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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

There are 53 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-20.

Motions Nos. 1 to 53 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the amendments we are proposing.

Bill C-20 does not reflect the approach we will take when we form the government in 2015. Our approach to international trade is different from the other parties' because we accord it more importance.

Before becoming an MP, I managed a business that was starting to sell specialty goods on its website in order to reach a broader market in Canada. When the company started getting orders from Europe and the United States, it started exporting.

Exporting companies in Canada do not get very much support at all. The data speak for themselves, especially when we compare Canada to European Union countries, the United States, and Australia.

Canada spends $12 million to $13 million a year to support its exporting companies. Australia, which has a much smaller economy than Canada's, strongly supports its exporting companies by investing $500 million in them. That is a considerable difference. For every dollar the Canadian government spends on supporting exporting companies, the Australians spend $50 on supporting theirs.

The same goes for the United States and the European Union. The countries that are enjoying real success when it comes to international trade are investing in their exporting companies.

That is not what happens here in Canada. The Conservatives would argue that they bring forward trade agreements and that it is all they need to do. However, when we look at the figures, we can see that the idea that just bringing forward trade agreements is somehow a guarantee of prosperity is very clearly denied by the facts.

First off, we know, and you know, Mr. Speaker, coming from an area of this country that has been devastated by some of the policies of the current government, that we have lost 500,000 full-time, family-sustaining jobs in manufacturing since the Conservative government came to power. That is appalling. The Conservatives would say that they have created some part-time jobs. As we know, at the end of December 2013, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce produced a very accurate and effective report that talked about job creation under the current government. It said that in 2013, 95% of the jobs that were created were part time.

We have lost half a million full-time, family-sustaining manufacturing jobs. The government has tried to replace them with part-time jobs and temporary foreign workers, but the reality is that in the end, the communities are much further behind. Since the Conservative government has come to power, there have been 300,000 more Canadians looking for work, about 1.3 million in total, than there were when the government assumed office. We are seeing increasing unemployment and a colossal loss of manufacturing capacity and jobs, and at the same time, we are seeing that the government has put in place strategies that create only part-time jobs.

The government would then defend itself by saying that it has signed some trade agreements, and that is a guarantee of future prosperity. I have the figures here of some of the countries with whom we have signed trade agreements and what has actually happened in terms of our balance of payments. When we look at Canada's balance of international payments, we are in record deficit under the current government. What that means is that we are importing far more from other countries than we are actually exporting. Our exports are stalled in part because of the devastation in manufacturing capacity. We have a record level of deficit in our balance of international payments.

When we look at merchandise trade with these countries we have signed free trade agreements with, we see in each case that Canada is actually in a deficit with each one. In Mexico, we are in deficit, and that deficit is growing. In Israel, we are in deficit, and that deficit is growing. With Chile, we are in deficit, and the deficit is growing. In Costa Rica, we are in deficit, and, again, the deficit is growing. Even with Switzerland, we are in trade deficit, and the deficit is growing. If we look at the countries of the European Free Trade Association, we see again a deficit. We see a deficit between Canada and Peru, and the deficit is growing.

The reality is that the government has signed agreements that have been very poorly negotiated, in many cases, and with regimes that do not reflect Canadian values, notably Colombia, where human rights violations have actually increased since the signing of the trade agreement. The fact is that the Conservatives cannot point to successes. We see in virtually every single case that we are in trade deficit, which explains the record deficit around international payments. We can see that the Conservative approach is just not working.

That is why we are offering a whole series of amendments today. What we are saying is that the government really needs to take a new approach when we have lost half a million manufacturing jobs and when its sole achievement is to say that 95% of the jobs it creates are part-time. People cannot pay their mortgages with a part-time job. They cannot put food on the table every day with a part-time job.

Conservatives would suggest they could take two, three, four, or five part-time jobs and maybe cobble together a full-time income. That is really not what Canadians expect. What Canadians expect is a government that actually cares about their economic prosperity and instead of signing poorly negotiated agreements, actually puts in place a trade strategy that includes—and this is extremely important—addressing the fact that Canada does almost nothing to support major exporting enterprises and businesses in our country. When we see Australia spending $500 million and Canada spending $12 million to $13 million—we have never been able to get the exact figure from the government—that shows a crucial lack of support for the export sector.

I come from Burnaby—New Westminster, which is the most diverse riding in the entire country, even though my colleague from Newton—North Delta will probably try to disagree with me on that. We have over a hundred languages spoken and diasporas from around the world. These are people who have come to Canada to build their lives here. We have important components of populations coming from Asia, Africa, South America, and Europe. The business trade organizations that many of these new Canadians set up to try to stimulate trade with their countries of origin are getting no support from the government at all.

There again we see another reason we are in deficit everywhere and bleeding red ink everywhere. The government really thinks that a ribbon-cutting ceremony or signing a trade agreement, no matter how poorly negotiated, is sufficient. It does not do any follow-up.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will be appalled by this situation. I can see it on your face. The fact that the government does not even do studies, prior to and afterwards, on the impact of the agreements shows how improvised it is. The approach of the Conservatives is improvised, and that is why it has been a failure.

In closing, I would like to say one last thing about Bill C-20. I will quote Carmen Cheung, a researcher at the International Human Rights Program:

These past five years have seen a dramatic erosion in protections for expressive life in Honduras. Journalists are threatened, they're harassed, attacked, and murdered with near impunity, and sometimes in circumstances that strongly suggest the involvement of state agents.

In my opinion, these are systematic violations, and my colleagues who will be speaking shortly will also quote experts who raised these points in committee.

It is clear that Canadians will not support this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate when people speak extemporaneously in this House, as my friend, the hon. member, just did. The trouble is that when he is pulling facts out of thin air, and actually fictitious facts, it is better to read from a text where he may have some substance.

He was very cavalier with his facts in that diatribe. The statement that “95% of jobs created in Canada are part-time” is false. That is incorrect. I would like some support for that.

Second, he said there was $12 million to $13 million provided by our government to support exporters. That is absolutely false. I guess 85% of the automobiles manufactured in Ontario are exported, and our government has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the auto innovation fund. Does that not count?

This is a cavalier and reckless use of the facts. I should expect it from this member, because in 2010 he made a statement that free trade has cost Canadians dearly, and his remarks today echo that once again. Once again, there is absolutely zero support for such statements.

I have just offered two or three facts from his speech , and I would like the hon. member to stand in this House and provide some factual basis for what he is telling the members of this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will start with point three. The hon. member should have completed the quote. It was that the Conservative approach on free trade was costing Canada dearly.

The member for Durham cannot deny half a million lost manufacturing jobs. That is half a million families who have lost their breadwinner because of the policies of the government. He may deny the facts, but the facts exist nonetheless.

The other thing that was fascinating was that he was attacking the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce did its annual review of 2013 and published the report, which indicated that 95% of the jobs created in 2013 in Canada, those net jobs that the Conservatives love to talk about, were actually part-time in nature.

He can attack the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and he can go at it in the same way that the Conservatives attacked the Chief Justice, attacked Sheila Fraser, and attacked the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but the facts are the facts. Even though the Conservatives do not like to look at facts, the facts are staring them right in the face.

My final point is on this idea of the promotion and publicity budget. We have been asking the Conservatives for many years to release those numbers. They have refused to do so. We estimate $12 million to $13 million for publicity and promotion of exports, and they have refused to confirm or deny the figure. However, we do know, because the Australian government is a lot more open, that Australia has spent $500 million in promotion for their exports around the world.

We have the facts, and the Conservatives do not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Sticking with theme of the facts, Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize, or Canadians to realize, that the New Democratic Party, in the history of the House, has never, ever voted in favour of a free trade agreement. When I say “voted in favour”, I mean standing in their place when there is an actual recorded vote and voting in favour of a free trade agreement.

Here we are talking about Honduras. I understand that again the New Democrats will be voting against the free trade agreement. We in the Liberal Party see value in freer trade among countries throughout the world. We have concerns in regard to the whole trade file, and I will get the opportunity to talk to that when I speak to the bill, but the question I have for the member is this: does he, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, believe that there is any merit whatsoever to free trade agreements? If so, why is it that New Democrats have never, ever voted in favour of a free trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, that member is obsessed with the NDP. If you are obsessed with the NDP, at least get your facts right.

We were the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been here a long time. He knows he has to direct his comments to the Chair, not to other members in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. You are absolutely right.

We defended the Auto Pact. We voted for the Canada-Jordan agreement in the presence of the member, so it is not as if he is ignorant; he is just trying manifestly to forget. We have supported the FIPA agreements. Of course we have supported trade. We actually put forward a fair trade approach, which is quite different from the approach of the Liberal Party.

I do want to say one thing about the Liberal Party. It supported the Canada-Colombia deal. This is a regime that has the highest rate of killing of unionized people, labour activists, and human rights activists on the planet. The Liberals said that if Canada signed the agreement, somehow, magically, the human rights violations would go away. Instead, they have increased.

It is deplorable. The Liberals should stop standing with the Conservatives—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I can start off by rebutting the facts.

One of the things that the member just stated is that he voted in favour of the Jordan agreement. I would again tell the member to look at the record. The New Democrats have never voted in their place in favour of a free trade agreement. This one is yet another piece of legislation on which we know the New Democrats will be voting against free trade.

I say that because there is a fundamental difference. We within the Liberal Party have been progressive in our attitudes toward recognizing the value of free trade and looking at ways in which we can allow for additional flow of goods and services because we believe that at the end of the day, thousands of jobs are created. The more Canada gets involved in global trade, the more the quality of lifestyle for all Canadians is improved. The numbers will clearly show that.

Indeed, we are a trading nation. We need and are dependent on world trade. That is what enables us to have the lifestyle we have today. It is what enables us to say that Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in and, I would argue, as I am a bit biased, perhaps the best. Not to recognize the importance of trade is wrong. Although I should perhaps not give advice to my New Democratic colleagues, I think they are missing the boat on this.

When we look at the overall picture of trade and whether the government has done well or done poorly, what we find is that the government has not done all that well on the trade file, although it often talks about free trade agreements and says that it has done more trade agreements than the Liberal Party and so forth.

I like to keep things relatively simple, so let us look at overall trade. When the Conservatives took the reins of power a few years back, we had a huge multi-billion-dollar trade surplus. How does that compare with today, in the time since the Conservatives have been in government? It did not take long—only a matter of months, maybe a year—for them to turn that multi-billion-dollar annual trade surplus situation that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin created into a massive trade deficit. We have been running deficits of billions of dollars on the trade file with the current government. I do not have the actual facts, but I would suggest that we probably have a larger trade deficit with the current government than with any other government in the history of Canada. I cannot say that for a fact, but I would not be surprised if that was the case.

What does that mean for the average middle-class family in Canada today? It means the loss of potentially tens of thousands of jobs that could be assisting in driving our economy forward. That is what it means in terms of the impact on our great country. This is where the government could have and should have given more attention.

We recognize that there is value to agreements of this nature. If we look back to the history of this particular trade agreement, we see that it dates back to 2001. There was Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Those were four countries back in 2001 for which there was recognition that we needed to advance and recognition that there was a potential to get into some trade agreements. It has taken the government a number of years to continue that process through and to ultimately achieve an agreement.

It should be no surprise that the Liberal Party is voting in favour of this agreement. No one should be surprised by that. There are changes we would have liked to have seen.

Our concern is the bigger picture. I will draw a comparison. During the 1990s, when I was an MLA, we had a huge trade mission. Team Canada went to Asia. Through the prime minister and that team approach, provinces, business leaders, and labour organization representatives were invited to participate in the team Canada approach to trade. The mission went to China, among other countries. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars of extra economic activity was created.

It took our Prime Minister quite a while to actually go to China, but when he did, the biggest announcement he had when he came back was that he was able to get a couple of panda bears to come to Canada. News flash to the Prime Minister: Manitoba had a couple of panda bears come to our province in the 1990s.

For the Liberals, it is not just the signature on a piece of paper saying that we are going to have a trade agreement. We recognize the value, and we want to see that take place, but it is overall trade. This is something we believe the government has failed in.

To what degree has the government been successful working south of our border, in the United States, where a good portion of our trade goes, and in many other countries around the world?

I feel very passionate about the Philippines, a country we in Canada are more dependent on in terms of immigration numbers than ever. Why do we not look at the possibility of entering into some sort of a trade agreement with a country like the Philippines, where we are growing in terms of the size of the population? There would be many benefits for both countries from expanding economic trade, tourism, and products and services. These are the types of things we should be hearing more about. I was glad that we had something in regard to Korea.

With respect to the Honduras trade agreement, we had a press release from the pork producers. Manitoba has a wonderful pork industry. I have had the opportunity to tour the farms on a Hutterite colony, where piglets are born and raised to a certain age and then brought to Brandon, where they are processed and packaged at Maple Leaf.

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs in Manitoba alone. I believe that the plant in Brandon employs over 1,000 people. There are huge job numbers created in the pork industry in the province of Manitoba. They are good, quality jobs that are putting bread and butter on the table and providing a good quality of living for a lot of Manitobans.

With this particular agreement in place, it is expected that we will be able to do that much more in terms of the pork industry in Honduras. That is good for our province.

Let us not be fearful of free trade agreements, but let us make sure that we do our homework and deliver the best agreements we can. We should also go beyond trade agreements and start taking that team Canada-type approach of former Prime Minister Chrétien to bring Canadians to other countries to develop economic ties. By doing that, we will be creating thousands of jobs here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his speech and for the Liberal Party's support of the Honduran trade deal. His remarks showcasing the NDP's decades of opposition to trade were absolutely on the money.

The member also made reference to the historic Team Canada missions that the last Liberal government, under former Prime Minister Chrétien, held. He mentioned the China mission in particular, which had 600 people on a plane. There were many mayors and premiers and that sort of thing. He said that after those missions, “literally hundreds of millions of dollars of...economic activity was created”.

I would invite the member to look at the testimony before our trade committee from just two weeks ago from Professor Keith Head of the University of British Columbia, who actually did an empirical analysis of the Team Canada missions and showed that the member's statement is actually incorrect. From those missions, which Professor Head characterized as more photo-op driven than meaningfully driven, there was actually no positive impact on trade. They were photo-op driven. In fact, Professor Head talked about serving beaver tails in China. We are actually making commitments to trade commissioners to expand trade for small and medium-sized enterprises.

I would like the member to tell this House where he is getting his figures of hundreds of millions of dollars driven by the team Canada missions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, without any hesitation, I would love to draw a comparison to the current Prime Minister's China deal, when he brought over panda bears, and contrast with the team Canada approach of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.

When he talks about the number of dollars, I could not give a specific actual dollar amount. However, as the member has pointed out, with the number and quality of individuals who were able to build relationships, sign deals, and so forth, I believe that we were going into the hundreds of millions of dollars. That might not have all transpired within 14 days of their departing from China. I suspect that through time we will see that there have been many economic benefits because of the individuals who were involved.

The point is that for many stakeholders, including premiers, mayors, business leaders, and others, the prime minister felt that it was good to take them to build those economic and social relationships to enhance the relationship between the two countries.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. I would like to ask the member if there are any countries in the world whose specific records on the environment, labour rights, or human rights would prevent the Liberal Party from voting in favour of a trade deal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one could easily reverse that question. We could look at countries for which free trade agreements have been signed, and the New Democratic Party has never voted for one of them. The New Democrats have never stood in their place inside the House of Commons and said that they think it is a worthwhile venture and that they are going to vote in favour of free trade.

What I believe is that the Liberals, unlike the New Democrats, have our head above the sand. We look on the horizon, and we realize how important trade is to our country and that the best way for us to continue to develop in the future is to ensure that there are nations that are prepared to trade. Where we can enhance that trade, I believe that as a nation we should be doing that. All we need for proof is to look at our history.

Again, I would emphasize that it is not just signing an agreement that is important. What is important is that we take a multi-faceted look at the ways we can improve and enhance the types of materials, resources, services, and products being exported out of Canada. If we do it right, we will be able to accomplish what former Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were able to do, and that is have massive trade surpluses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are two points that I will make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reality is completely different and much more complex.

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

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

This is an example of the Conservatives' false dichotomy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Others have mentioned it, but I want to reiterate the three pillars that we think are fundamentally important for Canadians when negotiating free trade agreements and the assessment of those agreements. First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in this regard, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? On this last point, the Canada-Honduras agreement is another example of an agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors, so Canadians did not have access to the full details of the agreement during that process.

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

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

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

I want to note one particular person who provided testimony before committee because I am going to focus on the human rights aspect. Ms. Sheila Katz, a representative from the Americas Policy Group at the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said at the Standing Committee on International Trade, on April 22, 2013:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She went on to say that:

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

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

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

In her concluding remarks, she said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is talking about:

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

This is if it should it be built.

Francisco says:

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

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

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is so crucially important here is an understanding of the why, for a trade agreement of this nature. Last summer, as critic for international human rights for the official opposition, I received five delegations of indigenous people from Honduras, Colombia, the Philippines, and Mexico. All of them had generally the same story. That story went along the lines of the following: Canadian mining exploration companies came to their country and shortly thereafter their government started crowding them off their land. No one is suggesting that the Canadian companies have asked them to do this. However, I have told this story in the House before. It is the story of King Henry II and Thomas Becket, when in a drunken rage King Henry said, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome monk?” and two of his knights went out and murdered Thomas Becket. It is somewhat like that. There is an interest that wants to explore for materials and set up extractive companies in these countries. It is facilitated. The government uses its army, or in some countries goes so far as to use its death squads, to remove people. The indigenous people who stand up for their lands are often murdered or disappear.

I have a quote that kind of speaks to this. It says, “...the best way to improve things is by engagement not by isolation”. That was from James Bannantine from Aurora Minerals, I presume an extractive company. That was from testimony received at committee.

Sometimes people will say the trickle-down effect of trade is to improve human rights. There is a false dichotomy out there, presented by the Conservatives at times like this. It is either have free trade or complete isolation with that country. There is a very different reality that allows for people to go to these countries. Witnesses who came to committee on the free trade agreement spoke to having Canada engage with Honduras, but they want that engagement to focus on building institutional, judicial, and democratic capacity. Honduras is a country that has had a government overthrown by coup. It is very clear the military in charge is functioning with almost complete impunity. Normally that occurs when the judicial and other systems are not in place to offer protection to people. Thus it is not held accountable in any form.

From the standpoint of the New Democratic Party, and the members on the other side like to tout the fact we have opposed many of the free trade agreements before the House, there is criteria we look to. Is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values?

We had a corporate social responsibility bill put before the House, I believe prior to the 2008 election. Sadly, that bill, which would have required Canadian extractive companies functioning in other countries to function in terms of Canada's laws in that country, even if the other country is a failed state that does not have the laws and regulations that Canada does. That bill failed in the House by 12 votes. It just so happens that was one of the many times the Liberal Party chose to leave 15 members out of the House. I have no problem with people standing up in this place and saying what they believe, but I am very disappointed that they chose to abdicate their responsibilities at that time.

Another consideration that we have is whether the proposed partner's economy is of significance or strategic value to Canada. We have heard from other speakers that in this particular instance, in trading terms, our relationship is 104th. That does not sound like it is critical to us. Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? We believe this particular agreement fails that test. It fails it in many ways.

Over and over we hear the same stories. Honduras is a corrupt country with undemocratic practices, weak institutions and low standards. In terms of strategic value to us, it is not there. We add to that the record of human rights abuses, the murders, the torture and the disappearances.

We understand that trade is necessary to our economy. We favour expanded trade opportunities for our country and we want to support our exporters as well, but we do not want to sacrifice, or be seen to sacrifice, the values of our country in order to reach those agreements.

If we asked average Canadians what they thought of Canada, one of the first things they would talk about would be how they value our view of international human rights. In truth, I suspect many of them have little idea that at this point, Canada's reputation for the last 75 years has been pretty well lost in the world we have today. I am fumbling a little for words, because it is that serious.

I was shocked earlier today when I heard members of the Liberal Party say that they would support the free trade agreement with this corrupt regime. As a young person, I listened very closely to Mr. Pearson when he talked about rights. I also listened to Mr. Trudeau, when he was prime minister of our country, talked about rights. When I hear today that the Liberals favour trade with China, which has a terrible human rights record, and favour this trade agreement and will vote for it, they have abandoned those principles with which many of us, at one point in time, thought they were on the right track as a political party. I did not say I had reached the point of voting for that political party, I want to make that straight, but there were aspects of the structure of the Liberal Party of Canada at that time which I respected.

Honduras is a really poor country. It has that history of repression and undemocratic practices. When the regime was toppled in 2009, the following government actions were well criticized by international observers during the election. They said that it failed to meet the standards of the international community when it came to elections. There was a coup staged by the Honduran army under the pretext of a constitutional crisis. Where have we heard that kind of thing before? From failed nations around the world, whenever the government chooses to take over. If we look at Egypt today, whether people like or dislike the elected president of Egypt, he was deposed. He was elected democratically and deposed by a military coup. Where do we go when we start sanctioning those kinds of things?

I will put aside my notes for a few minutes, because it is so important to look at this, not in terms of trade but in terms of human rights and the fact that governments in many parts of the world are military in nature, dictatorships, where they function with impunity, an impunity that allows them to murder, pillage and to force people off their lands and to do it in the name of dollars.

We need to understand that the only way to change this is to realize that we have to fortify the institutions in that country, help lead them on the path to judicial reform and to democracy. Until we take care of the democracy, the trade we have with that country, to some extent, would be practically shameful. Thus, I am pretty clear that I cannot even begin to think of supporting this agreement.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very heady comment during his remarks, and that was that Canada had lost its world reputation. We are one of the only countries that stands for unequivocal equality and rights for people around the world, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. We stand for rights for democracy, and we have taken strong stances on Ukraine and Israel. We have one of the best track records in terms of helping other countries, such as the maternal and child health initiative that was put forward last week, with over $3 billion for aid in this incredibly important area.

Yes, we are a trade-focused nation because we know that when we help empower the economy of a country, the people who live there can have the same level of prosperity and freedom that we experience in our country, because their futures are in their hands. Trade helps countries, and we help countries. I think about the $1.2 billion we have committed to helping climate change adaptation.

How can my colleague stand here in good conscience and defame our country when all that the House has done is stand for the rights and long-term prosperity of our country on the world stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, in no case, at no time would I ever defame Canada, but Canada's reputation in the world has been sullied by the current government that has put into place free trade agreements with countries with shameful human rights records, where they murder, pillage and force people off their land.

Yes, the government has done some good things in the world, there is no doubt about that, but it is signing agreements with Honduras and Colombia, drug and murder capitals of the world. If we start lining up what the positives have been and what the negatives are, the reality is that people in other nations see that as shameful, and they have told us that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the proud Trudeau legacy, which we appreciate on this side of the House. He has said that Liberals today are betraying that legacy, but, if I recall, it was the Trudeau government that first recognized China diplomatically, and, in fact, the United States followed suit afterward.

Does the hon. member think it was a mistake to diplomatically recognize China or, according to his logic, should we have kept the doors shut to a relationship with that country?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, opening the doors diplomatically is different than signing free trade agreements with countries. When we open a door diplomatically, part of our responsibility is to identify to that nation its shortcomings and offer assistance in capacity building around its judicial system and democracy.

However, from my perspective, when I hear the Liberal Party is prepared to support a free trade agreement with one the most horrendous human rights violators on the face of the earth, I am struck and troubled by it.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has been the spokesperson for human rights for our party for a very long time and I congratulate him on that because he is doing an excellent job.

I was astounded by the comments of the parliamentary secretary toward the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Members of the Conservative Party like to call themselves Christians. They have prayer meetings and invite members to prayer breakfasts all the time, and yet they want to sign a trade agreement with a country that regularly kills people for speaking out or jails them. People disappear all the time in Honduras. Now the Liberals are supporting that.

Would the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek comment on both the Conservatives and the Liberals?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to comment on the religious values of any other person or party. That is private to them.

However, both of those parties are setting themselves up with the Honduran government. After having heard a number of comments today in this place about the failure of that country's human rights record, I find it very disappointing.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak 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. Let me be very clear that I will be speaking in opposition to this bill.

I have heard a lot today about Conservative economics and the kind of growth that we have experienced. However, despite the rhetoric from across the aisle, I want to point out that the Conservatives did inherit an account surplus of $18 billion. However, in the eight years that they have been in government, the current account deficit sits at $62 billion, a negative swing of $80 billion and an average decline of $10 billion a year.

In the last two years, we have experienced 23 months of merchandise trade deficits. Under the current government, so-called a good economic manager but not, we have seen an increase in the percentage of raw or barely processed exports, reducing the importance of value-added exports. There seems to be a rush to give away our valuable natural resources, without growing the decent paying jobs in Canada.

The Conservatives seem to be in a hurry to sign a free trade agreement with Honduras. Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to free trade agreements, but we need to look at some criteria or some filters that we, as Canadians, should use when we look at free trade.

One of those filters is looking at the people with whom we going to sign these agreements, ones who respect democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards and Canadian values. If there are challenges in those areas, are the Conservatives just ignoring those issues or are they actually working on moving them in the right direction? We do not have evidence of that from Honduras.

Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? This shocked me as well, 1%.

Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? We would say not.

There are numerous reasons, and one that we really do have to look at is the kind of state, the kind of things we know about Honduras.

In my other life as a teacher involved in international projects through the teachers' organization and CoDevelopment Canada, I had the privilege of visiting many of the countries in Central and South America, and participated in conferences and workshops. One thing about Honduras is that it is not a safe country in which to be a teacher, a journalist or to speak out against the current regime. In 2013 alone, there was an average of 10 massacres per month. We are not talking about a massacre each year. We are talking about 10 massacres each month. InSight Crime defined “massacre” as being when three or more people were murdered at one time. Just looking at the number of massacres alone, since 2010, there are been 200 politically motivated killings.

Honduras is regarded widely, not just by those who are speaking against this, as one of the most dangerous places for journalists. According to the 2014 report by PEN International, at least 34 journalists have been killed since the coup, and there is almost complete impunity for perpetrators.

When we look at the kind of instability that exists in Honduras and the commentary by the international community, I am surprised that my colleagues across the way are in such a hurry to sign this agreement. It almost seems that they feel that as soon as they sign an agreement, they have addressed trade and improved it.

We have to look at the reality of what we have seen. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster painted a picture earlier of how the past three trade agreements in the countries he highlighted neither led to improvements in human rights nor added anything to our trade in a significant way.

Here is a quote from Stacey Gomez, coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation's Americas Policy Group:

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.... [U]ntil 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.

Every colleague in the House, those sitting across the way and those sitting at the far end on this side, needs to pay attention to that one line: “the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good”.

I can go on to a quote from the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras. In my other life, I had the opportunity to sit in a circle with some of the families of the disappeared. I can tell members that it is very moving. It is very emotional. It brings home to us the kinds of horrors people live with in Honduras.

Here is a quote from them:

One of the main concerns in Honduras is the consistent trend of killings, physical attacks and threats against human rights defenders—including: Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant and peasant leaders, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) activists, lawyers and journalists. All these attacks are carried out with almost total impunity.

We do not have any evidence either from the United Nations or any of the other agencies that the government in Honduras is even trying to address many of these issues, never mind making any significant improvement.

It behooves us as Canadians, when we jump into bed, so to speak, and start signing agreements and putting Canada's name on a document, to do some research and be careful of what it is we could endanger.

What is it that we want? This is only my first term as a sitting member of Parliament, and I can remember voting for a free trade agreement. It is rather disingenuous of my colleagues across the way and at the far end to keep saying over and over again that the NDP will never, ever vote for a free trade agreement. We support free trade, but bring us an agreement that meets the very basic criteria I articulated earlier, and they will see a rush of us trying to vote.

New Democrats want to reassure all Canadians, including my colleagues across the way, that we recognize the importance of trade. We recognize that in a global market today, trading has to take place, and it should benefit Canadians. However, we cannot just wear a blindfold, keep signing agreements, and ignore the situation of the working people and the journalists and the human rights violations that are taking place in those countries.

Sometimes I think the government is almost too scared to debate some of the free trade agreements it is negotiating in secret. It never wants to bring those kinds of details in. It then throws in a free trade agreement that does not even sound real.

We are looking at Honduras, a country where drug trafficking operates with near impunity, where human rights are regularly abused, where democracy is under threat, and where low standards would hurt Canadian businesses. I do not see how this free trade agreement would benefit either Canadians or people living in Honduras. What it will do if we sign it is give legitimacy to the very activities we should be condemning that are taking place in Honduras at this time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member seemed to give the impression that the NDP supports free trade, yet as I pointed out earlier, the NDP have never stood inside the House of Commons and voted in favour of a free trade agreement.

Can the member indicate what free trade agreement every member of her caucus stood and voted in favour of? I cannot recall the NDP voting in favour of free trade. Like previous free trade agreements, I can appreciate that they do not support this one. My challenge to her and others who might decide to stand in their place today is to clearly indicate to Canadians what free trade agreement they voted in favour of, not when they said they would support the agreement but when they actually stood in their place and voted for it.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleague in the third party at the far end of this House would sometimes do some analysis and say, “Let us take a look at what we're actually voting on”, instead of always supporting things my colleagues across the aisle are moving.

What we are voting on today is a free trade agreement with a country that has the highest murder rate, with 10 massacres a month, very high drug trafficking, and human rights violations.

It is with great pride that I stand up here and say that we supported the free trade agreement with Jordan, and I stood in this House and voted for it.

[Dean Del Mastro, Independent, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member's comments on this free trade agreement. I have had the opportunity to travel to Honduras in the past. There is a great charity that works out of Peterborough called Friends of Honduran Children. It started over a decade ago, making investments in schools, providing medications to young mothers and families, and assisting with nutrition. It is generating genuinely good results in Honduras. They are not perfect results.

When I listen to the hon. member, I hear her talking about throwing out something that is good in search of something that is perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect deal. What I would ask this member is this: why would she prefer to throw out the good in search of the perfect? We may not get there, but we can certainly help Honduras.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having done some work in Central America myself, including Honduras, I would remind my colleague that it is his government that has changed the criteria for international development. It is his government that has made cuts to CoDevelopment Canada, another project that was helping with sustainable development and helping Hondurans tackle some of their major issues. This kind of trade agreement is not going to help the Honduran people or take care of the gross human rights violations and the killings that occur there.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that my colleague understands this file. What we want for ourselves we want for others. What we want in that country is to have workers who have good working relationships and who are not afraid to go to work and wonder if they will come home to their families because they might be murdered. That is exactly what is happening in that country. Even the journalists are not making it home, because they are not able to have free speech and the government does not want anyone to know what is really going on. However, we know.

Perhaps my colleague could reiterate the importance of not signing this trade deal and why it is wrong to have the current government and the Liberals supporting a trade deal that allows people to be murdered.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is not a good deal for Canadians. Whether one talks to teachers, journalists, people from minority groups, or anyone who has an opinion different from the current regime, they will tell us that they live in fear and that this kind of treaty is not going to help them.

Let us get into international development that would actually support and build a grassroots movement that would give people confidence to speak out against human rights violations.

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, the bill respecting the free trade agreement with Honduras.

New Democrats support trade, but we do so in a much more mature and robust way than the government has been doing.

Trade agreements are important. I know them very well, being from Windsor, Ontario, which continues to be the automotive capital of Canada, although the industry has witnessed attrition. I will speak to this quickly because it is relevant to today's debate.

There are winners and losers when trade agreements are implemented. Different sectors of society and industries are affected because the agreements essentially change the rules on how those businesses were developed, invested in, and had their technology, research, and training evolve—all of the things that were important for them to be successful. The rules can change quite extensively under trade agreements.

Canada's auto industry was affected as a result of the North American free trade agreement. We had the auto pact at that time, which was a special trade agreement with the United States. That agreement was challenged and we lost the challenge. We lost that special agreement with the United States, and hence our world ranking with respect to automotive assembly went from second place to eighth place.

A lot of jobs have been lost. A lot of investment has gone south of the border. Many people lost good, solid, value-added income from value-added employment, which allowed them to send their kids to university or college, allowed them to invest for their retirement, and made money available for our health care system and other types of infrastructure. More important, research and development, patent development, and all of those things are affected by free trade agreements coming into effect. The consequences can be severe.

We need to ameliorate the situation. We need a business case so we can protect those sectors, so they can have a fighting chance when the rules change.

There is the potential for attrition with respect to the South Korea trade agreement once it is implemented. The auto industry will suffer once again because some of the tariffs will be phased out. South Korea has non-tariff barriers and those barriers would make it difficult for us to send vehicles over there compared to that country dumping its vehicles into Canada and being more successful.

With respect to the trade agreement with Honduras, we have to look at a couple of fundamental things. New Democrats want to see democracy, environmental protection, and labour standards reflect Canadian values. We can undermine ourselves if countries use the environment as a dumping ground for by-products or as a shortcut. We have to consider whether we would in fact be encouraging the development of further substandard labour standards. There are some questions around the textile industry in Honduras, for sure.

We also want to look at democracy. Is the country becoming more democratic? I will get into that a bit more later.

Honduras fails on all accounts.

We also have to look at what significant strategic value this trade agreement would have to Canada. The government has focused on central America with a number of different trade agreements, but it has decided on a one-off with Honduras. That is unfortunate because it would reward a regime with questionable behaviour when it comes to a number of things.

We also have to make sure we have a satisfactory proposed agreement. The government has been negotiating agreements with environment and labour side agreements included, but those side agreements are not enforceable and do not have the necessary teeth to make sure we can do something about it.

When we are dealing with a force out there, whether it be a bully or somebody who is committing questionable practices, we know that if we do not take the carrot and stick approach then we are basically leaving ourselves vulnerable. The carrot is the reward. The stick would ensure that we can pull back on parts of the agreement, pull back on certain conditions, and demand certain things that would not normally be available.

When the Conservatives sign these trade agreements, these one-offs like this with questionable countries like Colombia and Panama in particular, we cannot enforce the improvement of conditions.

That is unfortunate, because we see in Honduras that we do have a significant problem with that. Honduras basically has a government right now that came in through a coup. In 2009, there was a coup to topple President Zelaya. It was a military coup, and it then formed its basis on the continued problems that have gone on for decades in Honduras.

Instead of cleaning up and rewarding this situation, we should actually be pushing back. We know that the United States, the European Union, the UN General Assembly, and many Latin American nations all spoke up about the abuse. They talked about the problems in Honduras, whereas Canada made relatively no noise whatsoever.

That is unfortunate, because a partnership is a two-way street. Why would we want to encourage this partnership? Some would argue that is why we have to open these doors and do all these things, but when we do not have the tools or the resources to push back against the abuses, or we do not put benchmarks in place to be reached, then there is no motivation for Honduras to do so. When it has no motivation to do so, it will just move the trade agreements and their benefits especially to an elite class in Honduras in particular.

We know that many NGOs have documented serious human rights abuses, killings, arbitrary detention of thousands of people, severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests of freedom of expression, and interference of the independence of the judiciary. They are all well established.

We also know there is a lot of drug smuggling that comes through Honduras. Some of it is the worst in the region. In fact, much cocaine goes through Honduras.

Why would we want to partner with a state that is moving illegal drugs, some of which come to North America in great, significant amounts, including Canada? It does not make much sense. Why would we not benchmark that the drug effects would be reduced and measured over time as we continue the relationship with regard to free trade? It is unfortunate that we have missed the opportunity to do this. That is why we cannot support the government on this bill. This is a military government in Honduras, essentially.

It is interesting that, when we look at its ranking, we see that Honduras is currently Canada's 104th export market in terms of its value. We export $38 million and we import $218 million, and we have a deficit. This has been the theme of the government, moving us from a trade surplus to a trade deficit. We have also eliminated our manufacturing surplus exports and now have a manufacturing value-added deficit.

What we are looking at is the natural resources sector benefiting and the value-added jobs disappearing. They do not have to disappear, because Canadians are well trained, well researched, and have good experience in many sectors, but we have to make sure we protect them in the sense of providing the proper export market. Honduras does not rank as a strategic priority for that.

We were talking today in the House of Commons about where the EU deal is. It has disappeared. We do not have the text for it. We have not seen any action with regard to the European Union. At least there would be better options for value-added manufacturing and value-added food products getting out there.

It is important to talk about the government's lack of respect for understanding a comprehensive trade strategy. We are concentrating on these small markets in Central America without any type of strategy overall to improve labour, environment, and the quality of life of the citizens. We should be measuring those, benchmarking them, and demanding that they be improved so Canadians can compete in a fair, responsible, reasonable way.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleague just elaborate a bit more on the connection between trade and human rights.

The government wants to tell the public that the NDP is against trade, but what is more accurate is that we are pro-people and pro-workers.

The issues in Honduras and the human rights record in Honduras are problematic. Is there a concern that a free trade agreement such as this, without human rights elements, could be feeding the human rights issues in Honduras?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and this is the point I would like to drive home. Here are a couple of facts. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that in 2011 there 92 murders per 100,000 people per year in Honduras, making it the most violent country in Latin America. In 2012, it reached a record high of 7,172 homicides, and since 2010 there have been more than 200 politically motivated killings in Honduras.

Here is the real kicker to this. The people with whom we want to do business, who are trying to go pro-democratic, are being killed in this country with which we want to now increase our trading relationship. That is exactly backward. We should be protecting those individuals by benchmarking the actions of the government to make sure those people get proper justice, are not going to be killed, and will not leave a void of good people who want to do the right thing.

When there is so much cocaine moving through that state, it makes us very vulnerable to increasing its wealth and capability to produce drugs and distribute them around the world, including Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if we follow through what New Democrats are proposing with regard to why they do not support this free trade agreement with Honduras, we could make the connection that if they believe in what they are saying, Canada should not be participating in trade with Honduras.

My question for the member is this: does he believe Canada should have trade with Honduras, given his comments regarding human rights and other issues? Are New Democrats being inconsistent by allowing any form of trade with Honduras?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats believe in trade, but we would like benchmarks and improvements on trade to make sure the labour, environmental, and other conditions are enhanced. That is the responsible and reasonable thing to do.

Trade has always existed, from tribe to tribe, from country to country. People have always traded, even in their own communities. That is going to exist. However, we want to benchmark. If we are going to create a more mature trade relationship with Honduras, then it has to have a more mature result; and a more mature result means to stop killing the activists who are fighting for democracy, stop killing the politicians who want democratic change or to have a democratic voice, whatever political parties they belong to, and also make sure journalists are not going to be slain, that there is a free press that can voice the concerns of people.

Those are all responsible, mature positions to take, in my opinion. It is one of the reasons the Liberal Party has so many problems, because it cannot take those mature, responsible positions when it comes to trade. Its members think it is an expense for people when it comes to the environment, social justice, human rights, and drug trafficking. When we improve trade relations with this country, why are we not demanding a decrease of the drug trade into Canada as part of the conditions?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we support free trade and we support this agreement.

In thinking about free trade and what the Canadian trade agenda should be, it is important to understand how dependent Canada is on trade and the extent to which we really are a trading nation.

Here are a few data points: 80% of our economy depends on access to foreign markets for Canadian exports, and we believe that it is essential for us to be supporting that access to support Canadian businesses, Canadian jobs, and Canadian people. As well, 19.2% of all Canadian jobs are directly associated with exports, and each export-related job supports an additional 1.9 jobs. This is really key, really central, and it is why free trade is a crucial part of any sound economic strategy for Canada and a crucial part of our own economic strategy.

What I am sad to point out, however, is that essential as trade is as a centrepiece of our economy, right now we are suffering. We are running significant trade deficits. What that says to me is that the government talks a lot about trade, but our economic strategy is not delivering, and it is not delivering particularly in the trade area.

We see that with Honduras. In 2012, Canadian business exported only $39 million in goods to Honduras. Meanwhile, we imported $219 million worth of goods from Honduras.

We need a trade strategy that is about integrating Canada into the global economy, selling Canadian goods abroad, and creating jobs in Canada.

Part of what we need to be doing when it comes to Honduras is creating an opportunity for Canadian beef and pork exporters. They see a real opportunity there, and the opportunity they spot is one reason we are in favour of this agreement.

In the debate so far today, we have heard reference to the need to have a more comprehensive approach to trade, a more comprehensive view of how Canada fits into the global trading arena. The Liberal Party absolutely supports that position.

We support the deal with Honduras, but Honduras is a tiny economy. This deal is not going to move the needle, and it is really important for us to have a much broader view of where Canada fits in the world and who we trade with.

In particular, we would like to see much more attention on the fast-growing emerging market economies. We should be paying a lot more attention to Africa, since some of the fastest-growing economies in the world are in Africa. There are several countries in Africa that have had more than 5% GDP growth for the past five years. That is a tremendous rate of economic activity, and Canada, with its very strong reputation in that region, should be taking advantage of it. We need a Canadian trade policy that looks to these vast growing markets in a comprehensive way.

We have spoken a lot already today about the European trade deal, and it is very important to spend a little time talking about that deal and focusing on it. Europe, of course, is a vast market. We have supported the deal that the government has been talking about, but, like many people in this House, we are very disturbed that the deal, which was announced with so much fanfare in October, has not yet been inked.

We urge the government to complete it. Yes, we are going to support the government on Honduras, but we would very much like the government to pay attention to the European deal and get it done.

This deal is essential for Canada. Now that the Americans are talking to Europe, there is tremendous danger with the European deal that that they are going to leapfrog us in the procedural process in the civil service and that we are going to find ourselves at the back of the line.

That would be a real pity for Canada. We have to pay close attention and devote all our efforts to getting that European deal done.

We have spoken today about some of the internal problems in Honduras. They include issues with democracy, labour rights, and the environment, and even as we support this deal, it is worth dwelling on those issues. It is really important for us to enter this trade deal with our eyes wide open.

Canada cannot trade only with perfect democracies. It is a big global economy, and we need to be part of it. It is actually helpful for countries that are on the path from authoritarianism to democracy to have trading relations with democracies like Canada.

However, even as we enter into those relationships, we have to do so with two points of view. First, we have to see the building of these connections between Canada and a country like Honduras as part of a strategy to help open up the country, to help democratize it, to help those journalists who are in trouble, to help opposition politicians and labour activists. That has to be an essential part of our approach.

Second, as we enter into a closer economic relationship with a politically troubled country like Honduras, we have to be very clear with our businesses that if a tipping point is reached, it must be the position of Canada that morality and our values will trump dollars.

We have seen that happening most recently in the Ukraine conflict. We have had a very strong economic relationship with Russia, and that economic relationship was based on some of the ideas that are driving this trade deal with Honduras. It was based on the hope that Russia's engagement with the world, with the west and Canada, would help tip it in the direction of being more democratic and being a more open society. Sadly, that has not happened, so we have had to pull back from that relationship at some economic cost.

In entering into deals with countries like Honduras, countries in a troubled place on the path from dictatorship to democracy, we have to be very clear in our own minds and in our discussions with Canadian businesses that it is a possibility that this could happen, because we never want to be in a position where the values that are so important to us in Canada, the values that we stand for in the world, are compromised.

In conclusion, we do support this deal. We hope the House will vote in support of it. We are very much in support of a Canadian economy that is integrated into the world.

However, as we work on Canadian trade, it is very important to remember three things.

One, we have to do a much better job of ensuring that Canada is a successful trading nation, and our trade deficits right now show that such is not the case.

Second, and in pursuit of that first goal, we have to have a much broader, much more comprehensive vision. The Honduran deal is great, but it is a very small country and, as we discussed today, our deal with the very big European Union is stalled. Let us get that done, and let us start working on some comprehensive deals with the fast-growing emerging markets, particularly in Africa.

Third, even as we strongly and energetically support trade and openness to the world economy as a centrepiece of Canada's economic strategy, we have to bear in mind that the world is very spiky. The world is not flat, it is spiky. Different economies are playing by different rules, and sometimes that is going to mean that we will come into a values clash with countries that we have been building a trading relationship with. At those moments, we have to be prepared to let our values stand first.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She talked about free trade agreements in general. I have a general question for her about the Liberal Party's support and her leader's support for the free trade agreement with Europe when we have never seen the text of the agreement. She asked a question about it during today's question period.

Does she think it is normal to support a free trade agreement when we have not seen the details or the text? Does she think that is normal?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed we are paying a lot of attention to the European trade deal, as are our colleagues in the NDP. We are very troubled that although this deal was announced with a lot of fanfare, we have seen very little detail and very little progress toward concluding it.

We are comfortable in supporting it and indeed proud to do so, because doing a trade deal with Europe needs to be one of Canada's top international economic priorities. That is what we are talking about when we talk about the need for a comprehensive approach to trade and a comprehensive approach to getting access for Canadian businesses to the world's big trading blocs. That said, it is a real problem that this deal has not been done and that so little detail has been released. We hope the member will join us in pressing the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Toronto Centre made reference to Honduras and the fact that her party supports the deals.

When I sat on the trade committee, I had the opportunity to go to Colombia and meet with President Uribe and his cabinet. He talked about how important trade was in assisting Colombia in diversifying its economy from guns and drugs and all these other things.

Colombia still faces a lot of challenges. My colleagues in the NDP said to figure out the human rights part first and assess whether a country deserves to trade with us. My challenge with that idea is that in that case, we would maybe never give countries like Colombia and Honduras the opportunity to diversify what they are doing.

I would ask my colleague to reiterate the importance of some of these developing countries and why it is important for us to do deals with them to help them to diversify and build up their economies.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with that point. It is very important for all of us to acknowledge and appreciate that these are going to be very hard issues and that we have to look at them case by case. There are going to be countries that cross the line in terms of how they treat people at home or the way they behave on the international stage, and when that happens, we cannot have trading relations with them.

That said, trade and engagement can be and has been, as we have seen historically in many cases, a very effective way of bringing countries into the international community and of fostering more democracy and more openness at home, as well as being of great benefit to Canada. In our judgment, Honduras falls into that category, and that is why we support this agreement. Again, having said that, we do think it is important, going forward, to watch the situation closely and to enter into this agreement with our eyes wide open.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that he member for Toronto Centre was asked to be a panellist on a panel regarding trade issues concerning GMAP in particular. I know the government had a problem with it, so I want to hear the member's comments on where the government should be going with its trade policy and how this Canada–Honduras free trade agreement would fit into the GMAP of the government.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we strongly believe that it is important for economic considerations and trade to be a big part of Canada's relationship with the world, particularly now as the rules of the world economy are shifting.

As I said earlier, though, it is very important for us to understand that we are not playing in a world economy that plays by a single set of rules. We are playing in a world economy where some countries are playing by state capitalism rules. They are authoritarian at home and they take that authoritarianism abroad when they trade. It is very important that we build a trade policy that understands that, is conscious of it, and is aware of the problems that might await us.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Toronto Centre who opined that we have judgments that perhaps become a value judgment, because we have to look at the circumstances of individual cases. I would not disagree with that. I would come to a different conclusion than the member came to, which is that we should just go ahead with Honduras.

It reminds me of her colleagues in the last Parliament, who decided that the Colombia deal would not be a good deal until the human rights abuses were cleared up. They finally caved at the last minute and made a deal with Uribe in Colombia and said that we would have some sort of monitoring committee. It would be Colombians monitoring to make sure that Colombians did not abuse Colombians when it came to human rights. Good luck with that one, because it did not work. If that is the Liberal value judgment, then trade trumps all, and maybe we will hope for things to get better. Then it really is time for a new chapter to be written.

When we look at values, we look at human values and human needs and how we respect human values around the world, not at whether there is a balance sheet at the bottom that actually becomes the important message. Clearly, the government sided with the Liberals in tow as an extra piece of add-along and decided that it is their value system. That is their value judgment. If it is a dollar sign, it is a great value. If it is human rights, not so much. Maybe it will get better. Let us hope it gets better. If it does not get better, we do not live there. That seems to be the attitude.

I am not quite sure how that happens. Clearly the evidence points to Honduras not being a stable regime. It has no elected government. In comes the army and takes people away. It seems that the House was seized with what happened in Crimea and unanimously said that no state should simply walk into a democratic state and decide to impose its will, even if it is somewhat internal with some external backing. We see it in Honduras. We want to have a trade deal, so maybe it is okay.

It seems slightly hypocritical. If we are standing up for the rule of law and for human rights, surely to goodness we can stand up for the rule of law and human rights for the people of Honduras, some of the poorest on the planet. The average wage is $1.25 a day. We could not buy a Big Mac for $1.25. I do not know if we can even buy a coffee for $1.25.

If that is the trading arrangement we are looking at with one of the poorest nations in the world, then free trade is a bit of a dead end, if that is how we measure success. In my view, we are taking advantage of Honduras. We are trying to extract from it, because they do not have much leverage. The government is not good about extracting a decent deal when dealing with a country that might be on par with ours, whose economy might be equal to ours, or greater, when it comes to the EU. The EU is a totally different bandwagon.

My goodness, we have a deal. We do not have a deal. We are going to sign a deal. It is coming. I used to tell my kids that when they were younger. When they asked in July when Christmas was coming, I would say it is coming. When they were three years old, counting days from July to December 25, it was a tough one. I used to say, “It is coming. Be patient”.

It seems the government has decided that we on this side should believe in the tooth fairy. The EU deal will finally get here at some point, but in the meantime, we have a better one with Honduras. What a trade-off. Never mind the 500 million people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. They will get to that one. That is not as important as this one. They will even have time allocation on it. That is how much we need this free trade agreement. We need it so badly for Canada's economy, because as we know, it is fragile. The government always tells us that we live in a fragile economic world economy, and this deal with Honduras will probably rectify all that fragility. It might, but I highly doubt it. I am a bit of a skeptic. I am on the opposition benches, and I am supposed to be a skeptic.

One thing is for sure: this trade deal will not enhance the civil liberties, human rights, and economic well-being of the people of Honduras. For all the impassioned speeches and bluster on the other side about how this would lift them all up and that rising tides lift all ships, we should ask the people of Colombia, a country we signed a free trade deal with a few years ago, whether that tide came and lifted all ships. They would tell us that it did not. They are as badly off as they were before it was signed. In some cases, the situation is worse. If we asked them about their human rights, they would say that it is as bad as it was before. If we asked them whether journalists are still being murdered in Colombia, even though that was supposed to end, they would tell us that it is true too. If we asked trade union members in that country whether their members are still losing their lives on a monthly basis, we would find that it is true.

All of that was meant to end. The Liberals said that they would sign on to the deal during a minority Parliament to make sure we passed a bill for an FTA with Colombia. They signed on to that deal. They bargained away the human rights of Colombians, so I do not trust them to not bargain away the human rights of the Hondurans.

There are ways to leverage beyond a balance sheet when it comes to human rights. We have seen it around the world. I would remind the current government that it was a previous government, under the prime ministership of Brian Mulroney, which they used to call the Progressive Conservatives, that said that in spite of the Commonwealth, we should embargo South Africa because of apartheid. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was absolutely correct. The trade union I belonged to at that time, as well as the broader labour movement, had called for that for years. We were right to call for it at that time. We did not enter into a free trade agreement that claimed to change apartheid in South Africa. That is the difference. We could not say that if we had an FTA, apartheid would be banished. It would not have been. However, the embargo made it go.

My friend across the way wonders if I am kidding. I am not kidding. The reality is that we did not enter into a free trade agreement. The prime minister entered into a different free trade agreement in this hemisphere with a partner in the United States, but he did not enter into one with South Africa. He led the banning of trade with South Africa. He placed an embargo on trade with South Africa, and at the end of the day, we saw an end to apartheid. That was a leveraging tool that was useful.

I say to my colleagues on the other side that if they want to make a difference in the lives of Hondurans, a free trade agreement will not do that for them. The evidence is clear. What would make a difference would be an understanding of how they need the rule of law and democracy back in their system, not a dictatorship that is basically funded by the army.

My friends across the way always talk about the rule of law and democracy and how these are essential ingredients for building economies and societies and enhancing the efforts of their citizens. Why do we not start from that premise?

Not all societies are perfect. We know that this democracy is not perfect. We have seen that in the last couple of days. Some folks have said that majority governments are the tyranny of the 50% plus one. Those are the rules we play by. That is okay. We might think there is a different style of democracy we might want in this place. Perhaps we would change it if we had the opportunity.

There are other means to ensure that Hondurans can lift themselves up. This free trade agreement will not. That is a shame, because once we do this, it will be the end of the road for us. We will simply say that we have entered into a free trade agreement, so we do not have to do anything else, and we will leave them alone, just as we have done with Colombia. There will be no more leverage with respect to that government to say that it needs to democratize itself and needs to respect human rights and work with its citizens, not oppress them. That is what we are seeing now.

Every expert who has come before the international trade committee has said that there are abuses across the entire country, and they have not stopped. Free trade agreements do not end those abuses. If we want to end those abuses, we should use other tools to make it happen. Then and only then should we look at entering into a trade agreement with Honduras.

It is not about not trading with Honduras. At the end of the day, it is about telling the Government of Honduras that it needs to clean up its act first by respecting the rule of law and the human rights of its citizens. Then perhaps at some future date we might enter into some sort of trading agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a trade agreement with a country that has an economy that is smaller than Ottawa-Gatineau's. Almost half its population lives in poverty or extreme poverty. We are not looking at a market that would be extremely beneficial for Canadian producers and manufacturers. Also, it is a country for which Canada already has extremely low trade tariffs, under 5%, as we heard in committee.

More importantly, on the topic of human rights, it is a country in which more than 30 journalists have been assassinated or killed. Labour organizers and women continue to be murdered in Honduras. There is also drug trafficking that goes on with impunity.

Could my hon. colleague please elaborate on the kind of trade the NDP would like to see? In committee, not a single witness said that increased trade with Honduras would improve the situation for human rights in that country. What kinds of trade agreements should Canada look at negotiating to benefit Canadian families?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right about its economy being small. There are few opportunities for most trading groups in this country. There is some agricultural potential for us in Honduras, but beyond that, there is not much else.

There is a greater opportunity for us to perhaps work with DFAIT and NGOs to help Hondurans build civil society capacity and government capacity that would put Honduras on a path to a democracy that respects the rule of law. Even its own Supreme Court says that 98% of the crimes committed are committed with impunity, because folks there do not believe that they are going to be caught, and if they are caught, they will never go to trial or be convicted.

There is no respect for the rule of law. How would any company here in Canada enter into a trading relationship with a country where there are rampant criminal elements and there are no convictions? Why would one go there?

One of the things the Conservative government always says is that if it is going to have a trading partner, the other side needs to have the rule of law so that both sides understand what is going on. That is not true in Honduras.

We need to help it build that capacity internally, and then perhaps there would be a trade agreement down the road.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening, but I get a lot of confusion in what the member is saying. On the one hand, the member is saying that trade is good with Honduras and is something we should pursue, but on the other hand, he is saying that liberalizing trade with Honduras is bad.

Is it the position of the NDP that we should trade with Honduras, but only if we put huge tariffs on them, and that this somehow would be a way Canada could actually impact change in that country?

Does the hon. member not believe that by having more opportunity for Canadians to actually trade with Hondurans, to go back and forth and to provide more opportunity for them to come here and see how this government and civil society operates, would be a positive that would actually help encourage Honduras' move towards democracy?

Is it the member's contention that the best way to impact change in Honduras is to trade but to levy huge tariffs on that trade, and somehow that would improve the economic situation between Canada and Honduras? Could the member explain that?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to explain to my friend across the way, the parliamentary secretary. No, it is about building civil society and governmental capacity first. Then perhaps we would trade with them in some form or another.

Then again, if you want to bring Hondurans here to learn about how to build capacity, I think that would be a great idea. Instead of bringing temporary foreign workers from Honduras up here all the time to exploit them, maybe you ought to bring those folks up here to learn about democracy. Let them learn about the rule of law. Let them learn the rules about human rights, and you can keep the temporary foreign workers back in Honduras.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. Again, I remind all hon. members to address their comments to the Chair rather than directly at their colleagues.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to begin my speech with a quiz. What do the following organizations have in common: Alternatives, the British Columbia Teacher's Federation, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Common Frontiers, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux and the Council of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I know that I have the floor right now, but I would hand it over to you if you would like to answer my quiz, or I could give you the answer if you are having a little trouble.

The answer is that all these organizations have given the Canadian government seven warnings. Let me share their concerns. These various civil society organizations in Quebec and Canada are concerned that the free trade agreement currently being debated in the House of Commons will further undermine human rights and democracy in Honduras. That is the answer to the quiz.

Discussions on this free trade agreement began a few days after Juan Orlando Hernández was installed as president. He took power following the highly controversial presidential election in Honduras. Most international observers felt that the electoral results, which were marred with irregularities and obtained in a context of violence, were not valid.

The proposed legislation shows that Canada supports illegitimate governments if doing so serves the interests of the Canadian economy. That makes no sense.

This bilateral trade agreement was signed on November 5, 2013, shortly after that presidential election, in spite of widespread opposition and evidence suggesting that the agreement would exacerbate social tensions and human rights issues.

After the military coup in 2009 that resulted in the overthrow of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya, the violence and repression reached unprecedented heights. Human rights and women’s rights advocates, members of the LGBT community, the Garifuna, indigenous peoples, union leaders, farmers and journalists were systematically threatened and in some cases, unfortunately, killed.

The unfortunate thing in all that is that Canada is exacerbating social conflict in Honduras. In addition to the free trade agreement, Canadian investments have contributed to social conflict, particularly in the mining and tourism industries and the export sector.

The government of Canada provided technical assistance for the adoption of the General Mining and Hydrocarbons Law in January 2013. The new law ended the seven-year moratorium and imposed a 2% royalty on mining companies to fund state security measures.

The agreement also provided for new mining projects, and this revived social tensions and required a heightened military presence in the communities where the mining projects were located.

According to the Honduras Documentation Center, 52% of the conflicts arise out of the management of natural resources. The best-known example, unfortunately, is the Goldcorp mining company of Vancouver, which operates a gold and silver mine in the Siria valley.

From what we know, the mining project is apparently responsible for contaminating the water, drying up watercourses and causing the emergence of serious health problems in the surrounding communities. Unfortunately, the full extent of these problems has not even been identified.

In the clothing and textile exports sector, Gildan of Montreal, whose factories are located in northwestern Honduras, has come under heavy criticism. Gildan is said to be responsible for numerous work-related injuries due to excessively long work shifts and high production targets. It has allegedly fired workers for attempting to unionize.

In the tourism industry, Canadian investments have resulted in the displacement of indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities, without regard for their culture or their ancestral rights on those lands.

The Canadian government is misleading the public when it says this free trade agreement will result in improvements in the situation in Honduras. In fact, it is going to enormously reduce the capacity of the government to legislate in the public interest, and deal a hard blow to the rights of communities and individuals and to labour and environmental rights.

In the meantime, investors’ rights are taking precedence. Corporations will now be able to sue the government if it makes decisions that run counter to their interests. If the government in power seeks to protect its people and does anything that goes against investors, it will be sued. The Honduran government will thus be inclined to make decisions based on the interests of foreign investors, not those of its own population. That is an enormous risk.

The side agreements on the environment and the right to work include no mechanism to give them force and effect in law. Consequently, by favouring the economic interests of a few privileged investors, this free trade agreement will only force Honduras into even greater crisis and a heightened climate of violence.

I would now like to address the issue of police corruption and the militarization of the state. Police corruption is endemic in Honduras. Some senior officers are involved in criminal activities, and impunity undeniably reigns in the judicial system and law enforcement agencies.

Constantino Zavala, chief of police in the province of Lempira in western Honduras, was recently suspended as a result of drug trafficking allegations.

President Hernández has emphasized a return to military security, specifically by ordering the creation of the Military Police of Public Order funded by proceeds from a new security tax on major corporations.

The new military units will be responsible for patrolling residential neighbourhoods, new developments and public places in order to combat crime. However, human rights advocates in Honduras believe that they are witnessing a return of the death squads that assassinated women, youth and political dissidents in the 1980s.

During the November 24, 2013, presidential election, many Hondurans hoped that the country’s new political face would put an end to the two-party regime, which would be for the better. However, it would appear that, on the contrary, the questionable election of President Hernández has exacerbated the situation. Foreign observers and local human rights advocacy groups have reported widespread fraud in the form of vote-buying, voter registry irregularities, the sale of ballots, military intervention, bullying and even assassinations. Hernández has nevertheless been declared the winner, and that has plunged the country even deeper into crisis.

That is why many organizations are asking that the Parliament of Canada not pass this act respecting a free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras and that the Conservative government review its priorities with Honduras, focusing first and foremost on the welfare of its communities, its population and its workers.

I would like to conclude by saying that this trade agreement is not in Canada’s best interest. The volume of Honduran exports to Canada is much higher than that of Canadian exports to Honduras. This trade agreement does not benefit Canada.

In light of the political and social situation in Honduras, it would be really ill-advised for Canada to enter into a free trade agreement with this nation. Perhaps we could revisit the matter a few years down the road when a more favourable climate prevails. For now, the government should focus on free trade agreements with emerging countries that offer considerably more trade opportunities for Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question I had asked one of her colleagues with respect to trade in general. I am sure she is aware that Canada currently has trade with Honduras. The member is suggesting that because of the environment in Honduras, we should not be enhancing trade. Does she believe that Canada should be decreasing trade with Honduras?

The second question is this: can she give an indication of a country with which she would be comfortable signing off on a free trade agreement?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of knowing whether trade with Honduras should increase or decrease.

If we know that certain types of trade fan social unrest or cause problems in another country, then we should ease up. However, if trade does not exacerbate the climate of instability among certain businesses, it can continue. However, when trade fans unrest, then we need to proceed much more cautiously.

I will give the example of a South American country because it is quite relevant. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit Brazil. This interesting, emerging nation has made great strides in the area of human rights and policing. A few years ago, it was impossible for people, especially for a young woman like me, to walk about the favelas without the fear of being kidnapped or assaulted.

Recently I went to Brazil and walked about in the favelas and lived to tell about it. I was able to see first-hand the great improvements that have been made and I think it would be worthwhile for the government to explore opportunities to enter into a trade agreement with this country.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, again I am a bit confused by the NDP position. The member for Welland went even further. Not only did he mention that the best way to impact change in Honduras would be to try to trade with massive tariffs and that we should punish the people of Honduras, but he also said that we should cancel exchanges of workers between our two countries and that somehow would promote better relations with the people of Honduras.

Is it really the NDP position that by helping to increase the wealth of a society, business can play absolutely no role in improving relationships between two countries, that business and trade cannot have a role in helping the people of Honduras develop a better society? How is it that New Democrats think that punishing the people of Honduras, keeping their wealth down, impoverishing them, would somehow endear them to Canada and then would open a door for us to help them make changes in how they govern themselves in civil society? How do they square that circle? I just do not get it.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures handy. I had them, but cannot seem to find them in my notes.

I can say, however, that the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. The situation is not improving because the poor are falling further into poverty. Instead we seem to be fanning the conflict and contributing to the problems that people in this country are having and to the clash between the two social classes.

Even if wealth is being created, it is not being redirected to the poorest members of society. Nothing is being done to improve the social climate, which is especially difficult in Honduras.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-20 concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, for which the agreement in principle was concluded on November 5.

Free trade is a very important policy for Canada. The many advantages of free trade cannot be ignored, and it goes without saying that the strength of the Canadian economy relies on opening new markets. For that reason I do not understand why the government is delaying finalizing the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. I would like the government to move more quickly and to take concrete action with respect to emerging markets. This agreement is a start, but it is not indicative of the ambition that Canada should have with respect to international markets.

I am also wondering why the government has suddenly found that there is an urgent need for action in this area. I am wondering about the government's sense of urgency, because it has been negotiating this agreement since 2010. It has taken the government almost three years to put this agreement back on the table. Surprisingly, in 2010, the government was talking about short-term trade prospects. I wonder whether the government really takes international trade seriously, whether it is really a priority, or if this is just empty rhetoric.

If we look at the figures for 2012, we see that Canadian exports to Honduras totalled $38.6 million. Bilateral trade between Canada and Honduras during the same period totalled $257.2 million, while Canadian imports from Honduras were valued at $219 million.

While trade between the two countries is not substantial, there are still many companies waiting for progress to be made in this area. They are looking for more openness, and unlike the NDP, which rejects the bill without understanding the importance of free trade agreements, I think we need to consider businesses and workers.

Once a free trade agreement is in place, Canadians can expect to see more jobs for the middle class and more business opportunities for companies. The Liberal Party has mentioned this fact on a number of occasions both in and outside the House. Every effort must be made to help the middle class.

Consideration must also be given to potential trade opportunities for Canada. Given the size of Canada’s economy, it is critically important for us to compete globally for emerging markets. In my view, the government needs to be more serious and more transparent when it comes to this matter. It needs to answer questions over its failure to take action with respect to other emerging markets.

I agree that international markets are more open from an economic standpoint. The world and trade are evolving rapidly. This means we need to act more quickly on free trade initiatives.

Certain Canadian businesses stated in committee that they had lost a share of the commercial market in Honduras when the free trade agreements between Central America and the United States were signed in 2005. They pointed out that Canada needed to act as quickly as possible to regain this share of the market. We are already lagging behind. A free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras represents an important step in the resumption of trade with Central America. However, we will then have to turn our attention to Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and El Salvador and negotiate additional agreements.

Previous Liberal governments in fact concluded trade agreements with far more influential countries like Costa Rica, the State of Israel and Chile.

Consider Chile, for example. Bilateral trade of goods with that country represents $2.5 million Canadian, and exports to Chile amount to $789 million Canadian. We are talking about trade that is almost 10 times greater than that between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

Although this government boasts of having negotiated several agreements, such as the agreements with Colombia, Jordan, Panama and the one being negotiated with the Republic of Honduras, only the agreement reached with Peru appears to be as ambitious as those achieved by Liberal governments.

These agreements do not position Canada where it should be in the global economy. As is its responsibility, I urge the government to do more for international trade.

Furthermore, in addition to the free trade agreement, an agreement on environmental co-operation has been reached with the Republic of Honduras. That agreement refers to the promotion of stronger environmental policies and sound environmental management. The Canadian government must make sure it keeps those promises and develops measures designed to improve environmental performance. It must also ensure that businesses involved in trade between the two countries comply with them. For the moment, the agreement makes no mention of any audit mechanism. That means there would be no penalties for businesses contravening these agreements.

When it comes to the environment, the Conservatives have some work to do to regain Canadians’ trust. The environment has never been a priority for the Conservatives, and everyone knows it. It is therefore surprising that they have moved forward with an agreement of this kind.

Can the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade give us any guarantees that this environmental co-operation agreement will be a success?

There is also talk about labour co-operation agreements. We ask that the government ensure that workers’ fundamental rights are a priority and that labour law is complied with, here and in Honduras.

It is essential that any increase in trade occurs in a manner respectful of workers and that free trade between the two countries will not lead to weakened labour rights.

Once this agreement is final, we will be entitled to demand acceptable wages and working conditions for the workers of the Republic of Honduras.

As my colleagues previously mentioned, we are aware of the unstable situation in Honduras, and we believe it is not a situation that warrants the economic isolation of that country. We must ensure that increased trade between the two countries can be achieved through harmonious relations and that free trade side agreements will be complied with.

This agreement will help strengthen the national economy of Honduras and at the same time prevent certain violations of fundamental rights by force of the ties that will bind us. Economic ties between countries have the power to encourage better behaviour.

The government must still make sure that this economic agreement works properly; otherwise, trade must be halted. That calls for a great deal of vigilance and oversight in the areas of labour and the environment.

If the government really wants to guarantee human rights in Honduras as part of this free trade agreement, it must issue an annual report and require one from Honduras, so that the public can see whether human rights have been respected as trade between the two countries grows.

We are entitled to require compliance with these parallel agreements, and to have proof of compliance. I hope that this government will remain vigilant with respect to the adverse consequences of the bill, given the unstable situation in Honduras. We must remain alert and monitor the internal situation in that country.

In conclusion, I support this bill, because it represents a first step toward trade with new markets. Because our economy is based on exporting, I believe that eliminating barriers to trade can only be beneficial to Canada. I therefore ask the government to be more persuasive in this bill on free trade with Honduras, and to ensure that Canada is open to emerging markets in a way that fully reflects our values. The government must provide for better monitoring of the political, economic and environmental situation in the countries with which we trade. Otherwise, Canada’s image could suffer.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. The difficulty I have is apparently the Liberal members are in support of a deal with a country that is so bad. That is the part of this debate that I cannot understand. We have a government and some members to my left who have decided that the words “free trade” mean more than the words “democracy”, “human rights”, “fair and equitable treatment of its citizens”. Here we are championing a deal, an agreement, with a country that is awful. By signing such a deal, we are giving it legitimacy. We are giving a government that was put in place by a coup a legitimate place. As Canadians, we should be concerned and should take a big step back.

Would the member like to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not a cheerleader for this agreement. I am saying that we will support it. There are issues. We do not support free trade without imposing certain conditions like the Conservatives and we are not against free trade like the NDP.

I will explain it to the member. There are already Canadian companies doing business in Honduras. This agreement will help Canadian companies that are doing business in Honduras. There are American companies that are taking business away from Canadian companies, companies that perhaps are in the member's riding or province. They have come before committee and testified that we are losing business. We are way behind. As much as the government likes to say that it has been signing free trade agreements, we have a trade deficit.

The member started off by saying that he wishes it was a Liberal government. So do I, especially in the area of free trade. We were champions when we were in government. When we signed free trade agreements, they were real free trade agreements. There were conditions imposed upon other countries. If we were going to sign an agreement, it did not matter with which country it was; those conditions had to be respected. We made sure that Canadian companies and Canadian individuals were protected.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, who explained the position of the Liberal Party quite well.

He also mentioned the other free trade agreements that we signed when we formed the government.

When it comes to free trade, the Conservatives want it at any price, without carefully examining a number of factors. As for the NDP, we know where it stands, and I have the impression that the party's position is that we should not have free trade with any countries. The opposite is true.

In his speech, my colleague from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel said there is no monitoring mechanism in the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras. I wonder why, since it is important to protect our resources and our companies, when it comes to free trade. Can he explain why there is no monitoring mechanism in this agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a fantastic question. I want to congratulate my colleague on his election a few months ago. I congratulated him outside the House, but this is the first time I have had the chance to do so officially in the House.

We said the same thing: the Conservatives are signing a free trade agreement without any conditions because they are always playing catch-up. We are seeing it with this free trade agreement. It was negotiated in 2010 and, four or five years later, it has yet to be ratified in the House. It could have been done when it was tabled. We are already lagging behind the United States, which signed an agreement 10 years ago.

Some Canadian companies are losing a share of the market. Some workers are losing their jobs because a main office in Montreal is having business dealings with Honduras. We are losing commercial opportunities and jobs. We cannot sign free trade agreements without giving it any thought.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Conservatives to consider the old saying that if you play with fire, you are going to get burned. This would unfortunately be the case if we ever partnered with the Honduran government to sign a free trade agreement.

We could ruffle each other's hair and joyfully squabble about the economic relevance. I am certain that very good arguments for an against could be exchanged from both sides of the House. However, that is not the problem. First, I will note that we cannot compare the very nature of trade between Canada, an export-oriented country, and little Honduras, whose main economic activity is underground and illicit narcotics trafficking. Honduras engages in mining activities. I can understand that Canadian companies are interested in seeing a certain legal framework, but this requires the rule of law and, obviously, that is not the case in Honduras.

The essential problem with this agreement is that we have to sign it with a partner that is not respectable enough to be considered credible. This is tragic. Honduras itself is the private property of a few families, a few high-ranking police and army officers, where no consideration is given to the interests of the local population. This is especially tragic, and it means that the government is not democratic. The recent governments were installed by the army. There is no real democratic choice. Not one government has recognized this government as being a free and informed choice by the population.

There is the recurring problem of corruption. It is complete, absolute and endemic. Not even the judges can be trusted. The United Nations has made recommendations concerning the Honduran judiciary. It said, in reference to the judges of the Supreme Court of Honduras, that it made no sense for at least four of them to be there. That speaks volumes. This is a state where the law is not obeyed. The main law in the world is “thou shalt not kill”. In Honduras, that is not the case; a lot of killing happens there.

This is a state where there is no justice. Justice is a dream. As I said, there is no law, and a lot of killing happens there. Journalists are killed, as are union representatives and people who want a little democracy; everyone who makes certain people unhappy is killed. Because there is no justice, the killers are never prosecuted. What would the consequences be if the Canadian government sent mining engineers to that country? If Canadian mining engineers were killed, what recourse would Canada have? There would be none. We cannot rely on these people to ensure that justice is done. For that most obvious reason, we need to keep our distance from this kind of people. In that country, even the legal profession is at high risk.

If we were presented with a trade agreement that included a component on legal obligations and democratization obligations—that would not be exceptional in terms of recognizing a country’s independence—but the problem is that we are being asked to partner with this country in a legitimate trade framework, but it is ostracized by corruption and the denial of the essential fundamentals of justice.

That is where we say to ourselves that associating with them is essentially so corrupting that we should not do it.

We have had treaties with other countries whose economic relevance we cheerfully quarrelled about. I am thinking of Jordan in particular. In the case of Jordan there was some economic relevance, but Jordanian society was also evolving, changing, and willing to use the window afforded by international trade agreements to become a much more democratic state that complied with international agreements and international human rights law. We supported it.

In this case, there is no such component. No government representatives came to tell us that signing this agreement would lead to democratization. The murder rate is constantly increasing. It is not improving; it is deteriorating. That is the whole problem.

We do not want to associate with people of such poor reputation. There is something extremely disturbing here: the law in Honduras, the informal law, permits private companies to hire mercenaries. One can imagine the international mess we would find ourselves in if ever any Canadian companies dealing with social problems or problems with competitors or small-time bandits attacking their company responded by hiring mercenaries. Canada as a whole and its global reputation would be tarnished.

Our global reputation is good. It is important to note that Canada has a long history of active involvement in peacekeeping missions. We had a prime minister who won the Nobel peace prize. We have legal experts who have drafted international legal instruments and charters of freedoms.

Canada is the opposite of Honduras. The history of Honduras is merely a succession of military governments and governments that belonged to a few private families. The old saying is true: if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

I can essentially understand my colleagues, who were making an economic choice in terms of international trade. We could genuinely have a long discussion on the subject. In the case of Honduras, however, this is not a trade problem; it is a moral problem.

Should Canada support the international credibility of a government of thugs by means of a trade treaty? The issue is not that there are a few problems of corruption; it is that the corruption is systemic. All stakeholders have said the same thing. Even the U.S. Senate acknowledged this was unacceptable.

I will be pleased to answer my colleagues’ questions.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his excellent speech. Bill C-20 is a bit harsh and I fully agree with the reasons why we should oppose it.

The NDP studies international agreements properly and bases its assessments on fundamentally important criteria. Does the proposed partner respect democracy and human rights? Does the partner's economy have a significant or strategic value? Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

What does my colleague think of the NDP's guidelines for studying international agreements?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who does excellent work in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. She understands the problem we might run into by signing an agreement with Honduras.

The criteria imposed by the NDP take into account the fact that Canada does not want to become corrupt. We will not sell our soul for a fistful of dollars. On the contrary, we want to sign agreements with partners that evolve and have the same view toward democracy and respect for human life and environmental regulations.

In that regard, Jordan announced a major turnaround. It was interesting to become partners with a country that was taking charge and looking to the future. Despite the major economic gaps, we had the opportunity to become an older brother to be looked up to who supported a great move that would benefit the entire population of Jordan.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada used to be a world leader in foreign affairs, in our relations with other countries and in our ability to help other organizations, other countries, become more democratic, freer, fairer to their citizens and have better human rights records. However, I am afraid agreements like this set us back.

Agreements like this with a corrupt government that has very little regard for human rights send a message to other like countries that it is okay with Canada to be like this. It is okay with the Conservative government and with their partners, the Liberals, to be like this. Signing agreements with this kind of country is a signal to other oppressive countries that oppression is acceptable to Canada.

What does the member think of that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has been quite clumsy about how it has dealt with this agreement. I do not think that the government members are criminals or interested in supporting fascists. Unfortunately, that is what they are doing.

Canada has a long history. We can criticize this government's approach to international relations sometimes. However, a few days ago, this same government was commended by the United Nations Secretary General for its efforts with regard to child and maternal health.

Canada can still stand tall. Through its history and accomplishments, on which we may not all agree, there is always a desire to be a good country that defends democracy.

However, with this agreement, it is clear that the government has it all wrong. I invite the government to change its perspective on this issue.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak to Bill C-20, which deals with the agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

Before I begin my speech, as most of my colleagues on this side of the House probably know, I will be speaking as a New Democrat and I will be voting against Bill C-20.

In my speech, I will lay out the various reasons that lead me to that conclusion.

Before I begin, since my colleagues have mentioned democracy a great deal, I would like to tell the people watching us today on CPAC, on television or online, that democracy is very important.

We are sitting late at the end of this parliamentary session to make sure that we do things properly and to thoroughly debate the various bills that we have to pass. However, it would seem that only the New Democrats really value their speaking time in the House. We have seen that the Conservative party has missed more than 22 shifts, while the Liberals have missed four. On this side of the House, we are serious and we have not missed any shifts during these extended hours. I thank my colleagues for their participation in democracy. I will also refer to it in my speech.

As I said, I will be voting against Bill C-22. Why? Because we New Democrats have very strict criteria for free trade agreements. In general, they must respect the fundamental rules of democracy.

I will list them: first, does the prospective partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate labour standards, environmental protection, and Canadian values? If such is not consistently the case, is the partner on a path to meet those objectives?

We do not necessarily eliminate partners who do not meet those objectives. However, we want them to be people who are ready to meet strict and serious objectives.

Second, does the prospective partner's economy have a significant or strategic value for Canada?

And third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

I will begin with the first one that mentions, among other things, democracy and human rights.

I did a little research. I visited the site of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It provides some very interesting reports on the Republic of Honduras, particularly since the coup of 2009.

I looked at a report from the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. I also checked the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders about the mission to Honduras. These very interesting reports paint a clear picture of the current state of human rights in Honduras.

What do the reports say? They mention human rights violations committed by the police and by security guards, as well as murders and people allegedly going missing. They indicate that Antonio Trejo, a human rights lawyer, was murdered. In fact, many human rights activists get killed or go missing in Honduras. There are also allegations that military groups have killed men, women and children.

The findings from the reports and the working groups raise many questions regarding an unwillingness, on the part of the government and judicial authorities, to investigate serious human rights violations. Furthermore, the country's legislative framework still does not prohibit the use of mercenaries. These are very serious issues that constitute direct attacks against human rights.

Canada was, for many years, a leader in international relations. Our country used to be a role model for the way it met its international responsibilities. However, in its current form, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement fails once again to hit the mark.

The government is completely missing the mark. We should be leading by example and presenting a more substantial free trade agreement. The Canada-Honduras agreement, as it stands, is very problematic.

I have been watching the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway as he goes about his work. I know that he is doing an incredible job of keeping us informed about what is included in these free trade agreements and what the Conservative government is proposing to Canadians. I admire the work he does. I am part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, so I do not get very involved with international agreements. Economics never really was my strong suit, which is why I think it is very important that we have other experts on our team. He takes his work very seriously and works hard to educate us and keep us informed about what is in this free trade agreement.

Human Rights Watch has said that Honduras suffers from rampant crime and impunity in terms of human rights. The murder rate, which has risen consistently over the last decade, was the highest in the world in 2013. That was just last year. 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.

The rights of very specific groups are being attacked in Honduras. Journalists, peasant activists and the LGBT community are particularly vulnerable to attacks yet, as I said earlier, the government routinely fails to address those injustices and provide better protection for those at risk in Honduras.

What I find sad is that many people from Laval contact me every week to share their priorities with me and to talk about what is bothering them at the federal level. A large part of what they tell me has to do with our place on the world stage, the responsibility we have as a G7 country and the influence we could have in the world. Most of the people who contact me are extremely disappointed in this Conservative government's lack of leadership.

There are a number of examples at the international level. Take for example the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, which we pulled out of. Many people in Laval were shocked when we withdrew from Kyoto, and I know that people across Canada were stunned to see that the Conservatives were withdrawing from Kyoto.

I want to get back to the free trade agreement that we are discussing here. I do not want to spend too much time on the first point, since I know my time is limited. I did some research on the economy, to find out whether the proposed partner's economy is of significant and strategic value to Canada. Through my research I discovered that less than 1% of our trade was with Honduras. Our types of trade with this country are very specific and will probably benefit some very specific sectors in Canada.

I see that my time is up. I just wanted to conclude by talking about something that my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin mentioned during his period for questions and comments. Toronto is currently hosting the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Summit, and we are seeing all of this Conservative government's efforts to support women's and children's rights. If the government were to start integrating that into their policies, it would be a great start. Let us start with the international agreements we want to sign.

I am ready for questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Alfred-Pellan for her speech.

I would like her to explain how a democratic country like Canada, with a relatively stable political system and an economy that may not be 100% but is pretty stable, can help Honduras with its governance problems.

What can Canada do to help Honduras become a democratic country again?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard. I know that she cares deeply about human rights issues. I am pleased that she is participating in today's debate. It is extremely interesting.

Canada is lucky to have been a champion, a leader. We are lucky, because not all countries can claim to be democracies. I do not always agree with the Conservative government, but from Monday to Friday, we have a one-hour question period during which we can ask the government questions about what is going on. We do not always get the answers we would like, and sometimes we get no answer at all, but that is part of the game.

We should be human rights and democracy champions. It is our responsibility as a G7 country to be champions for that. Why not help Honduras, as my colleague from LaSalle—Émard said, by setting a good example? I am not saying that our way is the only way, but Canada is a good example to follow when it comes to democracy.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Alfred-Pellan on her excellent speech.

She outlined the social and environmental factors that must be respected when entering into free trade agreements with countries across the globe. Established democracies must be respected when agreements are entered into, and human rights and workers’ rights must be upheld. The countries involved must benefit and evolve into free societies, and in return Canada, too, must benefit.

Can my colleague please elaborate on the importance of humanitarian and social conditions in countries with which Canada negotiates free trade agreements?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead. We often have very good discussions on workers' rights. I talked about being a champion, but my colleague from Compton—Stanstead is a champion when it comes to protecting the rights of workers. He cares a great deal about this issue.

I come back to what I said in my speech. Something is lacking. There is a lack of motivation and leadership. The Conservatives turn a blind eye, but the fact is, we should be keeping an eagle eye on these matters and trying to reach the very best agreements possible, while at the same time enhancing the quality of life of people in foreign countries who may be less fortunate.

The statistics on Honduras are quite startling. According to the United Nations, out of 186 countries Honduras ranks 120th on the human development index. Honduras is appalling when it comes to social values. We can do better. We can take action and play a leadership role. We can ensure that we live in a fairer world, a greener and more prosperous world, not only for Canadians, but for all our trade partners.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-20, the free trade agreement with Honduras.

Despite what members of the government, and perhaps members of their partners, the Liberals, have suggested, we are not opposed to trade. On this side of the House, we are very much in favour of trade, and very much in favour of fairer trade, and where that is possible, then free trade as it goes with fairer trade. However, this is certainly not an agreement we can support, mostly because the partner on the other side of this agreement is not one we should be giving any credence to whatsoever.

The government in Honduras is oppressive, and it was originally formed through a military coup. It is a government that has institutions that are not working. It is the murder capital of Central America, perhaps of the world, and most murders are not investigated even by the police, yet the Conservative government has decided that it is a model deal for us to sign. I just cannot stomach how low we have sunk in search of free trade deals.

We know there is a trade deal coming with Europe, but for some reason it is very badly stalled. It was announced in the throne speech of 2011 along with a trade deal with India, but we have not seen either of them yet. We have seen an apparent signing of an agreement in principle, but we do not even know what those principles are because there have been no details.

Here we are debating, as we did with Panama, a deal with a very poor nation that has a terrible governmental and human rights record, and we are debating it under time allocation, of all things. This is now the most important thing on the Conservative government's agenda, and it has to be done now. However, the agreement in principle was reached in August 2011, which is almost three years ago. The actual deal was signed in November 2013, more than six months ago, but now we have five hours to debate it. That is ridiculous, and 68 time allocation motions are not some kind of scheduling convenience, as the Conservatives would have us believe. They are running roughshod over democracy, and we should not be proud of that record.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals are suggesting that the NDP is opposed to trade, which could not be further from the truth. In fact, we relish the thought that we are going to be able to get at more trade with more partners in this world. However, we need to do it in a way that improves the status of those other countries, and not as a reward for countries that have terrible records and terrible governments, which is in fact what is happening here.

We ask questions when it comes to a trade deal.

Is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, the environment, labour standards, and Canadian values? If some of those things are not all the way to what a Canadian standard would be, are they working to fix it? If the answer to that question is yes, then that is a partner we can see doing business with on the basis of a free trade agreement.

Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Apparently it may be of strategic value to some mining industries, but it is a very small player in terms of Canada's overall trade, and we do in fact have a trade deficit with this country.

Are the terms satisfactory? Well, the proposed free trade agreement with Honduras fails this test.

Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, low standards, insignificant strategic value, and a record of human rights abuses. When I look at the list of what Honduras is, I cannot help but think that some elements of the Conservative government are heading in those directions.

The fact is that we have had 68 time allocation motions to end debate, which are called “guillotine” motions in other countries because that is what they do. They guillotine debate and democracy. It is an indication that the Conservative government has slipped, we believe, in terms of its democratic practices, like Honduras.

The bill the Conservatives brought forward to change the electoral act disenfranchised some Canadians. That is moving backwards as far as democracy is concerned. The allegations of voter suppression are another example of undemocratic practices.

Regarding corruption in government, we have senators being given money by the Prime Minister's chief of staff in order to keep them quiet, or billing practices whereby senators bill the public for travel when it is a partisan event they are going to or bill for homes they are not living in.

All of these things are corrupt practices of a government. Maybe the Conservatives think they want to be like Honduras, and that is why they want to sign an agreement with it.

We have a Prime Minister who surrounds himself with characters who are of questionable repute. We have a government that is giving more and more power to single individuals within that government, taking that power away from institutions or Parliament and putting it in the hands of a minister. For example, there is Bill C-24, which would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to individually strip a person born in Canada of his or her Canadian citizenship. We do not normally find that concentration of power except in governments that are not democratic, and that is part of what we are seeing here.

We have weakened institutions in Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer had his powers reduced in the recent bill on electoral reform. We have a fight with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We did not have the government kicking four people off the Supreme Court, but there was a pretty public spat with the Supreme Court that had a chilling effect between the government and the Supreme Court.

We have lower standards in Honduras, lower standards in Canada, but what has the government's record been over the past few years? We have lowered our environmental standards. We have weakened our labour laws. We have taken ourselves in the opposite direction of improving environment and labour laws. We have stripped environmental protection from hundreds of thousands of rivers and lakes in this country. This is moving in the direction of a less environmentally conscious state, and perhaps Conservatives are looking at Honduras and seeing themselves in the mirror.

Other speakers have talked at length about the human rights abuses that have been legion in Honduras. Some of the human rights abuses have been perpetrated by the government and some perpetrated by others, but none of those human rights abuses have met with any kind of punishment, because impunity is the rule in Honduras. People can get away with anything because there are weak police forces and so little in the way of judicial oversight that very little is done.

What do we have here in Canada in terms of human rights abuses? It is a pretty good country, except we have a thousand or more murdered or missing aboriginal women and we have a government that is refusing over and over again to actually conduct even an investigation into those murdered and missing aboriginal women. In any other country, that would be seen as a human rights abuse. We have appalling living conditions and appalling educational conditions for indigenous people in this country. That in itself is a human rights abuse, and the government appears to want to do nothing to improve the situation. We have refugees who come to this country expecting to be treated with dignity and respect, and in some cases they are denied some or all of their medical care. They are expected to report back to their home country even if their home country is an unsafe place for them.

This is the direction this country has moved under the Conservative government, and it is looking strangely as though maybe Honduras is a comfortable partner for the government. I hope not.

In Honduras we also have the spectre of the killing of journalists. Now, I will not accuse the Canadian government of killing any journalists; that has not happened, but the government has attacked the CBC and it has attacked the CBC's journalists in the sense that it has now imposed itself in the collective bargaining arrangements with those journalists. The journalists are now having to deal directly with the government.

We on this side of the House support fairer trade. We support trade with equals in terms of environmental law, in terms of labour law, in terms of how people are treated in those countries. We support trade when standards in that other country will be raised and when we can see that happening. We do not support the free trade agreement the government has negotiated with Honduras for the reasons I have cited, and we will be opposing this deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member, because as the critic for international human rights for the official opposition, this particular agreement is very concerning to me.

Earlier today, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, from the Liberal Party, was talking about this trade agreement and the importance of it. He made reference to the fact that if there were some kind of accounting mechanism, a report done annually on how this agreement improved human rights, he might find that acceptable. We have an agreement with Colombia right now. We have such a reporting mechanism, and it is a complete fallacy that it is an appropriate method, because what is coming out of there does not even begin to address it. We are into our third report now on that particular deal.

I would ask what the member's response would be, when it seems that the Liberal Party is very quickly moving into alignment with the Conservative Party on these particular trade agreements.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton for the very astute observation that we have an alignment here of the Liberal and Conservative members of Parliament, who seem to think that this is one of the greatest deals since sliced bread and that maybe the way to deal with human rights abuses in the future is to just report on them. We already have examples of reporting, and it is actually not improving things. Things are not getting better.

The whole point of entering into relations with countries that are oppressive and are violating human rights is to try to change that situation. It should be to try to make that country understand that it cannot continue that way. Signing sweetheart deals with a country to give it the power to trade freely with Canada is no way to encourage that country to change its ways. In fact, it seems to be rewarding bad behaviour. When I was growing up, they did not reward bad behaviour, and maybe that is something the Conservatives need to learn.

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

Mr. Speaker, Honduras is renowned for human rights violations and for its crime rate. In 2013, Honduras had the highest rate of crime in the world.

The Conservatives attack us and claim that we are against free trade. I would like the member to correct the notion that we are against free trade, which is far from true. Free trade is not an issue. We are not against trade; democracy is what is at stake.

Are we going to sell our products to, and trade freely with, a country that does not respect democracy? I would like to hear the member’s thoughts.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my point. We are not opposed to free trade. In fact, I am actually looking forward to the details of the Canada–Europe trade agreement, because I note that a number of countries in the European Union actually have better environmental laws than Canada does, and some of them have better labour laws than Canada does. Perhaps that deal would cause us to have to raise our standards, and we would actually do better, as a result, in our environment and labour laws.

The PIPEDA law that was put in place in Canada in 2000 was a step forward and was brought in because we wanted to do business with Europe. Europe would not do business with countries that did not have personal information and privacy legislation.

That is how these trade deals should work. They should not work to drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator; they should work to bring everyone up to better standards, to an improved quality of life, and to improved human rights in particular in this case.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate all my colleagues. For the past two weeks, they stood up in this House while the Conservatives and the Liberals voted for extended hours but did not show up at work. We show up at work. We care about Canadians.

Now on 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.

In terms of labour and the environment, this government has simply abandoned Canadians across the country. I feel this bill is a flagrant act of deception.

The short title, the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, does not reflect any of that. Members will recall that Honduras is a very poor country with repressive, undemocratic policies. Its human rights record is shameful.

The previous government, led by democratically elected President Zelaya, was overthrown by the Honduran army under the pretext of a constitutional crisis. The coup was largely criticized throughout the world, particularly by neighbouring countries in Latin America, EU countries, the United States, and even the UN General Assembly.

Meanwhile, Canada made a notorious decision not to impose sanctions on the current regime or condemn the abuse inflicted on its opponents. Once again, human rights were ignored. Non-governmental organizations have reported serious human rights violations, including murder, the arbitrary detention of thousands of people and very tight restrictions on public protests and freedom of speech.

Speaking of freedom of speech, I just want to point out that there have been 68 time allocation motions in the House in three years. Freedom of speech also means that every party has the right to talk about bills in the House without being chastised every time. Three of those motions were moved in the past two weeks.

The situation in Honduras is extremely troubling, yet we are getting ready to do trade with a country where delegations of business people will have to visit in order to ensure the success of the agreement and future trade.

A number of elements support the NDP's position against this agreement. Among others, Honduras is characterized by its anti-democratic practices. It has a corrupt government, inadequate institutions and a record of human rights violations. This is unacceptable to Canadians across the country. Honduras also has low humanitarian standards and has negligible strategic value for Canadians.

The agreement was negotiated without any transparency, despite repeated requests from stakeholders in several Canadian economic sectors. During the negotiations, the Government of Canada was never willing to release the text of the agreement, as is also the case with the European Union treaty.

Furthermore, the bogus environmental assessment for this free trade agreement released in October 2013 ignored the impact of Canadian investments in Honduras, because this information was deemed confidential. Again, this is a lack of transparency. This means that side agreements on the environment and on labour are inadequate, because they do not include concrete mechanisms to ensure their implementation and assess their impact.

The extractive sector is certainly a major business interest for Canada, and for the NDP, as evidenced by the introduction, earlier this evening, of Bill C-584 on the social responsibility of mining companies, by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

A number of these companies, such as Goldcorp, were involved in controversial local conflicts with citizens and indigenous groups. They are the target of allegations of environmental contamination. This is why my colleague introduced her private member's bill and why the NDP is worried.

There is a lack of transparency in this type of free trade agreements. Canada is a major producer and extractor of natural resources. Therefore, when our economic ambassadors have holdings or businesses abroad, they must absolutely respect the environment, human rights and labour rights.

Speaking of labour rights, Gildan Activewear, a large garment manufacturer based in Montreal, owns factories in Honduras and is named as one of the beneficiaries of the agreement. However, Gildan Activewear had businesses in India where nine-year-old children were on the production lines. They were paid $5 per day, and sometimes per week. That is unacceptable.

Let us also keep in mind that Honduras is becoming a major clothing and textile manufacturer with a cheap labour force. This is why we must be vigilant with agreements such as the one negotiated with Honduras.

Clearly, the NDP recognizes the importance of international trade to our economy and is in favour of opening up new markets and providing a suitable environment for our Canadian exporters.

In my riding, there are several companies that say they are ready to move into foreign markets. They just need a little help from the Canadian government via embassies in various countries. They say that this could open doors for them, but the embassies, even though they are right there on the ground, do not work for them. That is unacceptable.

The NDP would like to increase trade with countries that respect Canadian and UN values. Our party wants to sign trade agreements that will benefit Canada's economy.

Earlier, my colleague talked about a trade deficit. In university, I had a macroeconomics professor who, after NAFTA, told me that the potentially acceptable trade deficit would be substantially exceeded, and that the cost would likely be irreversible.

Over the past seven or eight years, things have gone from bad to worse under the Conservatives. This is jeopardizing thousands of jobs in Canada, especially in my riding where the decline of the manufacturing sector is really hurting people.

Let us not forget that Canada has always been a leader in human rights and labour rights. It must continue to lead. Unfortunately, we have not really been able to promote these values since the Conservative government came to power. What a shame.

Part 2 of this bill amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with our obligations under the agreement. It changes things like crown liability, proceedings, the importation of intoxicating liquors, and commercial arbitration. Canada has not even been able to enforce compliance on the softwood lumber agreement with the United States or with trade agreements with other countries.

I would like to talk about the very important criteria for assessing trade agreements.

For example, does the proposed trading partner respect democracy, human rights, and acceptable labour and environmental protection standards, which are values that Canadians hold dear? Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada?

Unfortunately, the free trade agreement proposed does not necessarily meet those criteria. We really want agreements with countries that will make our economy prosper and through which we will be able to make sure that fundamental human rights, labour rights and environmental rights are respected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the last speaker for the passion he always puts into his debates in the House.

I would like to ask him how he feels about the fact that we are here. It is 7:40 p.m. We believe very sincerely in having a debate and discussion that may be an opportunity to put fresh ideas before Canadians.

How does he feel about the fact that there are no other speakers but NDP members at this point?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his question.

This is an example of the bogus democracy propagated by this government. When you want to make a democracy come alive, you participate in it. Not only is this government not participating in it tonight, nor on previous nights, but it is also preventing us from letting our constituents speak when it abruptly shuts down these debates. That is what the time allocation motions are doing. They deprive our constituents of their voices: they can no longer speak before you, Mr. Speaker. They can no longer have an honest and democratic dialogue from which our country can benefit and become democratic once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I got up slowly because I wanted to give people on the other side of the House or in the Liberal Party a chance to get up and ask questions, since they are not speaking on the bill. I am not even sure if they are paying attention to what we have to say, since they do not have any questions.

We are obviously challenging something that is a very high priority for them, since they imposed time allocation on this report stage debate on free trade with Honduras.

I would like to ask the hon. member what he thinks the government's priority is. Why does it put such high priority on these free trade agreements? What is its agenda here? Is it anything like what it is doing with temporary foreign workers, where what it is really doing is undermining standards in our own country?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would once again like to thank my colleague for his question.

All we see is crass improvisation, day after day. My colleague just touched on an extremely important issue, that of temporary foreign workers. When something is wrong, all we need to do is find out what is happening on the ground. However, it would seem that the Conservatives prefer to pat themselves on the back about having brought in a new FTA. There are still many issues right here that need work, like EI, old age pensions and temporary foreign workers. It is hard to pinpoint what the government's true priorities are. It should be squarely focused on economic development and maintaining our social fabric, given that for decades, we were pioneers in the area of protecting minorities and those in need in Canada. Now, all of that has been pushed aside to focus on Alberta oil. That is all we do here. As we have always said, we are not opposed to resource development and trade, but they need to benefit all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, Honduras tolerates corporations that resort to violence and harm the environment, that trample the rights of indigenous peoples and have nothing but contempt for local populations. It gives free rein to death squads and paramilitary groups that intimidate citizens and crack down violently on even the most peaceful demonstrators.

I have a question for the member, whom I would like to congratulate on a most excellent speech. Does he not believe—as I vehemently do—that Canadians would want us to negotiate free trade agreements and trade with countries that respect human rights and democracy?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

The answer is simply yes. We even want to help all countries on the planet prosper, but first we must ensure that they respect democracy and the environment, which today is a global issue. We must ensure that we protect people, human rights, equality and job opportunities for men and women, and we must also ensure that children go to school. Education is important. It is extremely important.

There are prosperous countries out there and trade with them could benefit both parties. However, we are spending all this time on one country, Honduras. Of course, we must help that country get out of that situation in one way or another, but we should not be the only ones responsible. We have to help our economy, and to do that we have to ensure that free trade agreements respect, I will say it again, human rights and democracy, but above all the economic development of all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, here I am, not quite at prime time in British Columbia but getting late here in Ontario, to oppose Bill C-20 at report stage. I spoke on this bill at second reading and clearly stated my fears about the bill, and many other New Democrats did so. However, here is the bill back at report stage with no changes. It is clear that the government has not been listening when it comes to our arguments about the ill-advised nature of signing a free trade agreement with Honduras.

In fact, I guess I have to say again that I often wonder if the government members have heard anything we have had to say on the topic of free trade. This goes so far as Conservative members continuing to stand in the House to say regularly that New Democrats have never supported a single free trade agreement. In fact, of course, that is not true. We supported the free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan. New Democrats have always said we need to evaluate each proposed trade agreement on the basis of objective criteria and not just endorse any and all trade agreements, no matter who the partner or what the cost to Canada's economy, on the basis of some uncritical belief in the god of free trade.

We believe there are three fundamentally important criteria we should use in assessing trade agreements: is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values; second, is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada; and third, are the terms of this proposed agreement satisfactory? Just as the agreement with Jordan clearly met these tests and, therefore, New Democrats supported it in the House, I believe the one with Honduras just as clearly fails all three of these tests.

Once again, today I want to focus on the first test: is Honduras a country that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? Why have we chosen to negotiate a trade deal with Honduras, a country with a history of repressive, undemocratic politics and a seriously flawed human rights record? The democratically elected government of left-leaning president Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup in 2009. The coup was carried out by the Honduran army under the pretext of a constitutional crisis that had developed between the Supreme Court and the President over his progressive social policies.

The coup 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 at that point should have considered sanctions against this de facto regime and condemnation of its systematic abuses of human rights in its aftermath. Instead, what have we done? We have continued to pursue closer economic relations with Honduras without any conditions.

In January 2010, President Sosa assumed the presidency through what almost all deemed undemocratic and illegitimate elections. Since then, there has been one more set of elections, this one also carried out in a climate of fear and intimidation. Just as the first election was clearly illegitimate, the second election has been marked by violence and serious allegations of voter fraud.

What is the message Canada is sending here? Conservatives have chosen to press forward with a trade agreement with an undemocratic regime like that in Honduras while breaking off trade talks with neighbouring El Salvador after it elected a progressive government. This is surely the wrong signal and not a message that most Canadians would support.

Does this mean Honduras could never be a good prospect for a trade agreement? Obviously not, but we on this side would want to see some evidence of an intention to return to democracy in Honduras and some evidence of a commitment to address Honduras' appalling human rights record.

Let me return again to that human rights record of Honduras, which I spoke about earlier at second reading.

There is, of course, a clear link between the lack of democracy and the lack of protection of basic rights in Honduras. International human rights organizations have documented serious human rights abuses, including killings; arbitrary detentions of thousands of people; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests, and freedom of expression; and interference with the independence of the judiciary. These are all well-established facts.

The leading Honduran human rights group, known as COFADEH, documented that at least 16 activists and candidates for the main opposition party were assassinated since June of 2012, and 15 more survived attacks on their person. There are extensively documented cases of police corruption, with 149 extrajudicial killings of civilians by police recorded between January 2011 and November 2012 alone.

Many Conservatives, including the Minister of International Trade, have suggested that Honduras is coming out of a difficult period and that there are improvements being made. The facts, however, paint a much different picture. Let us look again at what international human rights organizations have most recently said about the situation in Honduras.

I raised these assessments of Honduras human rights record at the second reading debate, and I heard nothing from the government side to refute this evidence.

Let me quote again from Amnesty International's written statement to the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council, March 2014, which was called “Honduras: Deteriorating human rights situation needs urgent measures”. That is a “deteriorating” human rights situation, not improving. Let me quote briefly from that report:

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...communities, and LGBTI people. These violations take place in a context where impunity for human rights violations and abuses is endemic....

I want to draw attention, again, to two groups that continue to be subject to extreme levels of violence in Honduras: journalists and transgender Hondurans. According, again, to Honduras' own national human rights commission, 36 journalists were killed between 2003 and mid-2013, making Honduras one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. Journalists in Honduras continue to suffer threats, attacks, and killings, including the kidnapping and murder of a prominent TV news anchor in June 2013 and the murder of a prominent radio personality in April 2014. Authorities have consistently failed to investigate any of these crimes against journalists.

Attacks on journalists and opposition candidates are, of course, an attack on democracy and a serious concern when they take place in a country with which Canada is contemplating signing an international trade agreement.

I want to draw attention to another group that has been subject to even higher levels of violence in Honduras, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community, but in particular the transgender 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 many statements in defence of gay rights in other forums?

Lest we be fooled 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 transgender Hondurans.

Transrespect, the group that attempts to document violence against the transgender community for the annual transgender day of remembrance, documented eight trans murders in Honduras in 2012 and 12 transgender murders in 2013. The number is going up, not going down. This brings the total, between 2008 and 2013, to 60 transgender murders in only six years in Honduras.

This gives Honduras the horrible distinction of being the country with the highest per capita transgender murder rate in the world, more than double the second-highest rate.

In the month of May this year alone, there were four serious incidents, including three assassinations of public figures in Honduras. These should give us pause in our enthusiasm for a trade deal with Honduras.

On May 4, Orlando Orellana, 75, chair of a local community board outside the city of San Pedro Sula, a community that is involved in a land dispute with a development company, was assassinated. Mr. Orellana had assumed his position as chair of the board after the assassination of the previous chair in 2012. No arrests have been made in either of these deaths.

Casa Alianza Honduras, an organization that works with street children, issued a report in early May documenting the killing of 270 street children and young people in Honduras in the first three months of this year. On May 8, two days after this report was made public, José Guadalupe Ruelas, the director of Casa Alianza Honduras, was severely beaten by the military police in front of the presidential palace and denied medical attention. He did, however, survive.

On May 16, the mayor of one of the cities in the northeast of Honduras was assassinated. He had been a strong advocate of free medical care for the poor in Honduras.

Three days later, on May 19, a government forester was shot and killed in La Ceiba. This time the victim was José Alexander González Cerros, who worked in the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve and who had recently reported illegal logging in the area.

Again, can the government seriously assert that things are getting better in Honduras?

Let me conclude by saying that Canadians expect our federal government to set a good example on the world stage, and that includes considering democracy and human rights as necessary parts of the criteria used in evaluating trade agreements. Clearly, Honduras fails to meet the standards that Canadians expect of our partners.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, for his approach, which takes into account human rights and the human condition, and for promoting social democratic values.

I would like him to talk about how Canada could set an example and serve as a mentor to countries where governance is highly compromised and where human rights are also violated.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about in this debate tonight and why it is so disappointing about the failure of the other parties to take part is exactly that question. How do we promote a better human rights world? One of the ways we do that is by making the standards of human rights a condition for those we wish to deal with in trade.

I think the hon. member knows that before I came to the House, I did a lot of international human rights work. I worked in Afghanistan with Amnesty International and in East Timor as a human rights observer at the elections. We see many Canadians who volunteer to go abroad with human rights organizations as election observers. I met one of my colleagues in the House, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, as an election observer in the Philippines in 2010. Many ordinary Canadians volunteered to go to Ukraine to observe the elections just recently.

It is very clear that Canadians hold these kinds of human rights and democracy values very close to their hearts, to the point where they are prepared to go and volunteer themselves to help promote democracy abroad. We should expect no less from our government.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the United States implemented their free trade agreement with Honduras. Since then, the situation has worsened, and murders have soared. Violence and political repression have worsened since the Honduran coup in 2009.

Two years after that coup and the implementation of the free trade agreement, almost 100% of the free trade benefits have gone to 10% of the population's wealthiest individuals. The question I want to ask the member, whose speech was particularly interesting, is this: does he not think that this is the best evidence that combining free trade with oppression does not lead to the desired outcome for the countries?

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

Mr. Speaker, in the earlier stage of this debate, we often heard members on the other side say that we needed to help Honduras. However, if we do not have standards for the environment and for human rights imbedded in our trade agreements, then we have to ask ourselves who are we actually helping by establishing this relationship. If we end up helping only the very wealthy elite who have used the military in Honduras to preserve their positions in power, then what does that really say about Canadians?

The member raised the important question of the United States in Honduras. Less than two weeks ago, 108 members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed a joint letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry asking that the U.S. suspend its aid to the Honduran military police due to the severity of human rights abuses in Honduras. Even the United States, which has already signed an agreement, has had 108 members of its House of Representatives express their severe reservations about strengthening that relationship because of the terrible record on human rights in Honduras.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I first met while we were both on an election observer mission in the Philippines. The fact is that many around the world have condemned the Honduran elections, its human rights record overall, and the true validity of its democracy. Could my colleague speak a little more about the validity of that election and whether Honduras is a good trading partner for Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Scarborough—Rouge River shared the same experience I did in the Philippines, observing an election conducted in a climate of fear and intimidation in many places. I was on the island of Mindanao in the Muslim region. At the polling place where I was observing the vote, two people were killed.

The amazing thing to me is that it is not just a Canadian value, but Filipinos lined up to vote. Less than two hours after people had been murdered at the polling place, people came back to exercise their right to vote. They were so brave in asserting the importance of democracy that even in that climate of fear and intimidation, they wanted to vote.

We know that in the last election in Honduras, which took place at the end of November, five members of the opposition party's election workers were killed during the last weekend of the election. Can we really accept the validity of a government that only narrowly defeated the opposition when many of members of the opposition were killed during the election campaign?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good opportunity for me to speak in the House because there were many bills to which I wanted to speak but was unable to. My constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River have not been able to have their representative speak on their behalf in this chamber because the government continues to move closure or time allocation and restricts debate in the House.

That is happening today as well. We are debating the implementation of a free trade agreement that was negotiated in August 2011. It was signed in November 2013, and now we are into June of 2014. Only now is the government in a hurry to have the implementation of this free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras rushed through Parliament.

With respect to Bill C-20, the implementation of this free trade agreement, I will be opposing the bill along with most, if not all, of the New Democratic members. Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, and low standards, It is of insignificant strategic value and has a horrendous record of human rights abuses that have been documented many times over.

The New Democrats recognize the importance of trade to our economy, and we favour expanding trade opportunities that actually support Canada's exporters, the growth of Canada's economy and our continued economic viability. We do not want to continue to sign trade agreements that increase our trade deficit; rather, we would like to see a more balanced trade position for Canada with nations that respect Canadian values.

Honduras is not a country that actually respects or has anything similar to our Canadian values. These trade agreements need to be beneficial for the Canadian economy as well. We do not want go down the path of what the Conservative government has done, which is to continue our trade deficit with these agreements.

I will give a quick overview of the country with which the Prime Minister is in such a hurry to implement a free trade agreement.

Honduras is a very poor country with a seriously flawed human rights record and a history of repressive, undemocratic politics. The democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya was toppled by a military coup in 2009. The subsequent elections, of which my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca spoke, have been heavily criticized by international observers as failing to meet acceptable democratic standards.

I want to read a quote from Mr. Neil Reeder, the director general for the Latin America and Caribbean Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He said:

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, with 65% of its people living in poverty. It suffers from extremely unequal income distribution. The country also suffers from social inequality, high unemployment, poor health and education. More than 60% of all Hondurans are highly vulnerable to food insecurity. I'd also point out that the GDP per capita in Honduras is $2,000. The total GDP for the country is $17 billion, in a population of eight million.

In addition, we'd like to talk a bit about the institutions in Honduras, which are in some cases weak. Impunity is pervasive and corruption is a challenge.

Corruption within the Honduran police force is a particular problem, which the Government of Honduras also recognizes. Largely because Central America is situated between the drug-producing countries of South America and the drug-consuming countries to the north, Honduras and its neighbours have been particularly affected by the growth of transnational drug trafficking, human trafficking, and the impact of organized crime. It's estimated that nearly 80% of all cocaine-smuggling flights departing South America touch land in Honduras before continuing northward.

Clearly, from what the director general of the Latin America and Caribbean Bureau of our Department of Foreign Affairs has said, Honduras is not a country that espouses Canadian values. It is not a country that protects its citizens and values.

I know that my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River do not support drug trafficking or human trafficking. They want to see our country grow and make relationships with other countries that are moving toward improving the global standard and are not supporting decreasing the value of people's lives, as human traffickers do.

In January 2010, Porfirio Lobo Sosa assumed the presidency of Honduras through what many deemed a very undemocratic and illegitimate election in that country. Of course, as we learned from my colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, many opposition members were killed during that election. Also, the former president was under house arrest in Brazil, in the Brazilian embassy, during the election. It was not a genuine democratic election that took place in the country, and most foreign governments and election monitoring agencies refused to send observers. Many countries even rejected the results of that election.

Today I have a group of students visiting from Banting and Best Public School from my constituency.These are young minds of Canada who want to see our country's democracy in action, yet we are discussing the implementation of a trade agreement with a country that is not democratic, to the point that their elections are not even recognized by many foreign countries or election observers from around the world.

Human Rights Watch and many other NGOs have documented serious human rights abuses in Honduras. We have seen killings; arbitrary detention of thousands of people; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests, and freedom of expression; and interference in the independence of the judiciary. These are well-established facts.

Recently Human Rights Watch has also documented the ongoing land grabs that are happening in Honduras, about which the government is doing nothing. The government is very well aware of the situation, but it is doing nothing.

New Democrats want to support a free trade agreement that will promote growth in this country and in the country with which we have the free trade agreement. We want a strategic trade policy through which we would start multilateral negotiations and sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards.

We also want trade deals with developing countries, but with those that are on a progressive trajectory. Examples are Japan, India, Brazil, and South Africa. These countries are showing improvement and movement in a positive way. These are countries that we should be signing trade agreements with, not countries like Honduras, where drug trafficking operates with impunity, human rights are regularly abused, democracy is continuously under threat, and low standards continue to hurt Canadian businesses operating there.

An FTA should be beneficial for both countries, as I said. When dealing with a developing country, we need to make sure that we have a beneficial relationship for both countries involved.

Some might argue that we are actually helping the poor people in Honduras. However, I would like to read a quote from Mr. Ricardo Grinspun, an associate professor in the Department of Economics at York University, who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade. I will end with this one last quote.

He said:

...the idea that Canadians can help the most needy people in Honduras through this FTA is a public relations message, nothing more. Moreover, an FTA would provide international legitimacy to a political regime and economic model that is oligarchic, oppressive, and unjust. There are other more effective ways in which Canada could contribute to poverty alleviation, human security, and environmental sustainability in that part of the world....

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill and I look forward to answering some questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague speaking about the Canada-Honduras trade agreement. She spoke at length of the drug trade and the pernicious effects of the drug trade on Honduran society. She also spoke of human rights abuses in Hondurans. One of the greatest drivers of human rights abuse in Honduras is the illicit drug trade.

First, I would like her to explain to us how limiting legitimate economic trade and opportunity for the people of Honduras helps them. The reality is that the isolation of the Honduran people from legitimate, rules-based trade would only drive more of them into the drug trade, which is the greatest perpetrator of human rights abuses in Honduras.

Second, we already have a trade relationship with Honduras. How would the addition of rules around that trade agreement make the situation worse?

Third, the NDP supports the free trade agreement with Jordan—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I appreciate the hon. member wanting to get a third aspect in there. We are squeezing into the time allowed for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberal Party members finally want to start participating in the debate, so I am happy to have the attempted three questions from my hon. colleague.

He said that he was listening intently to my speech, but I guess he missed that last quote from a professor from the Department of Economics at York University, who said that people may make the argument that this free trade agreement and its quick implementation would actually help the poor people in Honduras, but really it is just a PR tactic that would not really help the people of Honduras.

Let me give members another quote. This one is from Pablo Heidrich, an economist at the North-South Institute. He said the Honduran government:

...needs a certain level of pressure so that the government becomes more responsive to wider social demands and it stops being sort of a committee that administers the gains of a very limited group of people.

As the member mentioned, these people are the drug lords and the oligarchs in the country.

Honduras is not a large trading partner for this country. We need—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

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

Mr. Speaker, at times, I am almost startled by the questions that come from the Liberal Party. This is one of those times.

Very clearly, it is significantly important that in any agreement Canada has with a nearly failed nation such as Honduras or Colombia, when we put the package together, we have to find a way to lever human rights and labour standards. We do that by including them in the trade agreement.

That has not happened under the Conservative government. My colleague mentioned the professor talking about window dressing, and there is so much window dressing.

I am actually startled, because there was a time when the Liberals used to stand up for human rights. Now they are standing up for dollars, and that is very disappointing.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the comments made by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Canada, internationally, was known as a country that stood up for human rights and fought for the rights and equality of people around the world. The current government's track record is the total opposite. When I go to any country, internationally, they are surprised that Canada is there. They say, “Wow. Canada cares?” That is because Canada's reputation on the global scene now is that we do not really care about human rights and we are not going to defend them.

We need to change that, and New Democrats will work to ensure that.

I want to add one thing to my colleague's earlier question. Honduras is actually Canada's 104th export market, so it is not a very important market for Canada. In 2012, merchandise exports totalled $38 million, whereas imports were at $218 million. That is a significant trade deficit with that country, which is our 104th trading partner. It really is not a country that is adding a lot of value to our economy, and we are not really helping, as they would say, the poor people in Honduras with this trade agreement.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in the House on behalf of my constituents of Surrey North to speak to this legislation tonight.

Before I get to the contents of this legislation, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate some individuals. There are four high schools in my riding: Kwantlen Park Secondary School; Guildford Park Secondary School; Queen Elizabeth Secondary School, my former school from which I graduated 28 years ago; and L.A. Matheson Secondary School. I had the opportunity to attend high school graduations at these four schools. Young people across this country are in the process of graduating from high school. I want to congratulate not only the students but their parents. It is reassuring to know that we have such bright young people going to universities. Canada has a bright future ahead with these young people. Again, congratulations to all the parents and students.

I had the opportunity to sit on the international trade committee, where I learned this file fairly extensively. I will be talking about some of the things I learned while on this committee and in particular about the things I learned with respect to this agreement between Canada and Honduras.

We need criteria as to who we will have free trade agreements with. There has to be some sort of yardstick when we enter into trade agreements with countries around the world. Before we sign an agreement, we should look at the country's labour standards and environmental standards and whether it has Canadian values or is on the path toward some of the values we cherish in this country. Democracy is another basic foundation we should look at before we enter into any sort of trade agreement with a foreign country.

Second, we should look at whether the economy of that particular country is of strategic value to Canada. Would it make sense for us to engage with that country?

Third, we should look at the deal itself. Is it satisfactory? Would it improve our lot and at the same time, hopefully, improve the lot of the country we are engaging with?

I want to point out that this particular agreement does not meet these criteria.

A number of speakers have talked about the horrendous democratic and human rights record in Honduras as well as the drug trafficking that goes on there, the military coups that are taking place, and the unfair, undemocratic elections. These certainly do not pass the test for negotiating an agreement with a democratic country or a country with Canadian values. Honduras certainly does not fit into that particular category.

With regard to the strategic value of Honduras, as the previous member pointed out, Honduras ranks 104th on the list of countries we have trade with. We do an insignificant amount of trade with that country.

The fourth criterion is whether this agreement would be satisfactory for us. That is clearly not the case.

Canadians had the opportunity to engage in a wider trade agreement on a regional level. When we could not find the regional areas to dance with, we looked at picking a weak link in Central America to try to negotiate a one-on-one deal with Honduras. We should be looking at a multi-country, multilateral trade deal that would help not only Canadian interests but also regions in Central America.

Let me talk about the Conservative record. My friends across the aisle do not like the facts. I know that they are used to Kijiji facts or making up facts, but I am going to share some facts with the members that will surprise the Speaker as well as Canadians.

The trade record of the government is horrendous. When we look at the facts, the bare numbers, they are quite surprising. When the Conservatives formed the government back in 2006, we had a trade surplus of $18 billion. Let me put that into layman's terms. I know that my constituents would appreciate that. That trade surplus of $18 billion meant that we were selling more products to other countries than we were buying. That was a good number, and that was when the Conservatives took over the government.

Eight years later, Canada's current account deficit stands at $62 billion. That is a turnaround of $80 billion over eight years. That is like $10 billion less we export every year than we import. It is evident that the government's policy of signing so many free trade agreements is not bearing fruit for Canadians. We are exporting less than we are importing.

A deficit of $62 billion is a lot of money and a lot of jobs being exported out of our country. That is the current government's record. It talks about having signed eight trade agreements to improve our economy. I looked at some of those deals. One of them was with Liechtenstein. I had to look at the map to see where Liechtenstein was. It is a small country in Europe with very few people. These are the kinds of facts the Conservatives like to present to Canadians. They say that they are negotiating these trade deals and improving the lot of Canadians. That is clearly not the case.

We have been advocating a fair free trade agreement with Europe. The Prime Minister took the plane and flew over to Europe to say that he signed the deal, but we have not seen the text. Eight months later, we have not seen the text of the agreement. The third party, the Liberal leader and his caucus, endorsed the deal without even seeing the text. This is how the Conservatives and the Liberals work. How can we approve a deal or say we like a deal when we have not even seen the text? This is the Conservative record.

I also want to talk about a couple of other things. The merchandise trade agreement has ballooned under the government. That means that the amount of value-added goods we are manufacturing and exporting is going down. We are importing more merchandise, more value-added goods. Basically, we are exporting jobs out of Canada to other countries. Any trade agreement that needs to be negotiated has to take into consideration how we help our exporters and how we bring well-paying jobs to Canada, which is not what the Conservatives are doing. Their record has been that they have clearly mismanaged international trade. We have gone from a surplus of $18 billion to a current deficit of $62 billion. That is not acceptable to me or to my constituents. We need to do better. We need to create more local jobs, and the government needs to start working on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to observe certain members of the New Democratic caucus. Sometimes they are challenged in their ability to think through what I think is an important issue to all Canadians, which is the importance of international trade. We are in fact a trading nation. There are great benefits. There are concerns we have about this particular bill, and there are many concern people have, generally speaking.

Having said that, there is one thing I thought was interesting. He made reference to the Liberal Party supporting the legislation. I think it is important that we recognize that there is one political party, the New Democrats, that has never, ever stood in their places and voted in favour of a trade agreement.

[Hoang Mai]

Never ever?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Never. It is true. The hon. member cannot name one. I look to the member, because one of his colleagues—

[Dan Harris]

Jordan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, the NDP did not vote in favour of Jordan.

The point is that the New Democrats have never, ever stood in their places and voted in favour of a trade agreement. If we listened to a lot of the logic of the New Democrats, we would be reducing our trade with countries like China based on some of the previous member's arguments.

The question I have for the member is actually fairly simple and straightforward. Can the member indicate any occasion when they have actually stood inside the House of Commons chamber and voted in favour of an agreement? He should not fall into the trap his colleague is suggesting, because he did not vote in favour of Jordan.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the member. Clearly we supported the free deal with Jordan. Not only that, our party leader suggested back in the 1980s that we start negotiating with like-minded countries, such as the European Union.

It is clear to New Democrats that we need to form trade ties with countries that have similar values, that respect labour laws, and that respect environmental laws. We are saying that we need to negotiate with countries like Brazil, India, and Japan. Those are the countries with which we should be negotiating, countries that have strategic value for Canadian goods, not countries like Honduras, where we have seen human rights violations, drug trafficking, and undemocratic governments.

Clearly, the Liberal Party supported CETA without even seeing the deal. How can the Liberals support something when they have not even seen the text?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's speech. I recall that in 1988, when John Turner, the then leader of the Liberal Party, opposed the original free trade agreement, I agreed with him. Then in 1993—and, by the way, I am so old that I was a candidate in 1993—Mr. Chrétien, who was the leader at the time, posted five days before the election that he would not sign NAFTA, no matter what, because it was a violation of all the rights he believed in. Less than three months into his mandate, the Liberals signed it.

We are used to Liberals blowing hot and cold on trade, but the reality is that if we are to have trade, the idea is to raise all boats in Canada and in the nation we trade with. In the instance of any regime like the one in Honduras, we will not be able to do that unless we use the lever of that trade agreement to get into that agreement human rights and labour law and have them recognized with remedies. The Conservatives will not see the NDP support any deal that does not do that. The Liberals are free to do whatever they wish.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not around the House of Commons back in 1993, but I agree with the member that Liberals like to see which way the wind is blowing. Whichever way the wind is blowing, that is the way they go. They actually have no stand on a number of issues, not only the trade file.

The Liberal leader approved the CETA deal, the European Union deal. He said that they endorse it and think it is a good deal, but nobody has seen the text. We have been asking the government to bring the text forward so we can see it and evaluate it and offer it to Canadians. They can look at it to see if that deal is in the best interests of Canada.

We need to protect jobs locally, whether it is in Quebec, Ontario, on the east coast, or in my province, British Columbia. We need to see the text of it before we can approve a deal. Clearly this deal is not in the best interests of Canadians.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak to this bill. It is the first time I have risen to speak to a bill in a while because of the time allocation that keeps being brought forward by the government and has prevented me, as the member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest, from representing my constituents' views on things like the budget or Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. The Conservatives continually cut off debate.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-20, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. I have to say that I find it disturbing that the government is now presenting this bill. I believe that Canadians hold true a certain set of values based on decency, fairness, a respect for human rights, and, yes, the law as well. Many Canadians are very proud, as am I, of our country's record of peacekeeping in areas of international conflict. Many Canadians are proud of our tradition in history of being champions of human rights around the world. This bill is a definite departure from those values Canadians hold close and that we proudly identify as our own that make us all proud to be Canadians. This bill underscores the trend in Conservative foreign affairs that focuses less on our shared values of decency and fairness and respect for human rights and more on the narrow interests of a few industries.

It is disturbing, deeply troubling, and very sad. It is hard for me and for many Canadians to understand why the Conservatives would even want to negotiate a free trade agreement with a country like Honduras, which hat has one of the most horrendous records on human rights. I was particularly disturbed after reading the testimony and opinions of some of Canada's leading experts on foreign affairs in Central and Latin America. Stacey Gomez, coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation’s Americas Policy Group, had this to say about a free trade agreement with 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....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.

This is really the measure with which we have to negotiate and look at every trade agreement that we would sign with other countries in the world. The simple reality is that we are not going to get 100% of what we want in every trade agreement. It is not going to be 100% good and 0% bad no matter where we turn to do trade. We always have to find that right balance between the economic goods and the potential harms that might exist in a trade agreement. That is whether we are negotiating one with Europe, with China, or with Honduras. In this case, with Honduras, we truly do believe that this trade deal would actually enable the continued human rights abuses. It would enable the further degradation of life for many people in that country because it would embolden the regime that came about as the result of a military coup to continue doing the kinds of things that it has been doing.

That is why we also believe, as Stacey Gomez does, that the Canada-Honduras FTA would do more harm than good.

Before the provincial election was called in Ontario, I was out doing my regular “have your say” canvassing, where I go out to speak to constituents at their doorsteps to find out what issues matter to them. On that particular occasion, I was going out and speaking to constituents about the cuts that are proposed and coming to Canada Post, the ending of home mail delivery. I ran into a couple in an apartment building near Victoria Park and Queen Street who, out of the blue, thanked me for opposing this trade deal. I have to admit that I was taken aback because foreign affairs and trade is not a topic that comes up on the doorstep very often in Scarborough Southwest. I asked these constituents why they had problems with this particular trade deal. They worked for an agency that does work in Honduras, one of those agencies that is trying to shine a light into those dark places in the world. Only two weeks earlier a Honduran staff member of that organization had been killed and is now one of the numbers of people who have been eliminated by the regime. That loss was felt throughout the organization. Sitting at their doorstep, it was clear to me the impact it had on these two individuals. This is the kind of thing that all of us we try to leave work at work and not bring home at night, but it was clear that had impacted them and they were taking that loss back home with them at the end of the workday.

It is hard for me, and I think for many Canadians, to see how the country of Honduras comes close to meeting the criteria that would justify us signing a trade agreement, the one that determines there would actually be more good generated than harm.

Many Canadians are wondering perhaps what is really at play here. Testifying before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 22, 2013, Sheila Katz of Americas Policy Group, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, told members that “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”.

She also said that, “Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009” is another example of “Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured and killed”, just like the person who worked for that agency that two of my constituents work for.

Further, she said that, “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 horrendous human rights record”.

Honduras is a very poor country with a seriously flawed human rights record and a history of repressive undemocratic politics. The democratically elected government was toppled by a military coup in 2009 and subsequent governmental actions and elections have been heavily criticized by international observers as failing to meet acceptable democratic standards. NGOs have documented serious human rights abuses; killings; arbitrary detentions of thousands of people; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests, and freedom of expression; and interference in the independence of the judiciary. Of course, we perhaps have been encountering some of that here at home recently, but it really cannot be compared when there is an argument between the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice compared to the kinds of things and the interference that happens in Honduras, which is far worse. That said, none of it should be tolerated.

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and is considered the most dangerous country in the world for journalists, the ones who tell the stories about what is happening in the country. They are the people who tell the stories about what is happening in a parliament or the stories of what a government is doing that shines a light on the things that are happening back home.

Transparency International ranks it as the most corrupt country in Central America, yet our government is forging ahead, pushing to get this trade deal brought forward into law and having us sit until midnight. However, with all of these problems with the bill, where are the Conservatives to defend their actions, to get up and say this is why we should be signing the trade deal? Have we heard from any of them here tonight? They passed a motion to make us sit until midnight then they do not have the decency to get up and stand in their places, to actually take their speaking opportunities in order to defend the bills they are bringing forward.

Before we even include tonight, the Conservatives had missed 22 of the last speaking opportunities since the House started sitting late. That is at least 220 minutes of time they could have been using to defend their actions and to push their government's agenda ahead. Instead, they are asleep at the wheel. They actually got up and spoke last night. It was about time, but they only got up because the NDP was bringing attention to the fact that they were not showing up, that they were not doing their jobs. Well, New Democrats stand here every single night doing our job.

Honduras also has the worst income inequality in the region. After Canada struggled to get a multilateral deal with the Central American economies as a whole, Canada approached the weakest political actor, Honduras, and worked to negotiate a one-off deal as part of an ideological drive to get FTAs signed. In August 2011, the Prime Minister announced—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time allocated for the member's comments has expired and now we will move to questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's comments he said that one of the reasons we should not be trading with Honduras is because of corruption. I wonder if he feels the same way about other countries. We know that today the NDP was singled out as having potentially used about $3 million worth of taxpayers' money for partisan political purposes. That is, of course, a level of corruption that we have not seen in a long time.

Could he contrast the NDP's misuse of millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds for illegal partisan purposes with the type of corruption that he was talking about in Honduras? In the light of the fact that the NDP has had such corrupt practices with respect to taxpayers' dollars, does he feel that people should stop trading with us because of the poor example that the NDP has shown with taxpayer dollars?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we have it again. We are talking about the trade deal with Honduras and the member wants to talk about what is happening at home instead of standing to defend the government's actions for wanting to sign this trade deal in the first place.

We have heard a lot in the House about the member's family businesses, a pizza parlour and a hair salon. I found it very interesting that they are actually in my riding and that the member himself grew up in my riding.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

No, I didn't grow up in your riding.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he did not grow up in the riding, but he grew up nearby.

Let us look at reasons other countries might not want to trade with Canada. If we look back a decade, there was the sponsorship scandal and the corruption of the Liberal governments. That would have been a very good reason. Then there was the in-and-out scandal that helped the current government come to power in the first place. That is another reason. There is another member of the House who is currently facing election charges for the 2008 election. Those are reasons that countries would look at Canada's government, one of those two parties, and the corruption that has existed here. Those would be reasons that would give other countries pause in doing business with Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today the two-way trade between Honduras and Canada is estimated to be around $250 million. It is a significant amount of money in trade.

My question for the member is this. Given the NDP's stance on trade and the concerns it has, would the member, as others have within his caucus, indicate that where there are poor track records on human rights, Canada should be looking at reducing trade? That seems to be consistent with the NDP's argument with regard to free trade agreements. If we follow through on its thinking, it would seem to imply that we should be reducing trade with countries that have the concerns that he expressed with regard to this bill.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not deny a little glee in what I am about to say next, which is that I reject the premise of the question.

If we look at the trade agreements that Canada is signing, the devil is always in the details. It is not about doing less trade with countries that we are already trading with without free trade deals. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek laid it out flat. What we have to do is make sure that improvements to human rights and less corruption in government are part of the trade deals we are negotiating. That is how we make them fair trade deals: that they respect labour rights so that people can go home at the end of a workday, that they respect freedom of the press so that journalists do not fear for their lives when they report the truth, that it is not just about the almighty dollar and the amount of money that will go into a few pockets that will increase the inequality that exists in these countries.

Honduras is already listed as the most unequal country in the world. Therefore, why would the government not put measures into place when signing trade agreements so that the poor would become less poor and people could have a better quality of life? That is what should go into trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House at a somewhat late hour, but I am highly motivated to speak to Bill C-20, oddly named the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. In fact, what we are referring to is the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

First of all, I would like to set out three conditions that, in the opinion of the NDP, create a free trade agreement that is appropriate for Canada and for signatories to such an agreement. First, the country that we want to sign an agreement with has an appreciable strategic value, and said agreement benefits the Canadian economy. Second, this agreement fosters an increase in trade opportunities and supports Canadian exporters. Third, the potential partner respects values that it has in common with Canada.

The NDP believes that these three conditions would favour the conclusion of trade agreements with partners in other countries.

Canada's economy is sustained by trade as a result of its natural characteristics, geography, demographics and history. Countries can enter into different types of agreements. The Conservatives' approach focuses only on one type, the free trade agreement.

In an article entitled “Questioning Conventional Wisdom”, Jim Stanford makes the following suggestion:

Canadian trade officials should take a page from Chinese and Brazilian strategists, to maximum the opportunities for domestic exporters through reciprocal trade and export-oriented development plans.... ...should work...to devise focused strategies to promote the presence of key valuable industries here—and to nurture Canadian-based globally-oriented firms in those industries.

Canada has signed several free trade agreements, notably the free trade agreement with the United States. However, since coming to power, the Conservatives seem to have become obsessed with signing such agreements. I am wondering whether it is to Canada's advantage to sign this type of agreement or whether it would be worthwhile exploring other avenues. When it comes to trade, we must identify advantages for the partners and ask certain questions, especially about the impact of NAFTA on the Canadian economy.

Let us take a moment to examine the changes observed in the Canadian economy in recent years. In the 1990s, value-added goods such as machinery, consumer goods and automobiles represented 60% of our exports. This trend has completely reversed in the last 10 years. Products with high value-added only account for 40% of our exports.

What has happened? The free trade agreement has opened Canada's doors to the U.S. so that the U.S. can export consumer products and other value-added goods to Canada. For its part, Canada has opened its doors to the U.S. so that they can provide Canadian natural or primary resources with lower value-added.

As a result of these facts and others, Canada's trade balance dropped steadily over 10 years going from 5.8% in 2000 to its lowest level of -1.9% in 2010.

In January 2014, La Presse reported that Canada had a huge trade deficit. Indeed, in March 2014, Canadian exports dropped by 1.4%.

Just this past Monday, The Globe and Mail also reported, again with regard to the so-called free trade agreement that we have with the United States, that the U.S. government was going to enhance the famous Buy American Act. That means that there would be barriers to the so-called free trade between Canada and the United States, not for the United States, but for Canada.

I will read an excerpt from that article that appeared in The Globe and Mail:

The unfortunate reality is that the North American free-trade agreement did not create a true free-trade zone. It enshrined existing protectionist barriers, and left some gaping loopholes.

What would the consequences be for Canadian exporters?

This measure that seems to be developing in the U.S. right now is called the Grow American Act. This is what is being said about it:

...which would ratchet up U.S. content requirements to 100 per cent by 2019 from the current 60 per cent.... ...[which] would likely force Canadian companies, such as subway car maker Bombardier Inc. and bus makers Nova Bus and New Flyer Industries, to shift more production—and jobs—to their U.S. plants.

There is an imbalance in some of the free trade agreements that Canada has negotiated over the years.

Canada's trade deficit is truly worrisome because it has a very significant impact on our economy. According to experts, this trend will not improve significantly in the coming years, despite the many free trade agreements this government brags about. In fact, one has to wonder whether it might be possible to conclude better trade agreements.

This government does not have a strategy. What is the Conservatives' economic vision for a 21st century Canada? What are the strategic sectors that the government is promoting abroad? Are we promoting Canada's value added sectors such as the aerospace, green technologies and high technologies sectors? Those are value added sectors where Canada has demonstrated its knowledge and expertise.

Do our partners in these trade agreements show an interest in Canadian products? Does the government showcase the high quality of Canadian exports and explain that, in Canada, we treat workers' health and safety, as well as their working conditions, as a priority, and that workers are paid a good salary?

Furthermore, does the government point out that Canadian businesses comply with environmental standards and that Canada is a democratic country with a stable economy? All these factors add to Canada's value as an exporter.

In the NDP's view, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement will not promote economic growth and prosperity in either of the countries involved. For this reason and for many others, I will not support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I am surprised to be the first questioner when there are other parties here in the House that could be taking part in the debate, but they only seem to stand up to raise irrelevant issues instead of discussing the issue at hand.

My question is for the member, after a really good analysis of free trade. Who would the member say benefits when we sign an agreement with a country that does not have adequate labour or environmental standards?

I know in the member's conclusion she talked about how agreements like this one might sometimes not benefit either one. Who, then, would benefit if we went ahead with such an agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He raises an important question that we really need to answer as we go around the world looking to build relationships and partnerships with other countries.

We talked about building partnerships, possibly multilateral ones, with South American countries. These negotiations may take a long time, but in the end, the partnerships may benefit everyone, that is, Canada and its South American partners, of which Honduras could be one.

The agreement we are discussing right now, however, would be signed with a partner plagued with major problems, whose economy is really not at par ours, and where the democratic structure is hugely different. Canada could play a more helpful role if it focused, instead, on building another type of relationship with a country experiencing a wide array of governance problems.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could indicate to the House whether or not the NDP applied the same criteria in the decision on this particular agreement, and the manner in which it is going to be voting, as it applied when it voted against NAFTA. Did the NDP use the same criteria? I would be interested in knowing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg North, who surprised me this time around by asking a fairly short question.

NAFTA has been in effect for several years. Its positive impact is plain to see, as are its long-term consequences. It is only so many years later that we are able to assess these kinds of agreements in order to determine how to make the needed adjustments.

As I have said, the NDP readily acknowledges the fact that Canada relies on imports and exports. We are in favour of trade. The real question is how the current government, namely the Conservative government, promotes Canada's strategic industries. Does it negotiate in favour of Canadian interests or not? I often wonder about that.

Furthermore, it seems we only consider free trade agreements instead of looking at other types of trade agreements that could prove to be very instrumental to improving Canada's balance of trade, which is currently negative, as it has been for the past ten years. In fact, our trade deficit has grown over the years. Free trade agreements are not the only issue, however; other factors come into play as well, which is why we need to ask broader questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20 on the free trade agreement between Canada the Republic of Honduras. This debate will go on until midnight. Back home, it will be 1 a.m.

We are calling this a debate but usually in a debate there are people to debate with. As we can see, the only people who are working tonight are members of the NDP, with the exception of a few people who are asking questions. When we bug them a bit, the Conservatives will ask us a question. I would like the parliamentary secretary to talk to me about the question he asked earlier. I could answer him and tell him what I think about the issue.

Today, with regard to the free trade agreement with Honduras, the government is once again saying that the NDP is against free trade. Are you kidding me? The government is lucky to have the NDP. At least we are capable of debating and having a discussion. Is the free trade agreement a good idea or not? The Liberals have not seen it, but they support it. At least when Jean Chrétien was a member of the opposition, he did not agree with free trade. He only agreed to it once he was elected prime minister.

It is interesting to see how things develop between the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is important to remember that the Liberals and the Conservatives answer only to big business and Bay Street in Toronto. It seems to be almost a crime to talk about workers. They talk about us as if we were union bosses. In a developed country like Canada, it is normal for workers to have an organization, an association or a union to look after their interests. The Conservatives and the Liberals go out of their way to rise in the House and insult labour organizations. With all due respect, I have never seen the Conservatives rise in the House and insult representatives of chambers of commerce. I call them the employers' union. I have never seen the Conservatives rise in the House to insult chambers of commerce or make comments about them like they do with the unions.

In a country like ours, a democratic country, I think that workers have the right to be represented. It is part of Canadian law.

When we were talking about free trade with the United States, the NDP was focused on one provision of NAFTA and that was chapter 11, which deals with health and safety rights and that sort of thing. Now we are talking about a free trade agreement with Honduras, a country that does not respect human, civil or workers' rights. This Conservative government cares only about the economy. It is not thinking about Canada's economy. It is thinking about the economy of a few of its buddies and how they can make money. It is looking at how they could go to a country like Honduras and develop it. It is looking at how money could be made with workers who work at the lowest salary of $1.25 U.S. a day. It is looking at how we could exploit these workers.

The Liberals have done an about-face and now support the agreement even though they have not seen it. It was the same with the European agreement. Agreements will happen, but we must remember that this is not about free trade; it is about fair trade. We cannot say that we have not been affected by the government's free trade negotiations. A lot of small factories in Ontario have closed down and Electrolux left Quebec to set up shop in Mexico. We have lost some great companies and good jobs.

Back home, paper mills in Miramichi, Bathurst and Campbellton have shut down, as has the one in New Richmond, in the Gaspé. These four paper mills have shut down. Now they take the wood, put it on ships and send it to Finland and all over. That is some great free trade there. Free indeed. We are sending our products overseas and we are left with nothing. That is what they are doing. Just take a look at the Atlantic provinces. The job situation in those provinces is not good. We do not even have free trade among the provinces and we are negotiating with other countries.

With all due respect, our Prime Minister turns around and says that Russia is terrible and that we will boycott it because it is not good for people in the surrounding countries.

He says we are going to team up with the Americans and the whole world to boycott Russia because of the civil rights issue. We send our troops to Afghanistan under the pretext that we want girls to attend school. Well, I would love to see Canada's aboriginal children go to school. I wish that aboriginal people in the north had schools. The Prime Minister travels all over the world to preach civil and human rights, but he is prepared to sign an agreement with a totalitarian government that does not even believe in these principles. Then they say that the New Democrats are the bad guys.

Is this not an opportunity to tell that country we are prepared to conclude a free trade agreement provided it respects human rights and pay equity, among other things? The Conservatives only want to sign this agreement to give our businesses an opportunity to exploit workers in that country, just like they have begun to exploit our own workers.

Pursuant to the changes to employment insurance, if an unemployed worker cannot find a job within six weeks, he must take one at 70% of his salary. Then, if he loses that job and cannot find another one the following year, he must again take a job that pays 70% of his last salary. This drives workers' salaries down. This is why the Conservatives support such a free trade agreement with a country that does not pay its workers.

The Prime Minister is very pleased because his friends will be able to exploit workers in countries where workers are not paid, or where people are locked up if they express their views.

It is the same with the Keystone XL pipeline that they want to build to the United States. The NDP wants that pipeline to be built in Canada, from west to east. We want to have refineries in Canada and work in the secondary and tertiary processing plants.

The Conservatives would rather send all that to the United States. They say that building the pipeline will create jobs, but once the work is completed no other jobs will be created. If the pipeline went to Montreal, Quebec City or Saint John, New Brunswick, in my region, we would expand our refineries and create jobs. However, this government is against regional economic development. It only wants to give large corporations an opportunity to make money elsewhere. This is precisely the purpose of this free trade agreement with Honduras.

Then the Liberals ask us if we are using the same criteria as we did the last time around. Of course we are. If the proposed partners do not respect human rights and workers, we must not sign any free-trade agreement with them. Otherwise, we take the side of the “big shots”. Back home, that is how we call those who earn a lot of money. The Liberals are good at that.

There is only one difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives: the Conservatives tell us in advance how they are going to hurt us, whereas the Liberals say that they will not hurt us. However, once elected, they do the same thing as the Conservatives.

Let us keep in mind the 57 billion dollars in the employment insurance fund that they dipped into and robbed from workers. Now, those workers are suffering and are being forced to work at lower wages. Then the government wants to sign deals like this one, without even providing the details to Parliament. They have to give us the real figures.

The same thing happened with the agreement between Canada and Europe. The Conservatives are not even able to show parliamentarians, the elected representatives of this country, the kind of deal that they sign with other governments.

As for the Liberals, they do not even bother rising tonight. That is not to say that they are not in the House. The Liberals and Conservatives are actually here, but they do not stand up and tell us why they want to sign that agreement. Instead of extolling the virtues of the agreement, they just sit there and watch us.

The Conservatives like to send employment insurance inspectors to visit the unemployed, with the hope that they will catch a few misbehaving ones. Well, if one of these inspectors were to come here, many people would have their pay docked because they really are not doing much. We are in the House of Commons to debate a bill, but these people have yet to take part in the debate. The House will be working until midnight, and during all that time, they will not expend the energy to actually stand up and support their own bill.

If the New Democrats were to introduce a bill, they would rise and tell Canadians why it is a positive move. We have not heard from the Conservatives tonight, although they may ask a few silly questions later. That is what they have done so far tonight, so I expect more of the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst for the passion he always bring to this place. He reminded me that he and I both come out of the labour movement.

I talked earlier about the human rights situation in Honduras. I also talked about how Mr. Turner, the leader of the Liberals, opposed the original free trade agreement in 1988. Over the next two years, as a result of that free trade agreement, we lost 520,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Between NAFTA and the free trade agreement, we lost 1,500 plants in Hamilton.

If the member thinks in terms of the average wage in Honduras of $5 a day, who will buy Canadian goods?

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

Mr. Speaker, people are surely not going to buy Canadian goods. However, 18% of the Honduran people live on less than $1.25 American, not an hour but a day. It is not the people who will make good on it; it is those big businesses in the country that the government gives tax breaks to of $40 billion. After they have that money, they do not create jobs for Canadians. They create jobs in the mining industry in Australia or Mexico or any other place except our country.

The Minister of Finance even said that if the government gave big businesses a break on taxes, the government hoped they would spend the money to create jobs. The former minister of finance even recognized all the good he had given to the big corporations, and after that they just ran to the bank or another country to spend the money and create jobs there. It was not the jobs they were interested in; it was how they could make money without paying money. At $1.25 a day, they are sure to make money, but they are not paying money.

That is wrong in today's society. It is wrong that in 2014 they cannot respect human rights and ensure that the workers are well paid, have good benefits, and are working and building a country. I believe they are on the wrong path—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the New Democrats have never voted in favour of a free trade agreement, but they did come close once. There were a number of members of Parliament who stood and implied that if there was to be a recorded vote, they might have voted in favour of the Jordan free trade agreement.

The member came very close to voting in favour of the agreement with Jordan. It is interesting that the UN Human Rights Council adopted a motion of the UPR outcome of Jordan, which states in part, “the reform agenda has so far fallen short of making basic changes to ensure respect for the rights to free expression, association, freedom of the press, and an end to impunity for torture and other ill-treatment”.

This was an agreement that many the New Democrats might have supported. Do the New Democrats base their vote on the same criteria for all free trade agreements with all countries?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know I have to answer the question, but the member will not be able to answer one question that I would like to ask him. Did he see this agreement? Will it say in this agreement that the workers will be treated well or have higher pay?

In 1992 the Liberal Party said that it would get rid of the GST. I remember Sheila Copps said at that time that if her government ever accepted the GST, she would resign her seat, and she did. She then had to be re-elected. The Liberals could not deliver everything they said they would in the 1992 red book. They said that they would never cut employment insurance and they took $57 billion from the working people. After that, the Conservative Party come into the House to legalize the money stolen from the working people.

The Liberal Party is all about that. The Liberals work the same way as the Conservatives. They all report to Bay Street in Toronto.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for putting forward our position as New Democrats on this legislation.

Bill C-20 is a bill that would implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. It is a bill that we very much oppose and, sadly, it is a bill that reflects the Conservative government's agenda, which is to disregard human rights, environmental sustainability, and the reputation that we as a country have built over the last number of years, and throw it all away in the name of presumably creating some wealth for probably some of the government's friends.

We oppose the bill because of three fundamentally important criteria: is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in these regards, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals? We have also made it clear that we are concerned about the terms of the proposed agreement and the strategic value that this kind of relationship would pose for Canada. On these three criteria, this agreement fails.

We have indicated, and members have heard this tonight only from New Democrat members who have been speaking in the House, that Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, and low standards. It is of insignificant strategic value and it has a dark record of human rights abuses.

We have heard about the military coup d'état in 2009 in Honduras. We have heard about the attack on journalists and freedom of speech. We have heard about the persecution of trade unionists and human rights advocates. We have heard of the danger that LGBTQ Hondurans have faced in their country, and in fact of the murder of members of that community. We have heard of the incredible inequality that exists in that country. We have heard in so many ways that the situation for Hondurans in their own country is becoming worse, yet the Government of Canada is proclaiming that somehow it is fitting for Honduras to have a closer relationship with Canada, that somehow this agreement would make a difference for the people of Honduras.

We do not have to look any further than the free trade agreement with Colombia, as we have heard from my NDP colleagues tonight. The trade agreement with Colombia is a perfect example of the way in which the government pursued a hardball economic agenda and said that human rights and environmental sustainability would be regulated and encouraged through side agreements and mechanisms parallel to the actual agreement. However, the human rights violations in Colombia continue. Trade unionists and human rights activists continue to be under threat. Indigenous peoples continue to be displaced. Colombians are no better off as a result of that agreement.

As a Canadian member of Parliament, what I would like to focus on today is the way in which the Conservative government is steadfastly dismantling the reputation that Canadians have built for so many years, a reputation that we have worked at as leaders in human rights, equality, and justice.

Sadly, there is no shortage of examples of the way in which the government has sought to change Canada's reputation, has chosen to reverse its position when it comes to the importance of human rights and equality, and has removed itself from any sort of multilateral co-operative approach to making the world a better place. Sadly, this legislation is yet one more example of that failure to live up to a reputation that many Canadians value, and sadly, there are too many other cases in which we see the government support corporate interests that in turn take away our stellar reputation around the world.

Let us look at the mining sector. Around 75% of the world's mining companies are based in Canada. We know that most of these mining companies do not actually have Canadian operations, but they benefit from the market scenarios and government policies when they set up shop here. In fact, a number of these companies are doing business around the world in a way that no Canadian can be proud of.

Canada's mining reputation is beginning to be noticed in the worst way around the world. There are too many examples to speak of to illustrate the ways in which companies that get support through Export Development Canada or even through direct investments from the Conservative government are creating havoc around the world.

I got to see one of these examples first-hand in a country that I know well, Greece. A company based in Canada, Eldorado Gold, with the help of money from Export Development Canada, has pursued mining development without the support of the public.

It has employed security forces to beat protesters. It has destroyed a tremendously valuable environment agriculturally and in terms of its natural wealth in northern Greece, to the point where people see the Canadian flag as something with a negative connotation. People are extremely critical, and they are saying things like “What happened to Canada?” They are very clear in their opposition not just to this mining development but to the kind of agenda that they see Canada putting forward around the world.

That is not something that makes me proud to be a Canadian member of Parliament. I am somebody who takes pride in being in the House, but the actions of the Conservative government affect all of us through the very correct perception that people have of us around the world.

Let us look at another area, the environment.

We know that Canada used to be seen as a leader. Sadly, under the Liberal government, a lot was left to be desired. Now, under the Conservative government, we have gone from being a leader to a laggard to an obstructionist when it comes to making a difference in terms of the environment. If we keep reducing emissions at the rate that we are going now every year, we will reach our 2020 targets in 2057.

Let us look at areas like maternal health. I had the chance to speak to this issue over the last number of weeks in great depth. We saw the way that Canada, often seen as a leader when it comes to women's rights, was very explicit in its exclusion of a fundamental aspect of a woman's right to health, which is her reproductive rights. All of this was to pursue the government's own ideological agenda.

The list goes on. Let us look at peacekeeping, at our role in conflicts around the world, our role more broadly in terms of the United Nations and the multilateral work that we used to be involved with but have now forgotten about.

This bill, in line with so many other bills and, more broadly, the agenda of the Conservative government, would contribute to sullying our reputation around the world. It would allow us to sit by as situations become worse for people in countries around the world, as well.

I would also like to touch on the way in which this kind of free trade agreement would not benefit Canadians.

We know that in Canada, we are seeing worsening income and wealth inequality. We know that 86 of the wealthiest Canadian residents hold the same amount as the bottom 11.4 million Canadians combined. We also know that with greater inequality in our country, when there is inequality in our safety and prosperity, everybody suffers.

I also want to note that, sadly, while the bill should be another effort in driving our ability as a country to provide for our own citizens and build our own economy, it is only an attempt by the current government to continue to pursue an agenda whereby few would benefit from trade programs like this. I am proud to stand with the NDP in opposition to the bill and in opposition to the government's agenda around the world.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. She raised the major elements of this free trade agreement.

I am talking here about the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. We know that many free trade agreements have been signed. I have a feeling that these deals are like figurines and that the Conservatives absolutely want the whole collection. However, they do not realize that an agreement has to be negotiated, particularly according to the specific conditions of both countries. This deal does not have the conditions required for an effective free trade agreement.

Unfortunately, right now, Honduras is not showing any progress in terms of improving its record on human rights, labour rights, environment rights and indigenous rights.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this, because these considerations are not reflected in the agreement, which, on top of that, does not have any economic benefits.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising the main issues we are debating here in the House.

Obviously, this government's ideology benefits a few of the party's friends but does not really offer much to the Canadian people. The government certainly makes it easy for Honduras to maintain an economic system in which citizens are exploited and marginalized.

It is such a shame to see Canada resort to that. We forget the reputation our country used to have; we forget that we used to have a strong reputation for promoting human rights and the environment. Now, the government is going in the opposite direction. I am proud to stand firm with my colleague and all NDP members, and to speak out against an ideology that will have destructive effects across the world and here, in Canada.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to commend the hon. member for Churchill.

There has been a lot of talk about defending labour rights, human rights, and environmental rights. However, I would like my colleague to talk about how important it is to have a good trade relationship so that the two countries can fully prosper from that trade. The process needs to ensure mutual respect.

There is talk in this bill about Canadian investments in Honduras, but those investments require a healthy, proper atmosphere. If we do trade with a country that we respect, investments will increase and our trade deficit will finally return to an acceptable level.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking a very important question.

If that is the future we want, we need to get rid of this government. For seven years now, the government has been imposing this same ideology, be it with regard to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement or our role on the international stage. This ideology serves the interests of the Conservatives and their friends, not of Canadians and the people we are working with.

The ministers and the Prime Minister travel around the world, claiming that they want to build relationships and contribute at the global level. However, the reality is that they are signing deals that further marginalize people.

There is a growing inequality among Canadians, and a free trade agreement is not going to change that. That is why we are opposed to this bill. We need to rethink our vision for Canada's trade, co-operation and future.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats believe that Canadians recognize the importance of trade for our economy, and that they want a strategic and effective trade policy that increases our trade opportunities and supports our exporters.

The government wants to enter into a free trade agreement with Honduras. Honduras is characterized by its undemocratic practices, corrupt government, failing institutions, and record of human rights violations. Honduras has low standards and negligible strategic value.

This is why the New Democrats do not support Bill C-20, An Act to Implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. This evening, I rise to explain why this agreement will not benefit the Canadian economy, and how it goes against our values.

Honduras' human rights record leaves a lot to be desired. Its institutions are weak, its police forces and army corrupt and, still today, its policies are oppressive and undemocratic.

Violence in Honduras has increased considerably since 2009, which is particularly troubling in terms of its human rights record and the level of impunity in the country. Not many crimes are investigated and fewer still are heard by the courts.

The Supreme Court of Honduras has estimated the rate of impunity to be approximately 98%. However, according to those consulted, the actual degree of impunity ranges from 80 to 98%. A report on political assassinations in Honduras, published one and half years prior to the November 2013 election, revealed that 36 candidates or aspiring candidates in the November 2013 election were assassinated. Furthermore, there were 24 cases of armed assault against candidates.

It is very difficult, therefore, to address the human rights problems. Canadian investments in the region have very real consequences for human rights, given such high levels of impunity. That about sums up a country that the Conservatives want to provide preferential trade access to, and with which they want to foster closer economic ties. Impunity reigns in Honduras.

Bill C-20 would implement a treaty that turns a blind eye to human rights. It is a yet another missed opportunity. Bilateral trade negotiations, and the planned intensification of the relationship between Canada and Honduras, puts our country in a unique position to put pressure on Honduras so that the country can do more to address this crisis. It is not too late for us to seize this opportunity.

Unfortunately, I have very little hope that the government is listening to us. If we look at the various free trade agreements signed with other Latin American and Central American countries, human rights are still being violated.

As far as the agreement itself is concerned, I would like to reiterate what a number of witnesses mentioned when the bill was in committee. Currently, Honduras is Canada's 104th export market in terms of the value of exports. In 2012, exports totalled a measly $38 million and imports amounted to $218 million, which represents a major trade deficit.

Internal analyses by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada confirm that this agreement will generate only marginal benefits for the Canadian economy.

It is important to note that the United Nations conference on trade and development ranks countries according to the access they have to their main partners' markets. Honduras is one of the countries at the top of the list. In other words, Honduras does not need more access to the market to boost its exports in the rest of the world, unlike most of the other developing countries.

Instead of concluding agreements with undemocratic countries that do not respect the rights and values that are important to Canadians, the government should be concluding agreements with countries where it has been proven that such an agreement is advisable, such as Brazil.

The government says that this agreement will guarantee our economic prosperity. However, signing such a free trade agreement will not benefit Canadians. The government fails to mention that Canada's manufacturing sector will be hit hard by this free trade. It will be more profitable to manufacture in Honduras, where there is no viable regulation in the textiles industry, than to manufacture in Canada. Competition is totally unfair in this sector.

I will close by saying that, just like the free trade agreements with Colombia and Ecuador, this agreement will benefit Canadian extractive industries. The Canadian extractive industry has interests in Honduras, but Canadian mining companies there are embroiled in controversial conflicts with citizens and aboriginal groups or are facing allegations of environmental contamination.

The extractive sector is one of Canada's most significant commercial interests. Investor protection provisions are therefore an important part of the agreement. Canadian mining companies have been involved in controversial local conflicts with citizens and aboriginal groups and are facing environmental contamination allegations. CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs have helped develop the Honduran mining code, but that code does not respect the interests of local residents and does not provide acceptable social, environmental and economic protection.

New Democrats believe that Canada's corporate social responsibility strategy does not go far enough toward ensuring that Canadian companies operating in developing countries respect applicable standards and laws. Where it has a presence abroad, Canada must promote values of respect, social justice, environmental protection and human rights. Practices that are prohibited in Canada should not be allowed abroad.

New Democrats will continue to pressure the government to pass stricter legislation that will make Canadian mining, gas and oil companies responsible for their activities in developing countries. I will vote against this bill, the latest in a long line of bills subject to time allocation. This is yet another undemocratic act on the part of our government, which is preventing us from talking about a bill that is very important to our economic and trade policy.

Did the government use what it learned from Honduran institutions to pursue its own interests?

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

Mr. Speaker, since the coup d'état in 2009, and even though Honduras and the United States have a trade agreement, extreme poverty has continued to increase in Honduras, rising from a rate of 13% to 26%.

I think we can conclude that, despite the fact that Honduras is a friend to the United States, this free trade agreement is a catastrophe and has huge consequences on the population, aside from what we know of the massacres and everything else we know about this country.

Could the member explain what a fair and equitable free trade agreement that reflects Canadian democracy would look like?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her relevant question.

As I said, our country should do business and sign free trade agreements with countries that share our values on topics such as social welfare, environmental protection and human rights. We believe it is important to maintain our credibility and to respect our Canadian values, both here in Canada and in the countries where we are mining, running oil facilities or what have you.

It is important to do business with people whose standards are similar to our own.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know we will be concluding debate at second reading of this bill some time in the next 45 minutes, and I want to take this opportunity to emphasize what I think is really important, and that is that trade agreements are just one aspect of international trade. One thing we need to take a look at is the bigger picture. It is more than just trade agreements that are important; it is the bottom line. It is trade surplus versus trade deficit, and it is the amount of trade that takes place between Canada and the U.S. and other countries that has a severe impact on the number of jobs in Canada.

The Honduras free trade agreement is an important agreement in its own right, but we need to put more time and energy into the area of trade that we believe is ultimately going to be of great benefit for Canadians. In part, the government has lost sight of what really needs to happen, which is to look at expanding world trade. It is not just about trade agreements. We just happen to be talking about a trade agreement that deals with Honduras, and we understand the positioning of all political issues on the issue.

I would ask the member if she could provide her thoughts with regard to the bottom line and how important it is that we have an overall approach in dealing with international trade, which improves the quality of life for all Canadians.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I already mentioned, the New Democrats are in favour of a strategic and effective trade policy that increases our trade opportunities and supports our exporters. Furthermore, we want to do business with countries that have values similar to our own, which means countries that respect working conditions, human rights and the environment, and countries that respect all people, whether we are talking about journalists or critics of the government.

Since the coup d'état in 2009, there have been a lot of assassinations. Unfortunately, impunity reigns in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20 concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Since we often hear this from the Conservatives and Liberals, it is important to mention that in the NDP, we are in favour of trade. We believe that it is important to our economy. However, unlike the Conservatives and Liberals, we are not ready to trade freely at just any cost. We understand that there are trade opportunities for our exporters and that these must be supported. Having worked abroad and in business law, I understand how important it is to trade with other countries, but we must do so intelligently.

My colleagues on the other side, just like the Liberals, undoubtedly have not read the book Fair Trade For All, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize recipient in economics, and Andrew Charlton. Many statements from this book are very important, but what I want to do today is to sum up our position on trade agreements.

When entering into and negotiating a free trade agreement, it is important to ensure that the partner respects democracy, human rights, adequate labour standards, environmental protection standards and Canadian values. This is in a broader sense. If these countries cannot have these elements in place, what can we do to help them? Moreover, we have to determine whether the partner brings something to the Canadian economy, in other words, whether the country holds strategic value for Canada. Of course, we also have to consider whether the agreement is beneficial in and of itself.

It is clear that the Liberals supported the agreement with Europe, without having even read it. Once again, this is simply ideological. They say that they agree, regardless of the conditions in the agreement, just to be able to claim that they are in favour of trade. In the NDP, we are more pragmatic. We review the trade details, and the partners with whom we negotiate to determine whether the agreement is beneficial or not to Canada.

Turning back to Honduras, more specifically, I would like to talk about an issue that affects us very deeply, and about which most of my colleagues have spoken, that is, human rights. I am going to quote Carmen Cheung, a researcher for the international human rights program:

These past five years [since the coup] have seen a dramatic erosion in protections for expressive life in Honduras. Journalists are threatened, they're harassed, attacked, and murdered with near impunity, and sometimes in circumstances that strongly suggest the involvement of state agents....

Among the journalists and human rights defenders we spoke with, there is a pervasive sense that they are under threat, and that the state is, at best, unable or unwilling to defend them, or at worst, complicit in the abuses.

In short, we know that there are human rights problems in Honduras. I hear my Liberal colleagues saying that we will sign a free trade agreement in order to help them. In other words, we will sign the agreement and cross our fingers and hope that it will help the people of Honduras.

In that case, I will quote Pablo Heidrich, an economist at the North-South Institute:

...I don't find signing an FTA [or a free trade agreement] at this point to be an effective way of engaging with Honduras if the purpose is to bring development and security and stability to Honduras....

I think what the Honduran government needs...is a certain level of pressure so that the government becomes more responsive to wider social demands and it stops being sort of a committee that administers the gains of a very limited group of people.

I believe that clearly summarizes the NDP's position and concerns. That is why we will not be supporting this free trade agreement.

However, we know that the Conservatives are willing to sign every possible free trade agreement just to say that they are pro- trade and to hide, to some extent, their results and their actual record.

When the Conservatives came to power, Canada had a current account surplus of $18 billion, but eight years later, there is a trade deficit of $80 billion, a decline of $10 billion per year. This is the trade report for the Conservative government. It is pretty shameful.

As for the Liberals, they will sign agreements and say they support them. However, they will do what they did with Kyoto. They will sign these agreements and say the will is there, but they will not do anything to implement them afterwards. Again, in this case, they say they support a free trade agreement and hope Hondurans will benefit from it, but let us look at their actions.

That is what is really important, to look at the actions of each party. Right now we have the Conservatives signing all sorts of trade agreements, regardless of who they are signing with and regardless of the benefits for the other country or for our country. We have the Liberals supporting them and just hoping that they can change things.

It is really important for me to raise this issue, if I may make a parallel with what is happening right now with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As we all know, there are some discussions being made. Unfortunately, we do not have all the information here, but what is happening in the U.S. right now is really important for us to look at.

In the U.S. last week, on May 29, 153 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter asking that the ongoing TPP negotiations include an enhancement framework for protecting international human and labour rights.

Again, that is an example for my Liberal friends over there who say we cannot do anything and we will cross our fingers and hope that it will make it better. What they are doing right now is actually pushing forward and asking, when they negotiate, to have concrete measures to actually tackle the human rights issue.

I will read part of the letter that was signed by members in the U.S., part of which is important for me:

In this context, we were alarmed by recent reports in Vietnamese media that Truong Dinh Tuyen, the former Vietnamese Minister of Trade and current senior advisor on international negotiations, said that Vietnam would not accept a TPP requirement that workers be allowed to establish independent labor unions, but would instead accept a compromise that devolved some power to local unions. While we are pleased to see that Vietnamese officials are beginning to realize that continuation of the country’s flagrant violations of core labor standards—which has been documented at length by the Departments of Labor and State—is unacceptable, we were concerned that Mr. Tuyen seems to believe that halfway measures will be adequate. That is not the case. All TPP member nations, including Vietnam, must fully comply with TPP labor obligations, including those related to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

In countries like Vietnam in which workers have faced extraordinary abuses, there must be binding and enforceable plans to bring those countries’ laws and practices into compliance with TPP labor requirements. Those plans must be made public, and the changes to the laws and practices must be fully implemented, before Congress takes up TPP for consideration, while trade benefits granted by the agreement must be contingent on the plans’ continued implementation. In countries such as Vietnam, where the labor regime must be substantially transformed, an additional mechanism is needed to link those benefits to Vietnam’s regular demonstration of the effective enforcement of its new law laws.

It is clear that Vietnam, in particular, must do substantial work to achieve a minimally acceptable level of respect for workers’ rights for a trading partner of the United States. Vietnamese law requires that all unions in the country be affiliated with the Vietnam General Confederation of Labor, which describes itself as “a member of the political system under the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam,” and in so doing violates workers’ rights to form and join independent labor unions of their own choosing. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor lists Vietnam as one of just four countries where there is reason to believe that garments might have been produced by forced or indentured child labor.

This is an example of what we can do when we negotiate. In the case of Honduras, the government obviously has not negotiated in terms of bringing forward better human rights and better labour rights for people in Honduras. The Liberals are saying we should sign an agreement and hopefully it would help Honduras, clearly we can see that while we are negotiating, we can actually do something. We can ask for something in return.

We are not desperate to sign a trade agreement with Honduras, knowing that it is not our biggest trade partner. It is our 104th partner. There is also a trade deficit that we have with Honduras right now. Why not take the time to negotiate and to bring forward real amendments that would help the countries with which we negotiate? When we look at what the Liberals are doing in terms of supporting the trade agreement with Honduras, we see they do not really care and they do not think we can change things. However, New Democrats think we can change things and make the world better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. It being 10:32 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 53.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 4, 2014, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-20.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #163

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 53 defeated as well.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members may not have noticed, but I came in a tad late and, therefore, my vote should not be counted.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we were entertained by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia's double pirouette on the floor of the House of Commons, but I would like to point out that the deputy whip, the whip, and the member for Ottawa Centre were not in their seats when you rose, Mr. Speaker. If one vote can be discarded over there, at least three votes can be discarded over there.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the hon. opposition House leader rising on the same point of order?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government whip raced in here kind of breaking precedence. Obviously, a few things were off on both sides. The member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam of course was not in his seat either, which I think raises the point that it is much better to wait for proper parliamentary process. That is what we believe, on this side of the House. We really have to wait for proper voting procedures.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The clock for the vote had expired and it is not a requirement that the two whips enter at the same time, even though it is common practice.

At this point, we will proceed to concurrence at report stage of Bill C-20.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #164

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. You started reading out the first vote just as I was sitting down. I would like my vote to be cancelled so that it is more fair for the other members.