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

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

moved that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House for my first speech of 2014, and welcome all my colleagues back, to speak about the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

This agreement represents yet another important step in the diversification of our trade relationships around the world and our efforts to find new markets and to grow markets for Canadian goods and services.

The priority of our government has been focused on opportunity and prosperity for Canadian families. This begins and ends with ensuring that our producers and firms have new markets to trade their wares. Trade leads to employment and prosperity for Canadian families. Whether in the towns of Bowmanville, Port Perry or Uxbridge in my riding or indeed in the cities and towns across the country, families are made stronger by the simple fact that mom or dad can find meaningful employment if they want to be engaged in the workplace.

Canadian exports already account for an astonishing one in five Canadian jobs. More than 40,000 Canadian companies are global exporters. Canadian companies and their innovative products are leaders in sectors ranging from aerospace, transportation and agriculture to information and communications technology.

With trade being critical to Canada's prosperity, Canada has long been a key architect of international trade rules at the World Trade Organization, through the free trade agreement with the United States and ultimately with NAFTA. Our country relies upon strong international agreements and treaties to counter protectionism and keep global markets open for our employers.

We remain very engaged and positive about our most important trade relationship with the United States. Trade with the United States has been a defining part of the Canadian story. From north-south mercantile trade before Confederation to the national policy of Sir John A. to the free trade agreement signed by the Conservative government in 1988, trade with our American friends has brought prosperity to generations of Canadian families.

The need to diversify Canadian trade relationships has been raised for decades because of a growing dependence on trade with the U.S., and this need to diversify came into sharp focus with the global recession in 2008.

In 2008, Canadian exports to the United States totalled $368 billion. The following year, amid the global economic crisis, these exports dropped to $270 billion. While there has been a recovery in the U.S. economy and exports have been rebounding, statistics from 2012 show that our exports to the U.S. still remain 10% below 2008 levels.

The strong economic leadership of our Prime Minister and this government has helped Canada weather the global turmoil better than most developed countries, but we cannot rest on our laurels when it comes to trade. We also must come up with a dual strategy that builds and strengthens our critical trade relationships now while also building new and growing markets to sell our goods and services.

The global economy is changing rapidly, and new markets are exploding around the world. Trade is helping lift millions out of poverty while also promoting peace and security through stronger international engagement.

Canada needs to pursue these new markets that are growing with gusto. We need not only to keep up with our global competitors but to leverage our natural advantages to penetrate new markets faster and deeper than our competitors. Standing still will not create jobs for Canadian families. Over time, inaction could erode our position in the world and our quality of life.

This is why our government has responded with an ambitious international trade agenda. Opening new markets for Canadian companies, large and small, is cornerstone to this plan, as we continue to grow the Canadian economy and the jobs in our economy created as a result of trade.

We have made significant progress on opening new markets for Canadian goods and services. Last October, the Prime Minister announced an agreement in principle on the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, the most ambitious trade agreement Canada has ever negotiated.

Our agreement with the European Union would give Canadian companies preferential access to an economy of more than 500 million consumers and a $17 trillion GDP. That is tremendous opportunity.

A joint study by Canada and the EU, as part of our negotiations, concluded that our agreement with the European Union could boost Canada's GDP by $12 billion annually and increase bilateral trade by 20%. Most importantly, the deal could result in the creation of 80,000 net new jobs once the benefits of the Canada-EU trade agreement are realized.

While the Canada-EU trade agreement represents the culmination of many years of work with a group of nations, with our provincial stakeholders, with industries and with municipalities who are eager to access the 500 million consumers of Europe, our government has also been tirelessly pursuing trade opportunities in markets of all sizes.

Since 2007, our government has concluded free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Jordan and Morocco. New agreements and relationships are being struck while existing ones are being expanded. We have also concluded or brought into force 22 new or updated foreign investment promotion and protection agreements to provide better access to growing global markets for Canadian exporters, while also providing more certainty in these markets through the secure framework that a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement offers. It gives me great pleasure to advise the House that Honduras will soon be yet another market that we have opened for Canadian employers through this Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

While our EU deal represents Canadian opportunities across the pond for exporters, there are also tremendous opportunities here in the Americas. Total merchandise trade between Canada and the countries in the Americas stood at $56.2 billion in 2012. This has increased by 32% in the last six years alone. Canadian direct investment in the Americas totalled $168 billion in 2012 and has increased by 59% over the same period.

We are already engaged in South America and Central America, and our government knows that we need to do more in our own backyard. Canada's trade agenda is not just about the planes, trains and automobiles we manufacture in Canada—and great ones, to boot—nor does it only represent natural resources and agricultural products. We are increasingly pursuing markets for our intellectual property, academic excellence and delivery of professional services around the world.

Canada is very much engaged in negotiations surrounding the trade in services agreement, which would provide a secure legal framework and new market access for Canadian service suppliers in many of the world's most important and growing service markets. We also remain an active participant in multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organization, where just a few weeks ago Canada helped conclude a trade facilitation agreement that will boost trade by cutting red tape for Canadian companies.

However, we are not just stopping there. Canada is also committed to advancing our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners in the Caribbean, in Morocco and here in the Americas. We are also looking for new opportunities to grow Canada's international trade and are undertaking exploratory discussions with Thailand and Turkey to determine what benefits Canadians and Canadian employers could see from trade agreements with these partners in the future.

In addition, we continue to update our existing free trade agreements to ensure that Canada remains a global leader in trade and commerce. We recently announced the modernization of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement. This expansion and modernization builds on an agreement that dates back to 1997 and a trade relationship that is now worth over $2.5 billion. The updated agreement with Chile includes the addition of a new financial services chapter, which will help world-class Canadian financial institutions develop new markets in the areas of banking, insurance and asset management in Chile. It also includes new roles on government procurement, customs procedures and dispute settlement.

As members are aware, the Prime Minister announced last week that we would also modernize our existing free trade agreement with Israel.

The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement really has been a cornerstone of a growing and important relationship for our country. While our countries enjoy a sophisticated trade relationship, an updated free trade agreement with Israel would enhance bilateral commercial flows by reducing technical barriers, enhancing co-operation, increasing transparency in regulatory matters and reducing transaction costs for exporters.

It would also create greater visibility for Canadian companies in the Israeli and Middle Eastern market and support closer ties with this dynamic economy and important democracy in the Middle East.

It is clear that the government is working hard to ensure that Canadians reap the economic benefits of global trade, which as I said at the outset, accounts for one in five jobs in Canada.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is part of our efforts to liberalize trade with our partners here in the Americas. It is also a realization of our global markets action plan, which will grow existing and important trade relationships while forging new ones around the world.

The Americas offer great potential. Trade has been growing dramatically in the last six years, as I said. We also need to promote increased mutual economic sharing of ideas and increase engagement.

Canada's strategy for engagement in the Americas focuses on intensifying trade promotion and relationship-building efforts, to ensure that the Canadian private sector can take full advantage of the trade and economic agreements, as well as helping to build the capacity of our trading partners to capitalize on the benefits of free trade with Canada and the benefits that come along with a growing and emerging middle class in many of these countries.

Canada is committed to a strong economic partnership with Honduras that would contribute to enhanced prosperity and sustainable economic growth for both our countries in the long term.

This Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is a key component in advancing the goals of Canada's strategy for engagement in the Americas and would support our growing commercial and social relationship with that country.

Canada's two-way merchandise trade with Honduras grew by 46% in the last six years. Canadian companies are active in Honduras in the areas of apparel production and mining. However, there are other sectors of huge potential opportunity, such as green building, clean technologies and information and communities technologies, to name just a few.

Once implemented, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would eliminate tariffs on 98% of the tariff lines going both ways. We would gain better access to a growing market in our hemisphere, with grain and oilseeds, beef, pork, potatoes and processed foods being some of the early and big winners and the potential for more industries and, particularly, service areas, as the relationship with Honduras develops over time.

Canada's Trade Commissioner Service already works with Canadian companies that are interested in doing business in Honduras. These are recognizable and important employers across Canada, such as Gildan Activewear, Aura Minerals and Canadian Bank Note, to name just a few.

Once the trade agreement is ratified, our trade commissioners would ensure that companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, are aware of how they could benefit from this free trade agreement so that they could take full advantage of the greater transparency, stability and protection the agreement would provide in the Honduran market.

In addition to opening doors for Canadian companies and building our trade relationship, Canada is also committed to supporting Honduras in other ways.

Canada and Honduras first established diplomatic relations in 1961 and have a broad and diverse relationship, driven by a wide range of links and collaboration, from political dialogue and commercial exchange to people-to-people ties, as well as long-standing and substantial Canadian development co-operation.

We maintain an open dialogue with the Government of Honduras, as we believe that engagement is the best way for us to help Honduras meet its challenges, grow its economy and promote stability.

Engagement on all levels will grow prosperity and security for Hondurans.

As one of the 20 countries of focus for Canada's development assistance, Honduras is Canada's largest bilateral program in Central America and the fourth largest in the hemisphere. In 2011-2012, Canada provided over $39 million to the country through all development channels. This makes it the largest bilateral donor in all of Honduras and the sixth largest overall donor in the hemisphere.

Canada's development program will support and promote economic opportunities in Honduras in a way that will allow its trade with Honduras to grow steadily over time.

It is our view that prosperity, security, and democratic governance, including full respect for human rights, are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Increased prosperity through trade can contribute to the reduction of poverty and social exclusion by increasing economic opportunity for all Hondurans. Once ratified, this free trade agreement would be a cornerstone of our bilateral relationship with Honduras and would benefit both our countries.

This is a comprehensive trade deal that would give Canadian businesses a secure and predictable framework in a growing Honduran marketplace. The United States and the European Union already enjoy free trade with Honduras, so it is especially important that we ratify this agreement and put Canadian companies on a level playing field with our main competitors.

Let me turn to some specific examples of the benefits of the Canada-Honduras trade agreement. First and foremost, it would help make Canadian products more attractive in the Honduran market by eliminating tariffs. Today Canadian exports to Honduras face average tariffs in the 11% range for agriculture and the 5% range for non-agricultural goods. Once the agreement is in place, Honduras would immediately eliminate tariffs on almost 70% of its tariff lines in respect of goods imported from Canada.

This agreement represents an important component of our government's global markets action plan. This plan would coordinate the funding and expertise inherent in our foreign policy, trade, and development arms, and focus them in countries where we can make a difference, recognizing that benefiting the social and human rights of a country will also help benefit its local economy. Jobs for Hondurans will help promote stability in the country.

This government is on an unparalleled track for promoting the trade of our goods and services across the world. The Canada-E.U. trade agreement represents a huge leap in terms of global trade agreements in that it will provide opportunities for Canadian exporters in a market of 500 million people while it also allows penetration right down to services and mutual recognition of professions. It really is taking trade agreements into this new millennium.

In my riding of Durham, one in five jobs relates to trade. The communities of Uxbridge, Scugog, and Clarington need these new markets for their goods, particularly at a time when the American market is slowly rebounding from the 2008 world economic crisis.

Our government is firmly committed to building new markets for our goods and services to maintain the job creation that trade promotes. These deals are not just with mammoth markets of 500 million people, like the Canada-E.U. trade deal. They are also in other important areas of the world, such as Georgia and Morocco and now Honduras. There our trade, our prioritization of our services, and our engagement through our global markets action plan could not only promote trade in that country but could also promote stability and engagement in a range of labour, environmental, and other areas.

This is a pivotal part of our government's global markets action plan. It is a pivotal part of keeping Canadian families employed and engaged. I am truly hoping all members of the House will support this important agreement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, extending preferential trade terms to other countries is a major economic privilege, and countries that are democratic and that respect environmental, human rights, and labour standards are deserving of this extension.

The government of Honduras was essentially installed in a military coup in 2009. It has conducted two flawed elections since then that have been roundly condemned as corrupt. It violates its citizens' human rights; suppresses freedom of speech and association; tolerates killings, kidnappings, and the arbitrary detention of thousands of its citizens; has the highest murder rate in the world; is the planet's most dangerous place for journalists; represses the media, opposition, and citizens who peacefully express their political views; is a major drug trafficking centre, with 80% of cocaine shipments from South America; has an average of 10 massacres per month; and allows paramilitary squads to operate with impunity.

Canadians would not support a free trade agreement with the government of Ukraine, North Korea, or Iran. Why does the government believe it should support an agreement with Honduras that has an equally bad record of violating the democratic and human rights standards not only of Honduras but of Canada and the world?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about the position of the New Democratic Party on trade is that its members are continuing their decades-long, almost generations-long, opposition to trade of any kind. In fact, the hon. member, in an interview with The Huffington Post, when talking about countries like Honduras, Peru, and Chile, which are important countries and allies of ours in the Americas, said that these countries should not be considered. He actually said that they have no strategic value for Canada.

That is not diplomacy at its finest. We are about promoting economic opportunity and jobs in massive markets, like the 500 million the Canada-European Union trade agreement will lead to, but also in smaller markets, where our input and our engagement will actually benefit Hondurans and will promote stability in that region.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one has to ask: Where will the government not go just to add another number and say that we now have x number of trade agreements? That is what it is all about.

I listened to the words of the parliamentary secretary. He went to great lengths to use all the right words in all the right places, but the facts on trade do not bear out his words. This is the first government that has had a trade deficit in 30 years. He talked about the CETA agreement at great length, not Honduras, and he said it could create x number of jobs. Could? We have not even seen the text yet. It has not even been presented in the Parliament of Canada.

What he did say, though, was that there are new rules on dispute settlements. I have a question on that. In 32 of the last 44 months, they have had a trade deficit. In the dispute settlement in our agreement with the United States, Canada's beef industry is suffering badly because of the aged cattle restriction the Americans have and because of the COOL agreement.

Instead of negotiating with Honduras, which has a terrible human rights record, what are Conservatives doing to settle the trade dispute with the United States, which really matters to Canadian farmers?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's question or statement, he asked what lengths we would go to. I think it is clear that this government will go and sell Canadian goods and services abroad as much as possible if it will lead to jobs here at home.

I would remind the hon. member that in the 13 years of the Liberal government, it signed three trade agreements. In fact, during the Prime Minister's recent trip to Israel, we are expanding on the less than ambitious trade deal the Liberals signed with that country.

We are clearly about promoting trade for our country. As I said, I used the European deal as an example. In big markets and in small markets, if there is a win for Canadians and our world-class goods, services, and products, we will be there for Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I was enormously grateful to the member for Vancouver Kingsway for so clearly reciting the reasons the bill before us is odious, as is the trade agreement.

This trade deal is with a country that has just had a populist democratic leader knocked out by a coup. It has a military regime that suppresses human rights, indigenous rights, and labour rights, but we would rush to an agreement that would only benefit certain parts of Canada.

I love my country, but an agreement like this would support Canadian mining companies’ taking advantage of indigenous rights in other countries. It would give a Canadian mining company the kind of rights that I do not want the Chinese state-owned enterprises to have, which is to bring arbitration cases against us if we toughen our laws. This agreement would work against the interests of equity, democracy, civil society, and human rights in Honduras.

I would beg my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, who is an honourable friend, to have nothing to do with promoting this agreement.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands and welcome her back to a new year of jousting in this place.

I think there is a philosophical disagreement with our government and the opposition, including the Green Party, which really wants to isolate Canadians and isolate our opportunity to create jobs. While our largest trading partner is having slow growth, we are out selling our markets and our goods and services, but we are also engaging.

I think the hon. member should look and see that this agreement has a corporate social responsibility component, it has a labour component, and it has an environmental component.

I believe firmly that engagement, and elevating struggling countries into the global community, where these things are taken very seriously, would not only enhance those countries but also deal with those root issues. Our global markets action plan not only targets the economic opportunities that trade promotes, but it also strengthens our diplomatic work by targeting some of our aid and targeting our diplomacy, and growing jobs at the same time.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's comments, and I want to say that he was right about our parties having different philosophies on the importance of free trade.

That is not what matters in this case though. What matters is knowing who we are signing this treaty with.

The Conservatives cannot guarantee that the current Honduran government will not use this free trade agreement to facilitate illegal shipments of cocaine. That is what it comes down to.

Crime rates in Honduras are 50 times higher than in Canada. There is no doubt that the political authorities in that country are crime bosses.

How can the Conservatives ask us to sign an agreement with people so mired in crime? How can they themselves be willing to sign it? That is the question.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to note that we are trading with Honduras now. It is a key destination for our aid now. It is trading and has free trade agreements with the United States and with the European Union, now, putting Canadian job creators at a disadvantage.

My position has been clear. I would ask the member to challenge his colleagues, in a party that has been isolationist and anti-trade for 50 years, by saying that this is a way we can engage with countries, to actually help lift their economy out of much more difficult circumstances while also promoting job creation here in our country. Our changes to DFATD would make sure that we not only target economic opportunity but that it be alongside aid, engagement, and institution building. This would actually help the people of Honduras. The isolation of the opposition would do no good.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats believe that Canadians recognize the importance of trade to our economy and want an effective, strategic trade policy that expands trade opportunities and supports Canadian exporters.

We believe that Canadians want a trade policy that produces good jobs in our communities and encourages the development of value-added production to our many resources here in Canada.

We believe that Canadians want a trade policy that strengthens our economic relationships with growing significant economics that add strategic value to the Canadian economy.

We believe that Canadians want trade agreements that preserve our ability to legislate in the public interest, protect our social programs, and promote local economic development.

We believe that Canadians want their government to pursue a balanced trade policy that builds trade and at the same time fosters positive democratic development, human rights, and environmental standards, both in Canada and in the nations with whom we trade.

New Democrats also know that Canadians care about the process by which we implement trade policy. Canadians want an open, transparent, and accountable process in all aspects of the development of trade policy and agreements.

Canadians want and deserve to be consulted about their priorities and kept advised about the progress of trade negotiations. After all, they know that trade agreements are not negotiated on behalf of political parties or special interests but are negotiated on behalf of all Canadians and all sectors of our economy. This is particularly the case as trade agreements have become more comprehensive and increasingly deal with areas of policy that have historically been considered to be of purely domestic concern.

Since the Conservatives took office in 2006, by all objective measurements Canada's trade performance has been deplorable.

In 2006, the Conservatives inherited a current account surplus of some $18 billion. Today, after eight years in power, Canada has a current account deficit of $62 billion. That is a negative swing of some $80 billion, an average decline of $10 billion for every year the Conservatives have been in power.

Over the last two years, even as we have pulled slowly out of the global recession, Canada has experienced 23 consecutive months of merchandise trade deficits.

We have also seen an alarming shift in the quality of our exports. Under the Conservatives, there has been an increase in the percentage of our exports that are raw or barely processed, reversing a decades-long trend toward an increase in our value-added products. Nor can this poor performance be explained away by the recession that Canada experienced between 2008 and 2011.

A comparison by the Library of Parliament of Canada's trade performance to 17 other countries around the world between 2006 and 2012, countries that experienced the exact same global recession, collapse in commodity prices, and currency fluctuations, found that Canada came dead last in current account performance.

This poor trade record is consistent with the Conservatives’ poor performance economically, across the board. A look at major economic metrics provides comprehensive evidence of the government's economic failure since it took office in 2006.

I hear laughing on that side, but we will see if those members still laugh after hearing these statistics.

The national unemployment rate in 2006 was 6.6%; today it is 7.2%. The youth unemployment rate in 2006 was 12.2%; today it is 14%. Among the 34 OECD nations in employment creation since 2006, Canada ranks 20th. The number of governments since 1935, in the last 80 years, that presided over a slower rate of real economic growth per capita is zero. The per cent of our federal debt accumulated since 2006 is one fifth. The percentage increase in our real average manufacturing wage from 2006 to now is zero. The percentage drop in productivity since the Conservatives came to power is a negative 1.9%.

The conclusion is obvious. The Conservatives have had eight years to implement their trade and economic policies, and the unacceptable results are there for all to see.

The Bank of Canada has explicitly stated that a major contributing factor to Canada's stalled economic performance is due to our under-performance on the trade file.

Canada is a trading nation. Our economy is historically, and continues to be, substantially dependent on our export sector and increasingly, with global supply chains and integrated production, on our import experience as well.

It is therefore vital that Canada implement a smart, effective trade policy and pursue well-negotiated beneficial trade agreements with strategically important growing and significant economies that will help Canadian businesses and create good jobs for Canadians.

That brings us to the matter before the House: Bill C-20.

With all the issues and deeply entrenched problems facing Canada's trade sector, what do the Conservatives bring to this Parliament today? They bring Canadians a free trade agreement with Honduras. Now, this is not surprising. Although the Conservatives like to brag about the trade agreements they have concluded in the last eight years, the facts, again, tell a different story. In truth, they have concluded a total of six trade agreements with the following countries: Jordan; Panama; Peru; Colombia; a goods-only agreement with four small European countries including Liechtenstein and Iceland; and now Honduras.

As is obvious, these are agreements with small economies of limited strategic interest to Canada. Trade agreements with major developed and developing economies like Japan, India, South Korea, Brazil, China, and South Africa—agreements that would have a material and positive benefit for the Canadian economy, if negotiated well—the Conservatives have been unable to conclude.

New Democrats believe that we should apply three important criteria to assess trade agreements.

First, is the proposed partner a democracy that respects human rights, adheres to acceptable environmental standards and Canadian values, and if there are challenges regarding these, can it fairly be said that they are on a positive trajectory toward these goals?

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant and strategic value to Canada?

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement acceptable?

The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras fails this test. Again, let us look at the facts, and take a closer look at the country to which the current Conservative government wants Canadians to extend preferential trade benefits and closer economic relations.

Honduras is a country with a seriously flawed human rights record; weak institutions; corrupt police and army; and a history, both entrenched and recent, of repressive, undemocratic politics. The last democratically elected government, that of President Manuel Zelaya, was toppled by a military coup in June 2009. This coup was staged by the Honduran army under the pretext of a constitutional crisis that had developed between the supreme court and the president. Following the coup, the government suspended key civil liberties, including freedom of the press and assembly. In the ensuing days, security forces responded to peaceful demonstrations with excessive force and shut down opposition media outlets, causing deaths, scores of injuries, and thousands of arbitrary detentions. The coup was widely condemned around the world, including by all Latin American nations, the European Union, the United States, and the UN General Assembly.

In January 2010, Porfirio Lobo Sosa assumed the presidency through what has overwhelmingly been deemed undemocratic and illegitimate means. Of course, holding an election mere months after the violent military overthrow of the elected administration is hardly an acceptable context for a free and fair election. Indeed, most foreign governments and election-monitoring agencies refused even to send observers, and many countries rejected the results of the election. The recent election held in November 2013 has similarly been condemned by independent observers.

Since 2009, NGOs of all types have documented serious human rights abuses. Extra-judicial killings; kidnappings of political figures; intimidation of citizens; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protest, and freedom of expression; and interference in the independence of the judiciary are well established in Honduras.

Here are some basic facts from independent sources about the situation in Honduras.

Honduras ranks 85th out of 167 on the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2012 democracy index. That is a slide from being 74th; in other words, it is getting worse.

Honduras is now classified as a “hybrid regime”, rather than its previous designation as a “flawed democracy”.

Transparency International ranks Honduras as the “most corrupt country in Central America”, which is no small feat. It is a major drug-smuggling centre, and it has the worst income equality in the region. The U.S. state department estimates that 79% of all cocaine shipments originating in South America land in Honduras. Drugs move from South America through countries like Honduras and other Central American states into Mexico and the United States and Canada.

Independent observers have noted the increasing levels of violence, as well as organized criminal and gang activity associated with the trade in illegal narcotics. According to The Economist, “the countries in 'the northern triangle' of the Central American isthmus”—and that includes Honduras—“form what is now the most violent region on earth”.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that in 2011 there were 92 murders per 100,000 people per year in Honduras, making it the most violent country in Latin America. In 2012, Honduras became the murder capital of the world, reaching a record high of 7,172 homicides in 2012, or 81 per 100,000 people.

In 2013, on average there have been 10 massacres per month, according to the investigative website InSight Crime, which defines “massacre” as an instance where three or more people are murdered at one time. In the previous four years, fewer than 20% of homicide cases have been investigated, let alone prosecuted.

As pointed out by the Americas Policy Group, this high level of impunity serves to mask political violence.

Since 2010, there have been more than 200 politically motivated killings and Honduras is now regarded as the world's most dangerous place for journalists. According to a 2013 Human Rights Watch report, Honduras has the region's highest rate of journalists killed per capita, with some 23 having been assassinated in the last three years alone. According to the Honduran national human rights commission, 36 journalists were killed between 2003 and mid-2013, and 29 have been killed since President Lobo took office.

Today, journalists in Honduras continue to suffer threats, attacks and killings, and authorities consistently fail to investigate these crimes effectively. Peasant activists and LGBT individuals are particularly vulnerable to attacks, yet the government routinely fails to prosecute those responsible.

In June 2013, 24 U.S. senators signed a letter expressing concern about the human rights situation in Honduras. Ninety-four members of Congress have called on the U.S. State Department to halt all military aid to Honduras in light of its violent repression of political activity.

At least 16 activists and candidates from the main opposition party, LIBRE, were assassinated since June of 2012, and 15 more have been attacked. On August 25, 2013, just months ago, three leaders of the indigenous Tolupan were shot and killed. There are extensively documented cases of police corruption, with 149 extrajudicial killings by police recorded between January 2011 and November 2012 alone.

In January 2013, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers called the dismissal of four Supreme Court justices by the Honduran government a violation of international norms and a grave threat to democracy.

This is what Mr. Neil Reeder, the director general of the Latin America and Caribbean bureau in DFAIT testified before committee:

...institutions...are...weak. Impunity is pervasive and corruption is a challenge.

Corruption within the Honduran police force is a particular problem, which the Government of Honduras...recognizes. Largely because Central America is situated between the drug-producing countries of South America and the drug-consuming countries to the north, Honduras...[has] been particularly affected by the growth of transnational drug trafficking, human trafficking, and the impact of organized crime.

Another element of the violence affecting Honduras is the presence of street gangs, known as maras, which rely on extortion and other forms of crime as...income. Honduras has more of these gangs than all other Central American countries combined, and their activities contribute to crime and insecurity in the country. Honduras now has...the highest homicide rates in the world, at 81 per 100,000, as compared with 1.8 per 100,000 in Canada.

This is the profile of the country that the Conservative government wants Canada to extend preferential trade access and closer economic relations to.

In terms of significance to the Canadian economy, the facts reveal the following.

Honduras ranks 120th out of 186 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index. The World Bank categorizes Honduras as a lower-middle income country, and Honduras suffers from extremely unequal income distribution, extreme social inequality, high unemployment, poor health and education. This is the country that the government wants Canadian businesses to compete with.

Honduras is currently Canada's 104th export market in terms of export value. In 2012 merchandise exports totalled a meagre $38 million and imports $218 million, marking a significant trade deficit. Internal DFAIT analyses confirm that only marginal benefits for the Canadian economy are expected from this deal.

Although Canada's extractive sector has interests in Honduras, Canadian mining companies have been ensnared in controversial local struggles with citizens and indigenous groups and face allegations of environmental contamination.

In terms of the process used by the Conservatives to arrive at this deal, there has been a complete lack of transparency in the negotiation process of this trade agreement. Despite repeated demands by civil society in Canada, the Government of Canada failed to make public the text of the agreement during the negotiation process, and further, the government's token environmental impact assessment of the free trade agreement, released in October, omitted any assessment of the impact of Canadian investments in Honduras because these figures are considered “confidential”.

Also, as is usually the case with the Conservatives, they have allowed no opportunity for either this Parliament or Canadians themselves to comment upon or influence the agreement before it is signed. We are left with a choice of only voting yes or no. The labour and environmental side agreements are inadequate, given that they are not accompanied by any real enforcement mechanism to ensure they are adhered to. Through the investment chapter of the Canada-Honduras trade agreement, corporations can sue the Canadian government in international tribunals, hindering Canada's ability to make decisions aimed at protecting the public good.

Considering that Honduras is an undemocratic country with weak institutions and low standards, and is of insignificant strategic interest and has a record of serious human rights abuses, New Democrats believe that the majority of Canadians would not agree that preferential trade terms be accorded such a nation.

What the New Democrat opposition wants is a strategic trade policy where we restart multinational negotiations, where we sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and developing countries that are on positive trajectories. These are countries like Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. These are the countries we should be signing trade agreements with, not undemocratic countries like Honduras that are drug trafficking centres, human rights violators and have low standards that will hurt Canadian business.

I could do no better than to adopt the words spoken by two Canadians, Mr. Garry Neil and Ms. Stacey Gomez, who said:

...we really do not believe that it is good public policy for the government to be pursuing trade and investment agreements that are economically basically meaningless with volatile and undemocratic nations like Honduras....

We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras. Canada should refrain from signing the FTA with Honduras until there is a verifiable improvement in the country’s democratic governance and human rights situation. Until these things are achieved, the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.

I believe these are wise words. New Democrats will vote against the agreement accordingly, and I urge all members who want trade to be a positive force in the world economically, politically, socially and environmentally to join us in doing so as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and friend from the trade committee for his speech. He clearly has a future in diplomacy.

My question for him really relates to a multi-generational issue. I am not talking about the last few decades, but the multi-generational isolationist policy of the New Democratic Party, opposing every trade deal, and even the auto pact that brought prosperity to Canadian families.

My friend listed off a range of countries, but in my experience the NDP has opposed free trade with the U.S., NAFTA, and it does double-speak on CETA, the European trade deal. The NDP has never supported trade with any other country but has followed a multi-generational isolationism.

What would the member's strategic plan be for growing those one in five jobs attributable to trade in Canada?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for that question, but again, decision-based fact-making seems to typify his government.

The auto pact was actually opposed by the Conservatives, and the New Democrats pointed out problems, but it passed in this very chamber on division. In fact, there was no one who opposed the auto pact. The auto pact has actually come to serve as a model of the kind of sectoral trade agreement that actually benefits our country. It was actually under this government that the auto pact was eliminated.

It is also the case that the New Democrats supported the last trade agreement with Jordan, which serves as a good contrast with the present agreement. Jordan is a developing country, but is on a positive trajectory. It is raising its employment standards. It raised its minimum wage three times in the past four years and has signed on to ILO labour rights standards. Also, it does not have a history of murdering its citizens, throwing them in jail and killing journalists. However, that is what is happening in Honduras. That is the issue before us today.

I set out quite clearly what the New Democrats' position on trade would be. It would be to sign well-structured, good trade agreements that advance the Canadian economy with developed countries who adhere to good standards and developing countries who adhere to normative international standards. We would not advocate signing a trade agreement today with Iran or North Korea.

Why does the government not bring forward a trade agreement with those countries? If it really believes that signing trade agreements is the way to elevate human rights, it should sign a trade agreement with Iran. It will not do that because Iran does not conform to acceptable international standards. Those are exactly the same criteria we are applying to the agreement here today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member and want to look at trade in a broader sense of international trade more generally, whether with or without agreements.

The member talked about many of the concerns with regard to Honduras. Today we have trade with Honduras. We have a considerable amount of trade with many countries with which there are concerns regarding to issues like human rights, environmental law and so forth.

Given the member's comments, I am led to believe that the Government of Canada should look at ways of minimizing trade with countries about which we have concerns regarding human rights and issues such as he has pointed out. Is that ultimately what the NDP would like to see happen?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the issue before this House is Bill C-20, which is a trade agreement that purports to extend special trade preferences to a particular country.

Trade occurs every day in this world, and the hon. member is quite correct about that; but when we sign a trade agreement, we are singling out a specific jurisdiction for special treatment. I view that, and I think Canadians view that, as a privilege that ought to be earned by that country, and we should be selective about which countries we accord such a preference. Those countries should be selected based on how much they will improve the economy of Canada and whether they conform to acceptable standards of conduct.

Ultimately, there are some cases in the world, such as Iran today, where, if their conduct becomes so egregious, then Canada and other countries will actually implement trade restrictions on the country. They will freeze assets and restrict trade, and that is ultimately a tool available.

That is not what we are advocating, but that Canada pursue a better trade policy with responsible nations and not extend preferences to countries that are so atrocious in their behaviour domestically.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his excellent speech. I learned a lot from it.

I was very curious. My colleague mentioned human rights for members of the LGBT community in Honduras. I did an Internet search, and I found out that in 2013, 22 LGBT people in Honduras were killed. Those murders were motivated by discrimination and hatred toward minorities. The LGBT community in Honduras is angry at its own government. Very few of these hate crimes and murders end up in the courts; there is little justice for the families and loved ones of those who were brutally murdered. In many cases, there are connections to the country's law enforcement officials. It is a very incestuous scenario.

Basically, I would like to hear what my colleague thinks: do we really want to do business and facilitate free trade with countries where the human rights of LGBT people and others are so brutally trampled on?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us put this in context. Honduras is a country of about eight million and Canada of 35 million, so Canada is about four times the size.

Imagine if the current Canadian government removed four members of the Supreme Court of Canada because it did not like the decision they made.

Let us say 23 journalists in Honduras are equivalent to almost 100 Canadian journalists here. Imagine if 100 journalists in Canada had been murdered in the last five years.

Imagine if members of the opposition parties were picked up on the street and assassinated, and imagine if there were dozens of LGBT people in this country who were murdered by paramilitary death squads roaming through the Canadian countryside and the authorities refused to even investigate, never mind prosecute them.

This is the real situation in Honduras. How would we feel about those conditions here in this country? How would we feel about another country internationally extending a reward to us in the form of increased economic support? Would we not want those countries of the world to be putting pressure on us to raise our standards to acceptable 2013 international democratic and human rights standards?

The New Democrats say we should, and I am absolutely flabbergasted that the Conservatives bring forth an agreement like this in 2013 and expect Canadians to accept it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I chair the Commons subcommittee on international human rights. We have done some hearings on Honduras. We have also done some hearings on other countries, including Iran.

Frankly, I was astonished to hear the hon. member suggest that there is any resemblance at all between these two countries. It is beyond outrageous. It is kind of like comparing them to the Martians and the Neptunians.

In Iran, there is suppression, not merely of political dissidents, but murder of the entire leadership of the Baha'i faith, which originated in Iran, and gays are forced to choose between being executed and going through forced sex change operations. The Iranian regime favours a second genocide to wipe out the Jews of the world by using nuclear weapons against Israel, and it is attempting to develop a nuclear policy to follow through on that.

I would say that there are some differences between Iran and Honduras. Notwithstanding his suggestion that we should be looking at a free trade agreement with Iran, I suggest that the parallels are imprecise.

The member mentions that there is a record of human rights abuses in Honduras. He is right. There is also a human rights abuse record in the United States, which had slavery; in Britain, which conquered many countries, and so on. The fact is that there is a congress elected today, through elections last year, that is not responsible for any of these things.

The member mentioned a very high crime rate. He is right; it is one of the highest in the world, along with the rest of Latin America. That is a problem of civil justice. It is a matter that is not under the direct control of the government. It is not a human rights issue, although it is a tragedy.

Finally, with regard to the suggestion that it is undemocratic, that statement was true, but it is no longer true. I cannot imagine what, other than a drive to prevent us from ever having free trade with any country anywhere ever is motivating this member.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I raised the issues of countries like Iran, North Korea and Ukraine to illustrate examples of countries to which we would not consider extending preferential terms.

Each country is unique; sometimes they are unique in degrees. However, when there is a country like Honduras, which the United Nations has stated engages in widespread human rights violations, including killings, disappearances, forced evictions and sexual violence, I fail to see how that is less upsetting to the hon. member than what is happening in Iran.

Both countries are doing the same thing. They repress their citizens' rights. They kill their own citizens. They are not democratic. They do not respect political rights. They murder journalists. They do not have free and fair elections. That is the comparison. That is the analogy we are making here.

The hon. member is on the human rights committee, and if he does not get that comparison, then I am not sure he is well placed to be on that committee.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals support Bill C-20. The Liberal Party is strongly in support of the principle of free trade as an essential part of Canada's economic growth in the 21st century.

I would like to talk a bit about our broader vision of what we need to do with trade and how that fits into our overall economic vision, and then I would like to talk about this specific agreement and how we need to work hard in implementing it to live up to the principles of Canadian democracy and how Canada wants to conduct itself in the world.

On trade, 19.2% of Canadians work in jobs that are directly in the export sector, and up to 80% of the Canadian economy, depending on how one counts it, is dependent on exports. We are a small country in a vast globalized world economy, and without being open to that world economy, without being an active energetic participant, we have no chance of thriving and, crucially, no chance of creating middle-class jobs, which we need and which we are failing to create in sufficient number and quality right now.

However, what we need is not just a number of piecemeal agreements with small countries like Honduras. What Canada needs to be successful is an economic and trade vision that is much more ambitious, wider reaching, and which fully and ambitiously integrates Canada into the global economy. Therefore, while Liberals support this trade deal with Honduras, we believe our country needs to be more energetically engaged with other emerging market economies that are growing strongly and where we see the rest of the world competing now for a position.

In particular, I would like to draw everyone's attention to what is happening right now in Africa. A lot of us are accustomed to seeing Africa as a development story, a poverty story. The reality of the new Africa today is that it is one of the world's hottest emerging markets. Some of the leading countries in Africa have had, for more than five years, 5% economic growth year on year. This is real; this is huge. We are seeing investors pouring in, and we are seeing a competition between the big and ambitious countries in the world, notably China and the U.S., for a strategic position in Africa. Where is Canada? Africa is a continent to which we urgently need to turn our attention when it comes to trade deals, and what a great way for us to have a positive impact on the world.

The other part of an ambitious global economic agenda and global trade agenda for Canada is thinking about where we want to position our country in the world economy. Right now we are living in a winner-take-all global economy. That applies to countries, and it applies to individuals and companies. Frankly, we are not seeing from today's government a sufficiently ambitious and forward-looking economic agenda for our country.

One of my favourite books at the moment is a book by economist Tyler Cowen called Average is Over. His central contention is that we are living in a moment when if a company is the best in a space, the top talent in a space, the top city or top country, it will succeed. However, if one is in the middle and just average, there is no future. That is a lesson that Canada desperately needs to learn and that the Canadian government needs to make as the centre of its policies.

We need to be building an overall trade agenda, an overall economic vision in which we are creating in Canada a platform for being fully engaged in the world economy, but also a platform for which we have companies headquartered in Canada doing business around the world, rather than the old branch plant economy. That is not going to work. It is not going to create enough great jobs for the 21st century. This reality of an ambitious trade agenda, an economic agenda fit for the 21st century, we believe, is going to become ever more apparent in 2014.

Already this week, the first week of our new session, we have heard a lot of assertions from the Conservative benches about Canada's economic excellence, how we are better than anyone else in the G7 and so on. That is going to be less true in 2014, as the other G7 economies, which suffered so greatly from the financial crisis and from which Canada was spared thanks to the wise bank regulation policies of the Liberal government in the 1990s, have now healed. We are going to see that in 2014. We are already seeing a very strong comeback in the U.S. and the U.K., but our relative performance is looking much worse already, and we are not even through the first month of 2014.

That says that we have coasted. We have coasted on the fact that we did not have a financial crisis and we have not put in place a powerful, forward-looking economic agenda that is going to build prosperity for the middle class in the 21st century, and that includes trade. Piecemeal agreements with small countries are a good start. However, we need to be a lot more ambitious and have a much broader vision.

When it comes to the Honduras deal in particular, my hon. colleagues in the NDP have raised the important point that this is a trade deal with a country that has a very troubled record and very troubled reality on many political labour and environmental issues. We in the Liberal Party believe that it is important for us to do this deal. Not every country in the world is perfect, and we have to trade in the global economy. We believe that having a strong trading relationship can and must be a way to be a positive force in those economies. However, it will only work if it is more than words.

In implementing this trade deal, we have to be very aware of what is going on in Honduras and to the possibility that by having a trade deal with this country and having our companies engaged with it we could be complicit in political, environmental and labour violations. We do not just sign a deal and walk away; we have to watch closely and be absolutely certain that we and Canada are behaving well.

I would like to point to the fact that rather than having a binding mechanism for labour and environmental standards in the side agreements, article 816 of the free trade agreement states:

Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies....

That puts a great onus on us to be aware, to watch and to be absolutely careful that those political, environmental and labour standards are watched and observed.

As the MP for Toronto Centre, I would like to draw particular attention to the tremendous abuse and repression that the LGBT community faces in Honduras. Even as we broaden and deepen our economic relationship with Honduras, this is something that we have to be absolutely aware of and watchful about. We have to take great care that the Canadian companies that will be working and trading there, and will have a relationship with Honduras, are not party to that and are in fact acting against it through their example.

Regarding the environmental standards, we have to be watchful about this. If, as the Labour Party believes, we are to use our trade agreements with troubled countries to be a force for moving those countries in a positive direction, we have to take incredible care. We have to take incredible care about the labour and environmental standards as well. This is how we ensure that free trade is a great deal for the Canadian middle class. Without watching those labour and environmental standards, trade with a country which is poorer than Canada, like Honduras, can be dangerous for the middle class.

Again, we cannot simply sign a piece of paper and walk away. This trade deal has potential. That is why we support it, but we have to be extremely vigilant. We must also move toward a broader vision, something much more than one single deal.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we get to questions and comments, I have a little item here that I forgot to do before the hon. member for Toronto Centre began.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, National Defence; the hon. member for Québec, Air Transportation; and the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, the Quebec Bridge.

Now we will go to questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech from across the way. There are some very mixed messages criticizing the agreement but saying that she will support it and that her party will support it.

There is a certain history of the Liberal Party not really supporting trade deals. We all remember Jean Chrétien promising to rip up the free trade agreement in 1993, and then getting elected and doing nothing of the sort. Now they have that religion around free trade.

With respect to free trade in Latin America, we have free trade deals with Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama. I was in Guatemala City recently and met with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I met with somebody who is actually operating in Costa Rica and Colombia, where we do have free trade agreements, and we talked about how they have kitchen showcases. There is a rising middle class in Latin America, and what do middle class families want? They want new kitchens. They are importing entire kitchens from plants in Winnipeg and Montreal. This is just an example of the tremendous opportunities for exports to countries like this.

When we criticize a deal because it is too small, we have to recognize that collectively Canada is really becoming a player in these markets in Latin America.

Would she explain further why she thinks trade with a small country, which on the one hand she is supporting, is not ambitious enough? One country at a time, we are building a trade arrangement in Latin America and making Canada a major player.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our central point and our central argument about economic policy for Canada is going to be that what we need is a big global vision, a vision fit for the 21st century. That is why we are supporting the agreement but saying that it is not enough and that we need to be working on bigger deals that fit in with a broader agenda.

I do, though, have to respond to the earlier comment criticizing us for supporting the member's policy. What I would say there is that the Liberal Party is moving past the rancorous major attack politics that, sadly, we have seen dominate this House for far too long. When we think a policy is a good one, we are absolutely willing to support it. That is case, absolutely, with free trade.

Since I hope you are pleased with our support for the free trade deal, I would encourage you to support our very bold and incredibly popular move on the Senate. You gentlemen could do the same thing today. You could show how broad-spirited you are and show that you too can be bipartisan.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind all hon. members to direct their comments through the Chair and not directly to other hon. members.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to welcome the hon. member to the chamber and congratulate her on being appointed her party's international trade critic.

Again, the issue here is not that Honduras is a small country and that it is poor; the issue is that Honduras is an undemocratic country with one of the worst human rights records in the world. I have already gone over the fact it has the highest murder rate of journalists, it is a major cocaine trafficking centre, it tolerates environmentally destructive policies, and New Democrats believe that Canadians want Canada to stand up for democracy and human rights on the world stage.

I heard the hon. member give a passionate speech the other night on the situation in Ukraine, another government that is repressing its citizens and acting undemocratically. My question for the hon. member is this: is it the position of the Liberal Party that Canada should be signing a free trade agreement today with the current Government of Ukraine as a way of engaging with it so that we can elevate human rights, or would she be opposed to Canada signing such an agreement with the current regime in Ukraine, which is every bit as bad as the current regime in Honduras? What is the difference?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am sorry for not addressing you. I promise to learn the rules better as the days go on.

With regard to the Ukraine parallel, obviously I have been thinking about that a lot. It is very relevant to the current situation.

I would draw the attention of my hon. colleague to the fact that the current battle in Ukraine was actually precipitated by the willingness of the European Union to sign an association agreement, which included some trade provisions, with the current Government of Ukraine, led by President Yanukovych. That current government, even before all of this, was not an angelic regime. In fact Yulia Tymoshenko, of whom we have been speaking, was imprisoned. It was a difficult, finely-balanced decision for the European Union. It was prepared at that point to sign an agreement Ukraine, and indeed was very enthusiastic about it, because the EU felt that agreement would help Ukraine, which was tentatively building a democracy, to become fully democratic.

The same applies to Honduras now. It is absolutely not perfect. That is why I raised, and we as a party raised, some significant points, and we think this agreement has to be closely monitored. This is not something that we sign and walk away from.

At this moment, we think that this deal is good for Canada and good for Honduras.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto Centre for joining us in this place and on her role as international trade critic.

I wish that her party had a better position on trade in general and on this agreement in particular. I do not see how one can turn a blind eye to the fact that we are talking about a country that has a repressive regime, four years following a military coup, with a very questionable election. It was just this past Monday that the new president was inaugurated, and all indications are that he will continue the trends of increasing gaps between the wealthy and the poor and of infringements on indigenous lands—and sadly, right now, infringements on indigenous lands by Canadian tourism interests, which under this agreement would be able to further penalize Honduras should it decide to change its tune and want to protect indigenous rights.

Does the hon. member have no qualms about this agreement with Honduras?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those points. I would just like to repeat that Honduras is absolutely far from being an angelic and perfect country, and we are fully aware of that. It is our judgment that at this moment a trading relationship would help us to help the positive forces in Honduras and would help Honduras move in the right direction,

Again, this is not something we sign and walk away from. It behooves the Government of Canada and all of us here to watch it very carefully, and if we feel there is a retrograde movement in Honduras, we will need to act.

On the point about Canadian companies and their behaviour in Honduras, that falls under encouraging corporate social responsibility, which I have already cited. This is a very strong point, and we need to take great care as representatives of the Canadian people to encourage Canadian companies to behave abroad as we would demand they behave at home.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the member for Toronto Centre.

My question relates to what the government needs to do to ensure that benefits from trade agreements accrue back to Canadians.

The fact of the matter is that while the Conservative government is absolutely great on rhetoric, it is terrible on results when it comes to trade agreements, other than signing them. It is one thing to sign them, but we need a positive balance at the end of the day for the sale of Canadian goods and services.

Here are the facts with respect to the Conservative government. Since November 2008, the government has managed 48 months of trade deficits. From January 2011 until November 2013, there were consistent trade deficits every month. The present Conservative government is the first government in 30 years that has had an annual trade deficit, so although the government signs agreements and provides great rhetoric about what it is doing, the results are not accruing back to create middle-class jobs.

My question is this: what more needs to be done to stop the government's failure in terms of trade results?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent point underscores my point and our general argument that while we are strongly in favour of free trade, it needs to be embedded in a much more ambitious, much more effective agenda for Canadian economic competitiveness in the 21st century.

The hon. member's point about the trade deficit is particularly telling and particularly unforgivable, given that this has come at a time when commodity prices are at all-time highs. As we all know, we are a commodity-exporting nation, so it is really startling that this has been happening.

What do we need to do better? As my hon. colleague said, we need to ensure that when we talk about the free trade agenda, when we talk about embedding Canada in the global economy, we are not just signing pieces of paper, getting the sound bite, and walking away. We need to be absolutely sure that the structure of those deals supports middle-class jobs back home in Canada, and, more broadly, that these deals support the creation of world-beating companies based in Canada but selling into the global marketplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments made by a few of my colleagues welcoming the hon. member for Toronto Centre. I listened intently to her maiden speech, and as the parliamentary secretary, I hope she joins the trade committee soon to participate in our discussion.

She also mentioned a book that I am going to put on my reading list, and I would put one on her reading list. On the day she was elected, November 27 of last year, our government introduced the global markets action plan. In her speech she asked with regard to Africa, “Where is Canada?” That global markets action plan not only discusses South Africa but also discusses emerging markets like Côte d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Nigeria, Mali, and Zambia. That document is the culmination of many years of strategic thought she seems desperate for. Which are her top countries in our global markets action plan that she will work with us on to create jobs for Canadians?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for the welcome, but the action plan unfortunately was not published on my election day, which was November 25, not November 27, obviously a more important date personally for me than for other members of the House. Maybe only three other members find it as significant.

I look forward to working with the hon. member on the trade committee and I promise to carefully study that report and let him know what our priority countries are. I would say, however, that it is not only about priority countries; it is about a broader vision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Prince Albert.

I would first like to add my voice to the chorus of introduction and welcome to the hon. member for Toronto Centre to the international trade file. I look forward to working with her and all of our colleagues to foster job opportunities, growth and prosperity for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak in regard to our Conservative government's commitment to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. That is why on November 5, 2013, my hon. colleague, the Minister of International Trade, signed the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

Trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy, as we have heard from previous speakers. It is even more so in what remain challenging times for the global economy. With this agreement, we can celebrate yet another milestone in the achievement of our government's vision for engagement in the Americas.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is an important part of Canada's commitment to the Americas. For Canada to remain competitive, our government is pursuing new strategic partnerships with emerging economies, especially those in the Americas.

Honduras has its own active program of bilateral and regional trade and investment agreements. Specifically, it is a signatory to active free trade agreements with eight partners, including the United States and the European Union.

Our government is helping Canadian exporters and investors compete on a level playing field. As we know, the United States, our biggest trading partner, has a trade agreement and so has a trade advantage, and the signing of this free trade agreement and its coming into effect would help level the playing field.

Economically, Canada and Honduras have a bilateral trade and investment relationship that has potential for long-term growth, as we heard earlier from our colleague across the way from Winnipeg North. We already have a healthy and growing commercial relationship with Honduras.

According to Statistics Canada, two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Honduras has been steadily growing, which is very encouraging, reaching nearly $257.2 million in 2012, an increase of almost 9.3% compared to 2011. In 2012, Canadian exports to Honduras totalled $38.6 million and Canadian imports from Honduras totalled $218.6 million, up 17.4% from 2011.

How will that growth happen and what does this free trade agreement with Honduras entail specifically for Canada? For Canadian firms and communities that depend on continued and growing business activities for their livelihood, it is an excellent question. I know from my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country that one in five jobs are based on trade.

I want to expand a little more over the next few minutes on some of the concrete benefits of this free trade agreement with Honduras. We have signed this FTA, which includes provisions for market access for goods and cross-border trade in services, investment and government procurement.

On goods market access, once the free trade agreement is in place, Honduras would immediately eliminate tariffs on almost 70% of its tariff lines in respect to goods from Canada. Most of the remaining tariffs would be phased out over periods of five to fifteen years. The range of products that would benefit from enhanced market access opportunities is wide and includes agriculture and agrifood products, forestry products, plastics, chemical products, vehicles and auto parts, and industrial machinery, just to name a few.

For Canada and Honduras, a free trade agreement would play an integral part in strengthening and growing our economic relations and lead to growing economic opportunities and prosperity in both countries.

One example is in our agriculture and agrifood sector. My colleague from Prince Albert, who will be following me, is no stranger to the agricultural file in Saskatchewan and will expand on the benefits for agriculture. However, one of the big aspects is restored access for beef and pork, which is estimated by industry experts to have a combined market value of approximately $5 million to $7 million annually with the majority of exports expected to be pork. We know that pork producers need all the help they can get. It is a difficult industry and in expanding I know they would welcome this new market as well.

This access would open up new opportunities for Canadian farmers, especially those producing pork and beef products, and thus contribute to the continued maintenance of Canada's agriculture sector as a strong driver of the Canadian economy and Canadian exports.

Under this free trade agreement, Canadian companies in diverse sectors would benefit, not only from the elimination of tariffs and from better and more secure access to service markets but also from the greater certainty provided by the investment rules contained within it. As we all know, certainty, stability and predictability are characteristics that our Canadian businesses are always requesting, especially that these trade agreements provide that stability and predictability.

Some Canadian companies have already demonstrated an interest in Honduras as an investment destination. Clothing and textile manufacturer Gildan Activewear of Montreal, for example, is the largest private-sector employer in Honduras with over 20,000 employees. That is amazing: 20,000 employees employed by a Montreal-based company, and that being the largest private-sector employer in Honduras. The Ottawa-based Canadian Bank Note Company, one of the world's foremost security printing companies, has met success in selling its electronic lottery system to Honduras. Aura Minerals of Toronto, a mid-tier gold and copper mining company, operates a gold mine in Honduras.

These companies, in order to ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of their investments abroad, are making real contributions to the communities in which they operate, thus fostering more diversified and sustainable economic co-operation and development in Honduras. That is CSR, as we heard before, corporate social responsibility in working together for Canadians and Hondurans.

Moreover, there is our government's commitment to ensuring that the responsible business practices of our firms operating abroad, particularly in the extractive sector, go beyond words. In the specific case of Honduras, for example, our government, through its development co-operation program, has provided assistance to that country under the democratic development initiative, to improve governance in the Honduran mining sector. An important part of this initiative includes the provision of technical assistance and thus local training in capacity building in their sector. We heard before that a rising tide lifts all boats. We are using Canadian technology and training to increase their capacity building so they can help grow their economy as well.

As a country of focus for Canada's development assistance, Honduras benefits from initiatives that promote sustainable economic growth, food security and access to social services. These initiatives are designed to create a sound, predictable and safe environment for its citizens and for businesses. Indeed, in its commitment to helping Canadians compete and succeed in the global economy, this government has adopted a comprehensive approach to free trade agreements that often includes provisions for investment, trade in services, intellectual property, government procurement, technical barriers to trade, and temporary entry. They are also accompanied by parallel agreements setting out obligations on the environment and labour, which are very important because our Conservative government firmly believes that trade liberalization goes hand in hand with workers' rights and sound environmental practices.

Now more than ever, Honduras, a small and growing market for Canada, can be a valuable trade and investment partner for Canada. Going forward, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is a firm commitment from both sides to grow and expand this important strategic relationship. It is also emblematic of our government's confidence in and support of continued democratic, social and economic development in Honduras. As we have heard from previous speakers, this is consistent with Canada's objective of building dynamic economies and promoting responsible investment and open markets to create new opportunities in jobs in the Americas. The twin engines of growth, investment and trade, are the keys to sustainable prosperity; so investment and trade are the two pillars and foundation we need to help grow our economy.

As part of our Conservative government's ambitious pro-trade plan for jobs and growth, we have been proactive in fostering increased integration of Canadian firms and global value chains, and engaging with a greater number and wider variety of international trade and investment partners. We have been doing so to foster Canada's competitiveness in the global market and to ensure that our firms are on a level playing field in as many arenas as possible, so that they and the communities from which they stem, which we all represent, can stay competitive, innovative and prosperous.

In closing, I therefore urge all hon. members of the House to support this free trade agreement as part of our collective efforts to help Canada thrive in the world economy.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation, and he seemed to think, in using the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats”, that if there is prosperity in Honduras, this is going to make a difference to the lives of everybody in Honduras. We know the regime is unequal and repressive and subject to human rights abuses.

One of the witnesses before the Standing Committee on International Trade, representing the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, expressed the concern that Canada has validated the existing regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach in signing a free trade agreement with Honduras in spite of its human rights record. We know there are no mechanisms in this legislation, that we are aware of, that would have any effect on enforcing or doing any of the things that the member suggests would result from this agreement.

Why should Canadians be involved in a situation of actually validating a regime that is guilty of such egregious action against its own citizens and the whole human rights standards of the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. John's East would obviously know about rising boats, being from the coast, and would appreciate sharing the analogy.

It is an analogy that means we need to look at helping others who need a hand up. I believe in providing hope for others. The analogy we use in that respect is believing in engagement rather than isolation. If one looks around and sees other people wanting to better themselves and their country, I believe it is our responsibility as Canadians, as humans, to help others.

I have had the opportunity to meet with the Honduran ambassador to Canada on several occasions. I know there has been positive movement. Our colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign Affairs and Consular was there last week, working with the Hondurans and trying to help initiate positive movement.

I would just like to close with the fact that in 2008 when I was on the trade committee we went to Colombia and it was a similar situation. We met with people in the shanty town there. They were basically destitute. Connie Watson, who was a reporter for CBC, asked at the time if a free trade deal would help the situation. The answer was yes. They said that investment would be welcome, especially on roads, schools and jobs and for these displaced people, 40% of whom cannot find work in their city. There is a similar situation in Honduras. That is why we are supportive.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is worth repeating that Canada and Honduras currently do have a merchandise trade. It is getting to well over $200 million on an annual basis. We see entering into a freer trade type of agreement with other nations as a positive thing for Canada as a whole.

I want to pick up on something that I think many Canadians are growing more and more concerned with, and that is the overall trade, the bigger picture here in Canada and the impact it is actually having on the middle class.

The member would no doubt be aware that, when the Conservatives took office, there was a fairly significant overall trade surplus. That trade surplus has been lost. We have now had a significant trade deficit for a number of years.

I am wondering if the member might want to provide comment in terms of how he feels these trade agreements are going to help. Should the government be focusing additional attention on the matter in which they have really not been successful, and that is increasing overall trade so that Canada would have a trade surplus, which would generate literally thousands of additional jobs here at home in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, trade has expanded, as the member mentioned. It has steadily grown, reaching nearly $257 million in 2012, an increase of almost 9.3%. It is great in that respect.

Our exports to Honduras continue to grow, up by 17.4%. Positive numbers include agriculture, machinery, wood and a variety of products that we are exporting; that provides jobs for Canadians.

There are almost 40 trade agreements that we have signed since 2006. I have been on the trade committee for almost eight years now. I believe middle-class Canadians are in the best position, as we have had more than 160 different tax cuts and the GST went from 7% to 6% to 5%, saving the average family of four approximately $3,400.

The fact is that with the increase in growth, we can have a growing economy, which allows the opportunity to lower taxes and provide more jobs, growth and prosperity for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I see there is an awful lot of interest in questions and comments. I would just reiterate to hon. members that during such times we try to get members to limit their question time, and similarly the response time by the hon. member who had been speaking, so that we get more people participating.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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

As we know, our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. The creation of jobs and economic growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, and their families continues to be our focus. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership.

In 2012, Canada exported almost $39 million worth of merchandise to Honduras. Trade with Honduras creates jobs and economic growth for Canadians. This is a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that would increase trade and investment between our two countries. Canadian exporters have an excellent opportunity to expand as Honduras markets grow, with GDP growth reaching almost 4% in 2012. The government is steadfastly committed to promote free trade in order to support economic growth and to create jobs for Canadians. To this end, our government has embarked on one of the most ambitious pro-trade plans in Canadian history, and this agreement is an important part of that plan.

Today I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the new export opportunities this trade agreement would provide to Canadian producers, processors, and manufacturers. Once implemented, the agreement would improve market access for Canadian goods into Honduran markets by lowering trade barriers, such as tariffs, which would increase Canadian exports to Honduras. Soon Canadian businesses will enjoy the same access to Honduran markets as those in the United States and the EU, which already have trade agreements with Honduras in force.

This agreement would help level the playing field and maintain the competitiveness of Canadian companies doing business in Honduras. Today Canadian exports to Honduras face an average tariff of 10.5% for agricultural products and 4.5% for non-agricultural products. Once the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is in place, Honduras would immediately eliminate tariffs on almost 70% of its tariff lines covering goods imported from Canada, with most of the remaining tariffs to be phased out over a period of five to 15 years. The elimination of the vast majority of Honduran tariffs would benefit numerous sectors of the Canadian economy across many regions of the country.

Let us look at the impact of the agreement in detail. One sector that would see the benefits is the agriculture and agrifood sector. In 2012, Canada exported close to $3.3 million worth of agricultural products to Honduras. Canada's agriculture and agribusiness sector is innovative and competitive and is becoming increasingly focused on international markets. Trade agreements like this one help create new opportunities for Canadian producers and processors to export their high-quality products around the world.

The elimination of Honduran tariffs on agricultural products under this agreement would help Canadian exporters gain new market access in Honduras. This would mean more jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians. Since the range of products produced throughout Canada that would benefit from this agreement is so wide, allow me to mention just a few examples.

This agreement would eliminate the Honduran tariffs of up to 15% on pork. This is outstanding news for our hard-working farmers in Ontario and Quebec. Likewise, the removal of tariffs of 15% on beef would benefit producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, while the elimination of tariffs of up to 15% on processed potato products, including french fries, would bring positive impacts to growers and processors in Manitoba, New Brunswick, and even Prince Edward Island. Saskatchewan producers also stand to gain from this agreement with the elimination of the 5% tariff on linseed oil.

Companies producing plastics and chemical products are employing Canadians throughout our country. Companies located in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan are already exporting Canadian products to Honduras. In 2012, Canada exported $9.1 million worth of chemical products and almost $937,000 of plastics to Honduras. With tariffs of up to 15%, it is not hard to imagine how the complete elimination of Honduran tariffs in these two sectors could allow Canadian companies to enjoy enhanced market opportunities to export a diverse range of products.

Canada is a renowned worldwide manufacturer of high-quality wood and pulp and paper products. Our country is blessed with vast and abundant forest land, and our companies and workers possess the expertise to transform the natural resource into value-added products. In 2012, Canada exported $1.2 million worth of forestry products to Honduras. Again, considering that Honduras maintains a tariff as high as 15% for these products, Canada's past exports in this sector are only the tip of the iceberg of what could possibly be exported in the future. The elimination of all tariffs by Honduras in this sector would unleash important gains for Canadian forestry products.

Other products that would benefit from this agreement are vehicles and auto parts. Manufacturers in Ontario, for instance, could seize new export opportunities that would be created by this agreement.

Canada has exported products such as specialty vehicles, including tractors, buses, and construction vehicles, and automotive parts to Honduras. While some automotive parts and certain types of vehicles already enjoy duty-free access to Honduras, there are tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% that are applicable. With this agreement, they would be completely eliminated.

Canada has one of the world's most valuable commercial fishing industries. While Canada's exports of fish and seafood to Honduras have historically been low, Honduras' high tariffs of up to 15% for these products are certainly a factor that has contributed to this situation. The complete elimination of Honduran tariffs under the agreement would allow Canadian fishers and fish and seafood processors from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, to fully capture the export opportunities the Honduran market has to offer.

This agreement is about creating future opportunities for our exporters and producers to grow and diversify their markets. Our government is creating the right conditions for this to happen. Knowing the ingenuity of our companies and how innovative and hard working Canadians are, we know that removing trade barriers, including tariffs, stimulates job creation and achieves economic prosperity for all Canadians.

Allow me to touch briefly on the various sectors that comprise our advanced manufacturing industry. I am talking here of sectors as varied as aerospace, industrial machinery, and information and communication technology. Again, Honduras applies a high 15% tariff on imports of products in these sectors, which can certainly hinder Canadian competitiveness in that market.

The agreement would completely eliminate all Honduran tariffs on these products, which would allow Canadian companies to take advantage of these new possibilities. Manufacturers in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec can expect to enjoy these positive benefits.

There are many more examples I could cite, but the fundamental point is that comprehensive tariff elimination under the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would create the potential for increased Canadian exports to Honduras. This would mean more jobs for Canadian families and more prosperity for our economy, and it would benefit every part of our country.

Throughout the negotiations for this agreement, government officials consulted with a wide range of stakeholders, and the message was clear: Canadian companies and exporters look forward to the implementation of this agreement and the benefits it will create.

Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that free trade brings to our country, and that is why Canadian companies support our government's initiative to forge new trade opportunities around the world. Our businesses deserve the right to compete on a level playing field with their U.S. and E.U. counterparts as they market around the world.

I had the opportunity to be in Honduras. I went to see a manufacturing company called Gildan, which manufactures clothing in Honduras. It is a Canadian company that has done very well there. As we toured the plant and facilities there, we could see that it was a first-class, very well-run facility that Canadians could be proud of. It was something we might see in downtown Montreal, downtown Toronto, or any other place in Canada, because the company was allowed to use the codes and the regulations used in Canada.

The workers from Honduras would travel for miles to apply for work there, because it provided economic benefits for them and their families. We talked to some of the employees. They really understood the importance of trade and what it meant to them personally and to their families. It allowed them to provide a good quality of life and a good income for their families. Those are some of the benefits we will see in Honduras as we do more trade with that country.

I also have beef producers in my riding who bring in workers from Honduras. They are some of the best workers they have.

As we look at the connections between Canada and Honduras and Canada and other Central American countries, they are getting closer all the time, and we are learning from each other. They are learning from us what is acceptable and what is not acceptable as far as human rights and things like that, and we are learning about their needs and requirements and how we could help them become better individuals. Not only that, but their country could become one of the more outstanding countries. Somewhere down the road, they can look back at their history and say that they were there, and look where they are today. Canada can help them get there.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time to speak on this agreement, and I look forward to the questions.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not share that vision. I find it amusing that two of my colleagues opposite mentioned Gildan.

Gildan does not export pork or potatoes. It exports jobs. Gildan was one of the only profitable textile factories in Montreal that was still successful. Now, it is going to become a mere distribution centre with everything being made in countries such as Honduras.

I doubt that the astronomical salaries those companies pay in Honduras are more than a couple of dollars a day because that is the international standard.

I have a feeling that there is still a chance that we will lose and export jobs. International aid, now disguised as something else, will serve to repair the damage caused by mining companies.

In any case, I am wondering if the member thinks it is profitable to export jobs to Honduras.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the NDP would not agree with this side of the House. It has never supported any trade deals we have put forward in the past, whether it was the Conservative government or even the one or two deals the Liberal government entertained. That does not surprise me. New Democrats always do the Chicken Little thing. They say we are going to lose jobs. We are going to lose capacity in our economy. People are going to lose their jobs, and we are all going to sit at home and have nothing to do.

When we look at FTAs we have done in the past, NAFTA for example, and the benefits that have come to this country because of agreements such as that, it is amazing. For the NDP members not to recognize those benefits is actually really crazy, because it is foolish to not accept those facts. Those facts are clear. They are black and white. Every Canadian family benefits from agreements such as this.

The member talks about Gildan and about exporting jobs. Canadian companies need to have opportunities to take advantage of situations around the world and look at them in a comprehensive manner. If they find a situation where they cannot manufacture here, they may have to make a change. I would rather see that change go to countries in Central and South America, where they have the same values we have here in Canada, than go to other regions of the world where they actually have different values.

The situation in Central and South America is a part of the world where we can really help. They can become better people, and we can help them to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my province of Manitoba has industries, such as the aerospace industry and the potato industry. Members made reference to those two industries. No doubt there will be opportunities for some provinces more than there will be for other provinces.

To what degree does the government have discussions with other provinces prior to signing onto an agreement? For example, would the Province of Manitoba be endorsing this trade agreement? Does the government have any sense of what sort of provincial support it has for this agreement?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, there is a very comprehensive consulting process that we used. The provinces are consulted. Stakeholders are consulted. A variety of different inputs go into the development of agreements such as this. We have been very extensively involved in consulting with all players in regard to this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon. colleague from Prince Albert to the trade committee.

I appreciate the fact that we have a rules-based, stable, predictable agreement. One of the keys to helping a community and a country grow is development.

I know that tourism is a big economic pillar and driver for Honduras. I have a constituent who has been going there for the last few years. In July he is going back there to get married, because he loves it so much.

Would my hon. colleague share with the House what Canada is doing as far as investment and security and the development of capacity-building? My rotary president just left this week to volunteer in an orphanage. Maybe the member could expand a little bit as far as some of those partnerships that Canada and Honduras are working on.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to learning as I go at the international trade committee, and I look at working at that committee wholeheartedly. It is very important to Canada, and I am glad to be a part of it.

The member raises some good points. We need to highlight the fact that Canada has been actively working in Honduras in helping people achieve improvements in human rights, for example. There are numerous examples of exactly what Canada has been doing in that country that he could refer to.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques to resume debate, I must inform him that I will have to interrupt him at 5:30 p.m., at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with the next sitting at which we discuss this bill.

We are in the House to discuss a bill concerning another free trade agreement, this time with Honduras.

Regardless of the rhetoric that is flying back and forth between both sides of the House regarding trade agreements, I have many friends on the other side of the House—which is not that surprising—who are very familiar with my point of view as an economist. I support free trade agreements in general as well as the principle of trade agreements between countries. However, there must be conditions in place.

We in the official opposition examine every trade agreement and free trade agreement based on three considerations, and I should even say that we examine them under three lenses, to determine whether we can support them or not.

The first lens allows us to determine whether the trade partner that Canada is seeking under such an agreement respects fundamental principles such as human rights, democracy, environmental rights and workers' rights. If that is not the case, we must determine whether the partner in question wants to achieve those objectives. The second lens helps us determine whether the potential partner's economy has any strategic value for Canada. The third lens allows us to examine the terms and conditions of the agreement itself.

When we examined the trade agreement with Europe, for example, it was quite clear that the first two conditions are being met. First of all, Europe is a very strategic partner. Furthermore, there is no doubt that Europe recognizes democratic rights and has very high standards in terms of the environment and workers' rights. The reason we are withholding judgment is that we need to determine whether the terms of the agreement itself are satisfactory. That is why we want to see the text of the agreement.

In the case of the agreement with Honduras that we are discussing right now, it is quite clear that this trade agreement does not measure up to the lenses we use when examining agreements, particularly concerning the issue of democratic rights and human rights.

We can have a discussion to determine whether Honduras is a key strategic partner. As my colleague mentioned, Honduras is currently Canada's 104th largest trade partner. There is indeed economic potential that can be developed. However, compared to other trade partners we might pursue, this is on the whole a minor agreement.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway, our international trade critic, raised some interesting points in committee. On December 10, I attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. That meeting was extremely important for determining the future of agreements with countries with questionable track records on democratic rights and human rights. The government seems to be completely disregarding that aspect.

What is more, to hear the speech by the hon. Liberal member for Toronto Centre—whom I wish to welcome to the House of Commons—I think that the Liberals also do not fully understand the extent to which we can leverage trade negotiations to make progress on the issue of human rights, environmental rights, and respecting labour rights. The hon. member mentioned, in a sentence or a paragraph, that it was very important to ensure that this is not just an agreement on paper and that we must do a follow-up to see if indeed it has contributed to advancing democratic rights. She already supports the agreement.

The committee meeting on December 10, 2013, was very enlightening, because not too long ago, we signed an agreement with another country with a very similar track record: Colombia. Annual reports were produced so we could see the progress achieved by Colombia, in particular with respect to environmental rights, but also with respect to human rights and the protection of workers' rights. On a number of occasions, we raised the issue that unionists and people who advocate for better working conditions were regularly threatened or even killed.

The reports are produced, but they cannot be studied in committee, because when we point out that we need to study reports that appear to be incomplete and often raise questions, the government refuses. We print the reports, but we never get a chance to look at the real effects that trade agreements with countries such as Colombia have had on human rights and workers' rights.

That is why I am surprised to see the Liberal Party rushing to support the free trade agreement with Honduras. It is saying that this could help advance human rights. However, there are no mechanisms there that would allow us to see how these agreements affect progress.

We think that is a reason to strongly oppose such an agreement. We have not opposed the agreement with Europe; we have reserved judgment. However, it is clear that the government did not use its power during the negotiations on an agreement like this one.

Honduras obviously wants Canada to be its trade partner, since Canada is an ideal trade partner. However, we are missing a golden opportunity if we do not use the negotiations as leverage to help the country move in the right direction. At the end of the day, the government is considering only the economic aspect, without taking into account the other aspects that directly affect the people of Honduras.

If we are talking about human rights, we need to talk about the overall situation in Honduras. The World Bank makes regular reports on the economy, among other things. These reports indicate that the Honduran economy is growing significantly. In 2010, the economy grew by 3.7% and the projection for 2013 was 3.5%. The economy is therefore experiencing significant growth. Nevertheless, there are many other problems that continue to plague primarily the local population, as well as investors.

I would like to quote what the World Bank had to say on this issue:

High levels of crime and violence are the preeminent development challenge for Honduras, as it is the country with the highest homicide rate in the world. Between 2005 and 2011, the homicide rate in Honduras more than doubled from 37 to 91.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. Most violence is concentrated in urban areas [...] and most victims of homicides are males [...], particularly those between 15 and 34 years of age....

The security of the person is therefore a thorny issue in Honduras. While we are on the subject, we must also consider the environment in which Canadian companies considering doing business in Honduras and businesses associated with Canadian businesses in that country will operate.

The costs are enormous. According to the World Bank, the annual economic costs of violent crime are estimated to be about 10% of Honduras' GDP, which is equivalent to nearly $900 million U.S. per year. The economic argument may therefore be valid. However, we have some serious doubts about Canada's investment in and involvement with Honduras.

It is clear that human rights and the economy are related. Louise Arbour, president of the International Crisis Group, has said that not only is Honduras the world's murder capital, but its justice and law enforcement systems are so weak that most crimes are never prosecuted. Imagine what that would mean for the economic issues on which we may have differing positions.

My colleague spoke very eloquently about human rights. Unfortunately, I will not have time to give many examples. However, I would like to quote what he had to say about the relationship between economic rights, economic agreements and the possibility of moving forward with free trade.

I really liked the speech he gave before the Standing Committee on Finance, in which he quoted Nelson Mandela. In South Africa, a trade action known as an embargo played an important role in ending apartheid. My colleague referred to an interview held with Nelson Mandela when he came to Canada in the 1990s.

I would like to quote what my colleague said before the Standing Committee on Finance with regard to a question Mr. Mandela was asked about the relationship between globalization, free trade and human rights. My colleague said: “[Mr. Mandela] pointed out that human rights and labour rights are inseparable from commercial and trading rights.”

In my opinion, the Standing Committee on International Trade and Parliament felt the same way and therefore included reporting requirements in the free trade agreement with Colombia. The free trade agreement with Honduras could contain reporting requirements as well. If Parliament and the parties in power or in opposition refuse to follow through and consider the fundamental implications for human rights before signing agreements with countries such as Honduras or Colombia, we as parliamentarians are failing to do our part to promote democracy and human rights in the world.

We are calling on the government to account for the absence of this negotiation tool and are asking the same of the Liberal Party, which seems content to blindly support the government in any trade agreement it likes, regardless of the consequences. Those of us on this side of the House will shoulder our responsibilities and will push for answers from the government, since this will likely go to committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 428 under private members' business in the name of the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Call in the members.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, 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, not more than one further sitting day after the day on which this order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In accordance with Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I will ask members to keep their questions to around a minute and the responses from the minister to a similar length of time.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished. Just minutes ago, the government said it would not force a vote. Then, again, it flipped. The minister—maybe the House leader was not aware; maybe they do not talk, but I suspect they do—said the government would not force a vote.

Here we are, yet again, with time allocation. Why? It is not about trying to get legislation through; it is about trying to actually muzzle debate on the Chief Electoral Officer.

The current government does not even care anymore. In fact, the Conservatives are all laughing. There are smiles, right across the bench, because they think how great it is that they are going to muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer—and to do what? To present his evidence on his concerns about what? About our democracy.

We have the House leader working with the front bench, including the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who pretended to think that we were going to buy his argument that he would not force the vote, which the government then did. That is what it did. Why? So that the government could shut down debate on the Chief Electoral Officer. And they smile. They think this is great.

My question for our friend across the way is, is this what we are going to do in our democracy from here on with the current government? Is it going to continue with time allocation on every bill so that not only are we going to shut down debate on important bills but also muzzle people from bearing witness in committee?

Further, my final question is, can we trust the current government on its word when we make a deal with it to have people present at committee? I guess not. What is this—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

The hon. government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I gather when their poll numbers start plummeting, they see conspiracies everywhere with a desperate effort to seek blame somewhere else than in themselves for the fact they are lacking any appeal among the public.

As the members opposite know, the only time of day I can make this motion is now, when orders of the day are called.

As for the committee, it can schedule its affairs whenever it wants. If it wishes to hear the witness for longer, it can organize its affairs to do that. It has full flexibility.

If the members opposite did not want the last vote to occur, which disrupted the committee business, they could very easily have allowed the motion to pass on division. They chose not to allow the motion to pass on division.

The greatest irony at all is that these are the people who are saying, “Why won't you let Marc Mayrand be heard?”. For a week and a half, the member for Hamilton Centre filibustered that committee, keeping that person from being heard.

The government was trying to get that witness before committee. The opposition were proud of how they spent a week and a half keeping him from appearing. Now he can appear. The committee can arrange its affairs however it wants.

However, for the member opposite to suddenly say that it is our fault that the witness was blocked for a week and a half is preposterous.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the government House leader's comments regarding the issue of division.

What we know for sure is that at the last opportunity we indicated, within the Liberal Party, that we would like to see it on division. We opposed that time allocation. We oppose this time allocation. We want to be able to see it on division, primarily because we, within the Liberal Party, recognize that it is critically important to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to make his presentation.

On Tuesday night, there was a commitment, an agreement made between myself, the NDP, and the Conservatives, that would have guaranteed that 90 minutes.

There is a way we can do this. We have a good sense of what the outcome is going to be after the vote of the next time allocation.

May I suggest that we do a vote on division. The Liberals will be in opposition to that vote. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, and maybe it would be inappropriate to ask this of you, that you canvass the House after I sit down, to see if there is unanimous consent of the House that would allow us to stop asking questions right now and go right to the vote of the time allocation on division so that we could go to the committee and have the Chief Electoral Officer make his presentation.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask for that unanimous consent so that we can get to committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Winnipeg North is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to, in effect, abbreviate the debate and move directly to a vote that would go on division. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent for the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is no unanimous consent.

[An hon. member]

Who said no?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I heard noes from both sides of the House. I will put it again. Does the member for Winnipeg North have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I heard at least four noes from this side of the House. I think the issue has been determined.

Does the Minister of International Trade wish to respond to the member for Winnipeg North? The minister has the floor.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it should surprise no one in the House; in fact, it should surprise no Canadian, that the opposition would be opposing this government's trade and investment agenda.

I am going to take the opposition parties down memory lane, back to when we were negotiating the Colombia free trade agreement. When that agreement was tabled in the House, it took two and a half years to get it passed in the House. Why? It was because the opposition parties were filibustering the bill. Those members do not understand trade. They do not like trade. They have opposed virtually every trade agreement Canada has ever signed. For them to now get up in the House and suggest that they want a robust debate on trade belies their underlying anti-trade ideology.

Let me talk about the Honduras trade agreement that is the subject of this time allocation motion. There has already been debate on this. These negotiations started back in 2000, close to 15 years ago. In 2009, we focused on Honduras. It has taken this long to get this agreement into the House. There already has been robust debate. Let us get on with opening up new trade opportunities all around the world.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is simply outrageous. The Minister of International Trade is defending the government's move to curtail debate on a Canada–Honduras trade deal after half a day of debate.

The government talks about opening negotiations in 2009, which is ironic because in 2009 a military coup in Honduras overthrew the government. Every government in the world recognized that the government was illegitimate except the Conservatives, who rushed to sign a trade agreement. They rushed to sign a trade agreement with an undemocratic government that is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world and the most dangerous place for journalists on the planet. There is no freedom of expression in Honduras. There is no freedom of association. Seventy-nine per cent of all cocaine shipments in South America land in Honduras.

The Conservative government is afraid to debate those facts in the House because it knows that the Canadian people would not support an agreement with a country like Honduras that is a human rights—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. I would remind all members on both sides of the House to limit their questions and answers to one minute.

The hon. Minister of International Trade.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only part of that tirade that I would agree with is that Honduras is coming out of a very troubled past. Canada's record on the international stage is to provide countries like Honduras with a hand up to help them, to walk side-by-side with them, to help them escape from a troubled past.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

But it is all true.

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

I suggest the member read the human rights reports.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we can hear NDP members heckling in the House. They do not care about Honduras. They do not care about the poor in Honduras. They are so ideologically stuck in a straitjacket that they just cannot escape it. That is why they have opposed virtually every trade agreement Canada has ever signed. In fact, for every new trade agreement they come up with a new excuse not to support it.

In 2009, Honduras expressed an interest in negotiating a trade agreement with Canada, separate and apart from the Central American Four. In good faith, we moved forward with those negotiations and they were concluded.

In November of this past year, over four months ago, that agreement was tabled in the House, and the NDP has had ample opportunity to review it. There has been lots of discussion in public about this agreement. We have had debate in the House and, in fact, we are debating it right now.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the creation of jobs and economic growth for the benefit of Canadian businesses, workers, and families continues to be the focus of our Conservative government. That is why we will continue to deliver pro-export leadership. I find the way hard-working Canadian families are being portrayed by the NDP very unfortunate as they vote against each free trade agreement.

Could the Minister of International Trade please explain how the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would benefit Canadian workers and their families?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, ever since being elected in 2006, our government has focused on the economy and on building prosperity in Canada. A very significant part of that effort is to use trade and investment to drive economic growth in Canada. We do so by opening up new opportunities around the world through free trade agreements, through bilateral investment treaties, and through air transport agreements.

What we do with our trading partners is engage with them. Some of those partners are coming out of very troubled pasts, so what do we do? There are two choices. We can either isolate countries such as Honduras, the way the NDP wants to do, and treat them like pariahs when they ask for help, or we can engage with them. Our choice has been to engage, walk with them through very difficult times, and help them improve their prosperity.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I arrived here on Monday I did not have voice mail messages about the trade deal with Honduras. I did not have emails. I was not overwhelmed. I did not call my staff together and say, “Quick, put together a briefing, because this is going to be the number one issue that we have to deal with this week.”

What I did have were phone calls and emails about the unfair elections act, to be frank, and a lot about Canada Post. Those were the issues I thought we would be talking about this week. Those are the issues I thought were the most pressing and urgent, the ones I needed to read up on and get up to speed on with everything, not this trade deal.

I cannot believe how transparent the actions of the government are today in trying to disrupt the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, at committee. I know the minister will say, “What committee does is what committee does; I have no control”, but we know that it is all organized centrally. It is like the Borg: “I am Borg, I am Conservative.”

Will the minister agree to bring back the Chief Electoral Officer when we return from our riding weeks to provide testimony again at committee?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. The motion before us is a time allocation motion relating to the Honduras free trade agreement. That is what I am going to focus on.

However, it is not surprising that the NDP does not consider Honduras important. In fact, it does not consider the Americas to be important. Let me quote a statement made by my friend across the way, the member for Vancouver Kingsway. As he was describing the importance of the Americas to Canada, he said that countries like Colombia, Honduras, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, and Panama are ...“not key economies with any kind of strategic value for Canada.”

The Americas are of no importance to the NDP because it does not understand trade. In fact, the combined economies of those countries I mentioned are equivalent to almost a trillion dollars worth of GDP. Does Canada want to engage with that region of the world? Of course we do. We want to engage with Honduras, and with Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, Peru, and Colombia. Those are trading partners we do want to engage with.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the international trade champion.

He accused us of suggesting that Honduras is not much of a priority, but I think he sees Japan as even less of a priority. I travelled to Japan, where I met serious business people who wanted to invest in our resources because we have energy and workers. Japan has capital. Japan is the best partner we can possibly imagine.

While I was there, I found out that the Canadian government had shut down consular services without notifying the Japanese. That is absolutely ridiculous. Now it is ready to bend over backward to sign an agreement with Honduras. I would like the minister to explain his priorities, because I think Japan is more important than Honduras.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right that Japan is very important, which is why we started trade negotiations directly with Japan on a bilateral basis. In fact, we are moving toward a fifth round of negotiations, which is something he may not have been aware of.

Yes, Japan is very important, but Honduras is also important because we have an opportunity in Honduras, a country that is moving out of a very troubled past, to share our best practices on issues such as democracy, human rights, the environment, and labour. These are areas where Canada has great strength. If we want to see one of the poorest countries in the world move out of poverty and have hope for the future, it is going to require engagement by countries like Canada.

Yes, we are going to do the deals with Japan and we are going to do deals with Korea and we are involved in the trans-Pacific partnership. However, I guarantee members that the NDP will be opposing those very same trade agreements when they come up for debate here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for being here.

I have a quick question for him. I am trying to reconcile his earlier statements in his first intervention, when he said that the Honduras negotiations for this free trade agreement took four or five years. He can correct me if I am wrong, but now, all of a sudden, we can debate it in a day or two or whatever time has been allocated to us.

It took forever to negotiate an agreement with a country to which we export only $38 million of goods a year. There seem to be all kinds of complexities involved in the deal if it took so long to negotiate. Meanwhile, we cannot even get the time to debate those complexities.

Can the minister clear up those contradicting statements?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason we have only $38 million worth of exports to Honduras is that we do not have an open market there and we do not have a free trade agreement with Honduras.

In fact, I would remind the member that the European Union has had a free trade agreement in place for years. The United States has a trade agreement with Honduras. Mexico has a trade agreement in place with Honduras. Chile has an agreement in place with Honduras. Why is that? It is because they have understood that Honduras needs our help.

The countries I mentioned all have strong, robust human rights regimes and strong democracies. They understand that Hondurans needs someone to walk beside them to share best practices, to move them into the 21st century, and to welcome them into the family of nations that respect human rights. That is the key role that Canada can play here.

We are absolutely committed to bringing this trade agreement into force. We have provided lots of opportunities since November for the opposition parties to view this agreement here in the House. It was tabled back in November. We make no apologies for that. We want to get this deal done.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today the government is moving yet another time allocation motion.

We have made it quite clear in the House that we do not want our democracy to be undermined in this way. Members of all parties in the House and Canadians watching our debates have the right to be informed about what is going on. This is unacceptable.

My colleague was talking about democracy in these countries, particularly in Honduras. He praised the democratic systems in those different countries, but he would be better off ensuring that democracy is as strong within our government here in Canada. That is not the case today.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would again remind the member of the NDP's appalling record on trade. NDP members have opposed virtually every trade agreement Canada has ever signed, so it should not be surprising to see the NDP members stand up in this House today and oppose the Honduras trade agreement, just as we fully expect them to oppose the EU trade agreement and an agreement with Japan or Korea. They are ideologically opposed to trade, and I would remind them of their terrible record.

When we were negotiating a trade agreement with Colombia, what did NDP members do? For two and a half years they stalled, obstructed, and filibustered. They had no intention of having a robust debate on the merits of the deal. They are simply stuck in an ideological rut and they cannot get out of it.

On this side of the House, we support trade and we support investment with our key trading partners abroad.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his work on this particular file. Last week we had a meeting of parliamentarians—a reception, actually—based on our efforts to establish further ties with the Americas. It seemed that all parties want to see further ties with that part of the world.

We all know that free trade is the new stimulus. It does not cost the taxpayers. It allows Canadian businesses to compete. If we do not have these kinds of trade deals, places in my riding such as Nor-Mar Industries, UEE, and Gorman Brothers will not be able to compete on an even playing field.

Will the minister please comment and inform the House on Canada's strategy on the Americas?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our strategy since 2006 has been to use trade and investment to drive economic growth at home. That means opening up new markets around the world for Canadian investors and Canadian exporters.

Let me talk again about Honduras, because that is the subject of this motion. It is really unfortunate that the NDP does not want to debate the merits of the bill. I will.

There is a Canadian company that is very active in Honduras. The name of the company is Gildan. It employs 20,000 Hondurans in manufacturing textiles and apparel.

Gildan has won numerous awards for corporate social responsibility and sustainability. This company has asked our government to please sign a trade agreement with Honduras because it will allow that company to increase trade between Honduras and Canada and provide it with opportunities to employ even more Hondurans.

I had the opportunity to be on the ground in Honduras to visit one of Gildan's plans. It is clean and organized and has modern machinery. The company treats its employees well. That is the Canada brand going forward. That is why we want to open up new markets all around the world for Canadians exporters and investors.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is the truth. The Conservatives have brought in two motions today to do one thing: to disrupt the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer. This is after the Conservatives gave their word to the parties in this House that we would end a filibuster in order to have that testimony on Thursday. That is the only reason this is happening. It is the Conservatives breaking their word.

Let us talk about Honduras a bit. The Economist calls Honduras a hybrid regime, rather than its previous designation as a flawed democracy. It is getting worse. Transparency International ranks Honduras as the most corrupt country in Central America, calling it a major drug smuggling centre. The U.S. State Department estimates that 79% of all cocaine shipments originating in South America land in Honduras.

In 2013 there have been, on average, 10 massacres per month. Massacres are defined as the murder of three or more people at a time for political reasons. Honduras is the murder capital of the world, with 81 murders per 100,000 people, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports as well that it is the most dangerous place in the word for journalists.

If the Conservatives have the courage to look at the facts, why are they cutting off debate in this House after half a day of debate? If this deal is so good, if Honduras is such a great partner, if this is so important to the Canadian economy, then let us have at least three or four sessions so that Canadians can debate the facts. However, the Conservatives do not have—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. Order, please. The member will take his seat.

The hon. Minister of International Trade.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only part I agree with is that yes, Honduras is a challenging place for security. It is a challenging place for human rights. We acknowledge that, but these same arguments were made by the NDP when we negotiated a trade agreement with Colombia. It was the very same argument, and we have seen significant improvements in security in Colombia. We have seen significant increases in support for human rights in Colombia.

What is interesting about Honduras is that it is the largest source of development support from Canada. We are very interested in helping Honduras escape its troubled past. We are helping it on the security side. We are helping it on the justice side and the police enforcement side. We are helping it on the democratic capacity side. We want to make sure that as we open up new trade opportunities for Hondurans to improve their prosperity, move more people out of poverty, and give people hope, we also address those other areas that the member has just raised.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, what we are debating is whether the time allocated for debate on the bill to implement the trade treaty with Honduras should be limited. We have the Conservative Party supporting cutting off debate and the opposition parties opposing it.

I just heard a Conservative member ask a question, because he wanted more information. What I heard was a Conservative member asking the minister for more information about trade with Honduras. I heard a minister who had plenty to say in his answer. He had interesting answers. Obviously he has a lot that he feels needs to be said. I do not quite understand how that is consistent with the Conservative Party's desire to cut off debate on this legislation.

I also heard the minister talk about how all these other countries had treaties with Honduras and that Canada was behind. Therefore, I have a question—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is rising on a point of order.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friend from Kingston and the Islands. The timing of this point of order is required.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Did you just cut off his debate?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I just began speaking, if you don't mind.

The point of order the New Democrats are raising today is necessitated by the actions of the government, and it is incumbent upon us to raise it at this time. We are under a prescription right now in which time has been allocated to a bill before the government. The government has presented a time allocation motion. There is a duty to consult that exists within our Standing Orders whenever the government seeks to invoke such a clause.

The reason this Standing Order rule and practice in the House exists is that time allocation is a serious measure. It is the most serious measure a government can take on any piece of legislation, because it limits all members from all parties in their ability to debate and discuss any legislation before the House. That is what this is presenting.

The point of order we seek to raise is that from time to time objections have been raised, by Conservatives when they were in opposition and by New Democrats as well, as to the circumstances in which agreement was reached or the nature of the consultations undertaken by the government. As with closure, the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary power or authority to refuse a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed.

The Speaker has stated that the wording of the rule does not define the nature of the consultations that are to be held by the minister and representatives of the other parties. The Speaker has further ruled that the Chair has no authority to determine whether consultations took place nor what constitutes consultation among the representatives of the parties. All of that is correct, because it is not the Speaker's purview to witness, as the Speaker has observed, the consultations that go on among the parties in advance of a decision to be taken by the government, in this case, to limit the democratic rights of members, their own members included, to debate a piece of legislation.

This is based upon a Standing Order in the House, and I will cite the Standing Order for reference for all members to understand what we are talking about. Standing Order 78(3)(a) states:

A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of sections (1) or (2) of this Standing Order in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee, and has given notice of his or her intention so to do, may propose a motion during proceedings under Government Orders, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this paragraph an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 76.1(10). The motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment, and the Speaker shall put the question on the said motion forthwith. Any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this section of this Standing Order shall be deemed adjourned.

This is exactly what has just happened. The government brought in a time allocation motion under this Standing Order, which is its power to do. It is an extreme power, and it is meant to be used in rare cases. The government has used it more than 50 times, a record in Canadian history. However, also in the Standing Order is a duty and an obligation on the part of the government to consult with other parties in the House as to the—

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Debate.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Debate.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I would ask the hon. members across the way to allow me to continue.

This is a point of order. I will thank the finance minister for his comments on the length of the point of order, but the point of order stands. The Conservatives can have their way with the power they have in a majority government, but they cannot simply run roughshod over the rules that have governed all governments in the history of Canada simply because they want to.

The point I raise is that the government earlier introduced time allocation on this trade agreement with Honduras. Previously, on the same morning, cynically, they also introduced time allocation on a previous motion before the House without any consultation with the opposition parties whatsoever, thereby contravening the Standing Orders that exist for all uses of this very extraordinary tool. The government seems, having used time allocation so often, to have gotten lazy with the procedure that is at hand.

The consultation can take any form. It can take the form of a conversation between me and the House leader of the government. It can take the form of an email or a note, anything. It does not take much, but it shows a modicum of respect, not for the opposition parties but for Parliament itself. To bring in time allocation, the government has to at least go through the motions of suggesting that perhaps the opposition party has an extraordinary number or speakers or seeks multiple days on any given legislation.

The government has to at least consult. It did not do that in this case. It did not even bother to show basic respect for Parliament, further driving home the argument and the fact that it holds this place in contempt. There is no basis of democratic values in the legislation the government introduced or how it did it—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. Does the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wish to respond?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. You, as a former House leader, would certainly be familiar with the fact that we have regular consultations with the other parties. With the House leaders we have weekly House leaders meetings.

I do not want to get into the particulars of what happened on these particular bills. We do not do that. Of course, at those meetings, the government puts forward its proposed legislative agenda. We suggest to the other parties how many days we would like to see it debated. We look for input. We look for a response.

Again, I do not want to discuss details. I am not going to say how much difficulty I have had ever getting from one particular party an answer on its position or an agreement. Without betraying any confidences, I can say that I do not think I can ever remember an agreement with the NDP on timing on any particular bill coming out of those meetings.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the precedents on this are clear. It is not up to the Speaker to inquire into and judge the adequacy or the extent of the consultation. You know that the consultation occurs. I can say to you with good assurance that we have circulated our proposed legislative agenda and the debates we would like to have on these matters.

I still look forward always to responses, but consultation and communication is a two-way street. It requires that sometimes there are answers from the other side. I can assure the House that we have always consulted and will continue to consult on the legislative calendar and will seek whatever agreement we can from other parties on our agenda.

I do not want to get into the specifics of those meetings again. It is not appropriate. However, I can tell the House that such consultation does occur, and we do put what we would like to see as debates to the other parties.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader rightly points out that there is a Tuesday afternoon House leaders meeting, which I attend with him. The government puts forward its government calendar. We recognize the calendar. We often offer up suggestions.

What has happened in this case, as in too many cases, is that the government absolutely did not ask for input on the number of speakers we required. They did not seek any consultative advice whatsoever. There was none on this. I can assure the member of that.

The government House leader can pretend what he would like, but the facts remain the facts. This is the only tool the government has in its toolbox anymore. If it is just a hammer that it has, every problem looks like a nail.

It is Parliament that suffers, not just the Conservatives' reputation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I come to these meetings in good faith every week. I do my best to seek a response. It is up to the opposition, if it wishes these meetings to be made more productive, to participate and make them more productive.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

With regard to the point of order, I am not ruling against it, but I would like to quote from O'Brien and Bosc, page 667, under “Notice”. This is what is required when one of these notices is brought forward:

The notice in question is to state that agreement could not be reached under the other provisions of the rule and that the government therefore intends to propose a motion...

The hon. government House leader, when he rose in the House yesterday, preceded his presentation of the motion with the following words:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2)...

That is all that is required by the Standing Orders. The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.

The member for Kingston and the Islands is rising. I am anticipating the point he is raising, but we simply do not have time to get a response to his question, if that is the point he is raising.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to finish maybe one or two sentences of what I was saying. Because I was interrupted by a point of order, I thought that maybe after the point of order was resolved there would be—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I am sorry, but we are out of time for the question and answer period.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #79

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the onset, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Red Deer.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak about what our government is doing to support prosperity for all Canadians and how the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would be part of the bigger picture.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would be another step in fulfilling our Conservative government's ambitious pro-trade plan. International trade is critical to the Canadian economy. We need to ensure open borders for our exporters. One in five Canadian jobs is related to exports. Freer, more open trade would ensure that we could support domestic economic growth and new jobs. Our Conservative government has always been a supporter of free and open trade. For this reason, our government made it a priority to diversify our international trade negotiations agenda and place increased focus on concluding regional and bilateral trade agreements, such as the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement we are discussing today. These agreements would be complementary and, in fact, would strengthen the important work of the WTO.

It may surprise many Canadians to learn that, in 2006, Canada only had free trade agreements with five countries. Our government recognized the situation was not good for Canadian companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, which depend more and more on international markets for their success. Lack of competitive access to global markets was putting Canadian exporters, investors, and service providers at a competitive disadvantage. This was especially apparent when key competitors from the U.S. and the EU were already enjoying preferential market access.

It was clear that the Government of Canada needed to act. That is why we introduced the global commerce strategy in 2007. The global commerce strategy was focused upon expanding our global trade network, strengthening Canada's competitiveness in established markets, while also expanding into fast-moving, emerging economies. The strategy supported Canadian company participation in international markets; in particular, helping them to seize opportunities as part of global value chains. It has also identified markets in which Canada should focus its trade negotiating capacity.

Our Conservative government has concluded new free trade agreements with nine countries, which is something to celebrate, beginning with the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland, followed by Colombia, Jordan, Peru, Panama, and of course, most recently, Honduras, which we are debating today.

Of course, there is the landmark Canada-European Union comprehensive economic trade agreement, which once ratified, would mean that Canada would have free trade agreements with 42 nations.

The CETA with the EU took some time to negotiate. The Europeans, having brought together 27 countries—now 28 with the addition of Croatia less than a year ago—have extensive experience in negotiating agreements, as they brought this coalition of 28 countries together. Therefore, for Canada, it is a tremendous credit to our Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and our own minister, the hon. member for Abbotsford, that we have developed tremendous capacity and experience in advancing trade agreements.

This is a major achievement, but we will not rest on our laurels. We recognize the success of the 2007 global commerce strategy, and in the 2012 economic action plan, we confirmed our intention to build upon success.

It is important to us that we respond to the evolving needs of Canadian companies. We do not deliver strategies in a vacuum. We get out there and talk to business. That is one of the reasons why our low tax regime is so important to Canadian businesses.

The hon. Minister of Finance is reported by some to be the best finance minister in the world. We give him credit for helping to keep taxes low in Canada, which creates an environment for business to prosper and for Canadians to do well. I am sure members will remember that, because of the more than 160 tax cuts we have brought in since forming government, the average Canadian family is now saving $3,400 every year. That is a tremendous accomplishment.

Bloomberg business magazine recently said that Canada is the second best country in the world with which to do business. That is something to brag about.

The work is not done. There is a lot more to do. It is a competitive world. These agreements are about creating opportunities for our small and medium-size businesses, as well as large enterprises, to engage with the world and for countries like Honduras to engage with Canada to expand and strengthen the family of nations through trade.

We have conducted consultations right across Canada. We have engaged with around 400 business and industry stakeholders. They were not just large corporations but also small and medium-size businesses, which are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. That is why we are proud of the global markets action plan we launched in November 2013. It is not some bureaucratic exercise. It is a concrete plan for Canadian businesses, developed with Canadian businesses.

The global markets action plan focuses on our international economic engagement by identifying priority sectors and markets. It also underscores the importance of economic diplomacy. It aims to help Canadian small and medium-size companies expand their global reach.

Through this government's initiatives, we want to support Canadian companies, whether they export goods or services or want to invest to be competitive in new markets.

Speaking of new markets, our government has long recognized the growing importance of the Americas. The Prime Minister confirmed this when he made the region a foreign policy priority in 2007. Increased trade and commercial engagement are part of the Prime Minister's vision for a more prosperous, secure, and democratic hemisphere. It makes economic sense to Canadian businesses too. Total trade between countries in the Americas and Canada increased 32% from 2007 to 2012, not to mention that Canadian direct investment was up 58.6% over the same period. That is why we want to deepen trade relations with countries in the region, such as Honduras. Our government realized that we needed to get results faster for Canadian companies, so we moved to bilateral negotiations with our most ambitious partner, which is Honduras.

In August 2011, the Prime Minister was able to announce the successful conclusion of our free trade talks. The Prime Minister recognized the importance of this agreement. He confirmed that the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement was a key part of our government's agenda to open new markets for Canadian business, to create new opportunities for our workers, and to contribute to Canada's future prosperity.

This free trade agreement would provide numerous benefits to Canadian companies that are active or interested in Honduras. Not only would it eliminate the vast majority of Honduran tariffs, but it would help raise the profile of Canadian businesses in the country, and further deepen and strengthen Canada's commercial and economic relationship with Honduras.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would also make us competitive with players from the U.S. and the EU, which already enjoy free trade with Honduras, not to mention giving Canadian companies a secure and predictable framework for business.

In responding to a question earlier, the minister commented on one Canadian company with 20,000 employees that is employing Hondurans and helping to raise the standard of living for them.

In my remarks, I have highlighted how this Conservative government is proactively addressing the needs of Canadian business, both globally and in the dynamic region of the Americas. It is also clear that the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would create new opportunities for Canadian companies in the Honduran market. Moving this agreement forward would respond to the needs of Canadian companies. It would be yet another step in support of our growth and prosperity agenda.

For these reasons, I hope all hon. colleagues will support the ratification of this free trade agreement with Honduras.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to the great shame of Canadians, the government is busy promoting a free trade agreement by hiding behind so-called job creation and economic activity. In the meantime, there is no mention of the murders that occur every day all across that very small country, or the repression or human rights offences there.

Let us not forget that since the 2009 coup d'état, that country has never gotten out from under its democratic deficit. It is absolutely incredible that in addition to completely muzzling us, the government is denying us our right to speak, claiming that it wants to accelerate the process for adopting this type of agreement.

How can my colleague defend this type of behaviour?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member, typical of the NDP, is opposed to trade agreements in general.

What the member fails to appreciate is the fact that part of our north-south agreement is to help develop governance capacity in the nations with which we are engaging. We are investing through our aid programs and helping to build justice, train them in justice, train police forces, and help build governance capacity. These are all important measures in helping to stabilize any country.

By providing employment and creating employment opportunities for Canadian businesses to interact, we want to help establish best practices to help them understand how proper labour arrangements work and what stable employment can provide for people in terms of economic opportunity to create a stable society. That is what free trade arrangements are about. If we waited for countries to be perfect, well, a lot of countries would miss an opportunity to get a hand up to a better level of life.

Canada has had a very successful democracy. There are people who think we do not have it quite right yet. It is a work in progress, but we are trying to help those who are further behind to come up to a better level.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech that was just given by a government member.

How is it that, after signing a number of free trade agreements under this government, Canada has gone from having a $26 billion trade surplus to having a $62 billion trade deficit?

How can the government continue to sit back and do nothing as businesses close or outsource jobs? Why is the government doing nothing while foreign state-owned enterprises are buying up our natural resources?

Why is the government still promoting these agreements?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that exports create about 35% of the economic opportunity and employment in Canada. We see this as an opportunity, which our friends opposite fail to appreciate, unfortunately. Creating opportunities for our Canadian companies to engage in other parts of the world, in fact, expands trade.

NDP members were opposed to the North American Free Trade Agreement. On that side of the House, they are opposed to every free trade agreement we bring in. They said it would be a disaster and terrible for Canada. However, in fact, NAFTA brought great opportunity to Canada, and so has every other trade opportunity.

I just mentioned in my speech that our trade with the north-south axis has increased 32% in the last few years. That creates opportunities, and opportunities are what we need in a very competitive world.

That is why on our side of the House we support engaging with other nations. It is one of our best opportunities to help them with governance capacity, to help them with aid, and to help them develop economic opportunities in their own nations. We want to share Canada's expertise with the world and create opportunities for our own businesses at the same time.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today about the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

I have been very fortunate, in having been part of ParlAmericas, to go to Central America and meet with different leaders from various countries and to talk to them about the issues they have. This issue on trade is certainly extremely important. As a result of this experience, I am confident that members will also see the benefits of this partnership, for Canadian exporters, service providers, and investors alike.

Our Conservative government is focused on the priorities of Canadians, that is, creating new jobs and new opportunities. We continue to work hard to ensure the competitiveness of Canadian businesses and exporters in the global marketplace.

This free trade agreement with Honduras is about more than just trade and investment. Our Conservative government is committed to taking action on environmental issues that matter most to Canadians. We have been consistent in demonstrating that trade liberalization and environmental protection go hand in hand. For that reason, as part of this comprehensive free trade agreement, Canada and Honduras are committed to striving for good environmental governance, while at the same time opening our borders to the benefits of increased economic activity.

Canada and Honduras recognize the need to implement this FTA in a manner that is consistent with environmental protection and promoting sustainable development. That is why in concluding this free trade agreement, Canada and Honduras also signed a parallel agreement on environmental co-operation. The parallel agreement commits both countries to encouraging high levels of domestic environmental protection to foster good environmental governance and promote transparency and public participation.

This follows the approach we have taken in this regard with previous free trade agreements, such as those with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, and Panama, all building on the approach that Canada, the United States, and Mexico took together in negotiating environmental provisions alongside the North American free trade agreement.

With the growth of economic, environmental, and social links between our two countries that will follow from this free trade agreement, Canada and Honduras recognize the desirability of pursuing policies that promote sustainable development and sound environmental management.

This agreement on environmental co-operation, like others that Canada has signed, would commit Canada and Honduras to effectively enforcing our environmental laws and ensuring we do not relax or weaken those laws to encourage trade or investment. This agreement would commit both countries to pursuing high levels of environmental protection and continuing to develop and improve their environmental laws and policies.

In recognition of the substantial benefits of international trade and investment, and with a view to strengthening our mutual economic and environmental objectives, this agreement includes a commitment to encouraging voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility. It also includes a key commitment that both countries maintain appropriate environmental assessment procedures. These are also commitments to promoting public participation and transparency to promote public awareness of environmental laws and policies.

Similarly, the agreement includes mechanisms that would allow residents of Canada and Honduras to ask questions of either party about the obligations under the agreement.

The agreement would also commit Canada and Honduras to ensuring that domestic proceedings are available to provide sanctions or remedies for violations of our respective environmental laws.

In addition, the agreement would also put in place a framework for Canada and Honduras to work co-operatively in support of the environmental objectives and obligations of this agreement. To this end, Canada and Honduras will work together to develop a co-operative work program to address mutual environmental priorities and enhance overall environmental management capacities.

Points of co-operation will be determined once the agreement is in force, and could include working together on such priorities as environmental enforcement, climate change, migratory species, conservation of biodiversity, and protective areas management. In order to oversee implementation, a committee on the environment would be established, which would be comprised of government officials from both Canada and Honduras.

Importantly, we have set out a bilateral consultation mechanism in the agreement to address any differences that may come about through the implementation of this agreement. Our dispute resolution approach focuses on facilitating dialogue and building environmental management capacity rather than increasing the administrative burden.

To complement the commitments in the environmental co-operation agreement itself, the Canada-Honduras FTA has a principle-based environment chapter that sets out the relationship between the FTA and the agreement on environmental co-operation. The FTA also includes other important environment-related provisions in relation to the importance of environmental protection and conservation and the promotion of sustainable development. Among these, the text of the free trade agreement ensures that certain multilateral environmental agreements with trade-related provisions would prevail over the FTA in the event of an inconsistency.

With the Canada-Honduras agreement on environmental co-operation and the related text in the FTA, Canada has again taken steps to ensure that increased trade does not come at the expense of the environment. Together with Honduras, we have set out an agreement that commits us both to striving for good environmental governance in order to protect the environment, while realizing the benefits of increased economic activity flowing from liberalized trade.

Our Conservative government is committed to increasing opportunities for mutually beneficial commerce and investment, including with our partners in the Americas, in order to generate inclusive and sustainable economic growth and prosperity. This new partnership with Honduras is a great example. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, and its parallel environment agreement, will contribute to new opportunities for Canadian businesses, exporters, and investors, while working to ensure positive environmental outcomes for both countries.

For these reasons, I urge all members to support the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech just given by a government member.

Although I do not want to call into question his sincerity when it comes to agreements and respecting the environment, I would like to express my doubt—with a capital “D”—about the government's sincerity and intentions when it comes to protecting the environment.

However, that is not what my question is about. I would like the government member to tell me truthfully what Honduras is going to buy. What products is Canada going to sell to this country? What Canadian products is Honduras interested in buying?

Trade involves purchases and so forth. What is Honduras going to buy from Canada to help us regain our trade balance? Right now we have a significant deficit.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for the question. It gives me an opportunity to go through a list for each and every province, and I will certainly start with Quebec. Honduran tariffs in sectors of export interest, first of all, chemical production, would see the elimination of tariffs that range up to 15%. The industrial machinery sector includes articles of iron and steel. There is pork. There is maple syrup. These are some of the areas that should be important to the member and the people she represents.

In Ontario, there is industrial machinery, plastics, textiles, pork, as well as live animals. To go to my own province, the exports we have there are beef, furnitures, textiles, and construction equipment.

I have had the opportunity to be in Central America, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, as part of my parliamentary duties with ParlAmericas. I have had chances to speak to members of the Honduran government. They look to Canada as a leader that can help to bring them out of the difficulties and issues they have. We need that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's claims are nothing more than wishful thinking.

Although I have very little free time, I make time each night before going to bed to read for a little while. I am just finishing up an essay written by French-American economist Esther Duflo, who is now an advisor to President Obama.

In the part of the essay I am reading right now, she clearly establishes that a country needs strong institutions in order to prosper in an environment free of corruption and political and social dysfunction. However, such is not the case in Honduras.

That being said, can my government colleague provide specific examples to back his claim that supporting a stronger economy in Honduras will automatically and magically result in democracy for that country?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what principles can we put in place? What principles are there? The suggestion was that there has to be a strong infrastructure together before we even try. That is so unfair.

If an individual were to go to Central America and look at some of the issues that countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras deal with, they would see the things they have managed to do and what they are asking of Canada. We have been able to deliver on the justice issue and as far as democratic capacity. These are the things that we bring, because of our nature, because we are Canadians, and because we care about helping those throughout the world. That is the thing we should be looking at.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate. I only wish that the government had not come forward with a time allocation motion because I know a lot of my colleagues would like the opportunity to engage in this debate. Contrary to what the members opposite love to talk about, New Democrats are not opposed to trade, not in the least, but we want to make sure that the trade Canada participates in is trade that is not only good for Canada and Canadians but is also good for the countries and the people we trade with, and that it is done under the principles we consider important to us as Canadians.

We have had concerns about some of the deals that the government has pulled together. This agreement, for example, came as a result of the fact that the Conservatives were unsuccessful in putting together a multilateral deal in Central America, dealing with a number of countries on the basis of some of those principles. As a result, we are now dealing with a bilateral trade deal that New Democrats have some concerns with, as we did with the deal with Colombia.

Before I wade in any further, let me indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, as he has some important messages to share about this deal that are relevant to his constituents and Canadians whom he represents.

Let me reiterate what my colleague, the NDP trade critic, has indicated before. New Democrats look at every and any trade deal on whether it meets three criteria. Number one, does the proposed partner share Canadian values that include respect for democracy, human rights, and does it have adequate environmental and labour standards? Number two, does the proposed deal offer significant or strategic value to Canada, Canadians, and our economy? Number three, are the actual terms of the agreement in themselves satisfactory? We have looked at the deal. We should understand that this deal, like everything else the government does, has been negotiated in complete secrecy, behind closed doors, without any consultation or discussion with Canadians about what they were doing, what the impact was, and so on.

I have heard Conservative members somewhat piously, frankly, talk about what great things they are doing for the poor people of Honduras. What I would rather see the government do is use its influence on the government of Honduras to start recognizing true principles of democracy and honouring and respecting human rights and the right of law. That is not what the government has done and that is certainly a problem that New Democrats see with the Government of Honduras.

It is not about whether we are able to help the country and the people of that country. If our development agencies, such as Democracy Watch, and other NGOs are able to work with likeminded organizations and communities within Honduras, that is a good thing. Unfortunately, those people, whether they be labour activists, environmentalists or journalists, are under threat as a result of the activities of Honduras and officials who represent either the government or the police. Therefore, the question of human rights abuses is a very serious one that the government should be taking into consideration before it tries to engage in any type of activity.

We have heard from a number of international organizations that as a result of the military coup in 2009, there is a government in place that does not respect the principles of democracy and human rights. Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world. It is considered one of the most dangerous countries for journalists. It is a major drug-smuggling centre, and it is considered to be one of the most corrupt countries in Central America.

What would this deal do about these issues? What would this deal do to try to make sure that the people are protected from what their government is doing?

Frankly, by participating with the government and with the major corporations in Honduras, we would be saying that what they are doing is okay. We would be saying that what they do to their people is okay. What they do to their environment is okay. We just want do business with them.

Let us not forget that Honduras is currently Canada's 104th export market. It is not high on the list in terms of value to Canadian exporters. In 2012, we exported $38 million and imported $218 million of merchandise. That is a similar kind of trade balance that we recognize that the government has been responsible for in each and every sector that we see in our economy.

The concern we have, again, is that if we are going to participate as a country in the world, whether it be in trade issues or in human rights and democracy, whatever it is that we do, the way we walk on this earth, we want to do it based on those principles of respect, understanding the role of human rights and the law, protecting the environment, and the rights of labour so that people can come together collectively and represent themselves. That is what we believe. We want it so that those practices are allowed to continue. We should be a model for countries around the world. We should be participating with countries that reflect those same principles so that they can be enforced.

Countries like Honduras that do not follow those practices and do not seem to have the same kinds of principles will look at Canada and say that they would like to trade with us and participate with us in an economic fashion, so what is it going to take? What are they going to have to do to make that happen? It would be very clear that there has to be a recognition and a respect for democratic rights, human rights, the environment, and the law.

That is what Canada needs to do. That is why we have been opposed, because we do not feel that the Government of Honduras is an example of a country that we should be participating with.

Do we want to help the people of Honduras? Absolutely. Do we want to try to make sure that their government respects their rights, their environment, and the rule of law? Absolutely. However, participating in a trade deal without demanding that certain practices change is not the answer. All that would do is make sure that the behaviours that we find reprehensible will continue.

We can do better in this country. There are other nations that we need to be participating with. For example, Brazil, Japan, and South Africa are countries that we should be negotiating deals with. It is time that the government started to recognize countries that would make true partners with our nation and people, and move forward in that direction.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the hon. member's speech, I heard him make a suggestion that these were pious pronouncements by members opposite, and of course I was the one who was just speaking prior to that. I do take some offence to his thoughts that we would be thinking about this in a callous way.

I would like to talk a bit about the NDP trade critic being quoted in Huffington Post as saying that Honduras, along with Colombia, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, and Panama are “...not key economies with any kind of strategic value for Canada”. There was no discussion about human rights; just “no strategic value for Canada”.

The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior has written that “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation”. There was no discussion about human rights as far as Canada is concerned.

Then he mentioned that trade agreements are job destroying.

We look at those situations and then they stand and say that they are the defenders of human rights and as long as we have the kind of country that has our unions with labour and everything else, that is what is important and then we can talk about it.

I just wonder how Canadian businesses can be protected from the anti-trade rhetoric.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I am glad the member was offended, although I did not say anything that he would necessarily need to be offended by. However, I am glad he responded to what I was saying because that means he is listening, and that is good and I appreciate that.

My point was that the area where we disagree is that the Conservatives think they can deal with anybody as long as it is an economic agreement; that as long as they are doing business, it does not matter what the ethics or practices are of that company or that nation; and that it does not matter what the rules of law are, and so on. It does not seem to matter, the way the people are treated, and the way the environment is not protected, and the way that journalists are threatened and labour activists are thrown in jail. Those things do not matter. If we are going to do a deal, we are going to do a deal.

My point, and the point of our trade critic who is doing such a great job on this file, is that we have some responsibility and that people do want to trade with Canada and Canada wants to trade with other people, but we do not trade at all costs and we ensure that we are carrying ourselves and conducting ourselves in ways that would make Canadians proud. That has to be the bottom line.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as always I appreciate the passion that the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour brings to this place.

At the outset of his remarks, he described his party as one that is in favour of free trade. There are a couple of sayings that come to mind immediately. One is that they can “talk the talk, but not walk the walk”; and also, perhaps not in the context of this particular agreement, but in general, that “the perfect is often the enemy of the good”.

Given the member's statement that his party is one that supports free trade, other than the free trade agreement with Jordan, could he provide a list of the free trade agreements that his party has voted in support of?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question from the Liberal Party. It gives me an opportunity to talk about the fact that the Liberal Party supports the trade deal with Honduras, that the Liberal Party does not identify with the kind of precision I would suggest that we do in this caucus, regarding the pros and cons of any particular trade deal.

The members of the government of this day feel that any trade deal is a good deal. When the Conservatives bring forward good deals that benefit our country, trade deals that recognize the way we are going to conduct business in the world and deal with the terrible trade imbalance we have in this country, then we will begin to look favourably on those trade deals.

The Liberal Party has not done that. It has not brought trade deals that have benefited Canada in that way, nor has the Conservative Party. As soon as it does, then we will vote for those deals.

However, let me say that we will see better trade deals after 2015 when the New Democratic Party forms the government.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for sharing his time with me this morning, because many of us who wanted to speak on this trade deal are going to be denied that opportunity as a result of the government's time allocation motion. I really appreciate the member's sharing his time.

I am, of course, speaking to oppose this bill at second reading. I want to address something that keeps coming up again. I know that the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour addressed it as well. The NDP has said there are three criteria for assessing trade agreements. When those criteria are met, we will support these agreements.

First, we should ask ourselves if the proposed trading partner is one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values generally. Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

I believe this agreement fails all three of these tests. That is the reason I plan to vote against it.

I want to focus on the first criterion and the appalling human rights record of Honduras. International human rights organizations have documented serious human rights abuses, killings, arbitrary detentions of thousands of people, severe restrictions on public demonstrations and protests and freedom of expression, and interference in the independence of the judiciary. These are all well-established facts about the Honduran human rights record.

Honduras, as many have mentioned, has the highest murder rate in the world and is considered the most dangerous country in the world for journalists. Transparency International ranks it as the most corrupt country in Central America. We all know it is a major drug smuggling centre, and it has the worst income inequality in the region.

Why has Canada chosen to negotiate a trade deal with Honduras, a country with a seriously flawed human rights record and a history of repressive, undemocratic politics?

The democratically elected government of left-leaning president Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup in 2009. The Honduran army carried out this coup under the pretext of a constitutional crisis that was actually a dispute about the president's progressive social and economic policies. This move was widely condemned around the world, including by all other Latin American nations, the European Union, the United States, and the UN General Assembly.

Canada has refused to consider any sanctions against the regime that succeeded president Zelaya, and has refused to condemn the systematic abuses of human rights that occurred in its aftermath. Instead, we have chosen to pursue a closer economic relationship with Honduras without conditions. It is interesting to note that the same time we are pursuing free trade with Honduras, we broke off free trade talks with El Salvador when it elected a progressive government. I think there is an agenda here that seems quite clear: we will do deals, but not with people who are too progressive.

In January 2010, the current leader, Mr. Sosa, assumed the presidency through what almost all have called undemocratic and illegitimate elections. Most foreign governments and election monitoring agencies refused to even send observers to these elections, and almost all countries, I guess apart from Canada, have rejected the results of these elections.

The leading Honduran human rights group has documented the killings of at least 16 political activists and candidates from the main opposition party since June 2012 and attacks on 15 more. On August 25, 2013, three leaders of the indigenous Tolupan of Honduras were shot and killed. There are extensively documented cases of police corruption and documentation of 149 ex-judicial killings of civilians by the police reported between January 2011 and November 2012 alone.

Earlier the Minister of International Trade suggested that Honduras is coming out of a difficult period, but the facts paint a very different picture.

Let us look at what international human rights organizations have to say about the situation in Honduras now. Let me quote from Amnesty International's written statement to the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council just a few days ago. The statement was called “Honduras: Deteriorating human rights situation needs urgent measures.” It says:

Amnesty International is increasingly concerned about the human rights situation in Honduras, in particular about human rights violations against human rights defenders, women and girls, Indigenous, Afro-descendant and campesino (peasant) communities, and LGBTI people. These violations take place in a context where impunity for human rights violations and abuses is endemic and where organized and common crime is high. In 2011, according to UN figures, the homicide rate in Honduras was the highest in the world.

It is a pretty damning indictment of the current human rights situation and not an indication that Honduras is coming out of some dark period.

Human Rights Watch recently issued a similar report. For the sake of time today, I will not read through that report but it says essentially the same things as the Amnesty report.

I want to draw attention today to two groups that continue to be subject to extreme levels of violence in Honduras, journalists and transgendered Hondurans. According to Honduras' own National Human Rights Commission, 36 journalists were killed between 2003 and mid-2013. That is about one journalist every four months, and many others have suffered threats, attacks, and kidnappings, including the kidnapping and murder of the most prominent TV news anchor in June 2013.

The authorities have consistently failed to investigate all of these crimes. No charges have been laid in the murder of the TV news anchor. Attacks on journalists and opposition candidates are of course attacks on democracy and should be a serious concern when they take place in a country with whom Canada is contemplating signing an international agreement of any kind.

There has been less publicity about attacks on the other group I want to draw attention to, but who have been subject to even higher levels of violence in Honduras. This is the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community, but in particular the transgendered community. Again, why would Canada seek an agreement with Honduras in view of its appalling record of violence against the LGBTQ community, especially when the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made strong statements in defence of gay rights in other forums?

In May 2009, Human Rights Watch published a report on human rights abuses against transgendered people in Honduras called “Not Worth a Penny”. This report documents the murder of 17 transgendered people in public places, in broad daylight, in Honduras in the five years leading up to its report. Not one of these killings led to a prosecution or a conviction.

Lest we be misled by the Minister of International Trade's assertion that things are getting better, let me provide some updates on how things are actually getting worse for transgendered Hondurans.

Since the release of the 2009 human rights report, 34 more members of the LGBTQ community have been murdered in Honduras. The one bright spot is that there has been one prosecution and one conviction: 39 more attacks, one prosecution and one conviction.

On January 31, 2011, Human Rights Watch sent a letter appealing to President Porfirio Lobo Sosa to investigate the murders of six transgendered women in a 60-day period. None of those deaths has been investigated and, obviously, there have been no arrests.

Transrespect, the group that intends to document violence against the transgendered community around the world for the annual Trans Day of Remembrance, has documented eight more trans murders in Honduras in 2012, and 12 more in 2013. This gives Honduras the distinction of having the highest per capita transgender murder rate in the world. Not only is it the highest rate in the world, but it is also twice the rate of the country with the second highest rate, and three times that of the country with the third highest rate.

This brings the total number of trans murders up to 60 in six years. This includes the January 9, 2009 assassination of Cynthia Nicole Moreno, a widely known Honduran transgender rights leader who worked as a spokesperson for Colectivo Violeta, the transgender rights organization. She was often seen on the streets helping to provide information about HIV and AIDS and basic human rights to transgendered sex workers, and she often represented the transgender community in the media. There has been no prosecution of anyone for her death.

The North American Congress on Latin America, another observer of the sad events in Honduras, also documented the murder of Walter Trochez , a young health promoter for the Association for a Better Life for Persons Infected and Affected by HIV/AIDS in Honduras. Again, he was shot in broad daylight by two men on a motorcycle. Although human rights groups have demanded an investigation, no one has been prosecuted for his killing to this date.

What is most disturbing is that pattern of transgender murders indicates that security forces have often been involved, and that even where they have not been directly involved, they have consistently failed to investigate and follow-up with prosecutions of those responsible.

I have chosen to focus on that first criterion of the three that the NDP says are those ones by which we must evaluate countries before entering into trade deals. Honduras is by any measure an undemocratic country, a serious human rights violator.

Canadians expect our federal government to set a good example on the world stage by seeking out partners that respect fundamental human rights and share our sense that all citizens are entitled at the very least to the right to life and not being subject to attack by their own security forces.

This deal fails to defend fundamental Canadian values on the world stage and fails to aid Hondurans who are seeking to protect their fundamental human rights.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with great concern because I realized how far Canada has fallen internationally. Canada was seen as a champion of democratic development and human rights around the world, but we are now in a position where the Conservatives and Liberals laugh at the issue of human rights abuse.

Looking back on our tradition, we had Brian Mulroney stand up against apartheid. Canada could have been there to make a buck but that government said no, that making a buck off the backs of such a corrupt system was not right. We saw previous Liberals regimes speak up against the murders and killings that were going on in El Salvador.

However, today the present Conservative government and the Liberal opposition are of the position and mindset that anyone who raises concerns about the killing of people speaking up for their democratic rights is somehow speaking pie-in-the-sky silliness, and that to make buck off such a corrupt and illegitimate regime is how business is done.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague how he thinks that places Canada, which once had such a stellar reputation for speaking up for on basic human rights, but now has this kind of cynical abuse from the Conservatives and Liberals.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for that question because it brings us to the heart of the matter. Canadians believe that we should still be pursuing those traditional policies, seeking to support the best in the world and not aiding the worst in the world.

As I pointed out in my speech, we have a very interesting case in Central America. We were pursuing a free trade agreement with El Salvador when it elected a progressive government committed to improving public health and income distribution in the country. However, we broke off those talks and instead have continued to seek a closer relationship with Honduras, which, as I said many times, has the worst record in Central America and one of the worst human rights records in the entire world.

I think Canadians would be ashamed to think that this is the role we are now playing on the international stage.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech focusing on some very difficult human rights abuses in Honduras.

However, I find the current Conservative government very hypocritical, in that it will rush to defend human rights in certain cases and at the same time negotiate free trade agreements with countries with the worst human rights records.

The government knows how serious that situation has been since 2009, when the Government of Honduras suspended the right to free speech and right to liberty. These are fundamental rights that we enjoy here in Canada. However, the supposition in the catechism of the Conservative Party is that if one has a free trade with a bad regime, somehow the regime will become good. The thing is, there is no evidence for that. This is taken on faith by the Conservative Party. In fact, it could have the effect of propping up an undemocratic and, frankly, totalitarian regime.

I wonder what my hon. colleague has to say on that point of faith of the Conservatives.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pontiac for his question because, again, it brings us back to the heart of the matter.

The Conservatives on the other side like to say that the NDP always oppose trade agreements. We know that is not true. However, we are demanding that there be standards for those trade agreements and that those standards reflect the values of all Canadians.

It is important to remember that this is not an attack on the people of Honduras; this is an attack on a government that was not democratically elected but placed in power by the military.

Instead of working with people who are trying to build democracy in Honduras, signing this trade agreement would make us partners with a corrupt, human rights violating government. I do not think that is what Canadians expect of our country on the international stage.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of the bill. I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights.

This afternoon it is my great pleasure to speak about Canada's development program in Honduras. I wish to demonstrate how our Conservative government's development program provides a positive platform for the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. I welcome the opportunity to present to members the development context in Honduras and our development program there, and to highlight the many results achieved to date.

We are confident that our government's development program will support and promote economic opportunities in Honduras in a way that will allow trade between both countries to grow steadily over time.

Canada has a long-standing development relationship with Honduras, and it has provided official development assistance to the country since 1969, contributing over $450 million to date.

Through the years Canada has become a key donor in that country, a well-respected and influential partner for the Government of Honduras and for other donors. Honduras is one of the 20 countries of focus for Canada's development assistance. It is Canada's largest bilateral program in Central America and the second-largest in the hemisphere. In 2011-2012, Canada provided over $39 million to the country through all development channels. This makes Canada the third-largest bilateral donor in Honduras and the sixth-largest overall donor in the country.

If I may, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about Honduras and what our Conservative government is doing to help address that country's development needs.

Honduras, as we know through discussion today, is a lower-middle-income country with a small, open economy that relies heavily on trade and remittances. The country is highly vulnerable to hurricanes and floods. Most of the population rely on agriculture for their livelihood, a sector that accounted for 14.8% of Honduras' GDP in 2012.

Sixty per cent of the population is living in poverty, 18% of whom are considered to be living in extreme poverty. What is particularly alarming is that the situation has shown little improvement since 2009 as the country has felt the effects of the global economic downturn. This is particularly true for rural areas of Honduras, where the most vulnerable and marginalized segments of the population live.

Although the Honduran government has made efforts to reduce poverty, economic and social progress has been slow. A big concern is the state of youth, because 52.4% of the population of 7.8 million are under 19 years old. Honduras' young population faces major obstacles in their everyday life.

Youth face limited employment and economic opportunities, limited access to social services, and limited access to land and infrastructure. These factors, coupled with the difficulty of escaping or evading the lure of criminal activities, constrain their ability to improve their lives. It is no surprise, then, that crime and insecurity in that country continue to be of great concern.

Hondurans in general face a dire economic situation. They are confronted with high unemployment, dangerous and unsafe working conditions, and limited protection of their rights. Canada's bilateral development program is therefore helping to improve the lives of Hondurans by focusing its investments in sustainable economic growth, food security, access to social services, human rights, and the rule of law.

Our investments from all development channels help contribute to the strategy's three goals: to increase Canadian and hemispheric economic opportunities; to address insecurity and advance freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law through capacity-building; and last, to build a stable foundation for Canada's engagement and increased influence in the hemisphere.

Since 2007, our government has pledged to make Canadian assistance more relevant and effective. Development assistance in Honduras is a testimony to these commitments. Programming focuses on delivering poverty reduction results based on the Honduran national development plan.

What have we accomplished so far?

We are proud to say that our Conservative government has achieved significant results in the areas of food security and sustainable economic growth. As a result of our programming, close to 530,000 people have increased access to nutritious food, including pregnant women and primary school-age girls and boys.

Canada has helped to improve agricultural productivity. Over 15,000 people are benefiting from improved water systems, and 2,800 families have crop storage facilities, greatly reducing post-harvest losses.

Over 1,500 hectares of land have been rehabilitated for the improved production of cocoa and coffee. Eighteen coffee co-operatives now have access to credit to support the production of certified coffee. Honduran coffee is well recognized and appreciated around the world. Coffee production is also an area of comparative advantage for that country, as Honduras has been reintegrating into the global coffee market.

We are also working to improve access to social services by supporting initiatives that seek to reduce preventable diseases and infant mortality and improve the health care system. Canada has contributed to important advancements in these areas. We have contributed to reducing the percentage of child mortality by 11% in two provinces and have provided health care counselling to 85,000 adolescents.

In the education sector, we are investing $20 million in the Education for All program, a multi-donor pooled fund to support the Honduran national education program. To date, primary graduation rates have reached 91% from a baseline of 69% in 2008, while dropout rates for grades 1 to 6 have declined during that same period.

This Conservative government strongly believes that continued engagement in development in Honduras is the best way to help that country address its development, security, and human rights challenges. I think we would all agree that trade and development have converging interests in promoting sustainable economic growth and that these interests can serve the people of both Canada and Honduras.

By building on the successes achieved, Canada's development assistance will continue to increase the productivity of small rural producers, connect farmers to markets, and create employment opportunities for the people of Honduras, in particular for women and youth. Canada is well positioned to provide assistance to improve the lives of those most in need, to promote sustainable economic growth, and to encourage synergies between trade and development. Our goal is to create shared prosperity for both of our countries.

This government remains committed to working with the Honduran government to promote sustainable economic growth and a sound, dynamic, and stable Honduran economy. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is one of the best ways to support positive change and growth in Honduras.

As a result, I urge all members to support the ratification of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked that this government, with the complicity of the Liberals, is so actively endorsing the urban legend that economic measures can correct the democratic deficit.

Earlier, I asked if there really was a good example of economic measures resulting in enhanced democracy and respect for human rights. The previous speaker, the parliamentary secretary's Conservative colleague, refused to answer and responded again with a smokescreen.

Can the parliamentary secretary cite for the House an actual example of a real success story resulting from the proposed measures?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we strongly believe in the promotion of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law as principles of Canada's foreign policy. We promote those principles vigorously in our foreign policy throughout the world.

In addition, we have a very aggressive trade promotion agenda, because in addition to fighting for human rights, we believe that economic opportunity and prosperity come through trade. When societies are grown and enhanced, opportunities are created, and human rights situations, the quality of governance, and the stability of government institutions are increased and enhanced. That is what we fundamentally believe, and we will continue that important work.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary obviously refused to answer my question. He prefers to stay stuck in his daydream.

In the House at this time, Bill C-20 on the Honduras free trade agreement is not even an economic issue. It is a moral issue because in light of the total lack of respect and the crimes committed in Honduras, the government, with the complicity of the Liberals, is supporting a government that tolerates the reign of criminal groups.

It is shameful for the people of Honduras and for Canadians to see this complicity and this support for the type of situation prevailing in Honduras right now. That is incredible.

How can the parliamentary secretary justify this position?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat shocked and dismayed that the NDP is happy to have countries such as Honduras simply drift and to not have their development needs, their human rights requirements, and their opportunities for economic growth addressed.

We on this side of the House are focused on each of those important pillars through our development assistance programs, through our focus on human rights, and through this important free trade agreement. This agreement would enhance economic opportunity and, as a result, create improvements in the social, democratic, and human rights conditions in Honduras as well.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are still some things that I simply cannot understand. When an agreement like this is said to be good, even though no one really wants to talk about the human rights situation in the country with which we are about to sign an agreement, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

An agreement with these potential economic gains cannot simply ignore the country's social problems. My colleague mentioned this earlier. We are trying to incorporate this into the debate, because to the NDP, it is an integral part of it.

Is my colleague aware of the human rights problems? Is he at least willing to recognize here in the House that they exist? If so, can he tell me what this agreement does to show Canada's leadership role in helping the people of Honduras and to demonstrate that Canada takes the issue of human rights very seriously?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spent much of the time during both of my responses and much of the time during my speech speaking about Canada's development assistance program in Honduras and about the economic, social, and human rights conditions in that country. We are focused on those important issues. We are working very hard, both bilaterally through NGOs and as well through multilateral organizations, to improve the situation in Honduras.

In addition, we want to see greater economic hope and opportunity for the people of that country. Through greater hope and opportunity will come jobs and prosperity, an enhanced society, an enhanced democracy, and an enhanced human rights situation. Why does the NDP not understand that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The time for government orders has expired. This matter will return after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here today to have the opportunity to speak about the benefits of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement for Canadian businesses, and in particular for Canadian investors and service providers.

Our Conservative government has refused to sit on the sidelines while other countries go around the world securing better markets for their products and services and more favourable treatment for their investors. Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investment.

I have to compliment the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade, and the parliamentary secretary for international trade, for the work they have done, and the steady and secure commitment they have had to ensuring we have free trade agreements around the world. I also want to include the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who has done some tremendous work on this file as well.

That is quite a contrast to what we have seen in the past, and what we see from the official opposition. Liberals were in government for 13 long and agonizing years for Canadians. While they were there, trade was not a priority for them. Certainly for the few years that I was in Parliament when we were in opposition, trade was never a priority for the Liberal government of the time. In fact, during those 13 long years in office, the Liberals only signed three trade agreements. That was at a time when trade was expanding all around the world. They did not see that it was any type of priority.

In contrast, our Conservative government has reached agreements with 37 countries. We can see the difference there. There were 3 that were reached over 13 years, and in the time we have been in government, there have been 37 of those agreements. We are even expanding. We are improving the three agreements that were reached under the Liberals, to try to maximize the benefits they produce for hard-working Canadians and their families. Once again, the Liberals have proved they just cannot get the job done.

Actually, three agreements is far better than what we would have had if the NDP had ever found its way to power. We have had some extreme statements from some of its members about their attitudes toward trade. The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior wrote that free trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”, or when the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said that trade agreements are job-destroying.

We see their perspective, but it is not grounded in reality. Actually, the NDP trade critic has been quoted as saying that this trade agreement, along with ones with Colombia, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, and Panama, are “not key economies with any kind of strategic value for Canada”. It speaks about the NDP and its commitment to trade, but it also speaks about its commitment to those economies that are smaller than ours and those people whose place in the world we can help to improve. New Democrats have consistently opposed any efforts to open up new markets for Canadian businesses. Apparently, they also oppose the opportunity for smaller nations to open up economic opportunities for their people as well. They are just ideologically opposed to international trade.

We heard a number of times earlier today from their critics wanting to know what the connection is between human rights and international trade. Obviously, those connections are very tight. When the member opposite was asking my colleague earlier if he could name one trade agreement where human rights have been improved by an international trade agreement, I would argue that every trade agreement improves human rights, in every country where they have had them. If we believe that a human right is the chance to have opportunity that is free from coercion—and investment agreements and social agreements are part of that—obviously it improves the conditions in every country when we have these agreements in place.

Going back to this specific agreement, we are committed to improving access to foreign markets for Canadian business. We want to support opportunities for increased economic growth and creation of new opportunities for Canadians and Canadian companies. Canada's exporters, investors, and service providers are calling on us to help open doors for them internationally. That is why we believe in, and are pursuing, an ambitious pro-trade agenda.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is part of our plan to help Canadians compete and succeed in a global economy. The agreement is a comprehensive trade deal that will provide our companies with a secure predictable framework for doing business in the Honduran market. It will also enable Canadian businesses to compete on a level playing field with key competitors from the United States and the European Union. These countries are already benefiting from free trade agreements that they have with Honduras, and we believe it is critical to keep pace with these competitors.

I would like to talk about some of the benefits that this agreement would bring to current and potential Canadian investors in Honduras. Foreign investment is a critical component of today's modern and global economy. It creates jobs, facilitates the transfer of knowledge, and increases production efficiencies through economies of scale in the host economy. Foreign investment also links our companies to global value chains and to new economic opportunities, which in turn enhances their competitiveness and increases the flow of goods and services between Canada and its trading partners.

At the end of 2012, Canadian direct investment abroad reached an all-time high of $712 billion. That is almost $1 trillion. Foreign direct investment into Canada stood at about $634 billion. Those are significant numbers.

This comprehensive Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would include high standard investment provisions, which are designed to protect bilateral investment through legally binding obligations. I talked a bit earlier about the investment agreements that are part of these deals and that go toward creating and building institutional strength in many countries so that parallel human rights develop as well. These investment obligations would incorporate several key principles, including things like minimum standards for non-discriminatory treatment, protection against expropriation without compensation, and the free transfer of funds. This dynamic would help to foster an investment relationship between our two countries and pave the way for an increased flow of investment for the years ahead.

Through the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, investors would also have access to a transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlement mechanism. It is important to stress that while its agreement would ensure that investors and their investments are protected, it would not prevent either Canada or Honduras from regulating in the public interest, including with respect to health, safety, and the environment.

Investment provisions of the free trade agreement would also include an article on corporate social responsibility. This is something that the opposition often brings up. It has been included in this agreement. It recognizes that both Canada and Honduras expect and encourage companies to observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct. Of course, this would include Canadian companies operating in Honduras.

Overall, this agreement would enhance investment opportunities for Canadian investors in Honduras and make sure that Canadian companies are treated on a level playing field, as I mentioned earlier, with our American and European counterparts.

In addition to the benefits for investors, this free trade agreement would provide Canadian companies with better access to government procurement opportunities in Honduras. Our Conservative government has been at the forefront of efforts to expand and secure access to foreign government procurement markets. Through the negotiation of these types of agreements and obligations, our government is working hard to enable Canadian businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that are presented in these markets through these agreements.

Increasing access, competition, and fairness in government procurement would also support our own domestic interests in obtaining best value in government procurement for Canadian taxpayers. Most of our free trade agreements from NAFTA—Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Panama—have obligations on government purchasing.

I understand that my time is running down, so I would like to talk about how the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would guarantee secure access for Canadian suppliers through these types of procurement opportunities, reducing the risk of doing business in the region. Moreover, it would ensure that Canadian suppliers can compete on the same basis as their main competitors in the American and European businesses that I have referred to, which already benefit from the free trade agreements that they have with Honduras.

Let us turn for a minute to how this agreement would benefit Canadian service providers. Professional telecommunications and financial services are already exported to Honduras. The free trade agreement would provide secure, predictable, and equitable treatment for Canadian service providers exporting their services to Honduras. The Canada-Honduras fair trade agreement would provide opportunities for Canadian service providers beyond Honduras' existing World Trade Organization's general agreement on trades and services commitments in the sectors that export interests to Canada, such as natural resources, professional services, and information and communication.

In conclusion, taken together, the provisions of the free trade agreement on trade and services would level the playing field for Canadian service suppliers with their American and European counterparts. As members can see, this is a high-quality agreement, with the potential to benefit Canadian investors and service providers. However, they would only be able to seize these opportunities if we ratify this agreement.

I urge all hon. members in the House to support the timely implementation of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member, who was one of the key members going around the country basically saying that if we blow up the Canadian Wheat Board look at all the choices we will have. The Canadian Wheat Board was all about trade, and what do have now? We have a disaster in terms of getting our product to market.

Trade agreements are great and wonderful, but if we do not have a government that is willing to force the transportation infrastructure to move that product to market, it does not make much difference. On the wheat side, we have already lost a market to Japan. We know that a grain company is pulling out of a market in Algeria because farmers have the product but there is no way to get it to the marketplace.

On the Honduran trade agreement, what is the member going to do to assure us that in accompanying the agreement, the government would be willing to act and respond to ensure that the transportation infrastructure is in place to move our product?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised to again hear the member opposite being so negative about trade. That fits in with the 13 years that the Liberals spent in power and only three trade agreements came into place.

I do not know if he understands about the coercive trade element that was involved with the Canadian Wheat Board. I think he does understand because it was an important issue for him. I was one of those who produced our grain. For many years we sat with the majority of our grain in our bins because it was unable to move it across the Prairies or unable to even sell it and market it. While he was here, there were many of us who were having to survive on about 50% of the income that we had in our bins.

If he is talking—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It is the same this year.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

He is heckling me from across the way because he does not like to hear this, but the reality is that the product is going to move off the Prairies. We are working with the railways and the grain companies. We are going to be successful in moving farmers' products off the Prairies. They will, and they are, having a good year.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member for Malpeque with respect to developing infrastructure to help our exporters get their products to market.

I also understand what the prairie farmers are going through. They have a bumper crop of wheat, and yet they are unable to get it to market because of the government's inaction to get the railroads working for the farmers.

We have another issue. The port of Vancouver is on the verge of being shut down. That dispute has been simmering for the last four or five years. There have been a number of issues. I have pointed to those issues in this House in the last six months. This morning there was a strike notice and a mediator is being appointed today. That should have been done a long time ago, so that we are not on the verge of having a major port shut down.

My question to the member across is this. How can he expect exporters to get their products to market when the government is unwilling to help our exporters get the products to market?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, please let us not pretend that the New Democrats are friendly toward trade because they are not. They stand up and criticize us, yet they do not even want this agreement. There would not be any product to take to market if they had their way. When they talk about these agreements as job destroying, saying they would destroy the very existence of this nation, obviously they have no interest. They do not even want to see these things go offshore.

We are working with the industry across western Canada, the railways, the grain companies, and the farm groups. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport are working with them, and we will get that product off of the Prairies.

I also want to point out that in terms of agricultural products, this agreement includes a number of things, such as pork, maple syrup, agriculture, agri-food products, wood, and pulp and paper products. The opposition members stand against moving Canadian products from those areas to Honduras. They do not want this agreement in place. There are other things, the aerospace industry, information and communications, fish and seafood, chemical products, plastic products and so forth. The New Democrats opposite stand opposed to our agreement with Honduras and the benefits that it would provide to Canadian companies.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the parliamentary secretary's question with regard to whether the NDP is for trade.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I am honoured to speak to Bill C-20, the free trade agreement with Honduras. Let me talk about how we got here today. This bill has been under time allocation. For Canadians who are watching, time allocation is when the Conservatives shut down a debate. They do not want to debate the bill. They do not want Canadians to find out what it is exactly they are trying to rush through. We have seen this over and over. In fact, they have moved time allocation motions 53 times in this Parliament. Not only that, they have had closure on six debates.

I am lucky to have the opportunity to speak in the House, but there are many other members who are not going to get the opportunity to speak about this bill that is being rushed through the House of Commons. What is the rush? Are Conservatives trying to hide something from Canadians?

We saw the shenanigans this morning in regard to the unfair elections act. The Chief Electoral Officer spoke at committee, and we had time allocation motions here in the House. These are shenanigans by the government, which is trying to hide the real facts from Canadians. I will talk about some of those.

The parliamentary secretary talked about why we are against trade with Honduras. Before I get to that, what are the principles? What should we be looking at when we look at trade agreements with other countries? There are a number of things we need to address to decide which countries we should have trade agreements with.

Trade is a reality. We are a trading nation, and Canadians are very competitive. We can sell our products to other countries. I am very proud that Canadians have products other countries want.

There are three fundamental criteria to assess trade agreements. First, does our partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate environmental protection, labour standards, and Canadian values? If these are not being met, is the partner willing to meet some of these requirements?

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant and strategic value to Canada, and are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

Let us talk about how democratic Honduras is. Let us talk about its human rights. All Canadians know the history of Honduras. In the last 15 or 20 years, I have known the history of Honduras. It is undemocratic and corrupt. In 2009, a democratically elected president was overthrown in a coup, and condemnation was worldwide.

Elections were held, and those elections were fraudulent. They were not fair. Guess who condemned those elections? It was the European Union, the United States, and many countries around the world. What does Canada do? We want to enter into a trade agreement with a corrupt dictator of a country that is known as the capital of Central America for drug laundering and so on. That is not the type of country we want to enter into free trade agreements with.

Of course we want to trade. We should be looking at trade agreements with countries that are strategic to Canadian products and where we can increase trade with those countries. Let us take a look at those countries. Let us look at Japan. Why do we not have a trade agreement with Japan? We have been negotiating with Japan for a number of years.

In fact, we started trade agreement negotiations with South Korea before the United States did. Guess what? The United States already has a trade agreement with South Korea.

Our pig and beef farmers are losing billions of dollars every year because the Conservative government has not put a priority on trade agreements that would be beneficial to Canadian producers.

We should be negotiating trade agreements with emerging countries, such as India, Brazil, and South Africa. These countries have populations that need the products we have here. Yet the Conservative government is negotiating a trade agreement with a dictatorship and a corrupt government.

We have $38 million in exports to Honduras right now, which is not very much. The Conservative government wants to say that it has trade agreements with 15 countries. Well, if we add up the trade with all the little countries like Honduras and Liechtenstein, it will not add up to even one agreement with one of the emerging countries or Japan or South Korea. Those are the countries we should be pursuing.

Let us talk about the Conservative government's trade record.

Eight years ago, when the Conservatives came into government, we had a trade current account surplus of $18 billion. What is it today after eight years? We have a deficit of $62 billion. That is a swing of $80 billion, which is roughly about $10 billion a year. Under the current government, we have a trade deficit.

There is also a merchandise deficit. Merchandise is value-added goods that we export. Under the Conservative government, we have had 23 straight months of a merchandise trade deficit, and it is growing.

For us to provide good jobs, we need to export goods we add value to. They are secondary goods. However, most of the products we export are either not processed at all or are barely processed. That is the Conservatives government's record.

How do we improve on that? We improve on it by getting our product to markets. Under the current government, we have seen what is happening in the Prairies. The wheat is rotting in the fields under the Conservative government. It has been unable to convince the railroad companies to get the product out to the ports.

Once it gets to the ports, guess what is happening? At the port in Vancouver, there has been a simmering labour dispute for the last four or five years. I have spoken in this House to ask the government to address the situation before it gets to a point where we have a shutdown. Guess what? The deadline for a strike at the major port of Vancouver was this morning at 12 o'clock Pacific Time.

What has the Conservative government been doing for the last four years, or even the last six months? It has been sitting on its hands. The Conservatives could have appointed a mediator six months ago. When was a mediator appointed? It was this morning. Talks are ongoing and hopefully things will be resolved, but it is under the Conservative government that we are on the verge of having a major port shut down.

To support our exporters, we need to build infrastructure, ensure that our ports are freely functioning, ensure that our traders are supported, and ensure that we have consulate and trade services overseas so that we can identify buyers for our products. Those are the kinds of things the Conservative government needs to do.

The current Conservative government has failed our exporters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard some optimism in my colleague's remarks, because he was urging the government to get moving on its negotiations with Japan and South Korea. I infer from his comments that the NDP caucus has already agreed to get behind these two agreements. They may be the first agreements in the history of that party it will get behind to help the one in five Canadian jobs that are attributable to trade. We will try to grow that pie.

I have two questions I would like the member to address. The trade critic of that party referenced the elections as being unfair. The most recent elections in Honduras were monitored, and the international community has been supportive and has called the results full and fair. Could the member tell me where his support is for that statement?

Why is my colleague not in favour of helping to increase the GDP of a country in our hemisphere that has a terribly low per capita GDP? Increased trade globally would actually help the people of that country.

I would like him to comment on those two issues: his reference to the election results and the overall question of trade raising people out of poverty.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will support a good trade deal, a trade deal that would help our exporters and help us get our products to market.

We refuse to support a trade deal with a country that has a poor human rights record. I do not have to let Canadians know how democratic Honduras is. We know the history of Honduras. We know what has been happening there. There has been wide condemnation of Honduras' human rights record and its ability to hold fair elections. That is widely documented. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to Google it and find out for himself.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I love the fact that the member pointed out that when the Conservatives inherited the government from Paul Martin, there was indeed a substantial trade surplus. Somehow they have converted that into a trade deficit. That means tens of thousands of lost opportunities in terms of good, solid jobs.

Am I to understand that the NDP will be voting against this bill? We recognize the value of trade. My colleague talked a great deal about the countries the NDP recognizes as worthy of having trade agreements with. Am I to draw the conclusion that the NDP will be voting against Bill C-20? It might have been referred to earlier. It is quite possible that I missed that point, but I would like clarification on that issue.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservative government, we have seen our trade deficit grow. I agree with the member that we have a large trade deficit, and the government is not taking steps to address it.

I have given two examples already. One is that the wheat is not being moved out of the Prairies. It is fine and dandy to sign these free trade agreements, but if we cannot get our products to markets, we are not going to be able to sell in those markets. We have seen what has been happening at the port of Vancouver.

The government needs to take action and support our exporters to get their products to their markets. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not doing that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a quick question and answer. The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get straight to my question. The Conservative member said that there were a lot of poor people in Honduras and that this agreement would help them. However, we know that there is a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. My concern is that this agreement will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The government has not implemented any measures to prevent that from happening. I would like to hear my colleague comment on that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the twisted logic of the Conservative government on how this trade agreement would help the poor.

The government is corrupt. In a corrupt country, there is no trickle-down effect. Everything is absorbed at the top. The poor will remain poor in Honduras unless there is less corruption and an honourable government. That is not the case.

The government could have used some of its weight to ensure that labour rights, human rights, and environmental rights were honoured in Honduras. Unfortunately, the government has failed to do that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak right after my colleague from Surrey North and after my many official opposition colleagues who made very relevant speeches, the first being the NDP's international trade critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I want to get off to a good start by quoting the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 to 17:

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’

If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Despite all of our efforts and all the times we have reached out, the government has shamefully imposed time allocation for the 52nd and 53rd time, in front of millions of witnesses, the millions of Canadian we proudly represent with dignity here in the House of Commons.

Despite the fact that I always try to treat government members like my sisters and brothers, the Conservatives have repeatedly spit in our faces. That is what they always do. Democracy has been denied from the outset. Now, we are studying a bill that, if passed, will be another source of shame for the people of this country. This is very serious.

Before thinking about my speech and delivering it here in the House, I took the time to listen to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade had to say. I also listened to the entire speech given by my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, who is the NDP's international trade critic.

To begin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade tried to create a smokescreen by extolling the virtues of the future free trade agreement between Canada and Europe. He did not disclose a single word of it, though. We are still in the dark about this free trade agreement, which we may support. The government is completely refusing to co-operate on that front.

As the member for Vancouver Kingsway said so well, other than the bill that was introduced in the House of Commons, we know nothing about the impact this agreement will have. The real problem goes beyond the government's claims that it wants to create jobs and bolster the Canadian and Honduran economies. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and the entire Conservative government—with active, enthusiastic support from the Liberals—are defending the indefensible. If this agreement goes into effect, it will go against the spirit of key international human rights treaties. That is unspeakable, not to mention completely immoral. Beyond the so-called economic arguments—which are more like wishful thinking, astrology or some other pseudo-science—there is no argument as convincing as denouncing the fundamental immorality of the bill introduced in the House.

Now I would like to focus on my Liberal colleagues. I was shocked to hear the speech from the hon. member for Toronto Centre. The Liberals are advocating a position that is very far removed from the position of Lester B. Pearson's government.

The Liberals' philosophy is some 500 years behind, stuck in a time of slavery and exploitation of the colonies and entire populations, the world over.

It is not so surprising to see the Liberals getting on board with the Conservatives. It has been said time and again in the House: there are major problems in Honduras. Organized crime is widespread. Democracy was wiped out in 2009, and there is no indication or meaningful evidence that this democracy is really vibrant or beneficial to the people of Honduras.

It is very easy to understand why this government is defending tooth and nail the bill we are considering and debating in the House for such a horribly limited amount of time. We know that the Conservatives have a penchant for fraudulent ways. They were caught using an in and out scheme and allowing their data bank to be used to voluntarily lead thousands of voters astray to false polling stations during past elections.

It is incredible that I am standing here in the House right now denouncing things that no party should even imagine or consider doing.

Currently, the party in power is denying its responsibility, denying reality and, in fact, is continuing along its merry way as though nothing happened. It even suggests that there were administrative issues at play when we talk about the in and out scheme. So it comes as no surprise that it is defending Bill C-20, a bill that might just be a blight on Canada's reputation.

I hope that my Conservative and Liberal colleagues will listen to reason and change their positions on this.

The situation has been described at length, but I want to go over it again. It is chilling to think about the murder rate and the number of people who live in fear in that country. In fact, it is not complicated; the entire population of Honduras lives in fear daily, except of course a very limited group of people that must represent, at best, a few thousand people. In fact, it is probably just a few hundred people only. They live in comfort, safety and luxury. In Honduras, a truly very small elite group enjoys this type of benefits.

How can they justify supporting a government that tolerates the reign of organized crime? Can any of my colleagues on the government or Liberal benches answer that? I have asked the question several times. Nobody has had the guts to give me a straight answer on that.

In closing, I would like to debunk an urban myth that the government has slyly, though crudely, tried to cultivate. It would have us believe the warped logic that if we support economic development, democracy will just materialize. That kind of logic is anything but divinely inspired. First of all, that is absolutely not the case, because there is no mention of the economy in this.

This urban legend belongs in the same category as the urban myth perpetuated all over social media and the Internet about how if you pass a car at night that does not have its headlights on, you should not flash your brights at it because it is part of a gang initiation ritual. Before I was elected, I had a little free time, and I researched that. I discovered that no law enforcement organization in North America had ever recorded a crime related to that kind of thing.

The government is making things up and trying to mislead the Canadian public, just like it does with other issues. Enough is enough.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, Canada is a respectable country.

If Canada signs free trade agreements with countries that violate rights and commit acts of violence against their own citizens, does this not give other perhaps less respectable countries permission to do the same thing? Does this not also tarnish Canada's reputation?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hochelaga raises an excellent question.

A little earlier in the House, I had the privilege of talking about one of the many things I am reading right now, an essay on economics by the renowned economist Esther Duflo, who is one of President Obama's advisors in the United States. I think she still is. Her essay is entitled “Repenser la pauvreté” or “Rethinking Poverty”.

The economic framework and the framework of democratic institutions are crucial factors when we talk about developing countries, poor countries and extreme poverty.

One thing that all economics experts can agree on is that it is impossible for a country to provide economic security and favourable conditions for economic development if it does not make people feel secure and if there is no sound government that guarantees individual rights.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He talked a lot about morality, particularly at the beginning of his speech.

I get a feeling that the fundamental disagreement we have with the government has to do with how we look at free trade agreements. Indeed, the government looks at them only from a market standpoint, which is completely amoral. I did not say “immoral”, but rather “amoral”. That is very important. We examine these agreements from a moral standpoint.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to appreciate the nuanced thinking of my colleague from Louis-Hébert, with whom I have worked for a long time, nine years to be exact. We went into politics in 2005.

I find it very interesting that there has been no reaction to my speech from the government or even the Liberals. That probably says a lot about their inability to credibly maintain their position and their embarrassment at being a party to what the House will unfortunately be asked to do, which is pass this free trade agreement bill.

Under what conditions and how can we blot out this stain on Canada's reputation? I do not know what to answer.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech.

This government has often brought in free trade agreements. Some have been beneficial for Canada, Quebec, the other provinces and the signatory countries.

However, in other cases, such as the Colombia agreement—that is the most recent example I can think of—there have been reprisals against journalists, arbitrary imprisonments and environmental and labour rights violations. I believe that we will see the same pattern with the Honduras free trade agreement.

Should the government not be setting an example when ratifying free trade agreements? Should it not be showing the world and the country concerned that an economic agreement could be concluded, but that first and foremost the country must respect fundamental rights? That is what the member mentioned in his speech. It seems to me that we would be setting an example before entering into a free trade agreement.

The Conservatives are doing the exact opposite. They are telling us that they will sign the agreement and then convince them to improve their human rights record.

Does my colleague have any examples where such agreements have been signed with countries such as Colombia and the situation has improved? I do not believe so, and I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his remarks and his question. I found no such examples. Perhaps my research was not extensive enough.

I would like to raise another issue about another recent debate. I am talking about the agreement with Panama, a country where, despite the government's claim that it is fighting tax evasion, tax fraud shores up a government that is still too tolerant of tax evasion and is still a tax haven in the eyes of authorities such as the International Monetary Fund.

It is absolutely unbelievable. I completely agree with my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, The Budget; the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, Industry.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley West.

It is my pleasure this afternoon to highlight how the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would fit with Canada's strategy for engagement in the Americas.

Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investments. As members will recall, the Prime Minister announced the Americas as a foreign policy priority in 2007, with a vision of a more prosperous, secure, and democratic hemisphere. Seven years on, our whole-of-government engagement in the hemisphere has never been stronger.

There are three goals in the Americas strategy. The first is to increase Canadian and hemispheric economic opportunity. The second is to address insecurity and advance freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law through capacity-building. The third is to build a stable foundation for Canada's engagement and increased influence in the hemisphere.

Stronger economic ties are becoming increasingly important with uncertainty in the global economy. Our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. It represents one out of every five jobs in Canada and accounts for 64% of our country's annual income.

Increased engagement through trade and commercial economic ties is one of the best ways we can support positive change and sustainable economic growth in the Americas.

Our Conservative government's efforts to increase mutual economic opportunity centre on creating the conditions for a dynamic, transparent, and rules-based commercial and investment environment. In particular, advancing free trade in the Americas opens new doors of opportunity for Canadian and Honduran companies and increases economic benefits for all, including more jobs and prosperity.

Canada and Honduras have enjoyed a very positive relationship since we first established diplomatic relations in 1961. Given our demonstrated commitment to democratic development, our important development assistance program—which is the biggest development program we operate in Central America—and our growing trade and investment linkages, Canada continues to be a constructive partner for Honduras.

Canada, represented by the former minister of the environment, the member for Thornhill, played a leading role in efforts to reach a peaceful, negotiated solution to the political crisis sparked by the coup d'état in Honduras in June 2009.

On the economic front, bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Honduras reached $257 million in 2012, growing 9% over the previous year. Merchandise exports to Honduras were a modest $38 million in 2012, while imports from Honduras were $218 million. Undoubtedly, our new agreement will allow us to increase our exports substantially in a range of industry sectors.

With respect to capital, Canadian direct foreign investment is most prominent in Honduras in the garment, manufacturing, and mining industries. Tourism is a growing industry in Honduras, and Canadians are a significant factor. From January to October of last year, 25,000 Canadians visited Honduras, with an additional 37,000 Canadians entering the country by cruise ships over that same period.

As with any trade agreement, various industries in each province would benefit through increased exports and the new jobs that would be created.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would benefit exporters from my home province of British Columbia through the elimination of Honduran tariffs in sectors of export interest, such as textiles, which currently face up to 15% tariffs; industrial machinery, also facing tariffs of up to 15%; and construction equipment, which would also see the elimination of current tariffs, which range up to 15%. Additionally, B.C.'s forestry sector stands to benefit with the elimination of tariffs, as wood and pulp and paper products currently face tariffs as high as 15%.

Seven of Canada's concluded free trade agreements are with countries in the Americas: Mexico, through NAFTA; Chile; Costa Rica; Peru; Colombia; Panama; and, of course, Honduras.

Our government recognizes the need to make companies aware of the advantages and opportunities that they create to maximize the mutual benefits flowing from these agreements. Our strategic push to liberalize trade with the Americas is working. We are removing barriers and facilitating two-way commerce.

The Americas offer great potential. Total trade between countries in the Americas and Canada, which was at $56 billion in 2012, has increased by 32% since 2007, and Canadian direct investment in the region, at $168 billion in 2012, has increased by 58% since 2007.

In order to continue to promote mutual economic opportunity, our government's strategy for engagement in the Americas focuses on intensifying trade promotion and relationship-building efforts to ensure that the Canadian private sector is taking full advantage of trade and economic agreements, as well as on building the capacity of our trading partners to capitalize on the benefits of free trade with Canada. The Canada-Americas trade-related technical assistance program, for example, serves to assist Canada's trade partners in Latin America and the Caribbean region to maximize the opportunities and benefits of increased trade and investment afforded them through their free trade agreements with Canada.

In line with our strategy, our Conservative government is committed to a strong economic partnership with Honduras that would contribute to enhanced prosperity and sustainable economic growth in both countries. For example, there are currently a number of development projects under way in Honduras which aim to improve food security, such as the Special Programme for Food Security.

The free trade agreement and its parallel agreements on labour and environmental co-operation would promote responsible commercial exchange while building a winning advantage for our companies, in particular in areas where Canada has experience an expertise, such as in natural resource management.

However, it is important to recall that prosperity and security are mutually reinforcing. To enable and protect Canadian trade and commercial investments, the security situation in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean must be taken into consideration, and it has rightly been made a focus in our strategy for engagement in the Americas. Recognizing the challenges to overcome for peace and prosperity in the region, Canada has committed over $70 million in security assistance to Central America since 2008, with $25 million announced in 2012 by the Prime Minister for the Canadian initiative for security in Central America. Through such investments, we are helping to strengthen security and institutions that safeguard freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Canada also works closely with the Central American integration system to improve donor coordination and security co-operation in Central America.

Honduras is also a country of focus for Canadian development programming, through which we are stimulating sustainable economic growth, increasing food security, and securing the future of children and youth. The Building Effective Justice Systems project, for example, contributes to the strengthening of the criminal justice system through training in crime scene examination, investigation, and oral trial techniques.

In a region where relationships are fundamental to success, long-term and multi-faceted engagement is a vital part of Canada's strategy for engagement in the Americas. Competition for market share is on the rise, and Canada must demonstrate that it is a serious and committed partner. The engagement of the Prime Minister, ministers, and Conservative members has been central to this effort.

While sustaining high-level engagement is essential, our government continues to build and strengthen relationships across the private sector, government, academia, civil society, and among individuals. Through our strong bilateral relationships and the increasing people-to-people networks generated through educational exchanges, increased tourism, and business links, our ties with Honduras are growing stronger every day, and we are seeing an increase in the opportunities for both countries.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement and the parallel labour and environmental co-operation agreements are key components to advance in Honduras the goals of Canada's strategy for engagement in the Americas. I ask all hon. members for their support.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned tourism several times. That is an interesting subject. In Canada, tourism is slowing down and has been for years. Canada was once a great global tourism destination. Now it seems like nothing is happening and there is hardly any promotion of Canadian tourism to people in other countries.

I would like to know where people are going. Whenever people talk about tourism, the destinations are tax havens and warmer countries. Why not get people to come to Canada to visit our country? We have so many tourist attractions. Can my colleague comment on this? We are definitely bringing up the rear.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question and comments. I do hope he is not trying to discourage Canadians from finding a warmer climate in which to spend some time during the winter.

However, he asks about our initiatives to increase tourism to Canada, and I would point out that we are increasing tourism to Canada. Looking at the opportunities we have created, for example, for Asian tourists to come to our beautiful country, we see that we have provided visa-free access to the Taiwanese in recent years. More recently, we have seen an increase in the number of Chinese tourists coming to Canada; as many as 400,000 last year, I am told. From people I have spoken with, I hear that when they go to Niagara Falls or other iconic destinations in Canada they see a large number of tourists from around the world, but particularly from Asia, where we have focused heavily on promoting Canada's opportunity for tourism.

Yes, Canadians want to spend some time in warmer climates, perhaps during the winter, but we are also making ourselves very inviting to the rest of the world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we look at the trade agreement and see it as a positive. I want to get to the bigger picture in terms of trade in general.

When the Conservatives first took office, they inherited a significant, sizable trade surplus, which assisted in terms of literally tens of thousands of jobs as a direct result of that trade surplus. It did not take the Conservatives long to turn a surplus into a multi-billion-dollar trade deficit.

The question I have for the member is this. Does the Conservative government, today, have any plans as to when we can expect Canada to be on the plus side once again, in terms of a trade surplus as opposed to a trade deficit? Can the member indicate what year Canadians can anticipate that a Conservative government would be able to ensure we have a trade surplus?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the member does not expect me to predict the future. However, he does bring to mind the Liberal record.

It was not long ago that the Liberals were in power for 13 long years, as many people describe it. We might ask ourselves how many trade agreements they accomplished during those 13 years. The answer is three. That is not much to have accomplished during that long period of government.

Yet here we are, a Conservative government since 2006, and we have concluded agreements with 37 countries while, at the same time, improving the trade relations we have with the three that the Liberals were able to secure.

When the member opposite tries to attack our government on our trading relationship, it is a bit rich for him to go down that path, considering his own record of engagement in that party.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale for his excellent presentation. From a tourism perspective, there is not a nicer part of the country to visit.

It is with great pleasure that I rise today in this place to speak to the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. In particular, I would like to say a few words about the issue of corporate social responsibility and how it relates to this agreement.

Corporate social responsibility can be defined as the voluntary activities undertaken by a company to operate in an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable manner. It is also increasingly referred to as responsible business practices. It covers a broad range of activities, including environmental protection, human rights, labour relations, corporate governance, transparency, community relations, peace and security, and anti-corruption measures.

Our government recognizes the importance of corporate social responsibility in a globally competitive, well-regarded extractive sector. Our government encourages and expects Canadian companies working internationally to respect all applicable laws and international standards, to operate transparently and in consultation with host governments and local communities, and to develop and implement corporate social responsibility best practices.

Canada has a long-standing commitment to promoting and encouraging responsible business practices by Canadian companies operating overseas. For instance, Canada has been a key driver and supporter of the numerous other important international instruments, including the International Finance Corporation's Performance Standards on Social and Environmental Sustainability, the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, and most recently, the United Nations' Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

This clearly demonstrates that this government's commitment to international corporate social responsibility standards is a fundamental ongoing priority. Our government has turned this commitment into concrete action in a number of ways, including by integrating robust corporate social responsibility provisions into many bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, of which the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is no exception.

Another concrete example is Canada's corporate social responsibility strategy for the international extractive sector, also known as building the Canadian advantage. The strategy was announced in March 2009 after extensive cross-country consultations with a number of key stakeholders. It has proven to be a strong framework by which our government encourages and promotes responsibility, responsible business practices by Canadian companies working internationally in the extractive sector.

Our support for the international corporate social responsibility guidelines in principle extends this reach to all business sectors operating anywhere in the world. Therefore, our government encourages and expects Canadian companies working internationally to, one, respect all applicable laws and international standards, including those that pertain to human rights and environment, and two, operate transparently and in consultation with host governments and local communities.

I want to be clear. The vast majority of Canadian companies conduct their operations in line with international standards for responsible business conduct. This is a key reason why Canadian companies are highly regarded and respected around the globe. It is also one of the reasons why Canada is a leader in the global extraction sector.

I wish to comment briefly on Canada's approach, which emphasizes voluntary activities as opposed to regulations, obligatory actions, and punitive measures. Canada has worked hard in support of many corporate social responsibility guidelines, as we understand their value to Canadian companies operating abroad. In fact, they often provide valuable guidance, which allows our companies to succeed. This is reinforced by actions of Canadian companies. There has been a substantial transformation on the part of the private sector with respect to corporate social responsibility.

Today, Canadian companies operating abroad recognize that corporate social responsibility and responsible business practices are fundamentally important to their ultimate success and their bottom line, including shareholder value. They recognize that a commitment to responsible business practice is a commitment to their own success. In a sense, corporate social responsibility has been mainstreamed into the management and operational structure of Canadian companies.

Last June, the Prime Minister announced that our government will be establishing new mandatory reporting standards for Canadian extractive companies, with a view to enhancing transparency on the payments they make to governments. This effort, which will also help to ensure that citizens in resource-rich countries around the world are better informed and benefit from the natural resources in their country, builds on Canada's key role as a supporting country of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. These initiatives on transparency highlight our government's commitment to working with our trading partners to pursue policies that support a responsible and sustainable investment environment in the best interests of host communities and businesses.

Responsible business conduct reinforces the positive effects that trade and investment can have on human rights, labour standards, the environment, and competitiveness. At the same time, it has a significant positive effect on the communities in which the businesses operate. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement includes provisions on corporate social responsibility because our government believes that liberalized, rules-based trade and social and environmental responsibility go hand in hand.

The parallel agreements on labour co-operation and environmental co-operation ensure that increased business between our two nations does not come at the expense of our social and environmental responsibilities. Activities to promote responsible business practices can also be undertaken in the form of trade-related co-operation. Provisions in these agreements encourage both governments to promote voluntary principles of responsible business conduct with their business communities. Not only do these agreements advance our government's efforts to promote corporate social responsibility; they also provide an opportunity to engage partners to increase its promotion.

Both Canada and Honduras have agreed to support positive corporate social responsibility practices and to remind companies of the importance of incorporating corporate social responsibility standards in their internal practices. A fundamentally important aspect of this bilateral approach is that it helps level the playing field for Canadian investors when they invest in Honduras, by encouraging corporate social responsibility principles amongst all investors. At its core, responsible business practices incorporate social, economic, and environmental concerns into the daily operations of firms to benefit industry and society, with particular consideration for the community in which they are operating. Given that Canada and Honduras have a significant investment relationship, it was critical to include corporate social responsibility in these important agreements.

Our government has shown its commitment to promoting corporate social responsibility and responsible business practices internationally and is pleased to work with trade partners to broaden this commitment. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement recognizes this and is an important mechanism to create jobs, opportunities, and prosperity for Canadians in a socially and environmentally responsible manner.

For these reasons, I ask all hon. members for their support of this very important agreement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully as the hon. member spoke a lot about corporate social responsibility and how important that is to Canadians. However, I think Canadians are also expecting government democratic responsibility.

Honduras is an undemocratic country, with one of the worst human rights records in the world. It has the highest murder rate of journalists on the planet. It is a major cocaine trafficking centre. It tolerates environmentally destructive policies.

Honduras ranks 104th on Canada's list of trade partners and DFAIT itself acknowledges that this deal would provide only marginal benefits to Canadian exporters.

Honduras permits corporate actions that harm the environment, violating indigenous rights and the wishes of local populations, and permits a lot of paramilitary death squads to operate, intimidating citizens and committing violent acts against those who raise peaceful voices of dissent.

Canadians would not support a trade agreement with the previous government of Ukraine or North Korea or Iran. Why does the current government believe that Canadians would support an agreement with Honduras, which has an equally bad record of violating the democratic and human rights standards not only of Honduras but also of Canada and the world?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are a pro-trade government. That is what we do. We believe in trade. We believe in jobs, job creation, and prosperity for all Canadians. In entering a agreement like this, employing some of the standards and priorities that I have just articulated, it is critical that we work with our partners to ensure that they are carry those same values.

While the member certainly can promote an isolationist-type of environment, where we just stay at home, where we are anti-trade and do not participate in global markets, that is not the government's approach and not the one we on our side of the House will take in this agreement.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his emphasis on opportunity, job creation, growth, and trade.

I have had the opportunity to visit Honduras on a number of occasions and do dentistry in some of the remote parts of Honduras, seeing the kinds of efforts that the Honduran people make to increase the standard of living in their country. I certainly applaud all of those efforts.

As my colleague has a bit of time left, I wonder if he would outline some of the positive effects that increased investment and increased trade with Honduras would bring to the Honduran people, who are asking for this. If he could just give me a couple of examples, that would be great.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been to Honduras, but I have had an opportunity to meet with some of those in the extractive sector, in the mining industry, who talk about social responsibility and an opportunity to give back to the communities where they work and employ local inhabitants. In doing so, they are not only growing those environments, those neighbourhoods, creating a more prosperous environment for people to live in within a more sustainable world, but also taking there the medical and dental practices lacking in those countries as an example, to help people in need where they do not have those skill sets available.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day. I have to wonder, when I hear the member talk about these principles and about corporate social responsibility.

What is the Government of Canada's social responsibility?

The member says that he is pro-trade. The Hells Angels are too.

Who were those negotiators from Honduras; who were those people we negotiated with? They were people responsible for murders and acts of violence, people who killed journalists and union activists.

I am not surprised to hear this sort of logic from the Conservatives. However, I think it is disgusting that the Liberal Party, including the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who ran in the leadership race to become prime minister and whom I consider to be a man of integrity, is okay with Canada signing this agreement with the most violent country in Latin America, where democracy is violated the most. That is what I am most sad about today.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing clearly demonstrates the type of values the opposition members bring to the House, values that are anti-trade and close-minded, and which just do not allow for expansionist thinking and opportunity.

I do not know if the member was in the room when I presented my speech, but the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement includes provisions on corporate social responsibility. We are sharing those provisions and our responsibilities with our partners on the other side of this agreement.

Somewhere we have to start to build a bridge. I hear the member on some of the issues, but I do not believe that closing ourselves off, staying entirely in Canada, being anti-trade and anti-growth and anti-prosperity, is going to do what we need to do in the rest of the world. We need to expand global markets.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-20. Maybe I should start by commenting on the remarks of my colleague from the New Democratic Party, who confirms why the NDP members often scare business. It is a scary proposition if we stop to think about their attitudes toward trade. They can put up walls and prevent merchandise from coming into the country, but I give this advice to my New Democratic colleagues: they might want to open their minds to the facts of how important trade is to Canada.

It is estimated that up to 80% of economic activity or jobs in Canada are attributable to trade. Canada is a trading nation. In response the NDP members say, well, we are talking about trade between Canada and Honduras. I listened to their comments on Bill C-20. They say that Honduras is a bad country, a very bad country. I get that message. That is what they are saying. Do they know that there is currently over a quarter of a billion dollars of trade between our two countries? Are they suggesting that we should abandon that trade also? Are they suggesting that Canada should not trade with nations like Honduras, period?

We should be concerned about that. I can appreciate that in the history of our nation, the NDP has never voted in favour of a trade agreement. It has never done that. It does not seem to recognize that there is some value to trade. In representing their constituents, New Democrats need to realize that many of them have their jobs because of world trade. We should not fear trade, but recognize that there are opportunities for Canada to benefit from it.

Those are the questions I have posed to the government and New Democrats. Let us recognize the value of trade if we manage that file right.

I will get to the Honduras trade agreement specifically, but when we look at the overall trade balance, we see that that when the Conservatives inherited government, there was a multi-billion trade surplus. Today we have a multi-billion trade deficit. What does that mean? Other than stating the fact that Conservatives have done a poor job on the trade file overall, it means that Canada has been deprived of tens of thousands of good, solid jobs. Do not underestimate the impact this has had on the middle class in Canada, because the government of the day has not done its homework.

In part we have to bring this right to the Office of the Prime Minister. One of the speakers talked about the government reaching 37 trade agreements. What he did not highlight is that the process for a number of those agreements began during a Liberal administration. It was Liberals that started them. What they failed to realize is yes, there is a difference in attitude in regard to—

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You guys failed and the Conservatives felt the impact.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see there is a member standing on a point of order. Normally we do not recognize members on points of order unless, of course, they bring that point of order from the seat they normally occupy in the House.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the trade file is interesting, and I will give a good example of that.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien decided that he would go to China to increase trade. What did he do? He brought stakeholders, including provincial government representatives, and I believe there were even premiers; all sorts of business executives; and labour organizations. There was a good cross-section of Canadians who went to China. I believe he even went to other Asian countries, but I am not 100% sure of that. At the end of the day, we saw hundreds of millions of dollars in trade going back and forth as a direct result of that trip.

How does that compare to the current Prime Minister? First of all, it took the Conservatives quite a while to wake up to the reality that China is a significant country and has a lot to offer in terms of potential trade in the future. However, I believe that in 2009, possibly 2010, the Prime Minister went to China. What did he deliver? Well, I believe he came back with two panda bears, and he thought that was a great achievement. However, when I was part of the Manitoba legislature, the premier was able to get two panda bears.

It is all about way that one approaches trade. The government members stand in their place and say they have done well because they have another trade agreement. They say they have 30-plus trade agreements. Some may applaud, and yes it is good to see trade agreements. However, I think Canadians are concerned not just with having trade agreements, but with our addressing the whole trade file as well.

We must recognize that there are other countries in the world that we need to do a little more work on. I say this because the Conservatives have dropped the ball, turning a huge trade surplus into a huge trade deficit.

Let us talk about how the government manages to mess up trade. It is all about the current Prime Minister and the Conservative government's poor performance. It is about what is happening on the Prairies today. We have megapiles of grain throughout the Prairies. There is so much grain, it is not only in the bins but it also stored outside the bins in plastic. We have known about this for months. It is not something new. The government would have been aware of this back in September or October.

We have all of this grain in the Prairies, but then we look to the Pacific Ocean and we have empty ships there. There is a disconnect: that grain should be in the ships. As a direct result of this, Canada is losing millions of dollars worth of contracts because the Conservative government did not do its job.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Build a pipeline.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we can get grain down a pipeline. However, we are talking about prairie grain farmers right now, and the government has dropped the ball.

We have people in the Prairies saying that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is one of the worst ministers ever.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The truth hurts, Mr. Speaker.

We finally got the Minister of Transport to stand up today after a while.

Why does the government not amend Transport Canada legislation to protect our farmers and give them a service guarantee? This is something that the government can do. The Liberal Party has indicated that the potential amendments are already there. We know what they are. The government could act on these today. It is amazing, but with the co-operation of all political parties we could pass legislation awfully quickly.

The government needs to send a message to the prairie farmers that we care. However, the Conservatives have not been able to do that.

Therefore, when we talk about trade, we must think about the bigger picture of trade and what we need to do not only maintain it but also to improve and grow the markets and take responsibility for that.

The government has not been responsible on this file, overall. The government needs to be accountable for the bottom line figure.

Unlike the NDP, we understand the benefits of trade. We understand the concerns with regard to environmental issues and social issues. We are just as sensitive to those issues as any other political party inside the chamber, but that does not mean that we cannot continue to move forward.

The NDP critic asked about what was happening in Ukraine. He is referring to the fact that under the old Ukraine regime, there could be no trade agreement. Regimes come and go, but trade will continue on. We would like to think that we could have an impact. NDP logic would have trade banned with countries they do not deem worthy enough to trade with Canada. That would mean cancelling a lot of today's imports and exports.

We can do better. We want to see trade agreements that would benefit Canadians, first and foremost. As well, we want to see trade agreements that would improve the conditions in other countries around the world. Canada can benefit, if the government manages the file. One example is Honduras.

Pork is an important industry to the province of Manitoba. Manitoba has more pigs than it has people. We cannot consume all the pork, so we need export markets, and Honduras is one of those export markets. With this particular agreement, Manitoba would be able to export more pork to Honduras and thereby benefit. I have been out to the hog farms and to the Burns slaughter plant in Brandon. A lot of jobs have been created as a direct result of the pork industry in Manitoba. Our province has seen the economic benefit of that industry. Not only here in Canada but also around the world, consumers eat first-class, quality food because of this important industry in Manitoba.

I recognize the value of free trade agreements when both nations can benefit.

Last week in question period, I asked what the government is doing with respect to concerns relating to the pork industry and some of the feed being called into question in certain regions. To what degree is the government coming to the table to protect the integrity of that industry? Once again, the government is lacking.

The government needs to take a more aggressive approach in addressing the needs of our communities. It needs to come to the table and help resolve problems where it can. Pork farmers not only in Manitoba but also in Quebec and other places are concerned about the integrity of the industry because of the feed that is being brought in. They want the government to take some action on that important file. We all have a vested interest in that file, especially when we are talking about the Honduras trade agreement before us today. It is very important.

Honduras has a population of roughly 8 million people. Some of its most notable exports are the production of minerals, coffee, tropical fruit, sugar cane and, recently, clothing to the international market. Its clothing industry is growing quite significantly.

Honduras is in a critical area of the world. It was back in 2001 when the negotiations really started about recognizing the need to have and work toward trade agreements with countries such as Honduras, which we are debating today, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. There is a need for Canada to do what it can in reaching out and improving the economic conditions of other countries. Canadians as a whole want us to do that.

We do not need to live in fear of free trade agreements. There will always be some shortcomings, and we need to be aware of them. I want to see our Canadian workforce on an equal playing field with other countries we compete with. It is frustrating to me and to many within the Liberal Party when we see distinct subsidies that would assist one country and potentially harm industries within our own country.

No one has complete ownership of that issue. We are all concerned. We all want to save the jobs we have. I, for one, understand and appreciate many of the different industries in my home province and I want them to grow. I referred to the pork industry. We have other industries that I take a great deal of pride in. The aerospace industry is one of them.

One industry where there is great potential for growth is tourism. It would be wonderful to see more people from Honduras coming to Canada, and Canadians ultimately visiting Honduras. We are seeing an overall increase in world travel. The spinoff benefits are phenomenal. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs worldwide, and tens of thousands of them here.

I see that my time has virtually expired. As members can tell, we support, in principle, the passage of this particular bill. The Liberal Party does not fear free trade. It sees trade as very beneficial. If we recognize that Canada is so dependent on international trade, I suspect that there might be more support from all sides of the House. Canada needs trade, and we should be looking at countries where there is great potential.

I conclude on a very personal note. One country that I feel very passionate about is the Philippines. It is one of our greatest sources of immigration today. I would argue that we need to get beyond immigration and start looking at trade and what more we could do in trade and tourism.

There are many great countries around the world and we need to tap into them. If we do it right, Canadians and the middle class will benefit, because it will generate tens of thousands of jobs, and improve the quality of life not only for Canadians but also for people around the world.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to our friend from Winnipeg North.

First, I want to clarify the Liberal record on free trade. We need only think about the famous 1988 election when the Liberal Party fought tooth and nail against the free trade agreement. I know, we know, and I am sure the member will agree that the NDP will oppose free trade all the time, just because it is not in their nature to support free trade and all the benefits that go with it. They are very protectionist.

I wonder if the member could explain to me the Liberal flip-flop from the 1988 election, and why more free trade agreements were not signed during the 13 years of Liberal rule.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my Winnipeg friend from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

I will start off by saying that I agree with the member in regard to the New Democrats. Sometimes a person does get frustrated, trying not to focus on how they come up with their ideas on free trade.

I would like to think that at the end of the day, the New Democratic members might support some free trade. There was some indication of that from a previous speaker. I believe Japan was one country they would support an agreement with. I have not really heard them talk about any other countries.

Having said that, I do recognize that there have been a wide variety of trade agreements. Some of them have been Conservative and some have been Liberal. Some that are signed off, for example, Honduras, the trade agreement we are talking about today, were initiated back in 2001. That is when the discussions actually began, under Jean Chrétien.

I could go over the years. The auto pact, probably one of the greatest trade agreements or arrangements made, was led by the Liberal Party back in the 1960s. It created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Both Canada and the United States benefited immensely.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the presentations on this particular bill.

What I find really puzzling is the official opposition is being faulted as supposedly being the only one raising concerns with the trade agreement with Honduras. Yet, I am informed that a report commissioned by Carleton University, written by such wild and crazy people as Derek Burney and Thomas d'Aquino, in consultation with Canadians, recommended that Ottawa should instead focus its attention on negotiations with major nations, where we are going to substantially benefit from.

In the report was the suggestion that the Honduras agreement will, if passed, contribute exactly 71 minutes of trade for Canada. It really raises a question about all the time, energy, and taxpayers' money we are spending in negotiating a trade deal of this extent.

One of the previous members of the government who spoke raised the fact that there is a wonderful environmental side agreement to this trade deal. Frankly, there is not a wonderful side agreement. Continuously, the government has downgraded the environmental side agreements. The fact that it is a side agreement and is not included as a binding condition is enough. There is no permanent council of environment ministers. There is no full-time secretariat. There is no duty for effective environmental enforcement.

How does the member defend this? Does he believe that trade agreements should be even further downgraded since NAFTA?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a great number of my comments were in regard to trade between Canada and the rest of the world overall. We recognize that there is a much bigger picture here, and I like to think I put a great deal of emphasis on that in my comments.

Nothing has changed. We in the Liberal Party believe in trade, and we believe that the government has not done a good job in terms of the overall numbers. I have emphasized that point. I emphasize that point a lot.

That said, it does not mean that we disregard a quarter of a billion dollars, that being Honduras. There is no shame in supporting a trade agreement. It does not mean we have to abandon social policy issues. We can be just as strong on social policy issues and still support a trade agreement.

I know the member is having a difficult time with this. If we follow her logic, it would mean we should not be trading at all with Honduras. Today, we do more than a quarter of a billion dollars in trade per year.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a really hard time listening to my Liberal colleague's speech, and I think my NDP colleagues feel the same way.

I want to share some facts with the House. Honduras is widely considered to be the murder capital of the world, with a record 7,172 homicides in 2012. Twenty-three journalists were killed there in the past three years alone. Just 1% of crimes are investigated by police. This means that there are 7,172 homicides in a year and only 1% of these crimes are probably investigated by the police. Journalists live in constant fear.

I am pleased that we are not supporting this free trade agreement because it is not a good agreement. As a democratic country, Canada should not support a country that allows such things to go on within its borders. I am proud not to support this agreement. I would like to ask the member how he can morally and ethically support it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would put the challenge to the member. If she genuinely believes exactly what she just said, then why does she support over a quarter of a billion dollars of trade between these two countries today? Is that not a legitimate question to be putting to the NDP? I would like to hear any one of the New Democrats explain why they would allow trade to grow between these two countries naturally.

This is what I say, which scares a lot of people: Canada is a trading nation. At the end of the day, if the New Democrats want to continue along that line, that is fine, but let us hear them be straightforward and then say that they want to ban trade with those countries. However, they are not prepared to say that. Why is that? I suspect it is because what they are really trying to do is to come up with a justification for their behaviour inside the chamber on the trade file, because they have never stood in their place inside the House and voted for a free trade agreement. They might try to say otherwise, but that is the reality.

It seems to me to be either a justification, or any one of the New Democrats would stand in his or her place and say that we should not have any trade with a country, if that is really and truly what the member and other members within the New Democratic Party believe.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North just reminded me of something, and that is how easy the government and its leader find it to consider the possibility of doing business with dictatorships. Indeed, dictatorships are the most efficient form of government, the quickest to make decisions and the easiest to do business with. I would like the member to tell us whether he agrees with his leader in this regard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, do not ask me to defend the Conservative Party or the Conservative government. If we put this bill to the side and I was given unlimited time, I would love to talk about the Conservative government and its attitude toward the chamber. In fact, earlier today I got to talk about it.

Never before in the history of this country have we seen such an assault on democracy. The fair elections act and time allocations are examples. There is a litany of things, and that is just dealing with process. If I were to start talking about issues, you would have to seek unanimous consent to allow me adequate time to address it, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest some might want to bring sleeping bags—

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Not a chance.

[Ryan Leef]

And earplugs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

—because it would take a long time for me to draw that debate to a conclusion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am not sure if the hon. member is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to waive the limit on time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Sure I am, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am not seeing any consent for that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the great and hard-working member for Huron—Bruce. His speech follows mine.

I would like to join my colleagues in voicing support for the implementation of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. On November 27, 2013, our Conservative government unveiled the global markets action plan. This strategy is part of our ongoing efforts to create jobs, growth, and prosperity for Canadians. The global market action plan will focus on 80 countries that have been identified as target markets for Canadian business. The plan aims to grow our exports, which are vital to Canada as a trading nation. For example, the plan foresees increasing the percentage of Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises that are active in emerging markets from 29% to 50% by 2018.

However, we will not focus only on traditional areas, such as exports. Canadian companies need to innovate to survive. Businesses that make science, innovation, and research and development a core part of their strategy are creating the kinds of skilled, well-paying jobs that we want here in Canada, so the plan will also work to stimulate new innovation partnerships.

Gaining preferential market access is also an important role of the government's strategy. We cannot afford to hold back while our competitors are securing important trade deals. We need to be sure that we can compete and that we can deliver on the expectations of Canada's exporters, investors, and service providers. They have made it clear that we need to help them open doors so that they can generate jobs and growth in their communities. This is precisely why bolstering Canada's commercial relationships in rapidly growing markets around the world, such as Honduras, is an important part of our long-term prosperity plan.

Our Conservative government is currently pursuing an ambitious trade and investment agenda. Last fall the Prime Minister announced that an agreement in principle had been reached with the European Union. Once the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement is implemented, it will secure access to 28 diverse markets and more than 500 million consumers. There would be 500 million new customers for Canadian businesses. The agreement will cover virtually all aspects of our trade with Europe, such as goods and services, labour mobility, investment, and procurement, including sub-national procurement, to name just a few of the areas. Canada stands to benefit from access to the world's biggest market, with a $17 trillion GDP. This is a landmark achievement for Canada and Canadian companies.

While the agreement with the EU will bring important benefits for Canadian companies, it would be short-sighted to focus exclusively on one area of the world. In October 2012, Canada joined the negotiations for the multilateral trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP. This group includes 12 Asia-Pacific countries, and when we look at all of the current TPP countries together, we see they represent over 39% of the world's economy, with a combined GDP of $28.1 trillion. It is absolutely critical that we take advantage of this chance to favourably position Canadian companies in the Asia-Pacific market.

Looking beyond the TPP, talks are also well under way with Japan and Korea.

I would also like to highlight our Conservative government's most recent international trade announcement, the launch of modernization and expansion negotiations with Israel. During his first official visit to the region, the Prime Minister confirmed that we will modernize existing chapters in the Canada-Israel free trade agreement in the areas of market access for goods, rules of origin, institutional provisions, and dispute settlements. In addition to updating key areas, Canada will also seek to negotiate new chapters in the areas of trade facilitation, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade, intellectual property, electronic commerce, labour, and environment. This undertaking will enhance the bilateral commercial flows by reducing technical barriers, enhancing co-operation, increasing transparency in regulatory matters, and reducing the transaction costs for businesses.

The updated Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement is yet another aspect of our broad international trade agenda. Modernization of free trade agreements, like the one we are undertaking with Israel, are about keeping Canadian companies competitive.

The issue of competitiveness is also at the heart of why we need to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras. The U.S. and EU already have free trade agreements with Honduras. How can we give our companies an edge if we cannot ensure they are getting comparable treatment? Keeping pace with Canada's main competitors is just one reason that we need to move forward with this deal.

There are other benefits to the free trade agreement as well, which I would like to reiterate. First, the agreement would help Canadian producers and exporters by eliminating tariffs. That is what free trade does. This will help a variety of Canadian companies and sectors, such as chemical products, wood, pulp, pulp and paper products, vehicles, auto parts, as well as fish and seafood. It will also be advantageous to Canadian agriculture producers in areas such as beef, pork, and processed potato products. Canada's service providers would enjoy enhanced commitments in sectors of export interest to Canada, such as natural resources, professional services, information and communication technologies.

Moreover, Canadian investors would be protected by the agreement's legally binding obligations to ensure they will be treated in a non-discriminatory manner and have the ability to access transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlements.

As part of Canada's 21st century approach to trade agreements, Canada has also included language on corporate social responsibility, as we heard from my colleague earlier in this free trade agreement. This acknowledges Canada's expectations that our companies observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct, both at home and abroad.

Our commitment to supporting good corporate governance does not end there. Along with the free trade agreement, we are also ratifying parallel agreements between Canada and Honduras on labour co-operation and environmental co-operation. This is part of our commitment to make sure that labour and environmental practices do not suffer at the hands of increased trade.

With such a comprehensive approach to free trade agreement negotiations, it is no surprise that the resulting Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is a high-quality agreement. Its benefits, and those of the government's and other international trade initiatives, should be clear to all hon. members. That is why I am urging that this House adopt this agreement.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate. The Conservatives are always saying that the NDP is against free trade and jobs. If you listen to them, you would think we were against breathing.

We have the right to wonder how an agreement like this will benefit the people of Longueuil, whom I represent. It is not because we are closed-minded. For example, we are well aware that free trade with Europe will be extremely beneficial to the cattle and beef industry. It is good to see the benefits of that agreement: we are going to sell Europe something and Europe is going to sell us something else. I agree that that has to be regulated.

However, what am I supposed to tell the people of Longueuil about the practical benefits of an agreement with a country such as this? Am I supposed to tell them that this free trade agreement is a good idea? We are going to sell Honduras certain products. The member mentioned a few sectors, but things are still rather unclear. What is more, the benefits of the agreement do not carry much weight when people realize what the political situation is like over there and even less so when they hear that we are taking in Honduran refugees. How can we reconcile these two things?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was reminded earlier that yesterday was the trade deadline in the NHL. New Democrats are so much against trade that they wanted to cancel that day too.

I cannot speak specifically to the member's riding; I can tell him what it means to Elgin—Middlesex—London, my riding. I am certain that if that is the case, it would help all places across Canada, but certainly it would benefit in the area of agricultural goods and the movement of beef and pork, as I mentioned in my speech.

Ours is an area of southern Ontario that drastically needs the trade that fell off from the United States during the economic downturn. It would benefit the manufacturing equipment that we make, and the chemicals that Canada can sell around the world.

I mentioned industrial machinery. Vehicles and auto parts are another sector. All of these things currently have very high trade tariff levels in Honduras, up to 15%, and they would disappear with a free trade agreement. That would certainly mean that manufacturers, small businesses, and small machine shops in my own riding could have work through free trade with Honduras.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments about the importance of signing this free trade agreement with Honduras.

I would like to put on the record, again, that many of the New Democrats, in fact all of them, are against trade. Specifically, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said that trade agreements are job destroying, and the NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior has written that free trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation.

I think it is important to note that the NDP does not understand how trade can lift people out of poverty and promote human rights and provide security.

I wonder if my colleague would comment on how he feels this free trade agreement would improve investment, increase job creation in Honduras, and here, as well as lifting the Honduran people out of some of the difficulties they are currently experiencing.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his hard work, now and in the past, in Honduras.

As a small businessman, an entrepreneur my whole life, it has been about trying to create economic opportunities. I think we raise the standard of living and the approach of any entity, whether it is my riding currently, trying to create jobs, or doing trade with Honduras and offering them a greater opportunity to trade with Canada and thus create jobs and some financial wherewithal.

Improving the standard of living helps us around the world, wherever we have done trade agreements. Some might say, “Well, it is Honduras. We are talking about millions, not billions or trillions”. Well, the millions mean something to somebody. It means something to an entrepreneur in Honduras. He or she can reach out to some 35 million more customers in Canada because there has been a free trade agreement. It gives them the opportunity to do better with their family, with employment, and to hire more people in their own community too.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the Canada-Honduras trade agreement. I have been listening intently to the other speakers.

First and foremost, it is important to point out, as a previous speaker has already mentioned, that Canada is already trading with Honduras. It is not that we are not doing trade with Honduras and are now exploring this; we are doing millions of dollars in trade with Honduras currently. We are talking about the reduction or elimination of tariffs. That is where we are as far as the debate goes and the essence of the trade agreement.

Once this agreement is in force, nearly 70% of the tariffs that are in place today would be eliminated. Over the length of the deal, which is to be fully implemented within 5 to 15 years, over 98% of the tariffs that are currently in place between us and Honduras would be eliminated. That is important to recognize.

The population is about 8.3 million people. Over the last 25 years, the population has almost doubled. This is a very fast growing country. With countries that are fast growing, there are tremendous opportunities for growth and innovation, certainly for growth in our trade.

The population in Honduras has grown between 3% and 4% for the last number of years, and not only is the population growing, but its economy is growing as well. It is not a very industrialized nation. That in itself presents many more opportunities for Canadian manufacturers, whether it is in plastics, or any other products that may be needed in an economy that is growing, diversifying, and moving forward.

It is also important for people to note that we are not the first country trying to finalize a deal for trade with Honduras. The United States signed its trade agreement with Honduras almost 10 years ago, in 2006. The European Union signed one in 2013. Certainly there is a precedent there, which leads to my next important point, which is that Canada participates in the tariff elimination so our agricultural producers can compete with American producers and enjoy the same opportunity that they do

I will give an example of where that is hurting producers in my riding of Huron—Bruce, with edible soybeans and the lack of a deal with South Korea. There are extremely high tariffs on edible soybeans. The United States has its trade agreement with South Korea, and this is putting producers at a disadvantage in Huron—Bruce today. It means that the premium, not the price, not the basis, but the premium that a producer of edible soybeans would receive, is diminished because of the tariff that is applied to them. That is what we are talking about.

Again, Huron—Bruce is in southwestern Ontario. A lot of beef and pork is grown there. To give the size, scope, and scale just of Ontario, we are looking at about 4.8 million hogs and 600,000 head of cattle per year that are taken to market. There is tremendous opportunity in the red meat sector with this trade deal.

Of note in the last number of years, and I give Jim Clark from Ontario Corn Fed Beef top marks on this, is that a brand of corn-fed beef has been developed that is reaching across the world as a premium product. A lot of the beef producers in Alberta are sweating because they know that corn-fed beef from Ontario is the best. About 55% of the cattle in Ontario are going to this program, and for those producers, there is opportunity.

I should also mention some of the tariffs, on a percentage basis, that some of our producers would experience. Beef and pork are both at 15%.

Another product that could certainly be exported from Huron—Bruce, and from coast to coast, is maple syrup. It is about 10%, on average. We are looking at about 10.5% on agricultural products going into the Honduran market.

We have over $3 million a year in sales to Honduras. There is a great opportunity to grow that by working with people on the ground to knock down those barriers and get more products into the hands of the Honduran people.

I would also note that it is vitally important in a lot of these projects and trade deals, certainly with developing nations, for there to be a world-class port facility. Honduras, fortunately, has a world-class port facility that allows for containers to be shipped in and out. That in itself is also of value. Again, that is likely why we have had a long-term trade relationship with Honduras.

We should not only look at what is in it for Canada on an export basis; we should look at what we are bringing in and the value for the people in Honduras.

There are some products that we as Canadians consume a lot of, which would be coffee, bananas, pineapples, bananas, etcetera. Even though they may not be milk and eggs, for most Canadians these are staples in many of our diets. The reduction of tariffs on those products coming in would be good for Canadians. It would be good for all Canadians, regardless of income and wealth. It would allow their families to put those products on the table at a lower cost than they are today.

If we look at infrastructure, what are some of the issues Hondurans are faced with? They are probably consumed with infrastructure issues, such as roads and bridges, safe drinking water, and sanitary sewers in their cities and reaching into their urban areas, where it is applicable. We have world-class engineering and construction firms here in Canada. I am sure that they are doing business in Honduras right now, but this would allow them to have an expanded role and better opportunities for trade there.

I would like to talk a little more about Huron—Bruce, if I may. Huron—Bruce is a large rural riding in southwestern Ontario. I have mentioned beef and pork production. The area is a huge producer of grains, corn, soy beans, wheat, and other specialty products that may not be common to people from coast to coast.

We have the deepest freshwater port in Lake Huron, which allows for tremendous opportunities. A large amount of grain is shipped in and out of Goderich each and every year, which presents further opportunities. Maybe the Canada-Honduras trade agreement would not change the trade picture in Huron—Bruce overnight, but when we add the cumulative effect of all the trade agreements, it would make a difference for agricultural producers.

We also have the largest inland holding facility for grains, with the Hensall co-op.

I can remember in the 2005 election, back when corn was in the $2 range and farmers were legitimately struggling, one of the commitments we made to our producers was something we heard from them. They did not want to earn their living from the mailbox. They wanted to earn their living from the marketplace. I am proud to say that eight or nine years later, that is what they are doing. It is not only because of the trade agreements. There are a lot of other factors that go along with it. However, these trade agreements have added up and made significant improvements to the situation for our producers.

We can take a look at the price of a great number of commodities and look at where they have gone. We can take a look at a great number of farmland values and how they have increased since 2005. This is all because what we are trying to do is set up markets, reduce barriers, and work with other countries. We work with their veterinarians and food inspection agencies so that when a food issue comes up, they can react quickly and know that we have mechanisms here in Canada to protect the export of our food and food products. We have done that.

One other product I have not mentioned is the great hardwood lumber that comes out of Huron—Bruce. It is world-class hardwood maple, oak, and cherry. There are great products coming out. There is walnut as well, whether veneer or hardwood flooring. These are products that would now have the tariffs reduced. I believe on wood products it is around 15%. We will see that reduced.

As these are reduced, our products will become more competitive with the U.S. and with the European Union. That is good for Canadians, it is good for Canadian producers, and it is certainly good for a riding like mine, Huron—Bruce.

I am glad to take questions from the opposition.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30, there will not be time today for questions and comments, as the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the strongest possible terms in opposition to Bill C-20, an act that would implement a free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona.

At the second reading stage of a debate, we are looking at the principles of a bill, and it is those principles that I want to address today.

Bill C-20 is a government bill that would bring Canada in closer economic terms with Honduras. I am ashamed and embarrassed that our country is considering such a bill. This agreement is about providing preferential trade terms to Honduras, and I cannot believe, for reasons I hope to outline, that Canadians would accept our doing so.

I will start by saluting the excellent work of our trade critic, my colleague for Vancouver Kingsway. He has reminded us that the NDP is fully aware of the importance of trade to our country. We want expanded trade deals that support Canada's exporters, which are important to our economy. However, the process and content of Bill C-20 are so wanting that I am embarrassed the bill is before Parliament today.

Canadians want a trade policy that will strengthen our economic relationships with significant economies. They want things that would assist our exporters. They want to encourage value-added production to many resources of our economy. They want a balanced trade policy. They want a process whereby we enter sectoral preferential trade agreements in a way that takes into account the views of Canadians and agreements that are not negotiated in absolute secrecy, as appears to have been the case here.

The Conservatives took office in 2006, and by all objective measures, their trade performance has been wanting. They came into office with a current account surplus of $18 billion. Now, after their performance, we have a current account deficit of $62 billion. So we have gone down about $10 billion a year since the Conservatives came to power.

What about the kinds of things we are exporting? Well, the rip-and-ship approach to trade seems to be paramount for the Conservative government. Just we in British Columbia deplore the export of raw logs, the Conservative government seems to think that exporting raw bitumen is an acceptable trade policy.

Compared to other countries that had to weather the recession like us, we are about dead last when it comes to current account performance. Seventeen other countries around the world between 2006 to 2012 came into the same global recession. How did we do by comparison? Terribly.

The criteria that we need to use, in our judgment, to assess trade agreements of this sort are threefold.

First, is the country that Canada is proposing to enter into an agreement with a country that respects democracy, human rights, fair labour practices, and the environment? I will argue that is definitively not the case with Honduras.

Second, would this economy be of significant strategic value to Canada? That is hardly the case with Honduras.

Third, are the terms of the particular agreement satisfactory? I will argue that they are not.

Do not take my word for it. I will not repeat all of the human rights atrocities that my colleagues have brought to our attention, nor I will not talk about the recent military coups. All of that is well known. However, I will cite from the CIA's World Factbook, hardly a left-wing document, to talk about the country that our government wants to do business with in this preferential fashion:

Honduras, the second poorest country in Central America, suffers from extraordinarily unequal distribution of income, as well as high underemployment.

The US-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement...came into force in 2006 and has helped foster foreign direct investment, but physical and political insecurity, as well as crime and perceptions of corruption, may deter potential investors; about 70% of FDI is from US firms.

It goes on to say that:

An 18-month IMF Standby Arrangement expired in March 2012 and was not renewed, due to the country's growing budget deficit and weak current account performance. Public sector workers complained of not receiving their salaries in November and December 2012, and government suppliers are owed at least several hundred million dollars in unpaid contracts. The government announced in January 2013 that loss-making public enterprises will be forced to submit financial rescue plans before receiving their budget allotments for 2013.

Honduras is hardly an economic marvel for Canada to be associated with. It is our 104th export market in terms of export value, and thus is hardly an important economic trading partner.

How did we get here? We arrived here because of a complete lack of transparency in the negotiations and a failure to listen to civil society representatives, many of whom have been there, such as human rights activists, environmental organizations, and labour organizations. None of these people have been listened to at all. I just cannot understand the principled argument for entering this agreement.

For example, in 2012 the AFL-CIO in the United States and 12 Honduran labour organizations filed a formal petition with the U.S. Department of Labour alleging labour violations by companies in the apparel, textile, and other industries, accusing the Government of Honduras, and this is key, of “...failing to enforce its labour laws under the Central America Free Trade Agreement by not upholding laws that enable workers to unionize, organize and bargain collectively or promoting acceptable working conditions”.

That is the kind of record this country has, and yet our government thinks we should have an agreement with it.

We believe in moving forward with trade. However, this is a very corrupt country, which Transparency International has talked about in such critical terms. Honduras is a country where attacks on journalists are rife; a country where rural violence is such that over 90 people have been killed in recent years in land disputes in one area, most since 2009; a country where more than 90 LGBT people were killed between 2009 and 2012; and a country where prison conditions are inhumane, including overcrowding, inadequate nutrition, and poor sanitation. All of this is from Human Rights Watch.

According to the Conservative government, this is the kind of country we should be doing business with and giving preferential trade agreements to. I disagree and my constituents disagree as well. The Council of Canadians has spoken powerfully in opposition to it. Experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs have also testified in negative terms about the kind of activities going on in this particular country.

In our judgment, if it is good for Canada, then let us do it. If it is good for the people on the other side of the table with whom we would be proposing to do business, let us do it, but this is not that kind of agreement. When we take into account the basic facts about Honduras, which I have brought to the House's attention today, this is not a country with which we want an agreement.

Again I have to go back to the process. Why does the government want to do this in secrecy? Why has it failed to make the text of the agreement available to those organizations that could comment intelligently on it? Rather, it wants us to have a yes or no vote on something.

The failure of the government in Honduras to enforce the rules on the environment and labour issues is telling. The kind of corruption that the government has experienced and its lack of concern for democracy is telling. The Conservative government, in our judgment, ought not to be entering into an agreement of this kind. It is easy for the Conservatives to say that our party is opposed to trade, but we are not. We believe in trade. We understand it is important, but a trade agreement with a country like this is abominable.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite made the statement that this country is hardly an important trading partner for Canada. Yet it is my understanding that, in 2010, Honduras saw Canadian imports to the magnitude of $151 million as well as Canadian direct investments of over $100 million.

When we talk about the economic prospects of a country and its social development, certainly trade would be a good thing. I would like him to clarify his statement that it is hardly an important trading partner, when trade can be a force that spurs growth and social change in a country.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that trade agreements can often do that. However, in terms of the statistics she raised and the number of dollars involved, I should point out that Honduras, as a trading partner, is 120th out of 186 countries on the human development index. It is a country that is very poor. According to the World Bank, it is a lower-middle income country. In 2012, two-thirds of the population lived in poverty and 46%, almost half, in what they call extreme poverty.

It does not seem like the kind of country with which we can get into robust trade arrangements that would benefit Canadians in this country. The issue is how it would enhance our value-added export economy, which is where the jobs of the future will be.

Is it a rip and ship kind of economy with which we are doing business? Would we be dealing with companies in that country that exploit the workers, as has been pointed out? Those are the issues that Canadians also have a right to be concerned about.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of ways that a country such as Canada can assist lesser developed nations in building good governance, democratic processes, rule of law, and, frankly, sustainability systems for their economy.

A country such as Honduras has a poor human rights record, poor record on rule of law, and dire poverty. Is this not a nation where we should perhaps be looking toward providing foreign aid in the form of good governance rather than seeking to trade? It is not clear that the mass of the people of Honduras would derive any benefit whatsoever from our trade. Could the member comment on that?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a lot to teach other countries. We used to be able to talk about fair democracy. I am not so sure, in light of what is going on in our country, that we have much to brag about these days. However, generally speaking we have been experts in sending people to other countries to talk about good governance arrangements. We have a lot of NGOs that are involved in that field.

Before it was transformed, to use a neutral word from our Conservative government, we were very proud of CIDA and its work in trying to assist countries in development such as Honduras.

Professor Mark Ruhl has written about Honduras that opinion surveys over the last decade have shown that ordinary Hondurans are much less committed to democratic institutions than most other Latin Americans and are more willing to see their political leaders employ undemocratic means.

Understandably, the country itself, with almost half of its population in extreme poverty, may not be putting its attention on democratic institutions at this time, which is why the corruption is so high, why it is among the most violent areas in the world according to The Economist magazine, and maybe why, as my colleague suggests, Canada could make some contributions to improving that economy and that civil society. However, I fear that this trade agreement before Parliament is not that answer.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in this place and speak to Bill C-20, which would set forth a trade agreement between Canada and the country of Honduras.

As my colleague from Victoria has stated, the regrettable fact is that this transparency and participation by the members of this place has occurred late in the day, which has been the case with every trade agreement that the Conservative government has brought forward. It is unlike the process that is followed in most western democracies, where the duly elected members of Parliament are provided with information from day one of the negotiation process.

The kinds of matters that parliamentarians should be informed of before a bill comes to the House, where essentially the deal is already cast in stone, would include critical factors that the government professes it has given due consideration. These factors would include the human rights record of the country that Canada is seeking to provide preferential treatment and trade with. It would include the value added to Canadian trade and whether it is worthwhile to send officials off to spend time negotiating the trade deal, as opposed to putting efforts toward nations where these factors already exist. Is there a stable democratic regime, including democratic processes and the rule of law? That is clearly an important factor.

Surely one of the reasons we enter into trade agreements that provide preferential trade provisions is to showcase to potential investors from Canada that this is a place where they can do business and that we are giving preferential rights. Therefore, Canadian investors, whether large or small, would be given some level of assurance that their investment would be safe and protected under some kind of a rule of law regime.

We have seen recently, with the demise of some regimes around the world, that the government has not been willing to do that. Our party, frankly, has raised concerns in dissenting reports. Whether this bill goes through or not, one would raise the question of whether the government is providing any riders to this, informing Canadian investors that some of their investments may well be at risk because of the state of the government regime in Honduras.

I will briefly reiterate concerns that have been raised by others in the House about the state of the regime in Honduras. The current government regime came into place in 2010, through what was said to be a very undemocratic and illegitimate election. We have heard litany after litany of continuing human rights abuses, killings, arbitrary detentions, severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests on freedom of expression, and interference with the independence of the judiciary. We are told that Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and is considered a very dangerous country for journalists.

Normal investors would ask whether it would be safe for them to invest their dollars there. Is it going to be safe to send their workers there if they decide to set up some kind of special operation?

As has been shared in the House, Transparency International ranks Honduras as the most corrupt country in Central America. It is a major drug smuggling centre, and it has the worst income equality in the region. Clearly it is a nation that could use assistance. One would ask, instead of rushing into a trade deal to give preferential treatment to a small portion of the population that has control of the dollars, should we not be working with other donors around the world in trying to help Honduras build a more democratic regime?

For the remainder of my time, I wish to speak to the abject failure of the government in living up to its commitments that it would pursue an economic strategy for sustainable development. Trade deal after trade deal that the Conservative government has brought forward has undermined previous undertakings by the Government of Canada to make protection of the environment or sustainable development a key component of the trade deals.

Why am I deeply concerned about this? I had the privilege of being the first head of law and enforcement for the NAFTA environment commission, based in Montreal. It was a breakthrough agreement, under the NAFTA trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, and the United States. While some argued that it should have been encompassed in the actual trade deal and it was promised that it would happen in the next trade deals, at least it came forward and was signed by all three governments.

We have seen that the government has essentially shred the basics of that initial very well-founded agreement. Unlike under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, where the three signatories to the NAFTA agreement, Mexico, Canada, and the United States, signed on to create a council of environment ministers to oversee all of the issues to do with environment and trade, we see no such council here.

Every trade deal that the government has initiated, including this one in Bill C-20, does not have duly elected officials to provide the oversight. It will simply be a committee of government officials, unspecified. We do not know who in Canada or in Honduras will be overseeing and ensuring that the rights of the people in Honduras will be protected should there be Canadian investment.

There is no independent secretariat, which is a very important part of the NAFTA agreement. It should be a full-time, employed secretariat with experts, representatives from both nations, delivering the work. It should be ongoing, digging in to make sure that economic development actually protects the environment towards the future.

There is an absolutely zero accountability engagement of the public from impacted communities in this trade agreement under Bill C-20. That is unlike the NAFTA environmental side agreement where there was the creation of a joint public advisory committee, with representatives of industry, the public, and farmers, who would regularly advise the council of ministers. There is no such body.

Under the NAFTA agreement, we had a national advisory council appointed in each of the countries. There is no national advisory council. There is absolutely no scrutiny and no involvement from the Canadian public on how this deal would proceed and be implemented. Also, there is none of the same in Honduras.

Under the NAFTA environmental agreement, there was a provision for any citizen within North America to file a complaint of a failure to effectively enforce environmental law. When the NAFTA deal was signed, there was a great hue and cry that there was going to be all this economic development and wondering whether it was going to undermine environmental protections that where already there. There was a provision allowing any resident of the three countries to file a complaint, which would be duly investigated and reported on publicly. There is no such provision.

Under Bill C-20, a resident of Honduras or Canada could file a complaint to some undesignated official in that country. Given the lack of credibility of the government regime in this country in taking environmental damage seriously, and given what has been stated about the state of governance in Honduras, how can we have faith that any citizen might be brave enough to come forward and file such a complaint? How can we have faith that it would be dealt with in any kind of a credible manner, unlike the NAFTA agreement where there is a clearly specified framework for effective environmental enforcement?

I can speak to that fact because I have been a member of this incredible international body on co-operation, on effective environmental compliance and enforcement. There are 180 countries around the world, working together and talking about the specific components of effective enforcement of environmental law, to give credibility to that kind of a structure. That framework was set out in the environmental side agreement to NAFTA. It is completely absent in Bill C-20.

My final comment would be that a very important part of the NAFTA environmental agreement is transparency and participation. Throughout the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, there is the right to file a complaint of failed enforcement, the right of private access to remedies if someone feels the environment is not being protected, and procedural guarantees to resort to courts if a community is damaged. None of these provisions exist in the side agreement.

We see a great downgrading of what once was a model for sustainable economic development around the world, which Canada initiated. The government has completely shredded that regime and paid it no heed whatsoever. Its talk about participation, transparency, and environment protection is clearly reflected in this agreement; it is completely absent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, questions with regard to trade agreements in principle is something we in the Liberal Party have always been fairly supportive of, recognizing the importance of trade to Canada's economic and social fabric.

My question to the member is related to trade agreements in general. What sort of considerations, and to what degree, would primarily be taken into account when the member's political party reviews trade agreements to determine whether or not to support them?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that all the members in the official opposition have been very clear on what their priorities are: first and foremost, a record of human rights and transparency and good governance. A good number of my colleagues have spoken to that. I spoke briefly to that. I would think that would be a starting point.

The second priority is that there would actually be some kind of genuine benefit to Canadians from entering into such an agreement. That would include maintaining our reputation for honouring, as a precondition, that we only deal with people in good faith and that there would be rule of law, that there would be observance of human rights, and there would be protections for Canadian investors.

The third priority is that we not start undermining and downgrading the very provisions that many fought for and worked very diligently to put in place in trade agreements previously but we have not seen since, under the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very compelling speech.

The Economist, which does not seem to be particularly left-leaning, says that Honduras is the most violent region on the planet.

Could my colleague comment on that? Is trade with a country that is considered so violent a good thing?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would think that one of the preconditions for entering into a preferential trade agreement would be to provide some level of assurance. Once we sign off on that deal, we would be sending signals to Canadian investors that this is a safe place, a good place to invest their dollars.

We have yet to have the government come forward and show us how the Government of Honduras is addressing the erosion of rule of law and the erosion of democratic processes, and frankly, I think credible Canadian investors would also want to look to the issue of human rights abuses.

No, I do not see that the government has brought forward a credible case for the signing off and the voting in favour of Bill C-20.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for her speech.

Honduras is a country with many repressive and undemocratic policies. The NDP does not want to foster or promote trade agreements with these kinds of countries. We prefer to promote agreements with countries where there is respect for human rights, policies are democratic and we have something to gain.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's question, I would simply share what the Canadian Council for International Co-operation's Americas Policy Group has said:

We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras. ...until there is a verifiable improvement in the country's democratic governance and human rights situation. ...the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the MP for Northumberland—Quinte West.

As members know, our government has been focused on what matters to all Canadians: jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That is why we are currently pursuing the most ambitious trade expansion plan in our country's history. In less than seven years, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with 9 countries and is negotiating with 30 more. Consider this: one in five Canadian jobs are dependent on exports. That is 20% of all Canadian jobs. Our prosperity hinges on opening new markets for Canadian goods, services, and investments.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would have a tremendous impact on Canadian businesses and workers in the fields of agriculture, professional services, value-added food processing and manufacturing, and commodity- and resource-based industries. This agreement would open up significant opportunities for Canadian companies in Honduras, as well as the broader region. The free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras would also further Canada's foreign strategy of deepening our engagement in the Americas and support the vision of enhancing economic integration in the hemisphere.

On the other hand, the NDP's anti-trade record is very clear. Going all the way back to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988, New Democrats have opposed every single free trade agreement Canada has ever signed into law. They believe that the global economy is something hard-working middle class Canadians should fear. Their vision for Canada to be a country that turns inward out of insecurity: a Canada that cowers, a Canada that lacks confidence, and a Canada that actually cannot compete. Our government categorically rejects this view. We know that Canadians can compete with the best in the world and win.

In November 2013, I signed the Canada-Honduras agreement on labour co-operation, which was negotiated in parallel with the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. Our government strives to demonstrate on the international stage that a competitive economy includes safe, healthy, and productive workplaces. We expect all of our trading partners to ensure safe working conditions consistent with international standards. That said, this agreement would help ensure a level playing field for Canadian workers and employers when competing internationally for trade and investment in the context of our expanding economic relationship with Honduras.

Our government is pleased to work with our partner countries in the Americas to ensure mutual prosperity within the region and achieve greater levels of international co-operation on labour issues. This free trade agreement would increase export and investment opportunities for Canadians by creating a potential preferential and more predictable trade and investment environment. At the same time, the labour co-operation agreement would ensure that these economic advances are not made at the expense of workers' rights. The labour co-operation agreement between Canada and Honduras would help protect labour rights and maintain productive and healthy labour environments in both countries.

This agreement will create jobs and contribute greatly to Canada’s continued economic growth and prosperity. As a Canadian, I want to see my country prosper. As Minister of Labour, I am happy to say that while we are working hard to advance our historical trade agenda, our government is ensuring that international labour rights and obligations are respected.

As Minister of Labour, I am happy to say we will be working hard to advance our historical trade agenda, and our government is ensuring that international labour rights and obligations are respected. It is of vital importance that prosperity does not come at the expense of workers' rights. That is why the free trade agreement with Honduras is accompanied by a parallel labour co-operation agreement. This agreement includes strong and comprehensive provisions for the enforcement of labour rights and a transparent complaint and dispute resolution mechanism.

Under the terms of this labour co-operation agreement, Canada and Honduras have committed to ensure that their laws respect and embody the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The declaration covers the right of freedom of association, the right of collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced and compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace. Through these provisions, we demonstrate our shared commitment to improving labour standards and protecting workers' rights.

In the Canada-Honduras labour co-operation agreement, both countries have committed to protect workers' health and safety on the job, as well as provide compensation in cases of work-related injuries or illnesses. Both countries have further committed to establishing and maintaining minimum employment standards, including standards with respect to wages and overtime pay.

Finally, we have also agreed to provide migrant workers with the same legal protections as those afforded to nationals. This prevents discriminatory working conditions and protects some of the most vulnerable workers.

Canada recognizes Honduras' ongoing efforts to bolster its enforcement of national laws and fundamental labour rights, and encourages its efforts to continue along this path.

It is clear that Honduras is just as committed as we are to the success of this accord. In fact, when I met with my Honduran counterpart in November 2013, we reaffirmed our commitment to the effective implementation of a high-quality labour co-operation agreement. However, as one can appreciate, the commitments we make in these agreements are only credible if there is a means of enforcing them. That is why I am pleased to say that the Canada-Honduras labour co-operation agreement includes a strong dispute-resolution mechanism that is transparent and easy to use.

If either Canada or Honduras should fail to respect internationally recognized labour rights and principles or not enforce domestic labour laws, they could ultimately face financial penalties. As part of the Canada-Honduras labour co-operation agreement, the Canadian government has agreed to work with Honduras to improve its labour standards and better protect workers.

Our government recently provided funding for various technical assistance projects that are strengthening the capacities of the Honduran Ministry of Labour to enforce domestic labour laws. These have focused on key issues including workers' rights, improving labour inspections, promoting more vibrant and constructive dialogue between government workers and employer representatives, and encouraging the development of sound occupational health and safety practices.

Our government has been clear that trade liberalization and labour rights go hand in hand. Canada has more to offer the global market than just the robust quality of its products and services. We also have a reputation for honesty and reliability. We keep our promises and we play by the rules. That is why the Canada-Honduras labour co-operation agreement is important, and I am confident that this agreement would help create well-paying jobs for Canadian workers, as well as making sure that those workers in Honduras are seeing a higher standard for the labours that they are embarking upon at home.

I ask my fellow parliamentarians to support Bill C-20 to implement the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements. This legislation would further strengthen Canada's economy and provide a foundation for future trade opportunities. It would also promote and ensure fair and productive workplaces that would benefit both countries.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I notice in the minister's comments she skirted completely around the erasure of the former strong mechanisms for ensuring sustainable development and protection of the environment.

Perhaps the member would like to speak to why her government has decided not to build on the base provided by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, which actually provides forums for dialogue not just between the governments of Honduras and Canada but between the peoples of Honduras and Canada, the workers of Honduras and Canada, and the communities of Honduras and Canada on what implications further economic development or Canadian investment might have.

Could she speak to why they have removed all the forums that would have been provided had they followed the model of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, our focus—and I think it is a very important one—is about creating jobs and prosperity. With that there are equal chapters—one on the environment and one on the labour co-operation agreement, which I spoke to—that are about making sure that those individuals in both countries are well supported.

While there may be a desire by the opposition members to find the reasons why they may not want to support a free trade agreement in the future to make sure there is prosperity here at home, as they have with every other free trade agreement that has been brought before them, not being willing to step up and support those Canadian workers and Canada's opportunities abroad, we are moving forward, making sure free trade agreements are a reason to increase prosperity here at home and create more jobs; and also, quite frankly, I think it is going to provide great benefits to individuals in Honduras.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the minister's comments about job creation. This is something that we in the Liberal Party have been raising for a number of months. The government has dropped the ball quite significantly on job creation and the impact of overall trade on our middle class in Canada. At the time the Conservatives inherited the reins of governance in Canada, we had a huge trade surplus. The Conservatives have turned that trade surplus into a trade deficit at a substantial cost to the middle class, a substantial cost in terms of the number of jobs here today.

So yes, we have given tentative support to this agreement and the bill today. However, one of the concerns has to be this. why has the government done so poorly in terms of overall trade? When does the minister believe Canada will once again be on the plus side of trade? The Conservatives have demonstrated that they have been successful at negotiating some trade agreements, but the bottom line is that we have a net trade deficit, and that is something we have only had under this particular majority government.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak about jobs, as the member has raised, because we have worked with the business sector and Canadians to generate more than one million net new jobs in Canada, over 80% of them full-time and over 80% of them in the private sector. So this government is doing its job. We are out creating jobs, working with industry and with Canadians to ensure that they can have long-term prosperity, unlike the opposition.

Unlike the opposition party sitting at the far end of the House, we are focused on what matters to Canadians: ensuring that Canadians have jobs. That is why we are so proud of having signed over nine agreements, working with more than 30 countries. It is something that the government of the past, one that the Liberals had well before 2006, was unable to accomplish.

I encourage the members opposite to feel free to support this agreement. I am delighted to hear that they will be doing so, because it is the right thing. This government is moving forward in creating free trade agreements. We are going to continue to do that and to create jobs, something that that government was unable to do.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement and our government's goal of creating prosperity for all Canadians.

Our government is in the midst of the most ambitious pursuit of new and expanded trade and investment agreements in Canadian history. We will not sit on the sidelines while other countries vigorously pursue trade deals to secure better market access for their products and services. Indeed, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is yet another step this government is taking to help Canadians compete and succeed in the global economy.

No government in Canada's history has been more committed to the creation of jobs and prosperity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families. Deepening Canada's trading relationship in dynamic and high-growth markets around the world is key to those efforts.

In 2006, Canada had free trade agreements with only five countries. Since then, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with eight countries: Colombia; Jordan; Peru; the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland; Panama; and has signed a trade agreement with Honduras. Last fall, we also announced that an agreement had been reached with the 28-member European Union.

That is not all. We are, of course, intensifying our focus on Asia.

On March 11 of this year, our Prime Minister and President Park of South Korea announced the conclusion of negotiations for a Canada-South Korea free trade agreement. This landmark achievement constitutes Canada's first free trade agreement in Asia.

The Canada-Korea agreement will strengthen economic ties with a key partner in that fast-growing and dynamic region of the world and generate significant benefits, jobs, and opportunities for Canadians. The agreement is projected to boost Canada's gross domestic product by $1.7 billion and increase Canadian merchandise exports to South Korea by about 32%. It will also provide substantially improved access for Canadian businesses to South Korean markets, a key gateway to other markets in Asia.

Canada and South Korea are committed to bringing the Canada-South Korea free trade agreement into force as soon as possible.

It does not end there. Canada is actively pursuing an agreement with 11 other Asia-Pacific countries through the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations, which Canada joined in October 2012. With its current membership, the TPP represents a market of more than 793 million people and a combined gross domestic product of $28.1 trillion.

Canada sees this agreement as a leading mechanism for regional economic integration and a critical tool for positioning Canadian businesses in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific market.

Negotiations are also well under way for major agreements with large dynamic economies, including Japan and India.

A Canada-Japan economic partnership agreement would strengthen access to the world's third largest economy. An agreement could increase Canada's GDP by $3.8 billion and boost exports to Japan by 67%.

Just recently, the Prime Minister announced during his visit to Israel the launch of negotiations to expand and modernize the Canada-Israeli free trade agreement.

This Conservative government continues to update our existing agreements in order to maximize benefits for Canadians.

Let us not forget that 2014 marks the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Twenty years ago, trade within the North American region was somewhere around $372 billion. In 2013, the total trilateral merchandise trade reached over $1.1 trillion. That is nearly a fourfold increase.

Canada is now the top export destination for 35 U.S. states. Of course, the U.S. remains by far the top export destination for all provinces. Over eight million U.S. jobs depend on trade and investment within Canada; and over 2.5 million Canadian jobs, that is one in seven, depend on exports to the United States of America.

NAFTA has provided a solid foundation for Canada's future prosperity and is an agreement that Canada continues to build on to advance North American trade and competitiveness.

Deepening Canada's trade relationships in rapidly growing markets around the world, such as Honduras, is an important part of this government's pro-trade plan for jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is a key part of our agenda to open new markets for Canadian businesses, create new opportunities for our workers, and contribute to Canada's future prosperity.

Free trade would provide numerous benefits to Canadian companies active or interested in Honduras. Not only would it eliminate the vast majority of Honduran tariffs, but it would also help raise the profile of Canadian businesses in the country, and further deepen and strengthen Canada's commercial and economic relationship with Honduras.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would also make us competitive with players from the United States and the European Union, who already enjoy free trade with Honduras, not to mention giving Canadian companies a secure, predictable framework for business. Keeping pace with Canada's main competitors is just one reason that we need to move forward on this deal.

There are other benefits to the free trade agreement as well, which I would like to reiterate. It would help a variety of Canadian companies in sectors such as chemical products, wood, pulp and paper products, vehicles, auto parts, as well as fish and seafood. It would also be advantageous to Canadian agricultural producers in areas like beef, pork, and processed potato products.

Canada's service providers would enjoy enhanced commitments in export sectors that are of interest to Canada, such as natural resources, professional services, and information and communications technology. Clearly the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would create new opportunities for Canadian companies in the Honduran market.

Thanks to the actions taken under our government's free trade leadership, Canadian workers, businesses, and exporters now have preferred access and a real competitive edge in more markets around the world than at any other time in our history.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I keep saying that we do not understand why this government across the way wants to do business with this country that is known for violating human rights and as one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Furthermore, as far as any benefit Canada might derive from entering into this agreement is concerned, Honduras ranks 104th on the list of countries we trade with.

Taking all that into account, what makes Honduras so attractive to the Conservatives when we know of all its human rights violations? Journalists are not well received in Honduras. They are treated very poorly there. The relationship Honduras has with the international community and journalists often gets tangled up in violence. Accordingly, this is hard to understand. Canada could forge trade relationships with many other countries. Why insist on concluding an agreement with Honduras?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member was listening intently when the Minister of Labour was giving her speech.

The member will recall that the minister referred the House to the labour agreement she signed with Honduras, and she will recall that the minister mentioned some of the environmental aspects included in this free trade agreement.

I guess the best example I would suggest to the member is the history of Canada. Some 60 to 100 years ago, we had everything from child labour to persecution for the right of association, which is the right to organize labour unions, et cetera. How did that change? It changed because there were jobs for people. People organized. People were able to mature into this democracy we share today, with its respect for human rights.

We cannot allow countries such as Honduras to remain isolated, to not have free trade agreements with us, and to not offer their people an opportunity to provide a living for themselves and their families.

Eventually that country will mature into a country, hopefully, like ours. By signing the labour and environmental agreements associated with the free trade agreement, we are going to be assisting that country. We are going to be pushing it along and helping the very people the member talks about to have a better life. That is why we are in favour of free trade.

I could mention some of the things said by other members in her party, but I do not think it is constructive to take a negative attitude. I would like the member to think positively, as this is the first step on the road to Honduras becoming a country like ours, with respect for human rights. It can only do that when it has trade agreements that have written into them human rights and labour regulations, laws, and rules.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to express some thoughts and ideas in regard to the Honduras trade agreement.

I indicated that the Liberal Party wanted to see this agreement continue to go through the process. I made reference to the importance of trade.

The member made reference to Korea and the trade agreement with Korea. It was the first in Asia. As the member was talking about that I thought of the Philippines. The Philippines is a country that contributes immensely to Canada's immigration today. It was ranked in the top three over the last few years in terms of the number of immigrants who come to Canada, not to mention the number of workers, students, and so forth.

I want to ask the member if he would provide some comment in regard to the Philippines. Does he believe that his government is currently working to develop trade negotiations with that country?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from a trade perspective and from a trade agreement perspective, we are going to leave no stone unturned.

We are not only helping, as I previously mentioned to the NDP member, to bolster the lives of the people in that country. We have to be a little on the selfish side here. We have to think about the jobs Canadians depend on.

Whether it is the Philippines or Korea or any country, we will engage in free trade agreements with the rest of the world. We will write into those agreements labour and environmental agreements that will go to not only improving the lives of Canadians, through the jobs and benefits that derive from free trade, but to the benefits and jobs and human rights issues we have talked about in this House. We will only get there when we improve the livelihoods of everyone in the world. I believe that free trade among countries and bringing other countries closer to our standards will do that very thing.

[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.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in the House to share how this free trade agreement with Honduras complements our government's Americas strategy.

I would like to speak about how our government's ambitious pro-trade plan and our global markets action plan are creating new opportunities around the world for Canadian exporters.

Our government's global markets action plan, developed in close consultation with Canada's business community, was our strategy to respond to changes in the global economy and to position Canada for long-term prosperity.

The global markets action plan identified 50 priority markets around the world where Canadian opportunities and interests have the greatest potential for growth. This strategy is part of the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canada's history. It has driven Canadian leadership on the world stage in support of trade, job creation, economic growth, and prosperity for hard-working Canadians and their families.

The results have been impressive. Since 2006, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with 38 countries representing markets with a combined GDP of $2.6 trillion. We have begun deepening trade and investment ties with the largest, most dynamic, and fastest-growing countries in the world, including India, Japan, South Korea, and the EU.

We have also concluded foreign investment promotion and protection agreements with 22 countries. In fact just last year, we concluded or brought into force 10 foreign investment promotion and protection agreements.

The Americas is a priority market for our government. In fact, our government plans to strengthen our engagement in the region to ensure that our efforts are focused where their impact will be the greatest.

I would like to share with the House a bit more about how free trade with Honduras fits into this Americas strategy. This renewed strategy has three goals: first, to increase Canadian and hemispheric economic opportunities; second, to address security issues and advance freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law through capacity-building; and third, to build a stable foundation for Canada's engagement and increased influence in the hemisphere.

Strengthening economic ties is crucial in today's challenging and uncertain global economic climate. Expanding Canada's trade and investment in the Americas will help protect existing jobs, create new jobs, and increase prosperity for Canadians.

Canada's efforts to increase economic opportunity depend on deepening trade and investment ties by advancing our trade agreements. The Americas is a key region for Canadian bilateral trade initiatives. In fact, 7 of Canada's 10 concluded free trade agreements have been with countries in the Americas.

It is not enough to simply sign agreements. Our government's Americas strategy recognizes the need to make Canadian companies aware of the advantages and opportunities these agreements create. Our government understands that it is through engagement, through developing trade and commercial ties, that Canada can support positive change and growth in the Americas. We favour engagement, not isolation.

Promoting freer trade in the Americas opens new doors and creates new opportunities for Canadian companies, increasing economic benefits for Canadians, including new jobs for hard-working Canadians across the country.

Canada's efforts to liberalize trade with the Americas is working. We are removing barriers to trade and facilitating two-way commerce. The Americas offer great potential. Total trade between countries in the Americas and Canada increased by nearly 40% from 2005 to 2010. In fact, we heard the minister of state talking just now about the fact that one-third of the GDP of Honduras depends on Canada. She experienced that and spoke to locals, businesses, and workers in the Honduras about this when she was there.

To continue to further that kind of opportunity, our government's Americas strategy will focus on intensifying trade promotion and relationship building efforts to ensure that Canadian businesses and exporters are taking full advantage of new trade opportunities in the future.

By increasing economic opportunity with Honduras, Canada is growing our economic partnership and contributing to long-term prosperity in both of our countries.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement and its parallel labour and environmental agreements would promote trade and investment, while creating a winning advantage for Canadian businesses and exporters.

To protect Canadian and commercial investments, the security situation in Central America must be taken into consideration and is a core focus in our renewed Americas strategy.

Honduras has recognized its security challenges and has significantly increased spending on security. It has also committed to continued reform of its security institutions. Honduras continues to build strong security co-operation with the United States and co-operates with its Central American neighbours under the Central American Integration System regional security strategy.

Our government is pleased with the significant efforts that Honduras is making to meet is security challenges and in confronting the public security threats facing Central America.

International relationships are fundamental. Competition for market share is on the rise. Canada must demonstrate that it is a serious and committed partner. Our government is continuing to deliver on an ambitious pro-trade plan that would continue to deliver new opportunities, not only in the Americas but also in dynamic, high-growth markets around the world. Furthermore, while sustaining high-level engagement is essential, Canada would continue to benefit from building relationships more broadly across the private sector government and academia.

All countries in the Americas have a vested interest in prosperity, security, and stability. That is why our government is committed to building and sustaining relationships with our like-minded neighbours.

Through our strong bilateral relationships and the increasing people-to-people ties generated through educational exchanges and increased business links, our links with Honduras are growing stronger every day. Every day we are seeing more opportunities for Canadian businesses and exporters.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is a key component to advance the goals of the Americas strategy.

Sadly, it seems as if the NDP will be voting against this agreement. I know that it has concerns, especially about things like human rights, as well as security issues, which I talked about as well. I would like to say, though, that it is the belief of this government that trade is a key driver of prosperity and that increasing trade could only lift people out of poverty. When isolationism is the ideology practised by a country, more often than not it is extremely difficult for that country to lift itself out of poverty.

We believe strongly that trade agreements, trade with like-minded countries and countries that understand that is the way to go, ultimately do lift people out of poverty, such as the people of Honduras. So the elimination of tariffs would be a positive step in the right direction. The agreement would also support human rights in a very direct way, including labour rights. As long as we are respecting other issues like security and environmental issues, these are the kinds of things that we can do and that have been written into the agreement and the side agreements to ensure that they would not only be beneficial to Canada and Canadian businesses and individuals but also to businesses in Honduras.

I ask all members of the House to support the bill and free trade between Canada and Honduras.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with riveted attention as my colleague spoke on this issue. Let me say at the outset that I do support free trade agreements that benefit both countries and that are based on the principle of fair trade where both countries benefit.

However, I am also reminded that, historically, we have used trade sanctions, South Africa being a prime example. When apartheid was in practice, we used trade sanctions to bring about fundamental change in South Africa. We have used trade sanctions with other countries as well when we have wanted to have an impact upon the human rights practices and policies of those countries.

Is my colleague saying that trade sanctions should never be used as a tool when we are unhappy with the actions of any country?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Newton—North Delta is not suggesting in some way that a free trade agreement is the flip side of the coin to sanctions. A free trade agreement simply codifies the business relationship one country has with another.

I hope the hon. member would see the benefits that can come out of a free trade agreement, especially for a country we have concerns about with respect to security, human rights, and labour rights. Free trade agreements are the kinds of things that would help the country and the people of the country get out of poverty, because economic growth drives prosperity and trade creates that prosperity.

This is an important and positive step in the right direction for the protection of human rights. Signing this agreement would only further that goal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the Liberal Party has indicated its support for a free trade agreement with Honduras.

In 2001, a series of free trade agreements were signed between the government here in Ottawa and Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.

In most part, we recognize the benefits of trade for our country.

When I think of Honduras, I think of the pork industry in the province of Manitoba. The pork industry in my province stands to benefit from this agreement. We have seen press releases of that nature.

The Liberal Party is in favour of expanding trade opportunities.

I wonder if the member would acknowledge that a free trade agreement does not happen overnight. The agreement itself might have been signed by this particular Conservative government, but the background work in this particular case took place a number of years ago, in several countries. We started opening discussions in 2001 on free trade with Honduras.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted to hear that the member recognizes the benefits of trade.

I find it mildly amusing that he believes that this free trade agreement originated with the Liberal government. After 13 long, dark years in office, the Liberals had signed only 3 free trade agreements, while this Conservative government has reached 38 in much less time.

The member is right that free trade agreements do not happen overnight, but when it comes to creating jobs and opportunities through trade, it is very clear that the Liberals do not have the track record of getting it done, but the Conservative government does.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, based on those last comments by the member who just spoke in response to a question about all the agreements they signed, I cannot help thinking that it is not really hard to sign an agreement when one is giving away the shop. It really is not hard at all, and that is part of the problem with some of these agreements. We support free trade, but we want to negotiate an agreement that is of benefit to Canada. We will be supporting this Bill C-20 and the Honduras agreement, but we do think that, in most agreements, trade negotiations could have been negotiated a lot better for the benefit of Canada.

Bill C-20 would implement the free trade agreement and the related agreements on environmental and labour co-operation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and signed in this city on November 5 of last year. Both sides of that agreement are very important. I have listened to the criticism from the NDP and, in fact, I understand it. There are concerns, rightfully, about labour violations and about crime that is happening in Honduras, and that has to be uppermost in our minds in terms of the trade agreement we have signed with them.

I would say to representatives from Honduras that we as Canadians expect improvements on the labour agreement side, and we expect improvements in terms of the abuse of their workers, of violations in terms of citizens of the country's communities that mining endeavours are engaged in, and on goes the list. I will not belabour the point, but we expect Honduras to do much better than what we have seen from its record in the past, and we are putting it on alert. As members of the Liberal Party, we believe we cannot work in isolation. When we sign a trade agreement with labour and environmental agreements on the side, we believe it gives us a better leverage as a county to demand better human rights and social and economic responsibility on the part of the government and the business community in that country with which we have signed an agreement.

Honduras has a relatively small economy. In 2012, Canadian businesses exported only $39 million in quite a narrow field of goods and materials, which I will get to in a moment; and we imported $219 million from the Honduran economy. In 2013, those numbers were improved upon somewhat, with $45 million of products exported to Honduras and $234 million of imports. We have a deficit trade balance and there is no question about that. We would like to see the numbers the other way, but it is a place to start. I know in the community I used to represent, the farming community, beef and hogs is one of the bigger exports that we think would gain an advantage and access into the Honduran market as a result of this particular agreement.

As the last speaker said, the agreement is one of many, and the last speaker as well—like many of the government speakers have done—talked about Canada positioning itself for long-term prosperity through these trade agreements.

The problem is that signing a trade agreement in and of itself does not mean long-term prosperity. We can look at the records of the countries with which we have signed trade agreements over the years, and we will find that, in many cases where we have had a surplus going into a trade agreement, we have found ourselves in a deficit trading situation over time.

Why is that? Why are other countries doing better under trade agreements after they sign with us than they were doing before? That is what we have to examine. What other things do we have to do within the country to ensure we take advantage of these trade agreements?

We should not just sign them, as the government is doing. It is not hard to sign an agreement, as we have seen with the CETA agreement under the current Prime Minister. He needed one because of the political domestic situation in his country. He basically pleaded to get agreement, sold out several industries in Canada, including dairy and the procurement for municipalities, and added $900 million to $1.9 billion to the drug costs in this country. That is the kind of agreement he signed because he pleaded to get one, rather than negotiating from a position of strength.

I will come back after question period to talk about what we have to do to make trade agreements work for us, rather than have the terrible record we have in this country. Over the last 62 months, 48 were in a trade deficit with the Conservative government in charge. It is the first government in 30 years that has had an annual trade deficit. It is doing poorly in terms of the real facts.

Just negotiating an agreement is not the only answer.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The last time this bill was before the House, the hon. member for Malpeque had the floor, and he has three minutes to conclude his remarks.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about why Liberals support Bill C-20. What I would like to discuss is what the government lacks in overall trade strategy, what is going wrong, and why, after signing all these trade agreements, we still have deficits.

I will lay a few facts on the table. The more trade agreements that the government signs, it seems the more persistent the long-term trade deficit is. Liberals are hopeful that will change. The government seems good at making announcements, but for all the announcements it has made, what have the results been?

I will lay out a couple of facts. A recently released report from Stats Canada on manufacturing exports for the past decade had this to say:

Canadian exports of manufactured products fell by more than 7% from 2002 to 2012, a drop of $20.7 billion. The United States led the decrease, as their imports of Canadian manufactured products—

Keep in mind that these are manufactured products.

—declined by $44.8 billion.

That is serious.

The share of Canadian manufacturing exports to the United States also declined, falling from 88.0% in 2002 to 78.2% in 2012.

Those figures are from Stats Canada.

Having said that, in terms of the decline of exports to the United States, we do know, and I think we would all agree in the House, that we have to expand our trade beyond the United States. We are too dependent on that one market. When we look at the global situation—and I have a chart here, which members cannot see—in terms of the trade balance, Statistics Canada has reported that in 48 of the past 62 months Canada has faced a trade deficit. That is worrisome. We are not doing well.

Why are we not doing well? A prime example is the grain crisis right now. When the government made the changes in so-called grain marketing, it forgot that transportation is functional to marketing. The government destroyed the logistical system in its decision to get that product to market. Marketing is not just about signing a deal; it is having the infrastructure, the ship turnaround time, the railway capacity, and the logistics of the total system in place to feed that market.

That is where the government is going wrong. It is not looking at all of the other factors in trade that need to be put in place to take advantage of the trade deals, and that is what is short in all of the trade deals that the government has signed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit about my trip to Honduras and how Honduras wants to be competitive and comparative in the production of cacao. It knows it has an excellent market for that and that it creates economic and environmental benefits. It is a crop that is appropriate for small farmers. Honduras feels that social benefits generate long-term employment and gives permanence to land tenure. Cacao also benefits the environment and agroforestry systems, as cacao protects soil against erosion, improves soil conditions, and protects and improves water sources. This is one of the many areas that is important to trade deals such as the one we are working to make on Honduras.

I would like to know if the member has any experience in how important this trade could be for the agriculture area in Honduras and whether he could please tell the House about it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the minister made a valid point. These deals are extremely important on the agricultural side, into Central America and other countries. My own province depends a lot on those markets for the export of seed potatoes. There is an opportunity in hogs and beef for us.

I want to emphasize, again, to the minister that it is not just about signing an agreement. We already have a substantial deficit with Honduras. We need to bring that into better balance. When we open up a market and sign a trade agreement, we have to have the infrastructure in place, and the capacity and the support of the Government of Canada, if there is a trade dispute, to get into that market, maintain that market, and service that market.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has shown that it completely agrees with the Conservative Party about the free trade agreement with Honduras.

However, we know that Honduras ranks 104th on Canada's list of trade partners. Experts have said that this agreement will have only marginal benefits for Canadian exporters.

Why does the Liberal Party agree with the Conservative Party that we should sign an agreement with a country that violates human rights, that does not have the same environmental standards as Canada and that abuses workers?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the points that the NDP made earlier on the human rights issue and criminal behaviour in Honduras, and I made it very clear that it is a serious issue. We are saying to Honduras, and I expect the government is also saying, that it has to clean up its act.

There are side agreements on labour rights and the environment. They do not have as much teeth in them as I would certainly like, but they are there. That is a step forward.

It drives me—I should not say it drives me crazy, but it near does, when the government uses the fact that it has signed 9, 10, or 11 deals. What matters is what is in those deals for Canadians, and there is not enough in this one. However, it is a step.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House since 2008. I have listened to the member for Malpeque, and there are very few people in this House who understand the trade file and the agricultural file more than that man.

While I have been on the agriculture committee, I have heard many comments about the incredible quality of Canadian agricultural products, livestock, grains, oilseeds, and the rest. However, in international discussions, the complaint is that while we produce good stuff we can never get it delivered to market. That is evident in what we are facing right now, with the inability to get our wheat to market.

I wonder if the member for Malpeque would comment on whether he believes it is the fault of the current government, or the railroad, or both.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the railways hold a great deal of responsibility in terms of the lack of movement of grain in the Prairies. However, ultimately the responsibility rests with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

When he changed the marketing system, he failed to lay out a plan of the logistics. He failed to recognize the other things that the Canadian Wheat Board had done in terms of drawing grain from hundreds of thousands of farmers, putting it on the two rail lines, and getting it to Vancouver in an efficient manner. He failed to recognize the authority that the Wheat Board had to hold the railways and the grain companies to account.

[An hon. member]

Is the Wheat Board in Honduras?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Nobody is talking about wanting the Wheat Board back, Mr. Speaker.

However, what we are saying is that the minister failed to understand the total supply chain, and he ultimately has the responsibility for the mess in western Canada at the moment.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the topic at hand, which is the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. It is a great pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. I will spend a few minutes talking about the concrete benefits this trade agreement would provide to Canadian businesses exporting to Honduras.

The NDP trade critic has criticized this agreement by saying that trade with Honduras is insignificant and that the government is exaggerating its benefits to Canadians. In 2013, Canada exported more than $45 million worth of merchandise to Honduras. This fact serves to further highlight why this agreement is so important for Canadian workers, producers, processors, manufacturers and exporters. What that member fails to realize is that every dollar of our exports directly supports our economy and Canadian jobs, and that is in no way insignificant.

During 13 long years in office, the Liberals signed only three trade agreements, but in eight years, our Conservative government has concluded agreements with 38 countries, and we are negotiating many more, including the trans-Pacific partnership.

That is why today I would like to share with this House the impact this agreement would have on Canadian companies and exporters.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that would bring tremendous benefit to our economy. A free trade agreement with Honduras would give Canadian exporters, investors, and service providers preferential access to a dynamic and fast-growing economy with recorded GDP growth of 3.5% in 2013.

Once implemented, the agreement would improve market access for Canadian exports in the Honduras market by lowering trade barriers. The elimination of tariffs would create tremendous opportunities for increasing Canadian exports to Honduras.

Once the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement was in place, Honduras would eliminate tariffs on over 68.4% of all Canadian goods and services. The remaining tariffs would be phased out over five to 15 years. This is significant, considering that Canadian exports of non-agricultural products are currently facing tariff peaks of up to 15% in Honduras.

The elimination of the vast majority of tariffs would benefit Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast, including producers of forest products, pharmaceuticals, machinery, automotive parts, information and communications technology, and aerospace products.

Let us look at the impact of the agreement on some of the specific sectors of our economy. For Canada, the industrial machinery sector represents an important sector for exports to Honduras. In 2013, Canada exported $4.3 million worth of merchandise to Honduras. The Honduran market could be of interest for companies located throughout Canada, from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island, including Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

In 2013, Canada's top exports in this sector included furnaces and ovens, refrigerating equipment, pumps, and machinery parts. The elimination of Honduran tariffs of up to 15% under this agreement could open up new export opportunities.

Companies producing plastics and chemical products are employing Canadians throughout our country. Companies presently in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan are already exporting Canadian products to Honduras.

In 2013, Canada exported $6.6 million worth of chemical products and almost $2.6 million worth of plastics to Honduras. With tariffs of up to 15%, it is clear that the complete elimination of Honduran tariffs in these two sectors could allow Canadian companies to export a wider range of products, such as paints, varnishes, plastic tubing, and plastic packaging products.

Canada is an important manufacturer and exporter of high-quality wood and pulp and paper products worldwide. We are blessed with a vast and abundant forest resource, and our workers, producers, and manufacturers in provinces such as Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, and Nova Scotia possess the technical expertise and ingenuity to transform this natural resource into value-added products. In 2013, Canada exported $1.5 million worth of forest products to Honduras. The elimination of all tariffs by Honduras of up to 15% in this sector could unleash important gains for Canadian forest products.

Canada has one of the world's most valuable commercial fishing industries. While Canadian exports of fish and seafood to Honduras have historically been low, Honduras' high tariffs of up to 15% on these products are certainly a factor that has contributed to this situation. The complete elimination of Honduran tariffs on fish and seafood under the agreement would allow Canadian fishers and fish and seafood producers from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, to fully capture all the export opportunities the Honduran market has to offer.

If Canadian businesses have been able to sell their products to Honduras despite these tariffs, imagine how much more successful they will be when their products gain preferential access. It is undeniable that by creating new export opportunities in these sectors, this agreement will help foster greater economic growth.

There are many more examples I could cite, but the fundamental point is that the tariff elimination driven by this agreement would create the potential for increased Canadian exports to Honduras, and that is good for all Canadians. Pursuing new trade opportunities is a win-win for Canada and its trading partners. Canadians benefit from the jobs, prosperity, and consumer benefits that come from increased trade, and that is why it should not come as a surprise to the members of the House that Canadian companies are in support of this agreement.

Throughout the negotiations, government officials consulted with the private sector, and the message was consistent and clear: Canadian companies want this deal. If Canadian companies are telling us that they want their government to implement this agreement, why would we, as elected officials, deny them these benefits? Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that trade brings to our country, and that is why Canadian companies support our government's efforts to forge new trade opportunities around the world.

Closer economic integration with Honduras promises to deliver further gains for Canadian exporters, investors, consumers, and the economy as a whole. For all these reasons, I ask all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I am enjoying this conversation with my colleague through you, I would like us to come back to reality.

Members are exaggerating the economic benefits of this bill on a free trade agreement with Honduras, and I will leave it to the subject matter experts to talk more about that.

I am concerned about the human rights aspect of this free trade agreement. According to Human Rights Watch, Honduras suffers from rampant crime and impunity for human rights abuses. The murder rate, which has risen consistently over the last decade, was the highest in the world in 2013. Perpetrators of killings and other violent crimes are rarely brought to justice. The institutions responsible for providing public security continue to prove largely ineffective and remain marred by corruption and abuse, while efforts to reform them have made little progress.

What can my colleague tell Human Rights Watch, which is concerned about the human rights situation in Honduras?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Honduras and have seen the proud people who live in that country. All they want is a chance to sell their goods outside of Honduras. We are going to give them that opportunity from the perspective of a free trade agreement. We believe in engagement as opposed to isolation. When a country is isolated, it ends up having internal rifts. We believe that if we can include Honduras in an opportunity for free trade with Canada, it will be good for both countries.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I like about this debate is that there is a different way of dealing with trade when it comes to the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats. New Democrats have never stood in the House of Commons and supported or voted in favour of a free trade agreement. On the other hand, the Conservatives seem to think that the only way to get trade is through free trade agreements.

We look at free trade agreements as positive and as a step forward, but we also recognize how important it is to continue to look at ways we can build on the trade we currently have. Prime Minister Chrétien, as an example I cited earlier, had the team Canada approach, with the hundreds of millions of dollars in trade generated because of it. It was not a trade agreement; it was a promotion of international trade, where Canada benefited.

Why does the member believe Canada today has a trade deficit? When the Conservatives took over the reins of power, the Liberals had given them a strong, healthy trade surplus.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I do not know what it has to do with Canada and Honduras. I do know that during the Liberals' tenure in power, they only did three trade agreements. We still continue to fix those, so we will not be taking any lessons from the Liberals.

The reality is that this is a good agreement for both Canada and Honduras. It would boost economic prosperity in our country, and it would provide the Hondurans with an opportunity to export to Canada.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his very thoughtful presentation with respect to trade agreements. Picking up on one of the points the Liberal member just made, to put the NDP position in context, it is only fair to point out that the NDP has almost a perfect record over the last 50 years of opposing all trade agreements. To be fair, New Democrats always say that they like trade agreements, but all the ones that have been presented, they have had problems with.

They have almost a perfect record on this, going back to the auto pact, which was a huge benefit to southern Ontario. It was NDP members in the House of Commons and their leader who were calling it into question. I do not have to tell members how vociferous they were in fighting the U.S. free trade agreement, NAFTA, and on and on.

I know that the hon. member pointed out the NDP criticism with respect to this, but I think we have to put it in the context of where the NDP has been for the last 50 years, which is basically to oppose all trade agreements. Would the member agree?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister could not have put it more eloquently. I completely agree with him that the NDP members for some reason do not quite grasp the fact that free trade agreements are a great opportunity, not only for Canadians but for other countries as well.

Our government has signed 38 free trade agreements since we have taken power, and we will continue to move forward with others. I hope the NDP will get on board and recognize the importance of free trade agreements.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There are three fundamentally important criteria for assessing the merits of trade agreements.

First, does the proposed partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate labour and environmental standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in these regards, 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?

The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras clearly fails this test. Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions and a record of human rights abuses. It has low standards and insignificant strategic value.

Honduras is a very poor country with a history of repressive, undemocratic politics and a seriously flawed human rights record. Leftist president Manuel Zelaya's democratically elected government was toppled by a military coup in 2009. Since then, international observers have severely criticized the government's actions and the elections because they fail to meet acceptable democratic standards.

I recently received some information from a friend on Vancouver Island as a response to an op-ed that I had written on the Canada–Honduras trade agreement. He had just conducted a development and peace workshop about Honduras, and had spent six weeks in northern Honduras last fall on a personal accompaniment project with Father Melo Moreno, S.J., the director of an independent radio station and a human rights centre called ERIC.

This is what he wrote me when referring to Father Melo:

Either job puts him at the front of the firing squad and he lives with death threats and intimidation. As well some of his workers have received death threats. Twice I accompanied Melo to a prison near La Ceiba to visit a political prisoner—a peasant farmer who has been in jail for almost 6 years but a leader of a campesino community.

....Canada is very much present in Honduras through mining companies and through the sweatshops...which are there because labour laws and environmental protection laws are weak or non-existent thanks to the Free trade agreement conditions that Canada imposed.

I would like to read again from a paper entitled “Faith in Action: Padra Melo”, written by a woman by the name of Molly Holden. It says:

On October 9, Rev. Ismael Moreno Coto, S.J. popularly known as “Padre Melo” spoke to a group of Boston College students and faculty on the violence and ongoing human rights violations in Honduras, currently the 'murder Capital of the world'. His presentation, the Price of Truth: Human rights in Honduras since the Coup, addressed the struggles and successes of building a fair and inclusive society. In his testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Committee of the US Congress in 2012, Padre Melo asked members of the Committee how freedom of expression could 'be defended in a country like Honduras where the biggest violators of the this fundamental freedom are the friends and partners of a “democracy” backed by the policies and agencies of the U.S. government?' Padre Melo stated that around 80% of cocaine imported to the United States comes through Honduras by way of Colombia. However, U.S. attempts to combat drug trafficking in Honduras (and elsewhere in Latin America) place power and money in the hands of the Honduran military officials and politicians who are deeply tied to the drug lords. In other words, drug traffickers, weakening the rule of law and increasing violence, control the Honduran government at all levels.

I would like to finish by sharing an article entitled “Canada profiting off the backs of Honduras' poor”, by the Troy Media publication columnist, Mark Taliano, who was part of a Canadian delegation that went to Honduras to observe elections. The article states:

In March of 2007, Gildan Activewear Inc., a Montreal-based textile manufacturer, decided to leave Canada for sunnier climes.

The company laid off hundreds of Canadian workers, and resettled where business was good: Honduras. The end result? Canada lost jobs and Honduras' asymmetrical, toxic economy, was further entrenched.

Honduran sweatshop workers are basically commodities and their status will likely remain unchanged, or get worse. The 2009 coup that removed the democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya was condemned internationally (even U.S. resident Obama declared it illegal), and the new regime dismantled or corrupted institutions that might be of benefit to humans (including constitutional judges), and created a heavily militarized and murderous environment. “Since 2010,”reported Raul Burbano, delegation leader of election observers from Canada, “there have been more than 200 politically motivated killings.”

In the meantime, Canada's Gildan profits from the misery. Gildan pays no taxes in Honduras, and the workforce (primarily women) is easily exploited. Unions and collective bargaining are not allowed and human rights are not a concern.

This is who we are dealing with in the free trade agreement.

It continues:

The Collective Of Honduran Women...a brave voice for freedom in Honduras, comprehensively documents the exploitation of workers. Spokespeople told us:

1) Workers produce T-shirts from about 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. four days a week, at jobs that are physically repetitive. Repetitive strain injuries are common, proper care is elusive, and injured workers are easily discarded.

Further, it states:

At Gildan, inspectors aren't allowed in to the plant, and workers are fired (or worse) if they try to organize unions.

2) One former worker explained that she would be given a cortisone shot to treat her calcified tendinitis, and then sent immediately back to work.

Later, it states:

It's no surprise then, that by age 25, chronic work injuries, coupled with poor medical treatment, often prevent workers from performing their fast-paced tasks.

Worse still, once a worker leaves Gildan, she is likely to have irreversible health problems which preclude her from finding alternate employment. Some women need crutches to walk; others can't hold their babies or do housework. Savage poverty imposes itself on their already precarious existences, and decimated social institutions perpetuate the misery.

Healthcare, schooling, and other social/public institutions are abysmal, and only those (few) with money get adequate service.

What are the drivers behind such misery?

Those who control the levels of power in Honduras are governed by interests that do not include the common good, consequently, society and the economy have been spirally downward since the coup.

Prior to the 2009 military coup, freedom and democracy were making inroads into the malaise, but now the power structure looks something like this:

At the top of this asymmetrical and entirely dysfunctional political economy are transnational corporations, including banks. They are seamlessly aligned with governments in Canada and the U.S. They tacitly, if not overtly, drive foreign policy decisions.

On the ground in Honduras looms the invisible hand of the U.S. military, viewed by locals as an “occupying force”, that arguably enables destabilization—drug trafficking has increased since the coup—and is allied with the corrupt dictator Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Locally, the nexus of powerful polities includes narco gangs, the police, the military, the para-police...and rich oligarch....

Corruption throughout society is so pervasive that people trying to make a living often have to pay extortion money not only too gangs, but also to the police.

Now, with a growing number of U.S. military bases and the murderous dictatorship of Juan Orlando Hernandez solidified, profits are basically guaranteed for transnational corporations.

As Canadians, we need to continue asking important questions. For example,

“Why are these “Free Trade” Agreements, such as the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement, so secret?” and “Why have we chosen to profit from the misery of others?”

Once we get some answers, we might choose to pay a couple dollars more for our next T-shirt.—

This is who we are dealing with. This is the country we are trying to do a free trade agreement with.

By the way, in these agreements, we have provisions allowing companies to sue governments, similar to chapter 11 in NAFTA, if they are not treated to their liking. Theoretically, a Canadian company perpetuating injustices in Honduras could actually sue the Honduran government if it were not happy with the policies of that government.

Why are we signing an agreement with a country with this record of human rights abuse and that even allows our companies to continue this abuse in their country?

I think that is the question we have to answer here today before we talk about free trade with a country like Honduras.

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

Mr. Speaker, the real concern that we on this side of the House have is not with this agreement, nor the CETA agreement, but just with the New Democratic Party's view of trade in general and its spectre that trade is bad for our country, despite two million jobs being attributable to NAFTA, which the NDP opposed. That member, in his own release on the European trade agreement, said that it would put the Canadian way of life under threat. Whether it is small trade agreements or large, the NDP's philosophical opposition to trade is that it is holding back our economy.

If that member is not in favour of even a huge agreement like CETA, is he not in favour of trade at all?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my hon. colleague is reading the stuff I have put out. That is excellent, and I thank him for that.

We have to look at trade agreements as benefiting our country first and foremost, and second, to look at what effect they will have on the countries we deal with. Here we are talking specifically about what is happening in Honduras, but I will go a bit further since my colleague mentioned CETA.

If someone were to come from another planet and say there are trade agreements being signed by this country that allow foreign corporations to sue our federal government so that our tax dollars go to fight these lawsuits or pay out to these corporations, we would think these were ludicrous. We have had companies suing our federal government, using our taxpayers' dollars, because they were not happy with our environmental laws or with what a provincial or municipal government was doing. Australia and other countries are removing provisions that something like Chapter 11.

If we include provisions in trade agreements that go against the best interests of our country, then we are bordering close to treason.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked a question of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and I was really interested in his response. I wonder if that member concurs with the response by his colleague. Basically, I asked him if he were not in favour of having a free trade agreement with Honduras because of humanitarian concerns, would he not apply that same principle to trade in general? That is the essence of the question I asked him. The member responded by saying that if we use the same criteria for some of the countries we trade with, and with whom we do not have free trade agreements, then why are we trading with them?

Does that member agree with his NDP colleague?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do we apply the same criteria to every country that we deal with? There is trade and then there is free trade. Canada has been a trading nation for many years. We continue to trade with some countries that are dictatorships and countries that violate human rights. But there is the idea of free trade.

When we sign a free trade agreement, there should be certain criteria. Regardless of the country, if it does not meet the criteria of a free trade agreement, then we should not sign an agreement with it. In spite of my objections to CETA, for example, Europe meets the criteria that we have established for free trade, as does South Korea, in regard to human rights. There is free trade, which is preferential trade, and there is trade, which we have with the Soviet Union and other countries.

I am not sure if that answered my colleague's question but that is my comment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like me, members are concerned that we would be doing a trade deal with a country that is now the murder capital of the world. Since the coup, journalists, trade union workers, members of the clergy, anyone who is speaking out for justice and democracy is at risk of being murdered with no effort being made by the state to bring the murderers to justice. That means that this trade deal would sanction a government that is behaving in ways that we should not encourage.

Does my hon. colleague think there is still time to get the current administration to rethink this trade deal?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there always has to be time and we always have to hope.

Yes, I believe that the government could look at this agreement and say that it would give them some time to clean up these violations. We could send in a team to observe what is going on, have a look at our companies that are there, and make sure that they are observing the laws of Honduras. If all of that was put in place, then the government could sign on the dotted line.

That would be the reasonable thing to do. It would respect the people of Honduras and go against the human rights violations that are currently in place.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this topic. I have been to Honduras more than once. It is a wonderful country with very warm, friendly, and welcoming people. They are a very proud and hard-working people. I am so pleased to see this agreement now come before the House.

Canada's development solidarity with Honduras is truly helping to build prosperity in that country. I also want to say a little bit about how we in Canada are helping to address inequality, social exclusion, and insecurity in that country. This work provides a positive platform, of course, for the Canada–Honduras free trade agreement.

Our Conservative government believes strongly that engagement, not isolationism, is the best way to be a good neighbour and friend to Honduras. We want to be truly helpful in addressing its development, security, and human rights challenges. We profoundly disagree with the NDP approach, which can be summed up as: “The beatings will continue until morale improves”. Shame on them.

We are pleased to say that Canada is working on several fronts with the Honduran government in this regard. We are also proud that Canada is making a difference. Canada has a long-standing and substantial development relationship with Honduras.

Honduras is one of 20 countries of focus for Canada's development work. We have provided close to $40 million in the last fiscal year. Canada also delivered close to $70 million in security programming in all of Central America to support regional efforts, which include Honduras, to address insecurity in this region.

The people of Honduras appreciate their development and security partnership with Canada that has been provided over the years, and we have a strong relationship with that country, based on an open and frank dialogue. I have been there and have had these discussions. There are some wonderful leaders looking for friends and collaborators to help pull their country out of some of the deep difficulties they have faced for many years. These are issues important to both Canadians and the citizens of Honduras.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about Honduras' challenging social economic situation and present some compelling statistics on poverty and insecurity in Honduras. These are issues which Honduras leaders are determined to address, and things like this new trade agreement will provide a real boost.

At this time, unfortunately, Honduras is one of the poorest and most unequal countries in the Americas. Sixty percent of the population of Honduras is considered poor. Nearly one-fifth live in extreme poverty. In fact, they live on less than $1.25 a day.

The poverty in Honduras is concentrated in rural areas. It affects mostly women, young people, and indigenous communities. They need the kinds of opportunities that this trade agreement would provide. It goes without saying that this situation is not meeting the aspirations of the country's proud and hard-working citizens.

When I say “hard-working”, I would point out that Honduras' unemployment rate remains relatively low, but underemployment is huge. In fact, just over half of the total workforce is underemployed. It holds part-time jobs despite seeking full-time work, or the workforce is overqualified based on education, experience, and skills. They need opportunities.

In addition, Honduras' informal sector accounts for nearly three-quarters of non-agricultural employment and nearly 60% of total employment. Members can appreciate that many of these workers in the informal sector are therefore working under poor conditions in terms of safety, income, and social benefits.

A free trade agreement opens up the door. It provides certainty and a framework for Canadian investors and Canadian businesses to partner with Hondurans to provide the kind of strong, stable employment opportunities that Hondurans need and want.

Here is another huge challenge. Over half of Hondurans are under the age of 19. It is a very young population, so it does not take a genius to figure out that the lack of economic opportunities for these young people is a major driving force behind the country's persistent social and security problems. There are criminal elements who are very happy to draw young Hondurans into their net, and it is very sad to see that. Legitimate business opportunities are so needed to counteract that.

The Honduran government has made an effort to address poverty and security issues, but resources are scarce and progress has been slow.

The crime rate and insecurity have increased to the point where, today, this beautiful little country, this gem of a country, is one of the most violent in the world. I am sorry to say that Honduras has the highest intentional homicide rate in the world, averaging 20 murders per day, in addition to other violent crime. That is, to a large extent, criminal elements are having their way, using this country as a drug route and drawing young people into this terrible, violent activity.

That is why Canada's bilateral development partnership promotes sustainable economic growth through investment in rural development and works to reduce social exclusion and inequality through ongoing investments in health, education, human rights, and democratic development.

Canada is helping to achieve strong results toward increasing food security and securing the future of poor Honduran children and youth, particularly in rural areas.

We are making a real difference in the lives of small farmers and their families by sharing best practices that are improving their sustainable farming practices. To date, over 27,000 farmers have received critical collaboration to improve the quantity and quality of crops, access new markets, and diversify income. Many of these are now ready to integrate into more structured supply chains and access local, regional, and global markets, like Canada.

We are also collaborating to help strengthen health in this country, to improve the quality of education. I want to pay tribute to Dave Hubert and Canadian Peacemakers International, who are putting computers into rural villages and putting the country's education system on the computers. People in the villages and small towns come to these computer stations and work through the programs to increase their education through self-help programs. It is an amazing program by Canadian Peacemakers International.

We are working through the Organization of American States, the International Program for Professional Labour Administration–Americas to promote respect for international labour standards and to work with the leaders of Honduras on many fronts to lift this country up.

Prosperity, security, and democratic governance, including the full respect of human rights, go together. They are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. That is why this trade agreement is such good news, a bright light on the horizon for Honduras.

In short, this agreement would benefit Hondurans. It would also help create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for Canadians. That is called a win-win, and I hope that all members will leave aside the nonsensical rhetoric of the NDP and support this important new partnership with our friends in Honduras.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Honduras and Canadian companies do not want a trade agreement at any cost. Everything being said in the House has to do with trade; however, there are still a lot of problems in Honduras, and trade agreements will not solve all of those problems.

Furthermore, when we enter into a trade agreement, we have the upper hand. That is precisely the right time to use the negotiations for that agreement as an opportunity to try to solve those problems. The economic aspect alone will not solve everything. We therefore need to take this a little further, beyond a simple trade agreement, to help a country overcome the problems that the member talked about earlier.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Of course we do, Mr. Speaker. I just talked about all of the partnerships, the sharing of best practices, and all the work that has been done by Canada in that country. We are good friends with Honduras. There are many NGOs working with Honduras, like Peacemakers International. The Honduran people have strong friendships with them.

Yes, the free trade agreement is only a part of what we want to do, but it is an important part. It is a part that Hondurans have longed for, worked for, dreamed of, and it is finally in the House, its dream coming to fruition. I cannot imagine why the NDP would want to stick a knife in something so important to this little country.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it has long been a dream of mine to stand up in the House of Commons and ask the member for Calgary—Nose Hill a question. Since I have the floor, I want to tell the House what a wonderful person and mentor to me she has been, and it is a great pleasure to stand here and ask her the following question.

Many of the assertions today in debate have been that Canada somehow has not contributed to cultural and social change in Honduras. I know that the member did a lot of good work in this particular country during her time as minister of state for the Americas. Some of the statistics that I have around Canada's recent contributions, include our co-operation programming through DFAITD, in which we provided over $39 million to the country in support for food security, sustainable economic growth, addressing issues related to human rights and gender equality.

Can the member talk about some of the assertions that have been made here today?

I believe one of the members of the NDP today said that this country is not an important trading partner for Canada. Could the member for Calgary—Nose Hilltalk about Canada's contributions to Honduras in terms of our international aid and what that has done for the community, and also to sort of speak against the assertion that somehow trade cannot help social change in a country?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her kind words.

To give some specifics, Canada's support has led to a reduction in newborn mortality in Honduras by 11% in the regions we have concentrated on. We have provided health and counselling services to over 85,000 young people. We have contributed to reducing primary school dropout rates, so that now the dropout rate is only 1%, and to reducing the average of grade repetition rates to under 5%. This progress is important. These are real people. These are people who are striving and struggling. Corruption and insecurity is not something confined to Honduras. It is part and parcel of the entire region. It is preyed on by criminal elements and those in the drug trade. It has a very young population and very low incomes.

I am proud of the work that we have done to be a friend and neighbour to Honduras. Honduras is important to me. Honduras is important to Canada. It may not be important to the NDP, but even the poorest and smallest among us deserve support, respect, and friendship.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this free trade agreement. I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade when I was first elected, and I think it is a very important committee. I do have to wonder about one thing. Not only should Canada create trade relationships with other countries, but it should also use its status—which unfortunately has diminished since the Conservatives won a majority government in the House of Commons, and even before that—to initiate change in countries where people are more vulnerable and where the political will to do so might unfortunately be lacking.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That is not true.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Yes, it is true, Mr. Speaker. I think my colleague across the aisle, who just shouted at me, did not understand what I said. I did not say Canada never got involved; I said that Canada should use its status to initiate change in some countries. I am not saying that Canada was never involved in Honduras. I simply wanted to correct my hon. colleague.

I understand that Canada donates money to Honduras through a number of international co-operation programs. I also understand that it is trying to achieve certain things. However, what message is Canada sending by signing such an agreement? That is what I wonder about. This is not the first free trade agreement the Conservatives have rushed through behind closed doors and with no transparency.

What message are we sending to a government that, unfortunately, does not respect human rights? We will lose our best bargaining chip if we sign this free trade agreement. Then, when we negotiate with the government, what will we say? We will be making our demands after we have already signed the agreement. We need to do that before we sign. We need to ask our economic partner to meet our criteria before we sign the agreement.

I could give all sorts of examples. For one, if we tell a child that we will give him $5 if he does the dishes, then he must do the dishes before he gets the money. That is a basic principle. It is not a political ideology. It is common sense. We must ask our economic partner to meet our criteria before signing the agreement. We must not sign the agreement and then wash our hands of the situation, saying that we have done our duty as a government and as a nation. If we reach out to a country to sign a free trade agreement, does that mean that what happens afterward does not concerns us? No. That is not how things work. That is what is called cheap diplomacy. The Conservatives' international trade policy is basically cheap diplomacy that puts commercial interests before everything else.

I would like to quote a witness who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, Sheila Katz, a representative of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation's Americas Policy Group. I would like to quote what she had to say because she addresses this very point. She said:

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.

...[Let us take for] example 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.

As a number of my colleagues have already mentioned, the homicide rate in Honduras is the highest in the world. Opposing this free trade agreement is not just about political ideology. It is common sense. It is too bad that my colleagues across the way and the Conservative government are ignoring common sense and using easy political attacks just to make us look bad. To me, it is the Conservatives who look bad.

There is no basic principle that could defend Honduras' record when it comes to protection for human rights and individual freedoms, the homicide rate and drug trafficking. The Conservatives cannot justify this agreement.

It is true that it looks good from an economic perspective. However, can we really validate this type of behaviour? We are losing our clout and Canada's fundamental role in this type of negotiations. We must not sign the agreement and wash our hands of everything that is happening. On the contrary, before signing the agreement, we must ask our economic partners to meet the basic criteria recognized around the world as being the fundamental principles of human rights.

My colleagues across the way can attack us all they want. I have no problem rising in the House to say that they made a mistake or to vote against this free trade agreement.

It is true that Honduras is an economic partner of Canada. I understand that. However, Honduras has been widely criticized by all the Latin American countries, the European Union, the United States and the United Nations General Assembly. All of our largest partners have denounced the situation.

Once again, in typical fashion, the Conservatives have decided to ignore the terrible situation and move forward by recognizing a government that does not respect fundamental human rights. It makes absolutely no sense. This is a prime example of the Conservatives' agenda.

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world. What is more, according to Transparency International, Honduras is the most corrupt country in Central America.

How can the government negotiate a free trade agreement with a country that is considered to be the most corrupt in Central America and not even mention that?

None of my colleagues who spoke today condemned the situation in Honduras. Can we really trust the Conservatives when they tell us not to worry and that they will ask Honduras to abide by our highest standards? No, we cannot trust them. They cannot even condemn the situation in Parliament. They are not even able to say that many NGOs rank the Honduran government as the most corrupt in the world. We cannot trust them.

I just introduced my private member's bill on corporate social responsibility, which is another big problem. The extractive sector is a significant commercial interest for Canada, and the provisions to protect investors are an important part of the agreement. Mining companies, which have gotten caught up in conflicts, are unfortunately at more of an advantage in this free trade agreement than the very vulnerable people of Honduras.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to congratulate my colleague on introducing her bill. This is always an extremely important moment in a parliamentary democracy. The member's speeches are always passionate and we know they are heartfelt.

I am always shocked when the Conservative and Liberal members say that the NDP is opposed to trade and international agreements.They have all forgotten the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, but that is not the issue.

Some claim that it is sometimes better to do business with countries that have serious problems and that we should sign treaties with them. They believe that we must do business with them and convert them in the process. I cannot believe that the members opposite do not recognize the human rights problems in Honduras.

What concerns me is that the Conservatives are not talking about this. The member dealt with this aspect at length, but I would nevertheless like her to answer my question. I am wondering whether they are really going to do what it takes to change their ways and to ensure that there is strong protection for human rights.

In this case, would it not be more prudent to ensure that the countries we trade with are good international citizens? Or should we instead, like the leader of the third party at the other end of the House, congratulate the government and then ask for a copy of the agreements?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Several of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade said that the Conservatives' first mistake was making Canada the first country to recognize the Honduran government.

This proves that they wanted to advance their trade agenda with no regard for the extremely difficult and problematic situation in Honduras. As a result, we have lost our key bargaining chip.

Typically, you do not ask a state to respect human rights after signing a free trade agreement. There are lawyers, economists and business people in the House, and they know that that is not how things work.

We have to ensure that the economic partners are on equal footing before signing an agreement. That is how it should work. The Conservatives' logic makes no sense because it eliminates our key bargaining chip.

No Conservative member mentioned the reports by the UN and various NGOs detailing the extremely serious problems with human rights, journalistic freedom, the highest murder rate in the world and corruption.

Can we trust the Conservatives? No.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Canadian mines in Honduras, particularly the Goldcorp mine in San Martin.

Before 2009, there were complaints about the use of toxic chemicals in this open-pit mine. Then-president Manuel Zelaya had drafted a legal framework to crack down on mines. Just a few days before the measure was to be passed in 2009, there was a coup. The subject never came up again.

I would like my colleague to tell us what she thinks of this.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

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

As he knows, this is an important issue for me. I have been working on it for three years, and I am very pleased to have introduced my bill today to create an ombudsman for the corporate social responsibility of Canadian extractive corporations.

Canadian companies must be subject to the same rules as any government or individual and must respect human rights. It is extremely important for the Canadian government to understand that, at this time, it cannot condone such extensive and significant human rights abuses.

What message is the Conservative government sending the Honduran authorities? Unfortunately, it is not a clear message asking them to immediately pass regulations. It is a meaningless message.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, others have mentioned in the House the many benefits this agreement would bring to Canadians. Today, I would like to speak of the importance to Canadian investors. Foreign investment is crucial to any modern economy. It not only brings with it jobs, but it increases the transfer of knowledge, efficiencies, and economies of scale to the host economy.

Foreign investment builds people-to-people ties, helps strengthen the country's competitiveness, and in turn paves the way for new opportunities for Canadian companies in dynamic fast-growing markets around the world, markets like Honduras.

Investment opportunities help Canadian companies remain globally competitive by ensuring their integration into the global economy. At the end of 2012, Canadian direct investment abroad had reached an all-time high of $711.6 billion. The value of the stock in foreign direct investment within Canada is also impressive. By the end of 2012, Canada had attracted more than $633 billion in foreign direct investment.

The global economy has faced tremendous challenges over the last few years; but throughout, Canada proved to be a safe harbour as the global economy faced challenges. It is no wonder Canada has proven to be such a draw for foreign investment.

Canada is home to 26 of the Financial Times global 500 companies. More top companies have headquarters in Canada than in Germany, India, Brazil, Russia, or Italy.

Canada has outpaced its G7 partners, with its economy growing the fastest in the last 10 years as a result of low corporate taxes, prudent fiscal management, a business climate that rewards innovation and entrepreneurship, and an open economy that welcomes foreign investment.

That being said, we all know Canada is not an island. We are not immune to the global economic turbulence. That is why we remain focused on helping create more jobs for today and tomorrow with ambitious pro-trade and pro-economic growth measures.

Canada must remain vigilant to ensure that our economic fundamentals remain strong at home and that Canadian businesses continue to have an increasing number of investment opportunities abroad. This is why it is important for us to leverage the investment relationships we have around the world with countries like Honduras.

Canadian direct investment in Honduras was estimated by Statistics Canada to be $105 million at the end of 2007. This was predominantly in the financial services and mining sectors, both of which offer strong potential for growth; and these opportunities are just the beginning for Canadian investors.

We have heard about the tremendous opportunities that exist in Honduras with respect to large infrastructure projects. These projects include the building or improvement of ports, roads, hospitals, bridges, and airports. A country like Canada, with so much expertise in these areas, can take advantage of these significant opportunities in Honduras.

Just these few examples clearly illustrate how important it is to enhance our investment relationship with countries like Honduras.

A free trade agreement with Honduras would provide investors from both countries with the benefits that come with enhanced investment protection and stability. These provisions, which would promote the two-way flow of investments, provide a range of obligations that benefit investors from both countries. They are designed to protect investment abroad through legally binding rights and obligations. The investment obligations of this agreement incorporate several key principles, including treatment that is non-discriminatory and that meets a minimum standard, protection against expropriation without compensation, and the free transfer of funds.

In short, Canadian investors would be treated in a non-discriminatory manner. This dynamic would help foster an investment relationship between our two countries and pave the way for an increased flow of investments in the years ahead.

This agreement would also provide investors with access to transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlement.

I would like to make clear to the House, however, that while this agreement would ensure that investors and their investments are protected, it would not prevent either Canada or Honduras from regulating in the public interest with respect to such areas as health, safety, and the environment. This is the position our government has consistently taken in our trade and investment agreements.

The investment provisions also include an article on corporate social responsibility. This provision recognizes that Canada expects and encourages Canadian companies operating abroad to observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct. This provision also helps level the playing field for Canadian investors when they invest abroad, by encouraging CSR principles among all investors.

Fundamentally, this agreement would send a positive signal to our trade and investment partners around the world. The agreement would enhance investment opportunities for Canadian investors in one of the most dynamic markets of the Americas. To date, Canadian companies have shown a significant interest in investing in the Honduran economy.

It is important this legislation moves quickly through this House. As time lapses, opportunities for Canadian investors are placed at risk. That is why it is critical that Canadian companies have the ability to strike while the iron is hot.

The United States is Canada's biggest competitor in Honduras, and many Canadian goods and services compete directly with those of the United States in Honduras. Our government will not stand by and let Canadian companies compete on an uneven playing field.

I encourage all members not to delay approval of the agreement. Our government has been very clear that trade and investment are vital to economic growth and the long-term prosperity of Canadians. That is why our government continues to move forward with an ambitious pro-trade plan that focuses on creating partnerships in key markets around the world.

Our government is committed to doing everything we can do to open doors for Canadians. That is why I ask all hon. members to show their support for the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the government is rather simple.

Historically, Honduras is undemocratic, does not respect human rights and mistreats its citizens. Drug trafficking is rampant and the extent of corruption is extraordinary.

Why does the government not have the will and the strength to use a free trade agreement to impose international laws or Canadian values in order to ensure a better future for Honduran society?

My question is simple. I do not see the government making any effort to head in that direction.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly not encourage a country to adopt the democratic principles of a country like Canada by ignoring problems with democracy.

We know that there has been financial support in a number of areas, especially when it comes to setting an example regarding labour and occupational health standards. We have also provided training for those working in the area of justice in Honduras. Additionally, Foreign Affairs provides financial support to encourage respect for human rights.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. In fact, I greatly appreciate the work we do together on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I will emphasize human rights in keeping with the question by the hon. member who preceded me.

Can the parliamentary secretary say a few words about other efforts and the types of initiatives that have been taken? Earlier, my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île spoke of the importance of putting the cards on the table during negotiations, and she explained that when we do business with people, we have to see what is involved.

What obligations did the government impose on itself to follow up on these extremely serious and major human rights violations in Honduras?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her good question. As far as justice is concerned, for example, so far we have provided funding to train people working in the field of justice in Honduras.

From 2009 to 2013, $4.9 million was invested to train police officers and those who work in justice, such as prosecutors, judges and crime scene technicians. That money was used to provide them with the necessary training to truly and finally have a more stable justice system.

There was also a coup d'état in 2009. Since then, funding has been provided to establish a type of truth and reconciliation commission in Honduras, in order to address human rights violations.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about the situation in Honduras and the murders and assassinations that are not reported to the police and whose perpetrators are not prosecuted, which means that people and their families cannot get justice.

I also learned that journalists, peasant activists and members of the LGBT community are particularly vulnerable to attacks. However, the government is not doing anything to bring those responsible to justice or to offer protection to people at risk.

Does Canada really want to sign free trade agreements—and we know that free trade agreements require nations to respect one another—with governments that can turn a blind eye to the murders of members of minorities for unknown reasons? I still do not understand why the government wants to sign agreements with this kind of country.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, if we turn our backs on abuses, we will not be setting a good example of how to act democratically. I mentioned that financial support had been provided to encourage the country to respect human rights. This financial support needs to continue, and as the trade and contractual relationship develops, there will be more faith in our system and more trade between the people of Honduras and Canada. This will enable them to see how fantastic democracy in Canada is, and they will be able to adopt this model in their country in the future.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to talk about the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

Our Conservative government has made very clear the priority it places on implementing free trade agreements that will help Canadian business compete in overseas markets. In an export-driven economy, Canadian companies, producers, and investors grow when they have greater access to international markets. One in five jobs in Canada are related to trade. It is clear that jobs in communities across Canada depend on the business we do with other countries.

Our Conservative government committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians, and this is why this government has established the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. We recognize that bilateral and regional trade brings ever-increasing prosperity to Canada and Canadians.

By signing these trade agreements, the Government of Canada helps increase the export of Canadian products to rapidly growing markets around the world, such as Honduras. Deepening our trade relationship with these emerging markets is important for jobs and for the long-term prosperity of the Canadian economy. Trade agreements promote Canadian exports to foreign markets by increasing the flow of products to FTA partners. In fact, statistics demonstrate that trade flows more than double with our FTA partners after 10 years.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of trade agreements on various sectors of the economy. For example, it has been shown that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States led to an improvement of 13.8% in productivity in the Canadian manufacturing sector, a remarkable trade-related achievement. In turn, this increase in productivity led to higher wages and higher standards of living.

The Conservative government understands that by improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we are supporting domestic economic growth and are creating new opportunities for Canadians. The benefits these trade agreements provide are clear. That is why our government is in the midst of the most ambitious pursuit of new and expanded trade and investment agreements in Canadian history.

Since 2006, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with 10 countries: Colombia, Jordan, Peru; the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland; Honduras; Panama; and most recently, South Korea. As well, the historic agreement with European Union represents the most significant trade initiative since the North American Free Trade Agreement and could potentially boost our bilateral trade with this important partner by 20%. It would also provide a $12 billion annual boost to Canada's economy, which is equivalent to a $1,000 increase in the average Canadian family's income, or almost 80,000 new jobs.

At a time of such economic uncertainty, Canadian companies welcome the many benefits a Canada-EU trade agreement would bring. We are also intensifying our focus on the Asia Pacific region. On October 8, 2012, Canada officially joined the trans-Pacific partnership. This initiative is currently being negotiated by a group of 12 countries, which includes Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, Vietnam, and now Japan. TPP membership will bring jobs, growth, and prosperity to hard-working Canadians. The potential benefits of this initiative are enormous. The TPP market represents more than 658 million people and a combined GDP of over $20.5 trillion.

Just last week, the Minister of International Trade announced the launch of the fifth round of negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Japan. In addition, Canada is working to modernize its existing bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica, and Israel. These were signed under the former Liberal government, so of course we need to improve them.

All these initiatives are critical for the economic future of our country. To grow at home, Canadian enterprise must be allowed to succeed abroad. It must be able to compete in a predictable, transparent, and rules-based trading environment. More importantly, Canadian firms must be able to compete on a level playing field. They must not be at a competitive disadvantage in markets where other countries have trade agreements in place.

There are a growing number of countries where Canadian companies are at a competitive disadvantage, because their competitors have preferential market access under some form of preferential trade agreement. This is precisely what will continue if we do not sign these trade agreements. Honduras is an example of this.

While the House debates the merits of a trade agreement with Honduras, the United States and the European Union are moving toward implementation of their respective trade agreements with this prosperous economy. The United States-Honduras trade promotion agreement entered into force in 2006. Honduras signed a free trade agreement with the European Union that entered into force on August 1, 2013.

Many Canadian goods and services are in direct competition with those of the United States and the European Union in Honduras. Those trade agreements will provide American and European firms with preferential access to the Honduran market for a number of products that are key exports of Canadian firms. Right now, Canadian firms exporting goods such as frozen french fries, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, and vehicles are at a competitive disadvantage. They continue to face difficulties because products from the United States enjoy preferential access.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, export sectors include linseed oil, industrial machinery, plastics, pulses, and beef and pork. All of these sectors would have preferential access after ratification of the agreement.

Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries vigorously pursue trade deals to secure better market access for their products and services. The Conservative government will not stand by and let Canadian companies compete on an uneven playing field. It is imperative that we implement the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement to ensure that Canadian companies remain competitive in the Honduran market and reap the benefits of this trade agreement.

The benefits to Saskatchewan and to all of Canada that would be generated from this trade agreement are very clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask the member opposite whether he knows that Honduras tolerates companies that damage the environment, violate the rights of indigenous peoples, disregard the wishes of the local communities and allow paramilitary death squads to intimidate citizens and commit acts of violence against people who are protesting peacefully?

Why does his party support this kind of country, and does it think we should reward these countries with preferential trade agreements?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Partnership for Development Innovative Branch is from the province of British Columbia. The Honduras budget, $1,099,278, is working with the Honduran law enforcement and justice institutions to reduce impunity and improve human rights.

There is something in place. It is through the University of British Columbia. It works with the Honduras program. There are also trainees from the training program working in internships in the Canadian justice sector. There is work between Canada and Honduras in terms of human relationships. That is in effect and it is growing.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable for Canada to close its eyes and shake hands with Honduras when that country does not respect human rights.

Criminals go virtually unpunished in Honduras. According to Honduran government statistics released by PEN International, police investigate less than 1% of crimes in Honduras.

How can the Conservatives make plum deals with a country like Honduras? We have already mentioned that Canada is a role model for Honduras. Before signing an economic agreement with us, why does Honduras not take responsibility and investigate the murders that take place every week, in order to bring justice to victims?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me share this with members:

Canada's Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force (START) and the Deployment for Democratic Development [the DDD] have supported the implementation of recommendations of the Honduras Truth and Reconciliation Commission [the TRC]. The TRC was established following the 2009 coup d'état to identify mechanisms to avoid repetition of similar events. START supported the TRC Monitoring Office, working under Honduras' Justice and Human Rights Secretariat, for the effective implementation of recommendations....

It is safe to say that it takes time to create change, so Canada is not only working on the trade agreement, it is working with the human element to create that change. I am sure that we are going to see the evidence of that in the very near future.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement and the many benefits it would bring to our agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters.

First I would like to emphasize that our Conservative government clearly understands that our standard of living and Canadians' future prosperity will be generated by deepening and broadening our trading relationships, which is something missing from the comments earlier today by the Liberals and the New Democrats. That is why our government is committed to securing and deepening access to traditional markets such as the United States while broadening and expanding access to dynamic and fast-growing economies around the world.

Pursuing new trade opportunities is a win-win situation for Canada and its trading partners. Canadians benefit from the jobs, prosperity, and consumer benefits that come from increased trade. In turn, our international partners, many of which represent developing countries, benefit from the ever-expanding middle class and improved standard of living that is lifting more of the world's population out of poverty. This was mentioned earlier today by the member for Mississauga South in her comments.

We are also creating new opportunities for our exporters, opportunities that are bringing jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity to hard-working Canadians.

As Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector becomes more modern, innovative, and competitive, the sector is becoming a more significant part of Canada's economy. In fact, in 2012 the agriculture and agri-food industry accounted for one in eight jobs in Canada, which translated to employment for more than two million Canadians. It also accounted for 8% of Canada's gross domestic product.

In 2012 our overall agriculture and agri-food exports exceeded $44 billion, ranking Canada the fifth-largest exporter of agriculture and agri-food products in the world. That is why our government continues to work tirelessly to improve access to international markets for our agricultural exporters.

Whereas the Liberals completed only three trade agreements over their 13 years in government, in eight years Canada has signed or concluded new free trade agreements in 38 countries, including Colombia; Jordan; Panama; Peru; the European Free Trade Association, including Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland; Honduras; the 28 members of the European Union; and, most recently, South Korea. Sadly, the ideologically driven NDP has consistently opposed these agreements.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement we are debating here today is an example of the actions our government is taking to support Canadians as they compete and win in the global economy. Our government will ensure that Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters remain competitive with exporters to Honduras, and I want to emphasize why this is so important.

As members of this House are aware, Honduras has also concluded free trade agreements with the United States and the European Union. The United States is Canada's biggest competitor in Honduras, and many Canadian exports are in direct competition with those of the United States. Canadian products are now at a competitive disadvantage, as they continue to face duties, while exports from the United States enjoy duty-free access. Over 87% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Honduras are now entering duty free.

Our government will not let Canadians compete on an unlevel playing field. It is time this House passed this agreement.

Our agreement with Honduras is a comprehensive agreement that covers market access for goods, including agriculture and agri-food products. Some of these products include Canada's high-quality beef, pork, wheat products, frozen french fries, malt, maple syrup, pulses, whisky, canola seed, and canary seed. These products would enter Honduras duty free upon implementation of this FDA. This is welcome news for our agriculture and agri-food industries and for our exporters.

For instance, our beef and pork exporters could take immediate advantage of restored access to the Honduran market following the recent approval of the Canadian meat inspection system. Our pork sector would also reap benefits from an FTA with Honduras. Canada's exporters of purebred breeding swine, swine genetics, and pork offal would benefit from the immediate elimination of Honduran tariffs of up to 15%. As well, cuts of Canada's fresh, chilled, and frozen pork would gain from immediate duty-free access. Our pork industry is optimistic about the potential for an increase in our pork exports to Honduras.

Canada's exporters of frozen french fries would also benefit from the immediate elimination of Honduran tariffs of 15%. Likewise, our pulse exporters would benefit not only from the immediate elimination of tariffs ranging from 10% to 15% but also from the eventual removal of tariffs of up to 30% within the next 10 years.

I have outlined only some of the benefits of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement for Canadian agricultural exporters and their producers. Suffice to say, the Canada-Honduras agreement is excellent news for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector.

This agreement would support more Canadian jobs by enhancing our ability to export more goods and services to this market, including agricultural goods. Expanding Canada's trade and investment ties around the world will help protect and create new jobs and prosperity for hard-working Canadians.

All these initiatives are critical to the economic future of our country, yet they are also a representation of Canada's past. Canada has always been a trading nation. This year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Twenty years ago, trade within the North American region was over U.S. $288 billion. In 2012, total trilateral merchandise trade reached nearly $1.1 trillion. That is nearly a fourfold increase.

Canada is now the top export destination for 38 out of 50 U.S. states. Of course, the U.S. remains by far the top export destination of all provinces. Over eight million U.S. jobs depend on trade and investment with Canada, and over 2.4 million Canadian jobs, one in seven, depend on exports to the U.S.

NAFTA has provided a solid foundation for Canada's future prosperity on which Canada continues to build to advance North American trade and competitiveness.

Canada has also punched above its weight when it comes to multilateral trade. By continuing to actively pursue broader market access and new investment opportunities, we are providing Canadian businesses and exporters with access on preferred terms to the largest, most dynamic, fastest-growing economies and regions around the world. That is why the implementation of this free trade agreement, and all free trade agreements, is a priority for this government.

I ask hon. members in the House to support Bill C-20.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I feel as though I have landed on a Conservative-Liberal planet that is obsessed with free trade agreements.

I would like to talk more specifically about the Conservative government's track record when it comes to free trade agreements. The Conservatives boast about signing more of these agreements than the Liberals. However, I would like to remind hon. members that, under the Conservatives, Canada's has gone from a $26 billion trade surplus to a $62 billion trade deficit.

How has Canada benefited from all these free trade agreements thus far? To date, the NDP has supported one of the free trade agreements. We were not satisfied with the others because of the humanitarian values of the countries in question, among other things.

How can my colleague justify the fact that Canada now has a $62 billion trade deficit when we had a $26 billion surplus when his party took office?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the NDP and we on the Conservative side of the House have different views of trade agreements. It is clear from the NDP trade critic, who has been quoted as saying that countries like Honduras, Colombia, Peru, Costa Rica, and others are not key economies with any kind of strategic value for Canada.

Clearly, when we can provide trade with countries like Honduras and some of the others that New Democrats have listed, we not only improve our own standard of living by providing more jobs and security here in our own country but also improve the lives of the people in those countries.

I have had the opportunity to visit a few of them, and we should do anything we can to try to promote trade with them, because they get to export their products in some of these cases as well. When a country relies as heavily on trade as Honduras does, this is a big benefit.

I talked about the benefits to the agricultural sector more than some of the others, but it would certainly be a benefit to us in terms of industrial machinery. The tariff on that is in the neighbourhood of 15%, and it would be eliminated. The tariffs on aerospace would be eliminated as well. That is a big industry in Manitoba, the province I come from. There are a number of other industries in coastal provinces that would benefit from this agreement as well. Certainly the plastic industries would gain from a trade agreement with Honduras.

In replying today to the same question that was just asked, one of my other colleagues indicated that there was a recession in 2008. Very clearly, we are all in recovery from that 2008 recession, and Honduras and the Central American countries are no different.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that a number of Conservative members of Parliament stand in their place and talk about Bill C-20 and make reference to the fact that they have 38 free trade agreements under this particular Prime Minister. It is important that we distinguish, when we talk about the number of 38, one of them is with the European Union, and the European Union is 28 of that 38.

From my understanding, and I look for the member's comment, it is not the traditional type of agreement that we are talking about today. For example, in the case of the European Union and those 28 countries, there is no legislation before the House today regarding free trade.

I am wondering if the member might be able to inform the House as to when he believes we will actually have the legislation for the European Union agreement. If he likes, he could also provide comment on the pork industry in Honduras. The trade agreement would be of great benefit, we anticipate, in Manitoba, particularly in his riding.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Winnipeg North and the years I spent in the Manitoba legislature with him.

Certainly the pork industry would benefit from this measure. As I have indicated, there is a tariff that would be removed, which would certainly help our Maple Leaf plant in Manitoba, which is located in Brandon, as the member has indicated. However, these are strategic agreements that we need in order to continue with trade.

The member is right in regard to the European Union trade agreement. It is 28 countries, and as was indicated in last fall's throne speech, it is a memorandum of understanding that we hope will be signed by all of those countries in the next two years.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, our Conservative government is undertaking the most ambitious trade agenda in Canadian history.

To date, the government has signed 38 trade agreements, and whether they are with countries large or small, each one is important. I want to underscore that because trade is both an opportunity and a necessity in Canada right now. Canada cannot consume all the products that we can produce, and there are other countries that need the products we produce.

In fact, 2013 was the most successful year for Canadian trade in history. We reached the historic Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement. We brought into force or signed free trade agreements with three priority countries. We concluded or brought into force a record ten foreign investment promotion and protection agreements.

The Minister of International Trade also unveiled Canada's new global market action plan, or GMAP. The GMAP is a comprehensive pro-trade and pro-investment plan that reflects a changing global landscape. It is focusing on core Canadian strengths.

It aligns Canada's trade, development, and foreign policy tools to advance our commercial interests around the world. It sets concrete targets to grow the presence of Canada's small and medium enterprises in emerging markets. This is where a lot of the job creation has taken place in Canada and where it will take place in the future.

The year 2014 is shaping up as another real banner year, with the Canada-Korea free trade agreement and the launch of negotiations on an expanded Canada-Israel FTA. The Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade have secured Canada's status as a global champion of trade.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is a high-quality, comprehensive agreement. It provides enhanced market access opportunities for producers, manufacturers, and exporters from every province and territory by eliminating tariffs. We have heard several of the members of Parliament from those provinces talking about that today.

This is very good news for my particular province of Alberta. For Alberta, a free trade agreement with Honduras will benefit exporters through the elimination of tariffs on a number of key provincial exports. Alberta's merchandise exports to Honduras, while they were a modest $629,000, showed an increase of nearly 200% from 2012. They are set to grow even further with the implementation of the Honduras free trade agreement.

Each of these agreements, as I have said, is important to growing our customer base and spreading our global reach. Each new opportunity means more jobs for Canadians.

Agriculture and agri-food products from Alberta, a key sector, is going to see a reduction in Honduran tariffs with this agreement. With more than 51-million acres of land used for crop and livestock production, Alberta produces an abundant supply of world-class agricultural commodities. In fact, the agriculture and agri-food sector contributed 2% to Alberta's GDP in 2012 and employed nearly 76,000 Albertans.

With this agreement in force, those agriculture and agri-food products can be competitive in the Honduran market, which is estimated by the Central American Economic Integration Secretariat to be $1.3 billion annually.

However, this is really a story about beef. One exciting and growing agri-food export area to Honduras is Alberta beef. On November 5 of last year, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced full market access in Honduras for Canada's world-class beef and pork exports.

Upon entry into force, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement will immediately provide duty-free access for high-quality cuts of Canadian beef, under a combined quota of 500 tons. Each year, that volume will grow.

After 15 years, Canada will have duty-free and quota-free access to the Honduran market for all types of beef. Honduran duties on beef offal currently sit at between 10% and 15%. These will be eliminated immediately upon implementation of this agreement.

I have a personal connection to this story because ranching runs in my family. My uncles have been ranchers in Alberta. My cousins are ranchers. In fact one of my uncles, Rodney James, brought Charolais Cattle to Canada.

We want to see the Alberta beef market expanded, with markets like Honduras and other markets around the world. Beef production is Alberta's largest agricultural sector, and it adds more than $12.7 million to the economy.

Alberta is also the largest cattle-producing province in Canada, with 44% of the total, or nearly 4.87 million head in 2012. Nearly 7% of that production is being exported to countries outside of Canada and the United States. This free trade agreement with Honduras would enhance that. The Honduran market is a dynamic and growing one. It is growing between 3% and 4% annually, which is a nice clip. With full market access for beef in the Honduras free trade agreement, the time now is ripe to expand our beef production.

More and more Hondurans are moving up into the growing middle class every day. Studies show that these kinds of customers have a growing appetite for high-quality agriculture and agri-food products like Canadian beef. With tariffs on Canadian beef being eliminated, we could help satisfy the demand there and see more Hondurans using more Canadian beef in their dishes.

It should also be noted that Canada's development program is also promoting sustainable economic growth and development in Honduras through investments in rural development. We are working to reduce social exclusion and inequality, with ongoing investments in other social programs. This approach is creating opportunities for Hondurans to improve their household purchasing power, which in turn will allow them to better afford quality agriculture and agri-food products.

The U.S. already has a free trade agreement with Honduras. In fact, the Americans are out there right now talking to supermarkets and restaurants across Honduras about using more U.S. beef. There is some urgency for us to get into that market, because right now our Canadian farmers and agri-food producers are at a disadvantage there. While the quality of our product is higher, and Canadian beef is very well perceived in Honduras, right now our producers have been uncompetitive because of the 15% duty currently in place. Key Honduran meat importers are looking forward to the ratification of this agreement. It would finally allow our Canadian product to compete in this marketplace. The agreement would level the playing field and make the Honduras market accessible.

I have spent a lot of time talking about beef, but many Alberta exports to Honduras are set to grow with the implementation of the free trade agreement. Beyond that, many Canadian exports to Honduras are set to grow, as are many exports from Honduras to Canada.

Throughout the negotiation of this agreement, our Conservative government consulted with a broad range of stakeholders, and the message was clear: Canadian companies look forward to the implementation of this agreement and the benefits it would create. Canadians value these kinds of real and tangible benefits. That is why Canadian companies are supporting our government's initiative to forge these new trade opportunities around the world.

We are a leader in trade. The U.S. and the E.U. have already recognized that with their FTAs. The Honduras free trade agreement recognizes that.

Our businesses deserve the right to compete on a level playing field. They seek this trade agreement, they welcome this trade agreement, and they deserve to have this trade agreement implemented.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, Canada imposed economic sanctions on former Ukrainian officials because of crimes they committed against their own people.

Now it wants to sign a trade agreement with Honduras, which also commits crimes against its own people, including journalists. If I am not mistaken, that is the former profession of the member who just spoke. I would like to know how she feels about this. What is the logic behind all this? Why, as my colleague said, is there a double standard for two different countries?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we know that Honduras is not Ukraine and that the two situations are not directly comparable. We really believe on this side of the House that engagement, not isolation, is the best way to promote Canadian values in a country like Honduras. Lifting Hondurans out of poverty, engaging in trade with them, and treating them as equal partners who are ready to participate in the world is the best way to a future all Hondurans can participate in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is supporting Bill C-20 because we see the value of free trade agreements. We believe it is one very effective tool in being able to increase overall trade in Canada. We could ultimately deliver on more middle-class jobs and provide other opportunities for both businessmen and women.

The question I have for the member is this. To what degree does she believe her government is going beyond free trade agreements to attract investment in Canada, to increase the trade coming into Canada and going out, but, more importantly, to deal with the trade deficit that the government is ultimately responsible for? What is the government doing, beyond free trade agreements, to get Canada back on track to having a trade surplus, something we had prior to the Prime Minister taking office?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to know that the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill. Free trade is a very essential component of the Conservatives' platform. We are headed toward some 60 free trade agreements, with 38 of them now in place. This is the key to prosperity.

The Liberals might be surprised to know that some countries are asking what is in it for them. Canada is a land that is rich, not only in natural resources but also many manufactured goods, environmental technologies, and intellectual property, which we are able to export around the world. They are somewhat concerned that they will not be able to benefit as much as Canada is benefiting from these free trade agreements.

Make no mistake about it, that is something we are concerned about. We want to make sure that other countries can benefit from having these agreements, but these agreements will very much benefit Canada. This is a way to get our exports out into the world. We used to depend on the U.S. as our primary trading partner. It had $368 billion worth of trade in Canadian exports in 2008. In 2009, that dropped to $270 billion, and it has not been back to the 2008 levels. We must go out to the world to sell our products, and that is the key to Canadian jobs and Canadian success.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to the bill to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. Contrary to what the Conservatives keep saying, the NDP has always been a strong supporter of fair trade.

The NDP believes that Canada should pursue free trade agreements when such agreements benefit Canada. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for a few months now, and I always emphasize the NDP's balanced approach to free trade. I talked about it during our study of the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, and I keep talking about it during our ongoing study of the proposed trans-Pacific partnership. Unlike the Conservative Party members, who are ideologically programmed to support every trade agreement, regardless of which country is the partner, we believe it is important to choose our trading partners and to insist that they implement good environmental protection, human rights and labour relations practices.

We believe that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding business opportunity.

It is important that I emphasize our vision of international trade before I address the Canada-Honduras agreement specifically. I think it is important to clearly state what sets the NDP apart from the Conservative Party. We in the NDP believe that Canada's trade agreements should be part of an overall strategy that includes the following five elements.

The first element is an impact analysis to determine whether the trade agreements being negotiated by Canada are good for Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs.

The second element involves a guarantee that trade agreements negotiated by Canada will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policy, that they will help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and that they will support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in sweatshops, by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

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

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

The current system, which consists of tabling a free trade agreement in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to accept a decision of the House.

Coming back to the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement in particular, basically, as my NDP colleagues have already said, we oppose this free trade agreement because of Honduras's poor human rights record. Need I remind the House that Honduras is led by an authoritarian, repressive and undemocratic regime?

In 2009, the disputed but democratically elected Zelaya government was toppled by a military coup. Subsequent elections have been heavily criticized by the international community as failing to meet basic democratic standards. The situation was so bad that most foreign governments and NGOs refused to send observers.

Let us not forget that Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and is considered the most dangerous country in the world for journalists. It should also be noted that the current government does not tolerate dissidence.

Mistreatment and systematic persecution of dissidents and serious human rights abuses have been documented. Killings, arbitrary detentions, severe restrictions on public demonstrations and freedom of expression, and interference in the independence of the judiciary are all well-established.

The Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development conducted a major study of the human rights situation in Honduras last spring. I was present for the troubling testimony of Esther Major of Amnesty International at the committee last March. She relayed a number of cases of human rights violations, particularly against women.

For example, she spoke to us about a young female journalist who received death threats and was physically assaulted for filming forced evictions and police brutality. She also told us the story of Antonio Trejo, a well-known human rights lawyer who defended the campesino communities in the Aguán. He was murdered. No one in the current government spoke out against this crime. Worse yet, Antonio Trejo's brother was murdered a few days later for trying to draw attention to his brother's murder.

In short, the culture of impunity and violence in some parts of the country is such that the UN special rapporteur who visited Honduras and prepared a report on the situation of human rights defenders was not able to visit the Bajo Aguán region owing to security concerns. This gives an idea of the seriousness of the situation in the country.

There is also the issue of corruption. According to Transparency International, Honduras is the most corrupt country in Central America. Police corruption has been well documented.

To summarize, as things stand and in light of the human rights situation, the culture of violence, and the weakness of Honduran institutions, I definitely am not convinced that it is a good idea to sign a free trade agreement with this country. That does not mean that we are abandoning the Honduran people. I believe that Honduras mainly needs help to reform its institutions and to deal with its security and human rights challenges.

Canada provides bilateral and regional security assistance to Honduras. The Department of Foreign Affairs' Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force is supporting follow-up to recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on reparations to victims of human rights abuses that occurred following the 2009 political crisis.

I believe that we need to continue in that direction. Without national reconciliation, it will be difficult to rebuild this country and establish a democratic rule of law.

Since 2009, the department’s anti-crime capacity building program has provided $2 million to Honduras to equip and train police and other investigative units. In particular, this program provides equipment and training to the Honduran National Police on the use of special investigative techniques to combat crime.

The Conservatives seem to think that trade and an influx of cash will magically solve all problems; however, these are some examples of targeted interventions that have a better chance of contributing to development in Honduras.

In conclusion, clearly, it is time to change course. We propose putting more effort into restarting multilateral negotiations and signing agreements with developed countries that meet high standards and that are on the right track, such as Japan, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Canada should be signing trade agreements with these countries, not with countries like Honduras, where democracy and human rights are not respected and whose poor standards will harm Canadian businesses.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all of the speakers coming from the New Democratic Party are very clear about their position on the trade agreement with Honduras. They do not support it, and the primary reason for that is the human rights issues.

In response to one of the questions I posed to the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, he went even further by making a statement regarding trade in general. The question I have for the member, thinking about what her colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said, is whether she opposes the free trade agreement because of human rights.

Today, we have two-way trade with Honduras in excess of $200 million. Based on the arguments that members of the New Democratic Party are making, does the member believe it is okay to have trade with Honduras, and is it just the trade agreement that the NDP opposes?

It seems to be a bit of a contradiction. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek seems to put into question the value of even having trade with Honduras, given its human rights violations.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The NDP supports trade with countries that respect human rights and have high environmental standards, labour standards, and standards for human rights.

We see as well that DFAIT itself has produced a report saying that the benefits for Canada upon concluding this trade agreement would be marginal. We would encourage the government to listen to the reports produced by its own civil servants. We would also encourage the government to negotiate trade agreements with countries that are developed, like Japan, India, and South Africa, as I mentioned in my speech.

No, we do not believe that this trade agreement with Honduras would bring great benefit to Canadians, considering its atrocious record on human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand why the Liberals and the Conservatives agree on this free trade agreement with Honduras. It will benefit big business. Once again in this case, money talks. Profit is always the key word. Lobbyists spoke and influenced the Liberals and the Conservatives.

The Liberals and the Conservatives do not care that Honduras is an undemocratic country and that it has the worst human rights track record in the world. It is not a society governed by the rule of law. The Liberals and Conservatives do not care that Honduras has the highest rate of journalist murders in the world. The Conservatives do not care that Honduras tolerates cocaine trafficking and tolerates environmentally destructive policies.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments, and I would like to reiterate what he mentioned: the fact that the Conservatives and Liberals are actually of the same stripe on the issue of negotiating an agreement with a country with such an atrocious human rights record.

The approach of the Conservative government is to negotiate the trade agreements behind closed doors, and we should just trust it. However, we know this cannot be the case. We have seen it negotiate free trade agreements in the past in bad faith with civil society.

We can only mention the fact that Amnesty International last week revealed that the Conservative government limited the online consultation process to only six working days for the Canada-Colombia FTA human rights report, thus preventing any civil society groups from participating. Amnesty International also mentioned in committee last week that it had not been consulted by DFAIT on human rights implications to the trans-Pacific partnership, particularly considering that countries such as Vietnam may have lower human rights standards than Canada.

We see that the Conservative government, on the issue of human rights and free trade agreements, has consistently worked in bad faith with civil society.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues and voice my support for the Canada–Honduras free trade agreement.

I should also indicate that in my prior life I was in the business of doing business internationally, and Latin America was one of my areas of focus. It certainly has opened a whole new market for my business. I will also talk about what free trade would do for us.

Canada has always been a trading country. As an export-driven economy, Canada needs open borders. One in five Canadian jobs is related to exports, and that includes not just the export part of it, but also the transportation and communication. The fact is, we bring business people in and we also need transportation to go abroad.

Our bilateral regional trade agreements are essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians. This year, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA has provided a solid foundation for Canada's future prosperity. Canada continues to build on North American trade and competitiveness.

Only our Conservative government understands the importance and benefits of trade. Last fall, we announced that a historic agreement had been reached with the 28-member European Union.

The Canada–EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA, is by far the most ambitious trade initiative Canada has ever negotiated. Once implemented, it will cover virtually all sectors and aspects of Canada–EU trade, from goods and services to labour mobility, investment, procurement, including sub-national procurement, and many regulatory matters.

With CETA, Canada will gain preferential access to the world's biggest market, with more than 500 million customers and a $17 trillion GDP. The potential benefits for Canada are tremendous. A joint Canada–EU study found that CETA could boost Canada's GDP by $12 billion annually and bilateral trade by 20 percent.

While the agreement with the EU will bring important benefits for Canada and Canadian companies, it would be short-sighted to focus exclusively on one area of the world. Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investment.

On March 11, 2014, our Prime Minister and President Park of South Korea announced the conclusion of the negotiations for a Canada–South Korea free trade agreement, Canada's first free trade agreement in the fast-growing and dynamic Asia-Pacific region.

I might also add that in 1983, I represented a Canadian company exporting Canadian mass transit equipment to South Korea. It was a pleasure, indeed, a joy for me to see that 42 kilometres of that technology developed by us is now exported by Bombardier to South Korea.

In October 2012, Canada joined the multilateral Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, talks and bilateral negotiations are also well under way with Japan and India. Furthermore, during his first official visit to the region, the Prime Minister announced the launch of negotiations to expand and modernize the Canada–Israel free trade agreement.

Free trade agreements are but one tool that we have. Our negotiators are very active in every corner of the world, negotiating agreements that will benefit all Canadians. Canada currently has 25 foreign investment promotion and protection agreements in force; 15 additional concluded FIPAs and 10 ongoing FIPA negotiations. We continue to explore the possibility of FIPA negotiations with other commercial partners.

Since the introduction of Canada's blue sky policy in 2006, we have concluded new or expanded existing air transport agreements that now cover over 80 countries, facilitating the movement of Canadians and Canadian goods and services, and enhancing trade and investment relationships across all sectors. Canada has also been a key architect of international trade rules at the World Trade Organization, helping to establish principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and effective dispute settlement. Canada continues to welcome progress at the WTO, an organization that advances trade liberalization around the world.

Canada was an active participant in the negotiations leading up to the Bali declaration last December. This led to a new trade facilitation agreement, an agreement that will cut red tape and reduce border transaction costs for Canadian businesses, directly benefiting Canada's small and medium-size enterprises. It is estimated that this trade facilitation agreement could stimulate the world economy by up to $1 trillion and create as many as 20 million jobs worldwide.

Canada is also an active participant in the trade in services agreement currently being negotiated with 23 other countries representing 1.6 billion people and a combined GDP of more than $48 trillion.

Our government has made it a priority to diversify our international trade negotiations agenda and place increased focus on concluding regional and bilateral free trade agreements, such as the Canada-Honduras agreement that we are discussing today.

We need to be sure than we can compete. We cannot afford to hold back while our competitors are securing international trade deals. This is precisely why bolstering Canada's commercial relations in rapidly growing markets around the world, such as Honduras, is an important part of our plan for long-term prosperity.

The issue of competitiveness is also at the heart of why we need to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras. The U.S. and the EU already have free trade agreements with Honduras. How can we give our companies an edge if we do not even ensure they are on a level playing field?

Keeping pace with Canada's main competitors is just one reason we need to move forward on this deal. Both the 2013 Speech from the Throne and the budget made it clear that the government's top priority is to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

As Canada is an export-driven economy, international trade is fundamental to achieving this objective. One in five jobs are related to exports. Over 40,000 Canadian companies are global exporters, including global leaders in such sectors as aerospace and information and communications technology.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is part of our efforts to liberalize trade with our partners in the Americas. The Americas offer great potential. Total merchandise trade between countries in the Americas and Canada, at $56.2 billion in 2012, has increased by 32% since 2007, and Canadian direct investment in the region, at $169 billion in 2012, has increased by 58% since 2007.

Our government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness, in turn adversely affecting middle-class Canadian families.

Canada's Trade Commissioner Service already works with Canadian companies that are interested in doing business in Honduras, such as Gildan Activewear, Aura Minerals, and the Canadian Bank Note Company.

Once the free trade agreement is ratified, our trade commissioners will ensure that companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, are aware of how they can benefit from the agreement and fully take advantage of greater stability, transparency, and protection in the Honduran market.

In addition to opening doors for Canadian companies and building our trade relationships, Canada is also committed to supporting Honduras in other ways. Canada and Honduras established diplomatic relations in 1961 and have a broad and diverse relationship driven by a wide range of links and collaboration, from political dialogue and commercial exchanges to people-to-people ties, as well as long-standing and substantial Canadian development co-operation.

We maintain an open dialogue with the Government of Honduras, as we believe that engagement, not isolationism, is the best way for us to help Honduras meet its challenges.

Thanks to these actions under our government's free trade leadership, Canada's workers, businesses, and exporters now have preferred access and a real competitive edge in more markets around the world than at any other time in our history.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order.

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, March 6, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #93

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:44 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:44 p.m.)