmental and labour standards, and especially their human rights standards. The Conservatives, like the Liberals, have refused to do so.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, with this trade deal, Canada is the second largest foreign investor in Honduras. This is the elephant in the room with most of the trade deals with these developing countries.

Canada wants protection for its multinationals who are taking their profits from resource extraction in Canada and investing it in other countries where labour and environmental conditions are lower, but they want very strict control over their ability to invest and make their money back. Is this not really what these free trade deals are with these countries?

We have seen the evidence presented that it has not increased trade, but it has opened the door for Canadian companies to take advantage of these developing markets and natural resources in those areas. Is that not what is really at stake here?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Western Arctic for that very relevant question.

In fact, that brings me back to my main argument. When it comes to international aid, for Honduras or any other country that needs Canada's assistance, certain conditions have to be met by governments before that international aid can be used. We do not hand out money without knowing how it will be spent or whether it will be used for its intended purpose.

In the case of agreements that help two countries trade freely, there are no such conditions. None of these agreements have binding obligations with regard to environmental standards, labour standards or human rights standards.

Why is Canada missing all these opportunities to negotiate with these countries and require these standards to be included in the trade agreement? It is beyond me. That is why we are going to study the issue of human rights for all agreements, this one and subsequent ones, because this issue is key to the support of the New Democratic Party as a social democratic party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

This is the second time I have risen in the House to speak to this bill. As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I also attended committee meetings during the study of the bill.

I am opposed to this bill for a number of reasons that I will get to in my speech and for the reasons that my colleagues have already mentioned.

First I will talk again about the NDP's approach to trade and our relations with other jurisdictions and economies.

The NDP is not necessarily opposed to free trade. New Democrats read the texts of free trade agreements before opposing or supporting them. That is the case with the Canada-EU free trade agreement. Naturally, it is an agreement that could benefit many Canadian sectors, but we have to study the details. We have to really see whether some sectors are more affected than others. We also have to have a more coordinated strategy to ensure that free trade agreements really do benefit Canadians and really do create jobs in Canada. We believe that there must be a coordinated approach and strategy for free trade between Canada and other countries.

I will therefore discuss the five main elements of our strategy.

First, we believe that there must be an impact analysis to determine whether or not trade agreements negotiated by Canada are good for Quebeckers and Canadians. We must determine whether trade agreements will result in job losses or gains and in which sectors and industries.

Second, I believe that it is important for our trade agreements to strengthen Canada's sovereignty. I have to emphasize this point. The free trade agreements that we sign must also strengthen our freedom to establish our own policies. These agreements must help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage. These agreements must support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, especially in the case of Bill C-20 on the Honduras free trade agreement, all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights and prohibit the import, export or sale in Canada of any products manufactured in sweatshops by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

As I will explain later, it is impossible to meet these conditions with Bill C-20 and with our free trade agreement with Honduras.

Fourth, all trade agreements must respect the notion of sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, and finally, I believe that every time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to pass the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable.

I must point out that the NDP's position on free trade agreements is the polar opposite of the Conservative Party's position.

At the committee meetings I attended, I noticed that the Conservatives were presenting a false dichotomy with respect to free trade. The Conservatives claim that we either have to commit to their free trade agreement or choose total isolation, both diplomatically and economically.

The reality is completely different and much more complex.

I would like to illustrate my point by sharing a quote from a meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. During this meeting we heard from a very important and well-informed witness, Bertha Oliva, the founder of the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras. Her husband, Tomás Nativí, disappeared in 1981. During the meeting, the parliamentary secretary said:

Canada has a choice. In our own hemisphere we can either trade and engage nations—not just trading but helping build capacity—or we can choose isolation.

This is an example of the Conservatives' false dichotomy.

However, Bertha Oliva's response was particularly interesting. She said the following in response to the member for Durham:

We are not proposing isolation for Honduras. We don't want that. We don't want Honduras to be isolated from Canada or from the world. What we are saying is that we want the governments of the world and the Government of Canada to monitor the situation more regularly—and not only monitor the situation but also engage, have debate, and go to people in the communities where there are companies that have violated their rights, for which we have proof. We have proof that they have committed human rights violations.

Where those human rights violations have taken place and when Canadian companies are involved, we want there to be an attempt to repair the damage. There can be no claim that poverty and problems are being fought when, essentially, we have people who are ill, when there is no right to health care.

Bertha Oliva opposed the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras, of course. She also told the committee:

Those who want to invest in Honduras must know that the situation does not make it possible to guarantee your investments.

Honduras does not have a stable legal system, and its governance system is unstable and undemocratic.

Ms. Oliva also pointed out that the conditions are not in place to strengthen the people either—far from it, in fact. Communities therefore do what they can to intensify pressure since they are not consulted, which then leads to human rights violations.

It is important to point out that, in her testimony, Bertha Oliva indicated that Hondurans cannot participate in democracy in a meaningful way and that they often do not have a say in decisions made by the government. She mentioned that there is a reigning state of terror in Honduras. Since the election, there have been murders among the political dissident community.

As my colleagues have often mentioned in the House, Honduras is an unstable country, where over 600 women and over 30 journalists were murdered for political reasons. The consolidation of state power has given rise to an alarming phenomenon, and that is that most people are being persecuted through legal means. As Bertha Oliva said, it is impossible for people to exercise their right to disagree with what is going on in Honduras.

Ms. Oliva's testimony is rather worrisome in and of itself, but many other witnesses also spoke out against this free trade agreement, including Pablo Heidrich, an economist at the North-South Institute. He said something that really struck me, which is that the economy of Honduras is smaller than that of the Ottawa-Gatineau region. One therefore has to wonder whether a free trade agreement with Honduras will really help the Canadian economy.

We are also talking about a very limited market since there is a very marked income inequality in Honduras. Knowing that Honduras has a smaller economy than Ottawa-Gatineau, one cannot help but wonder why the Conservatives are in such a hurry to sign this free trade agreement.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her presentation. It is very important to highlight some of the problems with this agreement.

One of the things that struck me earlier in the day, when the member for Winnipeg North was talking about Liberals and free trade, is that Honduras has the highest murder rate per capita on the face of the earth. It has vibrant drug trafficking centres. Again, it is probably one of the most reprehensible governments on the face of the earth.

To my mind, as the critic for human rights for the official opposition, I cannot see justification for a free trade agreement with this nation. However, if we are going to construct a free trade agreement with any nation, part of the language within the terms of the free trade agreement should include labour rights and human rights.

When I hear the member for Winnipeg North talking about the Liberal position, I have to ask, is he abandoning the long-held Pearsonism and Trudeauism, and all the values they proclaim to have had around international human rights? Because the last 75 years would have gone for naught.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's position in support of Bill C-20 and the free trade agreement with Honduras is similar to that of the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party and Liberal Party have very similar positions on free trade.

The NDP is opposed to this bill because we think that we need to negotiate agreements with countries that respect human rights. We know that, in countries like Honduras, drug trafficking operates with near impunity, human rights are regularly abused and democracy is under threat. We need to negotiate free trade agreements with democratic countries where we can be sure that environmental and human rights standards will be upheld.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during this debate, it has become clear that we need to know about the benefits of a free trade agreement, not just for Canada, but also for the other country. In this case, there is some doubt about whether we are moving in the right direction. This is a country that does not respect human rights at all.

The NDP wants to make sure that Canadians who know trade is important to our economy realize that we know it too. We are in favour of supporting Canadian exporters by opening up new markets.

Can my colleague explain why our criteria are so important? They are essential to ensuring that we are signing a trade agreement that will be beneficial and successful not only for Canada but also for the other countries, particularly in terms of people and workers.

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

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

The NDP has three important criteria that it assesses trade agreements against. First, the proposed partner must respect democracy, human rights and acceptable labour and environmental protection standards. I mentioned that in my speech. Honduras does not meet this criterion.

Second, the proposed partner's economy must be of significant and strategic value to Canada. That is not the case here, because Honduras's economy is very small.

Third, we have to look at whether the terms of the proposed agreement are acceptable. Once again, that is not the case with our free trade agreement with Honduras.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, New Democrats are opposed to this agreement, for a number of very good reasons.

Others have mentioned it, but I want to reiterate the three pillars that we think are fundamentally important for Canadians when negotiating free trade agreements and the assessment of those agreements. First, is the proposed partner 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 trajectory toward these goals? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? On this last point, the Canada-Honduras agreement is another example of an agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors, so Canadians did not have access to the full details of the agreement during that process.

I am going to focus most of my speech on human rights. I have been in the House for almost 10 years and have had the opportunity to debate other free trade agreements, including, notably, the Colombia free trade agreement, where there were many human rights violations.

One of my colleagues noted that one of the ways Canada could position itself is to make sure there are binding terms within a free trade agreement that talk about human rights and the consequences if human rights violations continue.

We have attempted, a number of times in the House, to have a bill passed with regard to corporate social responsibility. The bill would hold Canadian companies to standards that we hold here in Canada, instead of finding extractive companies in particular doing business in other countries, where they violate all kinds of environmental, social, and human rights standards. That bill has never managed to get through the House.

I want to note one particular person who provided testimony before committee because I am going to focus on the human rights aspect. Ms. Sheila Katz, a representative from the Americas Policy Group at the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said at 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. This 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.

I am going to refer to a number of different articles with regard to the Honduran human rights record.

In an article by IWGIA, in The Indigenous World 2010, there was a bit of background, and then it talked about some specifics with regard to human rights abuses in Honduras. It is important to note the number of indigenous people in Honduras and the land mass that we are talking about:

Given the lack of an official census, it is estimated that the nine indigenous and Afro-descendant people living in Honduras number 1.27 million inhabitants.... The territory claimed by the indigenous peoples accounts for approximately 2 million hectares out of a total national land mass of 11.2 million. Only 10% have a guaranteed property title. Each of the peoples retains a degree of individuality, in line with their habits and customs, and this is reflected in their day-to-day practices in terms of, for example, their community councils. Honduras ratified ILO Convention 169 in September 1994. In 2007, it voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Apart from Convention 169, there is no case law to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

I think that is a very important point. The Honduran government is voting in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and yet in the negotiations on this free trade agreement, I wonder whether indigenous peoples in Honduras gave, as noted in Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “their free, prior and informed consent”.

I am going to cite a number of cases where there are ongoing human rights abuses with regard to land.

In Honduras, the indigenous peoples do not appear to have the same legal rights in terms of taking it to courts and being protected that way. In Canada, we know that the FIPA has been taken to court by a first nation from British Columbia and that is an example where even in Canada first nations say that Article 19 free, prior and informed consent, is not being respected by the Canadian government when negotiating trade agreements. In the same article it goes on to say:

The indigenous peoples form one of the poorest sectors of society and their marginalisation means that they play no part in the formal economy. Their main source of income lies in maize, beans, coffee, fishing and in the sale of handicrafts.

It went on to say, “When they provide labour to other productive sectors, they are paid around USD 5 for a 10-hour day”. That is pretty stark.

In an article called “Human Rights Violations in Honduras: Land Seizures, Peasants' Repression and the Struggle for Democracy on the Ground” by Jeanette Bonifaz, a research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, she details a number of very serious concerns with regard to human rights. She says:

In Honduras, arguably the most unequal country in Latin America, peasants are the victims of a glaring disparate land ownership structure. In 2009, when then-President Manuel Zelaya attempted to pass legislation that promised comprehensive land reform, he was ousted from power by a coup....

It is the land reform that seems to be at the heart at much of the oppression of the indigenous people.

She went on to say that:

Since the coup, peasants have suffered from increased repression, with death squads threatening and assassinating hundreds of campesinos while palm oil and hydroelectric companies accumulate land by dispossession.... Tragically, there seems to be no end in sight for the repression of land and human rights in the Central American country.

I do not have time in my brief 10 minutes to go through the numerous examples of persecution over land and agrarian reform that have taken place in Honduras and do not appear to be measurably better in this day and age. She goes through a period from the 1960s all the way up until present day. I want to cite something that happened in 2010.

When Porfirio Lobo Sosa, a landowner, became the president of Honduras in 2010, the peasants began to protest and peacefully occupy lands, which only brought more state-sponsored repression against them. As a report from the Canadian Council for International Cooperation points out, “…the coup has provided the context for rolling back important gains in the peaceful and legal resolution of conflicts between peasant groups and powerful landed business interests over access to land titles.”

In her concluding remarks, she said:

Without comprehensive land reform that protects the rights of Indigenous peoples and abides by the ILO Convention 169, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, as well as other crucial national and international agreements and laws, forced displacements and violence will continue to occur in Honduras. In addition, the judicial system needs to be revised, and proper investigations in the case of human rights violations need to take place. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights asserts, “the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat impunity, since it fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.”

She does cite a specific example of a hydro-electric dam that fuels violence. There has been a long-standing community protest. In fact, I come back to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People on free, prior, and informed consent. The community spoke overwhelmingly against this hydro-electric dam. Instead what happened is the government awarded 47 hydro-electric dam concessions to companies without prior consultation. Once the community spoke up and started to protest, we saw the repression start.

Why is it that our Canadian government, which supposedly supports human rights, would engage in a free trade agreement where the human rights violations are so egregious? I have to ask why.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree more with my hon. colleague on the fact that this is a government that is not concerned about the well-being of those in other countries.

Let us look at the types of free trade agreements the government is trying to put in place with a country that has one of the world's worst records when it comes to human rights, corruption, and transparency. It is not only with respect to a select few, it is even with respect to some of the politicians, some of the police, some of the business people.

Why is it that we are actually debating an issue that should be so clear to all of us. We should not be doing free trade agreements with countries such as this one.

Could the member explain her concern with respect to our export performance under the Conservative government's rule?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my very brief time, I am going to come back to the human rights piece before I deal with export. I want to quote Francisco Sanchez.

He is talking about:

Rio Blanco is the site of a five-month blockade seeking to prevent construction of the World Bank-funded Agua Zarca Hydroelectric Project....would bury many sacred Lenca ceremonial sites and thousands of acres of fertile agricultural land. Local people also claim that the government is concealing a shadow project to construct a gold mine at the same time, which would use the water from the dam and electricity generated by the dam....

This is if it should it be built.

Francisco says:

If this project goes forward, it will ruin our river, poison the fish, and drown our forests. And what for? If we give up our lands, we’ll still have to pay for electricity like everyone else.

In terms of the opening comments of member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing around the human rights piece, again I wonder why the government would engage with a government that has such a track record. I really hope there will be an opportunity for it to revisit the human rights record before this agreement is passed.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives like to pound themselves on their chests and say that they are the religious right in this country and they are the party of law enforcement, and yet they want to sign this deal with a corrupt government that has absolutely no passion for human rights, that deliberately goes out and gets people murdered, that jails people, that does everything it can to suppress anybody who opposes it.

Could the hon. member tell us what the Conservatives are thinking about when they want to sign this trade deal with this corrupt government?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to even begin to try to speak on behalf of Conservatives. I do wonder how they could possibly enter into a trade agreement. The member of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing talked about exports. Of course Honduras is 104th in terms of priority for Canada.

Back to the human rights abuses, what we have here is killing, arbitrary detention of thousands of people, severe restrictions on public demonstration, protests and freedom of expression, and interference in the independence of the judiciary. These are all well established by non-government organizations. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and any number of organizations are documenting the human rights abuses in Honduras on an ongoing basis. They are well documented. The fact that there is not an independent judiciary, that people cannot get a fair trial, is well documented.

Why does the Conservative government want to support that kind of regime? It is giving tacit approval to the regime by negotiating these kinds of trade agreements.

I am hopeful, ever optimistic in this House, that perhaps people will take a step back and assess whether or not this is good for Canada on the international stage in terms of our reputation with regard to human rights.