Bill C-20 (Historical)

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on environmental and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and done at Ottawa on November 5, 2013.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the agreements and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.
Part 3 of the enactment contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

moved that Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement today.

Since 2006, our Conservative government has been focused on the priorities of Canadians: creating jobs, growth, and economic opportunities for all. One of the ways we have been achieving real results for Canadians is through opening new markets for Canadian businesses.

The Canadian economy relies on international trade. Our companies, over 40,000 of them, are already exporting. As the global economy becomes more and more interconnected, value chains grow and more of our businesses become active internationally. In Canada, one in five jobs is dependent on exports. Today trade-related activity represents more than 60% of Canada's gross domestic product.

Canadian companies are among the best in the world. Not only can they compete, they can succeed in the global marketplace. Our government is creating conditions to support the success of our companies, and we owe it to them to take action.

Canada has always been active in international trade. With the global economic crisis and the toxic threat of greater protectionism, the need for open markets has now become clearer than ever.

Canadian businesses have expressed broad support for trade and investment agreements. These agreements directly benefit small and medium-sized businesses for whom red tape and delays can be particularly burdensome. Our Conservative government continues to be a strong advocate on the world stage for free and open markets. In fact, the Minister of International Trade recently announced that Canada will join 13 World Trade Organization members, including China, the European Union, Japan, and the United States of America, in negotiations toward a new World Trade Organization plurilateral agreement on environmental goods. More open trade in environmental products will increase the availability and lower the cost of environmental goods, such as hydraulic turbines, air handling equipment, water treatment technologies, and waste management or recycling equipment. It is an ambitious agreement that will significantly facilitate the achievement of the green growth and sustainable development objectives of the World Trade Organization economies by creating a win-win situation for trade and for the environment.

Rather than take a wait-and-see approach and hope for the best, Canada decided to proactively focus on diversifying our trading relationships through regional and bilateral free trade agreements. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade, 2013 was the most successful year for trade in Canadian history.

Last October our Conservative government reached an agreement in principle on the Canada-European free trade agreement. It is a great achievement, I might add. This is a major milestone on Canada's international trade negotiations agenda. Through the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, our companies will gain preferential access to a market of over 500 million affluent consumers and a collective gross domestic product of $17 trillion. A Canada-European Union joint study concluded that the agreement would increase Canada's GDP by $12 billion annually and would grow bilateral trade by 20%.

In addition to this historic agreement in principle with the European Union, since 2006 we have concluded agreements with the European Free Trade Association, which includes Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein, and with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, and Panama. We most recently concluded negotiations with Korea. We are also working expeditiously to conclude negotiations with the members of the trans-Pacific partnership as well as bilateral agreements with Japan and India.

To help Canadian investors, since 2007 we have concluded or brought into force 22 new or updated foreign investment protection and promotion agreements. These are just a few examples of our international trade achievements to date.

Contrast this with the Liberal record on trade, signing only three free trade agreements, agreements that are being broadened and modernized by this Conservative government, and having expensive political photo ops without any proven results or follow up, unfortunately. We have left behind that decade of Liberal trade neglect. To do this, we conducted consultations right across this great country. We engaged around 400 business and industry stakeholders. These were not just large corporations but the small and medium-sized businesses that are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

This is why we are so proud of the global markets action plan we launched in November 2013. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is a concrete plan for Canadian business developed with Canadian business. The global markets action plan focuses on our international economic engagement by identifying priority sectors and markets. It also underscores the importance of economic diplomacy, and of course, it aims to help Canadian small and medium-sized companies expand their global reach.

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

Speaking of new markets, our government has long recognized the growing importance of the Americas. The Prime Minister confirmed this when he made that region a foreign policy priority in 2007. Increased trade and commercial engagement is part of the Prime Minister's vision for a more prosperous, secure, and democratic hemisphere, and it makes sense to Canadian businesses too. Total trade between countries in the Americas and Canada increased 34% from 2007 to 2013, not to mention that Canadian direct investment was up 58.6% from 2007 to 2012, a big jump.

How does Honduras fit into our ambitious free trade plan to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians? That is a very good question. In 2011, the Prime Minister announced that we had successfully concluded free trade agreement negotiations with Honduras. I would like to note three key reasons why it was important for Canada to conclude this agreement.

First, Canadian companies were already at a competitive disadvantage in Honduras, and that is a fact. Since 2006, American companies have benefited from having an established free trade deal with Honduras.

Listen to what César Urias, director, Latin America, for Canada Pork International, said to the international trade committee during its study of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. He stated:

In 2004...Canada exported 1,345 metric tons estimated at $2.2 million, approximately one-third of Honduras pork imports. By 2006, Canadian pork exports dropped to zero as the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States free trade agreement...came into effect.

This unlevel playing field was made even worse when the European Union concluded its free trade deal with Central America, including Honduras, in 2010. That free trade agreement has been provisionally applied with Honduras since the summer of 2013. Our companies need to catch up with our U.S. and EU counterparts. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would put them on a level playing field, a level playing field for which they have been asking.

Take as an example what Vincent Taddeo, vice-president international for Cavendish Farms, said. He stated:

The Canadian government must make the timely establishment of free trade negotiations a greater priority and ensure a more level playing field for our exports and exporters; ...be proactive and aggressive in negotiating and conducting other free trade agreements.

I can assure our pork farmers, producers, and workers at companies like Cavendish Farms that this Conservative government is heeding their call.

Second, when we negotiate a free trade agreement, we are looking at the potential for trade in the future. From 2009 to 2013 our two-way merchandise trade with Honduras grew 59.2%. This trend speaks to the potential for further growth of our trading relationship with Honduras. Once the free trade agreement enters into force and our companies begin to see the benefits of tariff elimination, imagine the enhanced opportunities for Canadian business. When our businesses trade, they create jobs and opportunities for workers here in Canada.

To take a snapshot of what this agreement would mean for our pork producers, I will again refer to Mr. César Urias' comments when he stated:

The free trade agreement with Honduras is estimated to generate sales of $5 million to $7 million in the first year following implementation.

That is just in the first year. Stories like that from our industry prove why this agreement needs to be passed and as soon as possible. I repeat: as soon as we can.

What the anti-trade New Democratic Party does not understand is how broad the benefits would be for Canadians, even after Mr. Urias spelled it out for its members at committee, when he explained:

...[the free trade agreement] benefits the very base, the very foundation of the producing sector, as well as farmers, distributors, transporters by train, truck, or you name it. It even benefits financial services, insurance, and credit industries. There's a large, vast effect that is replicated in many other industries, not just...[the pork industry]. It's not just a focused effect. It spreads all over.

When this improved market access for goods is combined with the agreement's provisions on investment, services, and government procurement, we will have created the conditions for Canadian companies to succeed in that market.

Investors would also benefit. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement includes provisions designed to protect bilateral investment through legally binding obligations, and to ensure that investors would be treated fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner. Through the free trade agreement, investors would also have access to transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlement. The investment provisions of this free trade agreement would support a stable legal framework that would protect Canadian investments in Honduras and vice versa, including guaranteeing the transfer of investment capital and protecting investors against expropriation without prompt and adequate compensation.

Finally, this agreement underscores Canada's ongoing commitment to our partnership with Honduras. Honduras is a country with many difficulties and it would be easy to, as the NDP constantly demands, turn our backs in the face of human rights and security challenges. However, this government firmly believes in engagement, not isolation. That is the real way to achieve results. Only by continuing to build an open and credible dialogue can we support positive change in the country.

Even Jim Bannantine, president and CEO of Aura Minerals, a Canadian mining company operating in Honduras, agrees. He said:

...the free trade agreement, through the economic integration and jobs, is the best effect on the security in Honduras. By far the number one positive factor in security in Honduras, that allows us to practise our...[corporate social responsibility] and operate unimpeded, is jobs, economic growth; jobs make the best defence against this violence.

This commitment to building positive change is evident in Canada's multi-faceted, bilateral relationship with Honduras, from our people-to-people links to Canada's development program, and extends into our free trade agreement negotiations. This is why it is important to Canada that we include provisions like corporate social responsibility and anti-corruption and why we negotiated parallel agreements on labour and environmental co-operation.

During his testimony, Mr. Bannantine made it very clear that the Honduran people are seeing results, when he said:

On the...[corporate social responsibility] side, there are lots of examples on the ground. A couple of million dollars a year go to the local community.

For these reasons, the free trade agreement is a cornerstone of our bilateral relationship. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would absolutely benefit both our countries.

I urge all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. Let us get together and pass Bill C-20 as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps we should put things back in context. I am prepared to believe that we have lost the treaty with Europe, as the treaty has not been signed, but going from a treaty with Europe to another treaty with Honduras is a long and painful drop.

Need I remind the House that, economically, Honduras is not as significant as the railway disaster in Lac-Mégantic?

If the Conservatives paid a little more attention to rail transportation in Canada, it would be a lot more profitable from an economic point of view than trying to reach an economic deal with Honduras.

The member spoke about a level playing field, about transfers and about protecting our investments. When the international community is telling Honduras that its Supreme Court justices are corrupt, when the United Nations and some U.S. senators are saying that the most senior judges in Honduras are corrupt, what kind of legal protection will there be for our investments? I would really like to have an answer.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just would remind the member that what I said in my speech earlier was that Canadian businesses, small, medium, and large, are working on an unlevel playing field. The European Union already has a free trade agreement with Honduras, as does the United States of America. We have seen our inability to compete by these onerous tariffs. They have denied Canada's pork producers, as I gave as an example, where they were selling half of the supply of pork down to zero.

While the member raises concerns on a variety of fronts, let us keep our eye on the ball. We want to support Canadian producers, we want to support Canadian jobs, and we want to engage in a positive relationship with Honduras. I hope that member will join with me.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily mean to be mean and pop the member's bubble on his speech, but I must say I am somewhat surprised on two points.

The one is that he never acknowledged the wonderful performance of former prime minister Jean Chrétien, who actually initiated the discussions with not only Honduras but Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, recognizing that was a region in which Canada should be moving toward freer trade agreements. That is one of his failures in acknowledging, I suspect.

The other one is that he makes reference to the European Union. He says that it set this agreement. We have not been able to locate a document where the Prime Minister actually signed it off as an agreement.

I wonder if the member could do us all a favour and table or make a commitment to table, sometime between now and when we leave, an actual document that the Prime Minister signed, as proof that there is, in fact, some sort of agreement with the European Union, because we have not been able to find it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Winnipeg North for basically putting in Hansard all of my failures. When he comes to pointing out that the Chrétien government was so great on trade, there were 3 agreements versus 38 agreements with us now.

To paraphrase a former Liberal member, they did not get it done. I certainly can appreciate that the member wants to see good things for Canada. I do as well. I hope that the member can encourage his Liberal caucus to vote with us, so we can see an enhanced relationship with Honduras. It would be good for Canada, but also good for the Honduran people.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on a well-organized and insightful speech on not only the conceptual arguments in favour of free trade but also the benefits of having a free trade agreement with Honduras.

I would like to begin by saying I am glad that the parliamentary secretary mentioned our record of 43 trade agreements negotiated since 2006 versus the Liberal record of only 3 trade agreements negotiated. I am glad my hon. friend brought up Jean Chrétien, because he said he was going to tear up the NAFTA. I am glad that the parliamentary secretary mentioned Pork International, because if there is one thing the Liberals are experts at, it is pork.

Our government has taken Canada from being a trading nation to a nation of traders. Could he inform the House, particularly the NDP that believes we should set up walls and go to back to Smoot-Hawley, of the benefits of free trade and why it is so important that we have maintained focus on trade agreements with other countries around the world in order to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be mindful that one out five jobs in Canada is dependent on trade. The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior had written that free trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”.

I believe that Canada has a special future, but it is not going to be put out by vague ideas or platitudes or charismatic speeches. It will be done by giving business and Canadian entrepreneurs the opportunity to succeed. That is something government can help with. We can help negotiate free trade agreements. We can help make sure there is investment protection.

I believe in Canada's ability to grow and to compete with the best of them. I would ask all members to give entrepreneurs the opportunity to compete. Let us make this country special and more so now—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always astonished by the way the Conservatives talk about their record on free trade with other countries.

Honduras, for instance, ranks about 104th on the list of Canada’s export markets. In 2012, Canada exported $38 million in goods to Honduras and imported $218 million. We have to recognize that this is quite a substantial trade deficit.

When this government came to power in 2006, our trade surplus was $26 billion. Today, we have a deficit of $62 billion in terms of our trade with other countries.

Can my colleague explain what has gone wrong?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a step back. When we look at trade, we see that trade benefits both parties, or else they would not agree to trade in the first place. Trade balances and surplus change from month to month and from year to year. We had a case where Canada was selling more pork products to Honduras, but because someone else was able to engage and to see tariff-free access, it went down to zero. For those people who rely on that income in places like Merritt in Nicola Valley in British Columbia in my riding, it is very important.

While the member opposite may dismiss the value of Honduras, I would say there are eight million people who want to see a better future, and they look to Canada as being a place where we can trade with them and they with us and we can have prosperity on both sides of both of our borders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my Conservative colleague's remarks tonight. I have great respect for much of the work he does, particularly around the Canadian wine industry.

I am a little surprised that he is boasting about the Conservative record on trade when we have seen such growth in the trade deficit under the Conservatives, who inherited a significant trade surplus. Beyond that, the Conservatives are signing trade agreements with relatively small economies like Honduras.

Why is it that if the Conservatives believe in economic engagement as a way to engage in other issues, including human rights and social development, they have ignored and let atrophy our relationship with powerhouses like China and Africa, with which we had incredibly strong, favoured relations for decades under both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's comments as well as his support for some of my work on the interprovincial transfer of wine.

To go back to the topic of trade deficits versus trade surpluses, those change over time. We should also remember that economies also change. Sometimes an economy will start out with very little resource development but eventually move into value-added. For example, in the auto industry we will sometimes bring in parts from other countries and then put them together using Canadian labour and Canadian know-how and sell them at a surplus.

I would again point out to the member that a tenet of trade economics 101 is that everyone benefits. We can look at the work of David Ricardo. It is one of the principles of economics. Everyone benefits from trade, or else people would not trade.

My last point is that if a country wants to do business with Canada, wants to work hand in hand to build investment and build prosperity, I would hope that the government would look at it seriously and would always go forward with a deal that would make sense for both countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague’s previous speech on Bill C-20, concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras, that for the Conservatives, it is quantity that counts, and not quality. Canadians know that we have to negotiate trade agreements that offer winning conditions for Canada, which is precisely what the Conservatives have not done.

I would like to say that I oppose this bill. I also had the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where we examined this bill. First, let me reiterate that the NDP is in favour of international trade. We want to trade with other countries. We want to sign agreements with democracies around the world that can help Canadian manufacturers and contribute to our economy. However, our approach is not the same as the Conservatives’. We believe we must negotiate agreements that meet important criteria.

I would like to speak to the House again about the three criteria that all free trade agreements must meet to earn the support of the NDP. First, we have to ask whether the proposed partner respects democracy and human rights principles. Does the partnership enable both countries to establish and apply adequate environmental and labour standards? If that is not the case, is it really a good idea to support the trade agreement? In that case, the answer is no.

Second, we have to see whether the proposed partnership is of significant value to Canada and whether it will really benefit us. It is clear that the Conservatives have not done their homework on this subject. In fact, Honduras currently ranks 104th among Canada’s export markets, in terms of export value. We know that it is an economy even smaller than the economy of Ottawa-Gatineau. That gives us an idea of the strategic value of trade with Honduras.

Third, we have to determine whether the terms of the proposed agreement are satisfactory. This is also not the case for the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Like me, people may wonder why the government chose Honduras to negotiate a trade agreement. This is a question that a number of Canadians are also asking themselves. My Conservative colleague boasted about the number of free trade agreements the Conservative government has signed. In fact, that shows how desperate the Conservatives are, since they are working from a weakened position on the international scene.

I would like to give a brief summary of the reasons why they came to negotiate a free trade agreement with that country, which has such a small economy and flouts human rights.

We know that once Canada had barely managed to sign a multilateral agreement with the Central American economies as a whole, it looked to the weakest political player, Honduras, to negotiate a specific agreement as part of what is an ideological pursuit of free trade agreements.

In August 2011, the Prime Minister announced the conclusion of negotiations between Canada and Honduras, and in November 2013, the Minister of International Trade and his Honduran counterpart signed the free trade agreement.

Therefore, the reason that an agreement had to be negotiated with a country like Honduras, a country that, moreover, does not respect human rights and has virtually no reliable democratic institutions, is that negotiations with the other countries in the region had failed.

I am now going to explain how the economic benefits of a free trade agreement with Honduras are minimal. It is not as the Conservative member said. According to internal analyses done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian economy will apparently get very little from the agreement. We can see that the Conservatives do not even pay attention to the reports produced by their own department.

As I said, Honduras currently ranks 104th among Canada’s export markets, in terms of export value. The 2011 statistics show that the total value of exports of goods was only $38 million, while imports came to $218 million, which represents a substantial trade deficit.

We wonder whether the Conservatives even took the time to do an impact analysis, to see whether there are really any benefits from this agreement, particularly knowing that tariffs are already very low with Honduras. In fact, a majority of tariffs are below 5%. We wonder why the Conservatives are in such a hurry to negotiate this agreement.

The witnesses raised another concern at the Standing Committee on International Trade, which is the lack of transparency.

We know that the agreement was negotiated with no transparency at all. In spite of repeated requests by civil society in Canada, the Government of Canada did not release the texts of the agreement during the negotiation process.

I would like to digress a moment, if I may. We can see that the Conservatives have taken a particular approach to negotiating free trade agreements: they do not consult adequately with Canadians. They do not consult with civil society, with workers, with first nations or with other groups, and they do not make the text public.

The Standing Committee on International Trade also studied our free trade agreement with Europe or the European Union. During these meetings, witnesses stated that the consultations had not been extensive enough.

I would like to quote what was said by Jerry Dias, Unifor’s national president:

...we've been critical of the way this deal has been negotiated, without the full and meaningful participation of trade unions, environmental NGOs, and other groups in Canada's civil society.

The text of the free trade agreement with the European Union was made public in other jurisdictions. U.S. decision-makers had access to the draft texts, and European parliamentarians too had access to these texts. The Conservative government asked for our trust and prevented us from having access to these draft texts.

I think this lack of transparency is deplorable. It concerns me a great deal because it has become a habit of this Conservative government. It is a habit that prevents civil society groups from consulting with members of Parliament, giving advice to the government and providing the negotiators with facts and information that might help them in negotiating free trade agreements in the best interests of Canadians.

It should also be mentioned that the token environmental impact assessment of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, which was released in October 2013, omitted any assessment of the impact of Canadian investment in Honduras. Those figures were deemed confidential.

In addition, the side agreements on the environment and labour are inadequate. A number of witnesses at the committee meetings said so. The reason they are inadequate is that they are not accompanied by any real measures for enforcing them. In fact, as we say, they lack teeth. They lack the power to be enforced.

According to the section on investments in the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, companies can sue governments in international tribunals, something that undermines the ability of governments to make decisions intended to safeguard the public good.

Canada’s federal government must be able to make decisions that safeguard the public good without businesses having a veto over them. This is necessary.

Now, I would just like to go to the heart of my argument, which concerns human rights, because this is something that is very important to me and something that we have discussed on numerous occasions in this debate.

We can talk about the economic impact of this free trade agreement. However, Canada also has a duty to behave responsibly on the international scene. It has a role to play in promoting human rights, and as members of Parliament, we must encourage the government play this role.

In 2011, in Honduras, there were to 85.5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. This means that in 2011, Honduras was the most dangerous country in the world. This is a very serious matter. I would like to say more about the issue of freedom of the press and explain how grim the human rights situation is in this country.

Journalists and human rights advocates have 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, which is also the general feeling of a large majority of the population. Between 2003 and 2013, there were only two convictions, even though 38 journalists were murdered. That represents an impunity rate of 95%.

It is worth noting that, according to the witnesses who came to the parliamentary committee, there are likely no real investigations in Honduras. That makes it complicated to assign responsibility for the murders of those journalists. We were able to hear witnesses from PEN Canada, a civil society group that studies human rights and journalists' rights.

PEN Canada submitted a report to the committee. The report is entitled “Honduras: Journalism in the Shadow of Impunity”; unfortunately, it is available in English only. I strongly suggest that everyone listening this evening read that very informative report. It contains a lot of useful information. The report specifically looked into the stories that the journalists were covering at the time they were murdered, and found common themes, like corruption, political intrigue, and organized crime.

In terms of the government’s participation, because of the links between organized crime and Honduran security forces—whether the police or the army—it is very difficult to separate the acts of violence committed by those non-state actors from the human rights violations committed by agents of the state. In some cases, we have seen that circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the state was either complicit in, or was actually behind, the murder of journalists.

When we look at countries in the region, we see that Honduras is in a worse situation than Canada’s current trade partners in the region. Honduras is not like the other countries. We really must see it as an exception.

To give you an idea of our situation compared to other countries, it is important to note that, according to Freedom House’s global freedom of the press index for 191 countries, Canada ranks 29th.

Chile is ranked 64th; Peru, 89th; and even Colombia, another country that is grappling with drug trafficking, is ranked 112th. Honduras is ranked 140th out of 191 countries, tied with Egypt, a country where the rights of journalists have been repeatedly violated since the protests of a few years ago.

This agreement is not in keeping with the course of current affairs in Canada. When it comes to freedom of the press, Honduras has a track record that is far worse than its neighbours or Canada's other preferred trade partners.

PEN Canada also pointed out that a lot of the topics that are putting journalists in danger include business, investment and trade. All evidence suggests that journalists who write about far more controversial and sensitive subjects, such as the environment, natural resources and land disputes, are at a far greater risk than their colleagues of being victims of violence or murder.

The Conservatives keep saying that signing a free trade agreement will improve the human rights situation in Honduras. Honestly, do they believe in magic? Not only have Honduran institutions been unable to protect the fundamental human rights of Hondurans, but the government has a history of being involved in human rights violations.

When I asked Karen Spring, who testified before the committee, whether she thought the free trade agreement would have a positive or negative effect on human rights issues, this is what she said:

I would say even the enforcement mechanisms that are established in Honduras under Honduran law are not being enforced in any way given the high impunity rate, so I would say the human rights situation will be negative if we encourage further economic interests in sectors that have traditionally been linked to mass human rights abuses that haven't been mediated by the state.

I also asked Ms. Spring whether she thought Hondurans would benefit from the agreement. This was her answer:

...I would say foreign companies, foreign investment, and the 10 to 12 [Honduran] families who have traditionally run the Honduran economy and political arena [and who will benefit].

According to the experts, not even Hondurans will benefit from this free trade agreement.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to discuss other subjects. I oppose this bill and I hope my colleagues will too.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend were right, I would agree with her. However, the problem is this. We have to give the New Democrats credit; at least they are consistent, but they are consistently wrong.

We just have to think back awhile to when first a free trade agreement with Canada and the U.S. was negotiated and the NAFTA. The New Democrats and their union friends were all dancing in the streets, holding hands, singing Kumbaya and saying how they had to destroy the free trade agreement and the NAFTA.

However, once the NAFTA was in place for a few years, the CAW and then later Unifor all said that it was the best thing that had ever happened to trade between Canada and the United States and that it had led to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs and increased trade between the two.

How will $58 billion in reckless spending and a $21 billion carbon tax help create jobs in Canada more than negotiating free trade agreements between Canada and countries around the world? Could she answer that question for me, please?

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

Mr. Speaker, the point my colleague raised does not make any sense at all, but I would like to thank him for bringing up the NDP's position, because I would like to elaborate on that.

We need to negotiate free trade agreements that will benefit Canada. The NDP is prepared to examine the text of the agreement between Canada and the European Union. Of course, we raised a number of concerns, and my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé also moved a motion in the House to ensure that dairy producers receive financial compensation from the government to cover any losses that may result from this agreement. However, we are going to examine the agreement. The democratic countries that make up the European Union are countries with which we should be negotiating free trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the New Democratic Party, and her description of Honduras and the importance of human rights.

However, I remember the NDP provided some support to the Canada-Jordan trade agreement some time back. The reality is that Jordan continues to have significant human rights issues. I assume the reason why the NDP supported the Canada-Jordan trade agreement was that the NDP believed in that case that economic engagement would foster better engagement on human rights issues.

I just looked at the Human Rights Watch website tonight to get an update on Jordan. It says:

Jordanian law criminalizes speech deemed critical of the king, government officials, and institutions, as well as Islam and speech considered defamatory of others.

Perpetrators of torture or other ill-treatment continued to enjoy near-total impunity.

I am not saying that it was wrong for Canada to sign an FTA with Jordan. In fact, this economic engagement can actually improve human rights engagement and dialogue.

However, why does the NDP believe that a free trade agreement with Jordan, with its human rights abuses, is fine, and yet one with Honduras would not be fine?

Is it perhaps, and I do not want to be cynical, that the NDP were looking for one free trade agreement that it could say, “We supported that, so thus we are not so ideological as our opponents may accuse of. We actually supported one free trade agreement?”

If the only free trade agreement the NDP has ever supported was with Jordan, that creates a real challenge for Canadians watching this discussion on human rights and trade tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question from my colleague is absolutely inconsistent, seeing as the Liberal Party supports free trade with a country that in 2012 was the most dangerous country in the world.

It is interesting that the member is right now pretending to care about human rights, seeing as his party actually supports this free trade agreement that would not improve human rights in Honduras, but might actually, as many witnesses in committee mentioned, exacerbate the horrible human rights situation existing there today.

Let me briefly mention testimony that PEN Canada brought to committee. When asked whether this trade agreement would improve or degrade the human rights situation, PEN Canada said that this difficult, complex situation would likely degrade the human rights situation with regard to free speech as journalists who covered issues related to international trade tended to be the ones who were victims of violence, persecution and murders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would frankly ask my distinguished colleague the following: how can the government hope to turn our trade situation around, when Canada has a trade deficit in the order of tens of billions of dollars, by using Honduras as a miracle solution? Again, the House budget is bigger than that country's GDP. I would like someone to explain to me how we are going to turn such a deplorable economic situation around by signing an agreement with people who are such thugs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Roughly half of Hondurans live in poverty. The Conservatives say they are going to find people who are going to buy Canadian products. However, when half the population of a country lives in poverty and its economy is smaller than Ottawa-Gatineau's, then where are these consumers of Canadian products? We have to wonder.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, the questions and comments of the Liberal Party and our Conservative friend are ridiculous. The facts and figures show that they did not succeed in that regard either.

My colleague briefly described the three most important criteria when it comes to free trade agreements. First, the proposed partner's economy must be of value to Canada. Second, the terms of the agreement must be beneficial to our country. Third—and a number of members have talked about this—the proposed partner must respect human rights and meet high environmental and labour standards. This agreement does not meet these very important criteria.

Earlier, I read the most recent report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the CERD, as it is called at the international level. This report, dated March 13, 2014, is quite critical of Honduras' track record, particularly when it comes to respecting human rights.

Members of the United Nations are required to honour the Charter of the United Nations, which requires us to promote and protect human rights. We need to consider those issues when we negotiate agreements.

Does my colleague agree with me?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for the question. I know that he speaks with a lot of gravity and authority on the subject.

Let me give the House one fact to drive this point home. We know that Honduran authorities devote minimal resources to investigating human rights complaints. In 2012, the country's special prosecutor for human rights was responsible for acting on 7,000 cases. That is a very high number, and it was done while employing just 16 prosecutors and 9 investigators.

We can see that this is not a country in which human rights abuses stand to be investigated. It is not a country in which the assassinations of journalists stand to be solved.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this trade agreement.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I will speak about why the Liberal Party is supportive of free trade as an important, essential part of Canada's economic strategy. I will talk about why we support this Honduran free trade deal. I will talk about some of the problems with this deal that we need to be aware of. We think it is a deal that we need to enter into with eyes wide open, and I will speak about some of the overall problems that we are seeing in the trade strategy being pursued by the government.

Let me start by talking a little bit about free trade and why it is so essential to Canada. Eighty per cent of our economy is in some way connected with international trade. We are a big country geographically, but there are not too many of us. In this globalized world economy, it is absolutely essential for Canada to be open to the world economy. Some 19.2% of jobs in Canada are directly connected with trade. In addition, each job in the export sector adds another 1.9 jobs, so trade is really an essential part of any economic strategy to make Canada grow.

With the Honduras deal in particular, we have been talking about the relative size of this deal, the relative size of the Honduran economy, why it is really a small piece of our overall trade puzzle, and that is absolutely right, but it is also really important to get Honduran trade right. In fact, right now, I am sad to report that when it comes to Honduras, we are not dealing particularly well. Currently, as of 2012, we exported $39 million worth of goods to Honduras, and imported $219 million worth of goods.

A little bit earlier in the debate we heard some loose talk about Ricardo, and how, when it comes to trade, we should not worry too much about trade deficits. It all evens out in the end. Trade is just basically good. That is a nice theory and a nice point of view, but I submit, when it comes to jobs in Canada and the real lives of middle-class Canadians, it is absolutely essential that we have a strong, export-led, and export-driven economy. I would urge people who are interested in the works of Ricardo, if they have read them, to actually look at the more recent experience of highly successful economies like Germany, where we have seen very powerful, very strong, very strategic export-led growth be a recipe for a strong middle class. I think to argue that deficits do not matter, trade deficits do not matter, is a very profound mistake.

I would like to talk a little bit now about the Honduras deal and an issue that I think is very important for us to bear in mind, and that is the value side of the equation. As I have said, we support this deal. We believe in trade and we believe in trading with the world, but it is important to note that Honduras is a country that has a very troubled political and human rights record. We do not think that is a reason to not trade with Honduras. We are great believers that engagement, that trade, can be a way for Canada's democracy to help countries along that continuum. We have seen that happen in many parts of the world.

We also believe it is absolutely essential to be aware of these issues from the start, and to enter into this trading relationship aware of them and with a plan to monitor them. I would urge all of us, as we are talking about expanding our trade relations with Honduras, to be very mindful of the example of Russia, a country I personally know very well and really love.

As Russia moved out of Communism on the path to a market economy and democracy, we made a similar argument, that trade and engagement would be a valuable way of helping Russia become a more open society, and for many years, I believe that was the case. However, sometimes that just does not work, and what we have seen with Russia is Russia making a choice with Ukraine in November 2013, and most crucially and tragically, with Crimea in February 2014, to exclude itself from the international community.

What that has meant is that the countries that made this pact with Russia, which said they were going to extend a hand of friendship and trade with it, are now having to pull back, and that means a real economic cost. I would say to all of us here, particularly those members who, like the Liberal Party, support this deal with Honduras, let us make a pledge tonight that part of the deal is putting values first.

Part of the deal, of course, is about the Canadian economy and the importance of trade, but we also need to pledge to watch very closely what is happening with democracy, journalists, labour activists, indigenous people, women, and the LGBT community. If there is a tipping point, we have to be prepared, even if it comes at an economic cost, to pull out of that trading relationship. I cannot emphasize how important it is to us as a country to put those values at the centre.

Having spoken about Honduras, I would like to speak a bit more generally about where our free trade agenda is in the picture of the Canadian economy. Like everyone in the House, I noted with great disappointment the surprising trade deficit in April, which was $638 million according to Statistics Canada. That is a very poor performance and it is very worrying.

I suspect that my respected colleagues, especially those on the other side of the House, may not take my word for it when it comes to where Canada's trading relationship and performance are. I think there is an organization, you gentlemen, and it is only gentlemen this evening—we could talk about gender issues, but we will not do that right now—I think you gentlemen are probably interested in the Canadian—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Why is everything a gender issue with you?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I think you gentlemen are probably interested—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member to direct her comments to the Chair. That avoids us getting into this cross-communication between members.

The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will do that, although I would ask you to help ensure more collegial behaviour on all sides of the House.

I suspect that the members on the other side of the House will not doubt the credibility or the significance of a report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, one of our country's leading industry bodies. In May 2014, it published a report called “Turning it Around: How to Restore Canada's Trade Success”. That title should worry us. It does not sound like it is too great a verdict.

The first chapter is called “Canada's Lagging Trade Performance”. Here is what it says:

International trade is one of the fastest and most effective ways for Canadian businesses to grow, create jobs and contribute to the economy. However, the increase in exports and outward investment has been slow in recent years, and diversification to emerging economies has been limited.

...Canada is lagging its peers according to several measures. Over the past decade, the value of exports has increased at only a modest pace.... If...price increases [in energy] are excluded, the volume of merchandise exports shipped in 2012 was actually five per cent lower than in 2000 despite a 57 per cent increase in trade worldwide.

For a party like the Liberal Party, which believes strongly in middle-class prosperity and in trade as a path toward that, these are damning words indeed.

According to the report:

Canada’s foreign investment trends tell a similar story. Export Development Canada has recorded significant growth in sales by Canadian foreign affiliates...but evidence suggests that sales levels are relatively higher for affiliates from the U.S., the U.K., Japan and Australia.

Not only are we doing less well than we did in 2000, despite a robustly globalizing world economy, we are lagging our international peers. This is why the Liberal Party believes so strongly in trade and why we would really like to see Canadian policy, Canadian action, that is not just about slogans, not just about photo ops, but is actually about a strategic approach and getting deals done.

That brings me to a deal we have been speaking about quite a lot this week, which is the European trade deal. In October, our Prime Minister, with great fanfare and at some expense, travelled to Brussels to sign an agreement in principle on the European trade deal. I am very sad to report that unfortunately, that deal has not yet been concluded, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has travelled again this week to Brussels, which would have been a great opportunity to conclude that very important deal.

I have more worrying news still to report. We requested from the government the actual documents the Prime Minister signed. We can see the Prime Minister signing it if we look at video of that October 18 event. Here was the response we had from the PCO:

A thorough search of the records under the control of the PCO was carried out on your behalf; however, no records relevant to your request were found.

We would like to hear at some point what the Prime Minister actually signed and what is happening with that deal. We believe the Honduras free trade deal is important, but obviously the European free trade deal is much more important.

In conclusion, we believe absolutely that particularly today, in 2014, in the age of globalization, in the age when technology has truly flattened the world economy, Canada has no choice but to be an energetically and strategically trading nation. That is our path to prosperity for our own middle class, and if we do it right and we do it with pure hearts, as well as with smart brains, we can use trade to be a real way of encouraging the growth of democracy in civil society around the world.

However, I am very sad to say that today in our trade agenda we see Canada falling behind. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce itself concluded just last month, we have a lagging trade performance. I submit that it is because we are focusing far too much on photo ops, which may have been without an actual document signed. We would love to hear more about that.

We have much less of a clear strategy focusing on big trading partners and on the big places of growth in the world, and much less effective follow-through. We would love to see much more focus on Africa, for example.

Here is what Canada needs: a truly strategic global trade policy, a policy that is about world strategy and fitting Canada into the global economy, a policy that always remembers that we cannot be an effective trading nation without putting our values first, and finally, a trade policy that is not just about photo ops but is about actually getting the deal done.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is a lot of interest in questions and comments. We do have 10 minutes, but given the level of interest, I would ask hon. members to keep their interventions to around a minute or so.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention today. It sounds to me like she has brought up some good examples, like Germany. Germany, obviously, with its Mittelstand of small and medium-sized manufacturers, is an excellent point. I think she should also reflect on the fact that every country comes to the trade game, so to speak, with a different collection of strengths and weaknesses. While there are certain things we can garner from looking at the German model, its apprenticeship system is quite different, and its whole economy is different in the fact that it is based on geographical areas. Labour is much different in the EU than it is here in Canada.

I would like a clarification. Is the member suggesting that we should only be looking at exporting and not trying to bring in imports from other countries?

The member mentioned David Ricardo. Part of David Ricardo's genius was in recognizing that mercantilism, that very strategy, producing exports and then reducing the amount of imports, does not work to everyone's benefit. What the member I think is advocating is a warmed-over neo-mercantilism.

Could the member please explain if that is what she is conveying? If not, could she give us a better example?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with the hon. member's point about Germany and how its apprenticeship system, which I think has a lot of admirable traits, may not be relevant to Canada.

I would like to point out to the member that his own employment minister speaks often and very favourably of the German apprenticeship program. Although the German apprenticeship program is not on the agenda tonight, it would be great for the government to get its act together, but maybe the talking points on apprenticeships were not on the top of the pile this evening.

To the point of trade, of course, anyone who advocates trade as strongly, wholeheartedly, and with as deep an interest in it as the Liberal Party does understands that trade is a two-way relationship. What I am arguing, however, is that right now what we are seeing in Canada is a worrying one-way relationship, as witnessed by that $638-million trade deficit in April. What we are seeing is that we are pretty good at buying goods from other people, but we are not that great at selling our stuff abroad. That worries me. It should worry everybody else in this House.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, but I would like to remind her that she is not the only woman in the House. The NDP women are also here to stand up for their constituents.

I would like to know why the Liberals want to support and put in place a preferential agreement with a country where there is no democracy, a country with the worst human rights record in the world. It also has the highest rate of journalist murders. It is a major cocaine trafficking centre and it tolerates policies that are harmful to the environment.

I do not understand how the Liberal Party can support an agreement with a country such as that. Does it still want to support it even though, according to the statistics, only 10% of the population benefits from the country's wealth?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by addressing the gender point. I salute all the women in the House. It is important to have more women here. It is always a pleasure for me to meet them and see the very strong female presence, particularly on this side of the House, and the solidarity among us. It is great that they are here. It is great to see some women on the other side of the aisle as well.

To the point of democracy and human rights in Honduras, as I said in my remarks, this is tricky. It is a difficult issue, and it is a tough continuum. Of course I would prefer a world in which everyone enjoys the democracy and human rights Canada does. All of us in the House are united in the belief that part of our duty as Canadian parliamentarians is to work toward improving those conditions not only for Canadians but for everyone in the world.

It is, however, my belief that trade can be a way to help countries move on that authoritarianism-to-democracy continuum. Cutting countries off from the world economy should be a last resort, not the first thing we do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her erudite comments on trade with Honduras and the broader issue of trade in Canada.

Canada shares a lot of experiences and a lot of opportunities with the people of Honduras. We both have indigenous peoples and a huge challenge around equality of opportunity for first nations. We also have opportunities in oil and gas and the extractive sectors. Twenty years ago, indigenous people in Canada were largely opposed to the development of our natural resources. Today there is a greater level of economic integration and co-operation and sharing of wealth.

We could work more closely with the people of Honduras and share our example of the potential for oil, gas, and extractive wealth to raise the standard of living and the quality of life of indigenous people. Is that one of the areas where we need to deepen co-operation, both to improve conditions here in Canada around first nations and to develop best practice models with the people of Honduras, so that its indigenous people have the opportunity to benefit from the positive development of the oil and gas and extractive sectors?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. The hon. member for Kings—Hants identified a powerful and important opportunity in the Canadian-Honduran relationship.

I would point out, as he so very wisely said, that we have to understand that the learning here is not one-way, and there is a lot for Canada to learn on this specific issue as well.

I would also point out in terms of opportunities that there are some terrific trade opportunities for our beef and pork producers, and that is one reason we in the Liberal Party support this deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague opposite talk about the disastrous balance-in-trade deficit in April 2014 of $638 million. That is a one-month figure. I just checked Statistics Canada. In March, Canada had a trade surplus of $765.6 million. That was a huge success. The month before there was a trade surplus of $813.3 million.

Can the member not see that there are month-to-month patterns? To use one data point and say that there is some kind of challenge with our trading ability is really a stretch. I would like the member to please comment on that.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in listening to what the markets say and to what market experts are forecasting. Part of the reason I was so worried and concerned about the April trade numbers is that they were a surprise to market economists. They found them to be very disappointing and part of a worrying trend.

If the hon. member on the other side of the aisle feels that the view of Bay Street economists does not matter, that is his purview. I personally really listen to the people who are in our capital markets and who are paid to have a opinion.

I would also point out, the view of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which noted just last month that Canada's lagging trade performance was worthy of a report. That is something all of us should be worried about. We in the Liberal Party believe in listening to what business is telling us. When this esteemed business institution issues a significant, thoughtful report pointing to our lagging trade performance, people should look beyond their talking points and look at what is happening with our economy.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my colleague from Toronto—Danforth.

It only feels like yesterday that I spoke to this bill. In fact, it was two days ago and it was on this very bill.

I want to begin by saying how disappointed I am that we are ramming this bill through, a bill that has everything to do with the need to respect democratic processes—which we are not doing through this agreement and which is not happening in Honduras—and the need to delve into what this trade agreement is all about. Fundamentally, it is a trade agreement that will not bring benefit to Canadians but will benefit a few people in specific sectors that are close to the government.

I am concerned, not just as a Canadian member of Parliament but as a Canadian, that Canada is embarking on a journey and into a relationship with a country that in recent years has proven its complete disregard for the principles that guide us in this place: democracy, respect for the rule of law, and human rights. We are engaging in a relationship to benefit the very same people who have imposed an oppressive regime that in some cases has been involved in persecution and is as far away from the Canadian value set as we can get.

I rise in this House in consideration of not just the benefit to Canadians, which is not being realized through this free trade agreement, but also of the reality that Hondurans face. While Honduras is not a country that I have had a chance to visit, I have had the experience of travelling in Central America and seeing or hearing first-hand a very dark history that people in countries across Latin America have had with military coup d'états, with the fight for democracy, with the fight for human rights. Sadly, while many Central American countries, such as Chile and Argentina, have shaken off that dark history, Honduras has just recently re-embarked on that same undemocratic dictatorial path.

As we know, 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 left-leaning President Manuel Zelaya 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. In 2009, five short years ago, Honduras underwent a military coup, and it continues to be a repressive and regressive environment. Thanks to the current government, this is the country we are now going to engage with as part of this free trade relationship.

We have heard a lot of talk about the underground economy. We have heard about the predominance of the drug trade. We have heard about the lack of legitimate and positive economic opportunities for the people of Honduras. We have also heard how this free trade agreement will not do anything to change that reality. In fact, in many ways it will continue to legitimize a regime that is oppressive toward the Honduran people. As a New Democrat, I am proud to stand with my party in opposition to this bill.

We believe that there are three fundamentally important criteria to assess trade agreements, including this one.

First, does the proposed partner respect 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? We know that Honduras has failed in this regard.

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? We know that there is particular interest from the Canadian government in the mining sector and in certain agricultural sectors, but by and large, given that Honduras only represents about 1% of our trade, this will not make or break the Canadian economy by any stretch of the imagination, so this proposed agreement does not meet the second criterion.

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? Again, it is a resounding fail.

This trade agreement, like every trade agreement that is negotiated by the current government, has been behind closed doors, without the kind of transparent process that we, as parliamentarians, ought to be able to access but, more important, that Canadians ought to be able to engage in.

For all of these three reasons, for all of these three failures, we in the NDP cannot support this free trade agreement.

I want to read into the record some words of people who are very close to the situation in Honduras who have come before Parliament and have spoken very strongly against this agreement.

Stacey Gomez, coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation's Americas Policy Group, said:

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

The Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras said:

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.

Carmen Cheung, a researcher in the International Human Rights Program, said to the committee, on April 10:

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.... 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.

These are chilling words from people who are not speaking in the abstract. They work closely on the ground with labour activists, with journalists, with lesbian and gay activists, with indigenous peoples. They know the cost of human life, the cost to democratic rights, freedom of expression, freedom of association, that this military coup has meant to the people of Honduras. They are saying, unequivocally, that “We cannot support this free trade agreement”.

I want to particularly emphasize the comments made by Ms. Cheung and made by the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras with reference to how state agents are complicit in these abuses.

The current government wants to enter into a relationship and support the state agents who, we are hearing here, are involved in these kinds of human rights abuses.

My question is, what has happened to Canada, a country that over years and through the hard work of Canadians in their insistence that the respect for human rights needs to guide our international work, whether it is trade or our involvement in multilateral institutions, that the importance of human rights is fundamental to who we are as Canadians is clearly not represented in the government's actions through Bill C-20, through this free trade agreement but, furthermore, in a range of actions that the government has shown over its tenure?

That is why I am proud to rise in this House and share the words of human rights activists who are calling upon us to oppose the free trade agreement, who are demanding better for Canadians, who are demanding better for the people of Honduras. I am proud to stand with the party that, in this House, night after night, day after day, is fighting for the very principle that so many Canadians believe is so important to us: human rights and the fundamental principle of democracy.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP would have some credibility on the free trade file if, at one point, it supported at least a single free trade agreement. It has not supported any. It says no to every single free trade agreement.

In terms of our negotiations or what we hear in the House this evening about Canada-Honduras, is that how the NDP thinks? That if we do not have a free trade agreement with Honduras that trade will somehow not exist. Trade exists right now. The purpose of a free trade agreement is to impose a statutory or regulatory regime on what exists and by virtue of lowering tariff barriers, the goal is to increase prosperity for both partners.

Let me just put this to the member. When will the NDP stand up for jobs, when will the NDP stand up for Canadians, and when will the NDP stand up for Canada?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that tonight we do not talk in the abstract. I have clearly indicated our prioritization of three considerations in deciding on the free trade agreements we are looking at.

It is very important that we focus on what is in front of us, which is a trade agreement with a country that is under a military coup, where people are involved in a fight for fundamental human rights. We are talking about journalists, labour activists, and LGBT activists. We are talking about people who here in Canada have made our country a better place. These people are killed in Honduras. Their human rights are not just not respected; these people are persecuted.

It is not okay for Canada to engage in a relationship that we know will not benefit the Hondurans and that will legitimize and strengthen a regime that continues to attack the human rights of people in their own country. We cannot support this free trade agreement, and we would hope that the government would see the light on this one and refrain from going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the New Democrats for her speech tonight. I share her concerns about human rights in Honduras, but I also want to remind her that one of the greatest perpetrators of human rights abuses in Honduras is the drug trade. The illicit drug trade and the production of drugs in Honduras has for far too long had a significant impact on people's lives in terms of human rights abuses.

Does the member not see the potential for legitimate economic opportunities, through rules-based trade, to actually provide people who are currently victimized by the illicit drug trade with other options? Does she not see as well the danger of economic isolationism and the prevention of the people of Honduras from having legitimate economic opportunities through trade with Canada? That could actually force more of them into illicit economic activities to make a living any way they can, and as such, force more of them into the drug trade.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's points, but moving away from the theory to the practice, let us look at the example of Colombia, a country that has very similar struggles on the political level. Canada signed a free trade agreement. What we have seen is that Canadian companies, with great gusto, have gone into that country and have developed particularly the resource extraction sector and have treated people in similar ways, sadly, as some of the state agents we hear about in that country. We hear of security groups. We hear of vigilante groups that attack indigenous activists, peasant activists, and labour union leaders who are seen as threatening to Canadian companies.

Sadly, some corporations that have head offices in Canada, and I would not call them Canadian corporations, benefit from free trade agreements like the one with Colombia. They will certainly benefit as a result of the one with Honduras and will sadly disrespect the human rights of the people in these countries in a way that would never be acceptable in Canada. Therefore, we cannot accept this free trade agreement before us today.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-20, with some experience in Honduras. I was a member of the Comisión de Verdad, one of the two truth commissions set up after the coup in 2009. I stepped down when I was elected to the House, but I have been following it ever since, including the report that the commission put out in October 2012, which I may refer to now and again.

It is important to give some human rights context. My colleagues have given lots of reasons why human rights, rule of law and the overall governance structures in a country matter for a free trade agreement. However, it is important to remember that 65% of Hondurans live in poverty and around 46%, almost 50%, live in extreme poverty. As our former ambassador to Costa Rica and Honduras, Neil Reeder, said, “It suffers from extremely unequal income distribution”.

It is a country that not only has serious problems meeting the social and economic rights of its population, but it has become a very repressive state, even though there is the veneer of democracy since the coup and the subsequent election six months after the coup. In 2013, Human Rights Watch's report indicated that 23 journalists had been killed since 2010, and in 2014, PEN International's report told us that 34 journalists had been killed since the coup in 2009.

Before the committee, COFADEH, probably the leading human rights organization in Honduras, led by Bertha Oliva, told us that it had documented at least 16 activists or candidates from the main opposition party before the most recent election, the party that is called “LIBRE”, had been assassinated since June 2012, and 15 others attacked.

The Economist Intelligence Unit, which basically does surveys every few years on countries and their overall state of affairs, downgraded Honduras from what it called a “flawed democracy” in 2008, even before the coup, to a “hybrid regime” in 2012. That is a regime that is not even actually a democracy. From all my experience in the country after eight visits, I can attest to that as being an accurate qualification.

My colleague from Toronto Centre has mentioned on occasion, as did my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca in his speech, that the situation of the LGBTQ community in Honduras has long been one of great precarity. It was never great, especially for transsexuals who were always subject to extreme violence. However, after the coup in 2009, between 2009 and 2011—only a year and a half, because it is only the first part of 2011 that these numbers count for—35 members of the LGBTQ community were assassinated in ways that were associated with the fact of their membership in that community and the fact that by and large that community supported the efforts of the previous administration and were against the coup. At some level, the coup also resulted in a general opening up or licence for others, such as paramilitary groups and conservative forces in society, to kill with impunity.

I would like to pay tribute to three people before I go on to some of the economic issues.

Walter Trochez is kind of the symbol of the LGBTQ community in Honduras. I talked to his apartment mate about the night that he died. He was murdered by being shot. The apartment mate received Walter's final call just before he lost his life, literally saying “They killed me, they killed me”. This had been preceded by endless encounters with the police where he had been detained, and abductions as well by hooded men. In all of those instances, every one of the three or four instances that the Comisión de Verdad documented, he was taunted with the fact that he was a marica or maricon, which excuse me, translates as “faggot”.

[Member spoke in Spanish and provided the following translation:]

Faggots are not worth anything. Faggots do not have rights.

At the same time, when he was abducted by four armed men and had managed to escape from them, they linked him to the resistance to the coup, so ultimately he was killed for the fact that he not only was an active human rights advocate for the LGBTQ community but also he dared also to support at the political level the resistance to the coup.

I would like to salute Walter Trochez as a symbol of that community's suffering.

I would also like to speak about Eddy, who was the lead security guard for the Comisión de Verdad. He was almost the one person who lost his life during the Comisión's time. We had a couple of Honduran commissioners who had to flee the country, and he almost lost his life.

He was approached by four men with pistols in their hands who tried to shove him into a car in the middle of the street, with all kinds of onlookers. Brave as he was and knowledgeable as he was about what would happen if he ever got in the car, he made a bolt for it. The men shot after him as he was running down the street. He escaped, not without psychological trauma, but with his life.

The last person that I want to pay tribute to is Eva, who is a constituent in Toronto--Danforth. She was recently accepted as a refugee in Canada, having been shot multiple times while tending her small business in Tegucigalpa, by somebody dressed in plaIn clothes, but who all the neighbours identified as a policeman.

That is the kind of context at a broad human rights level. It is important to know that economically, Honduras is an extremely problematic country to be investing in and to have our corporate actors going down and expecting to be doing good, rather than harm.

As the Comisión de Verdad reported—and I will be translating from page 47 of the report—career politicians serve and have served businessmen and leaders of political clans in their demands, creating and reproducing the discourses and the beliefs of the entrepreneurial or business classes and the industrial classes without actually generating conditions for economic prosperity for others. New interests, as well, have begun to interact with the political parties to the point that they have been working with global economic classes to propose whole zones, called “model cities”, that would be completely free from Honduran governance. They would effectively be multinational capital sovereigns.

There is this interpenetration of the six to nine traditional families and the newer groups interacting with various global interests. Frankly, all analyses indicate how they have completely captured the state apparatus, both of the main parties, the executive in terms of the civil service, and, I am sorry to say, much of the judiciary and the police.

In that context, it is important to note that the situation in Bajo Aguan is kind of emblematic. It is one of the worst situations, but it is also emblematic of what can happen.

In February 2014, Human Rights Watch published a report called “There Are No Investigations Here”, documenting how between 150 and 200 homicides in the Bajo Aguan region were alleged to have been committed by security forces hired by large landowners. Many of those landowners are cultivating the land for agri-industrial business in African palm oil for global markets.

The report also shows how there is absolutely no police, prosecutorial, or judicial protection for the campesinos who have been murdered in this fashion.

Only a few months ago, the World Bank Group ombudsman ruled that the World Bank itself had inappropriately invested $15 million of a promised $30 million in a group called Corporación Dinant, which is owned by the Facussé family. The ombudsman said that the World Bank Group should never have given money to that operation because of the involvement of Dinant in conducting, facilitating, and supporting forced evictions of farmers in Bajo Aguan and violence against farmers in and around the plantations, including multiple killings.

I would end by saying that the UN Working Group on Mercenaries in February 2013 also ruled that private security forces in the hands of the larger agricultural and other corporations in Honduras had been responsible for, or there are reasonable concerns that they are responsible for, serious repression in that country. That is the pattern. That is not an environment in which Canadian companies at this time should have any involvement through a free trade agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to trade, but it goes beyond just free trade agreements. As the member would know, Canada already trades, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, with Honduras. If we use the logic of the New Democrats, we should not have trade agreements, because, for all intents and purposes, they have never voted in favour of trade agreements, but they voted not to support this one based on human rights, and so forth. I can respect their reason for concern. I genuinely respect why we should be concerned about that.

The question I have specifically for the member is this. If the New Democrats do not believe we should have free trade with Honduras, do they believe we should be allowing trade with countries of this nature? Would he support reducing trade? It would seem to be a logical extension of the arguments that many of his caucus colleagues have made, that Honduras is a bad country and we should not trade with it. Would he advocate that, where we can, we should look at reducing trade where there are issues related to human rights?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague to reduce my arguments to argument ad absurdum, but I think the absurdity is coming from the other side. There is no issue of the NDP ever embracing the idea of stopping trade that occurs on its own versus the idea of deepening trade and producing all kinds of structures that could enhance corporate power and would end up creating worse conditions, quite possibly, for the people in the other country, quite apart from the effects of what they might feel in Canada. That is actually not my concern, no.

However, I would like to correct him so he can start asking my colleagues another zinger that his colleague from Kings—Hants thought he was asking. Yes, we voted for the Jordan free trade agreement, but we did so for reasons that were very considered. It does not have an investor state provision such as this one does and—

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

That's after you voted against it.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

We did, Mr. Speaker.

The labour co-operation agreement also includes enforcement mechanisms that include options for an independent review panel, et cetera, whereas what we have here is a provision in the agreement, article 816. I will read it quickly. It is very short. It says:

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

That is a very different situation between those agreements.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak again on this issue this evening.

I was involved in multilateral negotiations at the international level for over 25 years. I know how complex this process can be and how issues can sometimes be extremely complicated. Many factors must be considered when we negotiate agreements.

I am rather intrigued by the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who spoke about free trade in general terms. His party that applauded the recent agreement with the European Union without even having read it. I clearly remember his leader, the hon. member for Papineau, rising in the House to applaud the Prime Minister for signing an agreement with the European Union, which he had not even read. We should show some sensitivity when we are dealing with these issues.

As I have always done with international issues, I read several reports, particularly the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which deals with aboriginal people. As we know, a number of mining companies are active in Latin America. Relations with first nations, with the aboriginal peoples of these countries, are very important.

I am familiar with the hon. member's experience. I wonder if he could tell us about it.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that, in the Honduran context, all the important procedural duties, including the duty to seek the prior informed consent of indigenous peoples, are almost certainly not in a position to be enforced.

Canadian mining companies and agricultural companies that might get involved are going to have to rely on the acquisition of land and rights near land that will not conform to international standards.

I would predict that there is going to be a serious problem. I can only agree with my colleague about the irony of a leader standing up in the House, giving unqualified support to a document he had never read and now having his trade critic criticize people because she cannot read it.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be in the House this evening with the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, and to the other agreements on environmental co-operation and labour co-operation as well.

By way of starting, let me provide a little context for this discussion, taking it away from Honduras and this specific agreement to talk about the broader trade agenda and trade record of the government.

When the Conservatives came into power in 2006, they were spotted an $18 billion current account surplus. That is to say that trade was enriching us as a country, setting aside for the moment the issue of the equity of the distribution of that account surplus. It was indeed a surplus to the tune of $18 billion, no paltry sum.

Today, eight years on, under the Conservative government, we have a current account deficit of $62 billion. That leaves us with a nice round swing number of $80 billion as the negative swing, the delta, the loss, whatever one wants to call it. Part of the problem here is that we are trading raw or barely processed exports, reducing the importance of value-added exports in this trading mix.

Clearly, the government, with its sole, exclusive focus on the export of resources, is causing economic challenges for us in Canada.

I recently had the occasion, as the chair of the Canada-Bangladesh Parliamentary Friendship Group, to talk at the University of Ottawa on development issues for Bangladesh specifically.

The panel invited to speak at the invitation of its His Excellency Kamrul Ahsan was made up of experts with various backgrounds and specialities. It gave me cause to look closely at the trading relationship between Canada and Bangladesh. It would seem to be fairly typical of what is going on with Canada's trading regime. It is not a particularly huge trading relationship, with just over $1 billion worth of goods coming in from Bangladesh and about half of that going out of Canada destined for that country.

What is noticeable is that, apart from a couple of helicopters, Bangladesh is sending to us value-added goods, mainly in the form of garments, but that is not to ignore the development of their own shipbuilding industry and a flourishing pharmaceutical industry. In return, we send them natural resources and unprocessed agricultural products.

It is interesting to note that Honduras has a trade account deficit, but it seems that Canada would be one of the countries with which it has a trade account surplus.

This kind of dismal trading record, established under the government, earns one special recognition. Between 2006 and 2012, Canada had the worst current account deficit when we compared our trading performance against 17 similar countries around the world.

Before the optimists leap to the thought that maybe we have reached the bottom, that the bleeding has stopped and things are on the mend, let me advise that in 23 of the last 24 months, we have experienced a merchandise trade deficit. It brings to mind the definition of madness put forward by, I think, Einstein: to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

That is what we are seeing with the government, tonight and when we discuss trade agreements, talking about how many of these agreements it has signed. Here we go again with Bill C-20.

Contrary to the 14-second soundbites that come from across the floor, we are not anti-trade over here. That would be to take an ideological position and eschew all practical considerations and objectives. That is not what we are about.

That is what those guys do over there, and what the Liberals do, too, as we have seen tonight, although they like to confuse it by saying that they are concerned. They seem to think that free trade agreements are something like hockey cards or some other kind of collectable, and we should just keep signing them and then make triumphant noises, and then collect another one as though that was the end in itself. Never mind that with each one they sign, the current account deficit seems to actually deepen.

The Conservatives do not even read them first. The content does not seem to matter either. The outcome does not seem to matter. Nothing seems to matter, other than getting one signed.

In the grandest farce of all, we have had multiple announcements of the agreement on the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. The government just could not wait to announce that one; it said there were just details, i's and t's to be crossed and dotted.

The leader of the third party leapt out of his seat enthusiastically at the news to express his admiration and support for the government landing the deal. Nobody on this side of the House, the Liberal leader included, has even read the deal to be able to determine whether or not it is a good deal, worthy of celebration, a deal that might enrich Canada and Canadians. The irony is not lost on us that we have the Liberals tonight calling to see the Honduran deal when they celebrated the European deal sight unseen.

There is a simple reason for all of this. There is no deal. The Conservatives made an announcement about nothing, and the Liberals applauded them and congratulated them heartily upon their announcement of a deal that does not exist.

Word is that our Prime Minister is scrambling furiously over in Europe now, trying to rescue a deal, but we wish him well in securing a deal that would serve Canada and Canadians well. That, after all, would be the only point of such a trade deal, would it not? That is actually a real and open question. We know the answer from the Conservatives and the Liberals. They have answered by way of their actions, their embrace of a deal that is more phantom than real, a deal they have not read because it does not actually exist.

That is the simplistic, ideological reflex of those parties, both the Conservatives and the Liberals, the reflex that Einstein called madness, the reflex that sees a $62 billion current account deficit, more dollars leaving this country through trade than coming in, the reflex that takes us back to a time we were trying to grow out of, the time when we did what was easiest, the time when we did what the rest of the world wanted us to do: just dig it up and ship it out, rip it and ship it, as we say, or grow it and throw it. In support of all of that, of course, they cite an economist born in 1772 as support for this ideological reflex they have.

Therefore, it is time for a change, time for a more thoughtful, purposeful look at trade and what it ought to do for Canada, a look at our objectives. It is time for a look at trade that is sufficiently nuanced to be able to distinguish between partners and the kinds of agreements that are suitable for different trading partnerships.

The comprehensive economic trade agreement may be a template suitable for a large, sophisticated, and developed market like the European Union. We do not know that. We will see whether it serves us well when we get a chance to read it, if we ever do, but that same agreement may not serve as a particularly useful template for a trading agreement with Honduras. Indeed, a trading relationship with Honduras may not even be the appropriate way to engage with Honduras.

Our party believes that there are three fundamentally important criteria for assessing a trade agreement. One, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy and human rights, and does it have adequate environmental and labour standards? If the answer is not clearly yes, then the question becomes this. Is the proposed partner on a positive trajectory towards those goals, at least? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada? Finally, if the answer to that strategic question is yes, then the question becomes very much a practical one. Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? In other words, did we get a good deal? Will Canada benefit from this agreement? Against these assessment criteria, Bill C-20 runs into problems right off the bat.

Let me turn now to have a closer look at Honduras. Let us see not just who we are doing business with, but who it is that we are actually proposing to treat preferentially through the passage of the bill.

If we look at the first criterion, on the issue of democracy or respect for democratic rights, we know that the democratically elected government of President Zelaya was toppled by a military coup in 2009, which was widely condemned around the world, including by all Latin American nations, the European Union, the United States, and the UN General Assembly. We know that 94 members of the U.S. Congress have called upon the U.S. Department of State to halt all military aid to Honduras in light of its violent repression of political activity.

If we go to the Economist Intelligence Unit and its report on Honduras, its 2013 Democracy Index ranks Honduras 85th out of 160 countries, which represents no change from the 2012 index. It remains, as my colleague for Toronto—Danforth said earlier in his speech, a “hybrid” regime. That score reflects deficiencies in most categories, “... owing to its low level of institutional development, a weak judiciary, high levels of corruption...and unabated drug- and gang-related violence...”. That is a quote from the Economist Intelligence Unit country report on Honduras.

If we go to other sources, such as the Human Rights Watch, we see that in December 2012 the Honduran Congress arbitrarily dismissed four Supreme Court judges and passed further legislation empowering itself to remove justices and the Attorney General. Again, in November 2011, the Congress passed an emergency decree allowing military personnel to carry out public security duties, which has since been extended. This is the so-called trade by rule of law where Supreme Court justices get dismissed, just like that.

Now all of this spills over into issues plainly of human rights. The Human Rights Watch report on Honduras, as part of the World Report, begins with the sentence: “Honduras suffers from rampant crime and impunity for human rights abuses”. That is where we start, with that report.

Others, including Tasleem Thawar, executive director of PEN Canada, actually gave testimony at the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 10, 2014, which was not too long ago. She said:

...not only have Honduran institutions failed at protecting basic human rights for its citizens; there is a history of government involvement in these human rights abuses. Our research shows that the state not only failed to investigate crimes against journalists; in many cases state actors were themselves complicit in these crimes.

Again, from the Human Rights Watch 2014 report:

Journalists, peasant activists, and LGBTI individuals are particularly vulnerable to attacks, yet the government routinely fails to prosecute those responsible and provide protection for those at risk.

It goes on to say that:

Impunity for serious police abuses is a chronic problem. Police killed 149 civilians from January 2011 to November 2012, including 18 individuals under age 19....

...a May 2013 investigation...suggested police involvement in at least five extrajudicial executions or disappearances...

...more than 90 LGBTI people were killed between 2009 and 2012, and many more subjected to attacks and harassment. The alleged involvement of Honduran police in some of these violent abuses is of particular concern.

All of that is out of the Human Rights Watch report from 2014.

On the issues of environment and labour, I have to express deep skepticism about these co-operation agreements based on some recent inquiries that I made in the form of questions on the order paper.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services advertises the fact that it has a policy to ensure that the goods the department procures are manufactured in compliance with local labour laws, so I asked the minister whether the department procures garments from foreign markets and, if so, from where. The answer is that the government procures garments from around the world, including China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and indeed Honduras.

I also asked if the departments knew what factories these garments are made in. The answer came back from every department, “no”, with the exception of public works, which said that it was third-party information.

They disavowed knowledge of where these garments were made, rendering the government's policy absolutely impossible to implement and making a mockery of the whole policy and the whole exercise, and this paper social responsibility exercise is perpetrated by our own federal government on these issues. Now we are asked to look at so-called labour and environmental co-operation agreements and find some sense of satisfaction and comfort in those.

My immediate interest in asking these questions had to do with the collapse of the Rana Plaza building that housed a number of garment factories in Bangladesh. That collapse killed 1,135 workers and injured another 2,500, adding to the long column of tragedies, deaths, and injuries in the garment industry.

However, at least in Bangladesh there is broad agreement that the employment laws and the labour laws and the building code are decently formulated laws and that if they are properly implemented in the future, they would provide protection to workers.

Not so in Honduras. According to the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center, Honduran trade unionists are routinely threatened, intimidated, harassed, and even murdered for attempting to form unions, and criminals are rarely brought to justice. Since the 2009 coup, 31 trade unionists have been assassinated and more than 200 injured in violent attacks.

It is worth noting that in response to other questions on the order paper, the minister for public works responded that they have done no audits for compliance with local labour laws because they had no information to warrant such audits. Never mind the factory collapsing and killing 1,135 people. Never mind the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center having the basic facts of intimidation and assassinations of trade unionists right on its website. All of that should trigger some interest in whether government-procured garments are actually being made in compliance with local labour laws.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left? Two minutes. I see the House leader finds that funny. He has a strange sense of humour, as we have noted over the last three years.

Let me skip to my conclusion, because I do not want to miss that.

Clearly, when one looks through the criteria that our party has spelled out for assessing whether a country qualifies for preferential trading treatment, we can see that Honduras fails quickly and does not qualify. It is worth noting that even if it did not fail on the first grounds, it fails on the second grounds, which have to do with the significance of the economy or the strategic value of an agreement in providing a preferential trading relationship with the country. Honduras is currently Canada's 104th export market in terms of value of exports.

Over the 2007-2012 period, annual Canadian exports to Honduras averaged just $50 million and annual Canadian imports from Honduras averaged $161 million. From the current account deficit, we see that we cannot manage even an equal trading relationship with Honduras under this government. Even internal DFAIT analyses confirm that only marginal benefits to the Canadian economy are expected from the deal. There is in fact nothing to recommend this bill.

It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that the passage of the bill would be a benign act. Let me finish with a quote from Stacey Gomez, the coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. She says:

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

This bill represents an ethically bankrupt notion of relationships and engagement. It is nothing other than an ideological reflex unpackaged. It suggests that free trade, that is trade with no meaningful conditionality, somehow in and of itself alleviates instead of exploits corruption and poverty, that somehow it will build government capacity instead of exploiting its absence, and that business, in the absence of labour law, will voluntarily leave surplus behind in Honduras, helping social and economic progress in Honduras. Of course, we do not believe that any of that is true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very well-researched speech. I wonder if he could comment on the following sentence:

...an FTA would provide international legitimacy to a political regime and economic model that is oligarchic, oppressive and unjust.

Those are not my words. They are from Ricardo Grinspun, an associate professor in the Department of Economics at York University, who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on May 1, 2014.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud to note that economist Dr. Grinspun happens to be a constituent of mine, so of course, he is correct, for all sorts of reasons, including the substance of what he said to the committee. That is consistent with that last quote I gave from Stacey Gomez. What we are doing by way of providing preferential treatment to a country like Honduras, with its human rights deficit, its democratic rights deficit, and the atrocities committed there, as evidenced at that committee but also by the experiences of my colleague, and witnessed by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, is that we are validating a regime and political practices that Canada should not be. That is the harm of this deal. That is why approving this deal cannot be considered to be a benign act.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this of my colleague, after what frankly was one of the most brilliant speeches I have heard since arriving in this House two years ago. I would have liked to have asked the Liberal trade critic from Toronto Centre, but there was great competition to ask questions, and I did not get to ask one.

We heard from the Liberals tonight that somehow or other they are interested in wanting this agreement signed, and they support this bill, but at the same time, they are sort of signalling that, maybe at some point when values are offended to too great an extent, we might well withdraw from this treaty. There were some hints of that in the Liberal trade critic's speech on January 29, when she said, “it will only work if it is more than words”. I was wondering if my colleague can help me understand what is going on here.

She also stated:

...we have to be very aware of what is going on in Honduras...[otherwise] we could be complicit in political, environmental and labour violations...; we have to watch closely and be absolutely certain that we and Canada are behaving well.

With respect to the problem with the side agreements being voluntary, she states:

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

With respect to what is facing the LGBT community, it means that “we have to be absolutely aware of and watchful about” this.

She goes on:

Regarding the environmental standards, we have to be watchful about this.... we have to take incredible care.

I am wondering if my colleague from Beaches—East York can help me understand where the Liberal Party may be going with this approach?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question and more so for the lovely statement about my speech. I am going to disappoint him now because I cannot accommodate that question with a response. After I heard the Liberal trade critic I was confused by that party's position and I do not think the confusion was just mine alone. It is a confusing position that those members take.

The little quote that I caught from the Liberal trade critic was, “We'll go in, eyes wide open”. My question is: what is it that she needs to see that she has not seen already?

I will go back to the Human Rights Watch World Report from 2014. The opening talks about Honduras suffering from rampant crime and impunity. It talks about police abuse and corruption. It goes on to talk about the supreme court justices being removed for unsatisfactory administrative conduct. It talks about attacks on journalists. It talks about rural violence. These are all things that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth talked about in his speech and in his personal experience during his time in Honduras.

If those things that are cited over and over again in all sorts of publications, including the Human Rights Watch report, are not enough to offend one's values and to say no, then the Liberal Party is as ethically bankrupt frankly as the ideological responses that come from the Conservative Party on the issue of trade.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Transparency International, Honduras, the most corrupt country in Central America, is a key player in the drug trade. There are also confirmed ties between government members, the police and drug dealers. Moreover, this country has the greatest income disparity in the region.

Instead of giving preferential treatment to this country, should the government not help it achieve a healthy democracy, understand and respect human rights and labour law, and fight corruption and impunity? Would this not be the best way to help that country? I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon. colleague for that question because it gets us to the point that the only type of engagement that the Conservative Party seems to know is one of trade. The third party seems to know that as well, except that it is at least wise enough to express care and caution and all the rest of those things.

There are many other forms of engagement, including trade with conditionality. This is the opportunity that Canada has with all sorts of countries around the world. If they are interested, if there is a prospect, if they are on a trajectory toward improved human rights and democratic rights for the citizens of that country, then there are opportunities to engage in conditional trade. There are opportunities to engage in other ways around, simply, development, development of state capacity for democratic institutions and all the rest of it. It does not have to be a trade-based form of engagement.

All of those things are open to us as a country to play an important role in enriching the citizens of Honduras, and by enriching I do not mean simply in monetary fashion, but enriching their lives in terms of freeing them from a society that is riddled with crime and danger as we have heard many times through the speeches tonight.

These opportunities are available to us. The NDP understands that one trade agreement, one template, is not sufficient. It is ethically bankrupt. There are opportunities for us to engage around the world in all sorts of different but meaningful, productive, and constructive ways with different countries.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-20. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Laval.

I need to begin my comments by strongly underscoring that the New Democrats recognize the importance of trade to our economy, however, we favour expanded trade opportunities and have a long record of supporting Canada's manufacturers and exporters in seeking new opportunities at home and abroad.

With that being said, the New Democrats would prefer to see increased trade with nations that respect Canadian values, particularly when it comes to the protection of human rights and safe working conditions. Further, we believe these trade agreements need to have clearly defined benefits to the Canadian economy such as increased job growth here at home.

The New Democrats support a strategic trade policy where we restart multilateral negotiations and where we sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and with developing countries that are on a progressive trajectory, countries like Japan, Brazil, South Africa, for example. These are countries that we should be signing free trade agreements with, not countries like Honduras where drug traffickers operate with near impunity, human rights are regularly abused, democracy is under threat and where there are very low labour and production standards that have the potential to hurt the Canadian economy in a race to the bottom for wages and workers' rights.

To be blunt, Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, low standards, insignificant strategic value and a record of human rights abuses. NGOs have documented these serious human rights abuses. 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 are all well established.

Transparency International ranks it as the most corrupt country in Central America and a major drug smuggling centre with known linkages between the ruling party politicians, the police and trafficking.

Expert testimony at the Standing Committee on International Trade reinforced the concerns of the New Democrats about human rights abuses in Honduras and substantiated our refusal to support an expanded trade agreement with a government that was directly involved in perpetrating these abuses against trade activists, journalists and members of the LGBT community.

The executive director of PEN Canada stated:

—not only have Honduran institutions failed at protecting basic human rights for its citizens; there is a history of government involvement in these human rights abuses. Our research shows that the state not only failed to investigate crimes against journalists; in many cases state actors were themselves complicit in these crimes.

Not only is the regime in Honduras a habitual offender of human rights, its policies have also almost exclusively sought to increase what is already the most stratified country in Latin America.

Dr. Rosemary Joyce, an internationally recognized Honduran expert and professor at Berkeley University, stated:

Starting the very day of the coup in 2009 and continuing today, the most salient governmental issues have been the steps taken to enrich a small wealthy elite at the expense of the majority of the Honduran population, leading to the highest level of inequality in Latin America.

Finally, in June 2013, 24 U.S. senators signed a letter expressing concern about the human rights situation in Honduras and requested that Secretary of State John Kerry make every reasonable effort to help ensure that Honduras' November 2013 elections were free, fair and peaceful.

Further, 94 members of congress have called upon the U.S. State Department to halt all military aid to Honduras, in light of its violent repression of political activity.

What we are seeing is a government steadfastly determined to enter into a trade agreement with a corrupt, abusive regime whose sole aim has been to enrich the small cadre of loyalists and friendly business elites at the expense of the remaining 99.9% of Honduran society.

I strongly believe that entering into this agreement would only reinforce the stranglehold of the regime and would be counter to values which Canadians believe our government should be promoting abroad.

Canadians expect our federal government to be a leader on the world stage. That is why most Canadians agree that giving preferential trade terms to corrupt, undemocratic countries that suppress dissent, violate citizens' human rights, and facilitate drug trafficking is the wrong approach to trade policy.

Let me reiterate. New Democrats recognize the importance of trade to our economy. We favour expanded trade opportunities. However, in determining our support for a trade deal, we also consider the fact that trade agreements must provide clearly defined benefits to the Canadian economy, so let us look at the impact the Canada-Honduras trade deal would have on the Canadian economy.

Currently Honduras accounts for less than 1% of our trade and is Canada's 104th-largest export market in terms of value of exports. In 2012, merchandise exports totalled a meagre $38 million, while imports were $218 million, meaning there is already a significant trade deficit between our economies.

Obviously, given these figures, Honduras is not a strategic trade partner. Therefore, a failure to ratify this agreement would not have an adverse impact upon the Canadian economy, while the ratification of the agreement would have no discernible impact upon Canadian exporters.

Since the Conservatives took power, Canada's export performance has suffered badly, going from a significant trade surplus to a huge deficit. My Conservative colleagues often brag about the number of agreements they have signed, but the fact is that they have not finalized even one agreement with a major market that would offer significant benefits for Canadians.

In fact, leaked reports from the Department of Foreign Affairs reveal the Conservatives' pursuit of insignificant agreements like this one with Honduras has tied up resources and compromised Canada's ability to secure agreements with high-standard economies that would offer real opportunities, such as Japan.

This speaks directly to the Conservatives' record on trade. When they came to power, they inherited a current account surplus of $18 billion, but eight years later, Canada's current account deficit stands at $62 billion. That represents a negative swing of $80 billion and an average decline of $10 billion a year.

Canada's trade record vis-à-vis that of our international counterparts emphasizes the failure of the Conservative government to increase export-driven trade, which historically has been a key driver of our economy. Here, between 2006 and 2012, Canada had the worst current account performance when our trade performance is compared with 17 other countries around the world.

While the Conservatives continue to chastise the NDP's position on supporting balanced, mutually beneficial trade agreements, their record on trade, just like their record on so many other important economic files, speaks for itself.

In conclusion, I believe this is the wrong trade deal at the wrong time. Honduras' record on human rights is atrocious, its leadership is corrupt and continues to use the country's public institutions to benefit a select few, and there is no significant advantage for the Canadian economy in signing this deal.

Instead of focusing on marginal trade deals such as this one, we should be looking to strengthening our trading relationships with economies that can offer real benefits to Canada in terms of both cheaper imports and increased exports of manufactured goods, not just raw materials.

That is why I will continue to oppose the bill in Parliament.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are like the cows watching the train go by. The world has changed and the NDP has not. The world embraces trade. Every country aspires to have bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, and Canada has been very aggressive on the bilateral free trade agreement front. We have negotiated 43 free trade agreements since 2006 and the NDP has opposed every single one of them.

I would like to ask my hon. friend this. Why do New Democrats favour higher taxes, particularly a $21-billion carbon tax, and reckless spending that would push us far into deficit and increase our debt, and oppose free trade that would help Canada become a more prosperous economy, bearing in mind that one out of five jobs depend on trade in this country? Why are they stuck in the 19th century? Why do they not bring themselves into the 21st century and realize that free trade leads to jobs and prosperity and it is great for Canada? It is time they accept it.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

That is quite rich, Mr. Speaker, from a party that has been quoting Ricardo from the 18th century all day. It is absolutely ludicrous that Conservatives come forward with these questions.

When we look at what the government is doing with Honduras, it is supporting a corrupt government, it is supporting drug traffickers. It is actually not looking at making sure that we can protect the environment and protect journalists. My hon. colleague earlier was quoting individuals who were being taken away in cars and the Conservatives think this is a good government to deal with.

New Democrats are not the ones stuck in the 19th century. We are a progressive group who wants to ensure that there is fair trade, that we expand our trade with countries that actually reflect our values and grow our economy. Unfortunately, they are stuck in the 1950s.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I heard my hon. friend correctly, he said that the government supports drug traffickers. If he has any evidence of that, I would like him to table that in the House.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you can just look at this bill. Conservatives are supporting the Honduras government, which is implicit in a lot of the drug trafficking that is happening in Honduras. Therefore, it is a very simple answer.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I am glad there is agreement on that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, because the Conservatives keep asking all the easy questions of my colleague, I am going to ask a more challenging one, in part because I got asked a more challenging one, and it is this. How does one make sense of the Liberals' policy and position on this particular agreement? Their position seems to be that values matter. They support the agreement, values matter, they will go in with eyes wide open. My colleague cited all the violations of human rights, democratic rights, and others in his speech. If that is not enough for the Liberals to say this is a problem, I do not know what is.

I am wondering if the member can reconcile the Liberal position for me.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for the question, but I cannot fathom an answer as to where that is coming from. It seems that the Conservatives and the Liberals and a lot of their allies frequently present that false dichotomy to Canadians.

They always say that they need to engage through this free trade agreement, but, really, when it comes to importance of what we can do as Canadians and represent Canadian values, we can call for engagement that focuses on building institutional, judicial, and democratic capacities, such as protecting freedom of speech, protecting vulnerable groups, confronting the rampant post-coup society, and redistributing the power and wealth in one of the most unequal countries in the Americas. That is what we could be doing as a country and as a Parliament to ensure we support that type of growth in Honduras.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Sudbury for sharing his time with me. I would also like to commend my hon. colleague from Beaches—East York for his wonderful speech. Anyone who listened to it understood right away what it was about.

I would like to delve right into the main theme of my speech on Bill C-20. I will start by taking a brief look back in history. I will not go back as far as the 19th century, but it is important to point out that Honduras has been an independent country since 1821.

Honduras has therefore been an independent nation for 193 years. It has made progress and has had highs and lows, but it has carried on. Recently, there have been a lot of problems in the country that have significantly lowered the quality of life for its residents. The biggest blow was the coup against democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009.

The military then conned the people and ruled for several years until another election was held. The existing government does not really represent any true segment of Honduran society. There is a lot of corruption and human rights are violated. In short, there is no real guarantee of living a decent life there.

When I see the Conservative government bragging and saying that it is going to sign a free trade agreement with Honduras, it is a disgrace to anything that might be considered good about international free trade.

Why? Despite all the advantages and disadvantages of international trade agreements between countries, I believe that the Conservatives look only at the economic aspect of it, the matter of profit and what they can get out of it, since traditionally trade with Honduras has always resulted in a negative balance. We know that. The figures have been mentioned before. It makes no sense. This agreement is of no real economic value to Canada, and the Conservatives are not abiding by the main criteria, as we have already discussed here.

One of those criteria stipulates that the proposed partner's economy must be of significant or strategic value to Canada. However, that does not seem to be the case here. Another criterion stipulates that the terms of the proposed agreement must be satisfactory. That too is not the case.

No good economist would enter into the negotiation of a trade agreement, whether it be between countries or strictly local, without analyzing far more criteria.

Among those criteria, aside from the economic aspect that I was just talking about, there is also the qualitative criterion. The NDP caucus wants the Conservatives to understand that this is the criterion they are failing to meet. They are not taking it into account. What will be the consequences of this free trade agreement that they are trying to sign with Honduras?

Across North America, 25 recognized organizations tried to warn the Conservatives about the risks of signing this agreement. They did not listen. These organizations fully explained and documented the tangible societal consequences this agreement would have. They warned the Conservatives that signing this contract would fuel the social conflict that currently exists. Everyone here knows that, and it has been said many times.

Honduras is having problems right now. Inequalities are getting bigger every year. I do not think it is good business to sign a free trade agreement with a country in that situation. A developed country such as ours, with one of the largest economies in the world, should not engage in this type of negotiation when we know that it will only benefit a small oligarchy in that country. It is because Canadian imports are huge and exports to Honduras amount to nothing.

Another thing that has been swept under this black rug—or perhaps blue if it is a Conservative rug—is an ulterior motive, and that is to allow the ruling oligarchy to become richer.

When the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade merged, they studied this agreement. In their report, they concluded that there was a worthwhile aspect to this agreement. Unless I am mistaken, basically, there was protection for Canadian mining interests in the region.

This free trade agreement will produce results similar to the trading outcomes Honduras has had with the United States, particularly with a company called Rosario Mining, which wreaked havoc wherever it went.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that it was the NDP that sent its deputy leader down to Washington D.C. to argue against the oil sands and to try to destroy Canadian jobs. The NDP leader called the oil sands a disease.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour referred to free trade as job destroying. The NDP committed in its platform—and it has been reaffirmed at convention after convention—that if it ever gets into power, it will be renegotiating NAFTA. The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior said that free trade threatens the very existence of Canada.

Given the fact that the member's party seems to be approaching free trade with ideological blinders, I would ask him to please remove the ideological blinders, stand up for Canada, stand up for Canadians, and stand up for Canadian jobs, and let us get this Canada-Honduras agreement through the House so that it can benefit both Canada and Honduras.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to respond to the hon. member for York Centre. He has been asking pathetic questions like that all evening. Either he is way off topic or he is trying to get us to go off topic.

If he did not understand what I said in my speech, maybe it will be translated. However, what I said was that the NDP is trying to point out the repercussions of this free trade agreement. That has nothing to do with what he just said or a hypothetical carbon tax or whatever. What is more, he is talking about negotiation. My God. No, they will see what we are going to do in 2015.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the things we hear in the House at this time of night can be quite amusing. I will not repeat them.

I listened closely to my colleague's speech. As I was listening to the Conservative member's question, I was reminded why Canada's international reputation has suffered so greatly. We were in a very enviable position for quite some time. Our reputation was strong and solid until the Conservatives came to power. We are slowly losing our global influence. We on this side have been saying that the free trade agreements we are negotiating need to be in line with Canadian values. I would like to quote Sheila Katz, who said this:

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.

Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer my colleague. In fact, he was the one who spoke about the criteria. We need to be somewhat responsible about this. He himself reminded us that Canada, as a member of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, has to follow certain rules. The government cannot carelessly impose a free trade agreement.

As I said, this is not about economic gain. There has always been a negative trade balance. We do not sell very much to the Hondurans. We buy many things from them. However, as I said, there is another goal here, and that is to somehow protect mining companies so that they cannot be held responsible when they make a mess in these third world countries by recklessly exploiting their natural resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

In 2013, when I sat on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, we studied the case of Honduras at length. Therefore, I believe I have enough facts to oppose this bill, which is unacceptable.

The despotic regime that reigns in Honduras is characterized by its anti-democratic practices, its corruption, its failed institutions and its history of human rights violations. Canada should not be signing a free trade agreement with that country.

The NDP believes there are three fundamental criteria when considering a trade agreement. First, does the proposed partner respect democracy and human rights, acceptable environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? Second, does the proposed partner's economy have significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

The proposed agreement with Honduras does not meet any of these criteria, as we clearly showed in the previous debates, despite the fact that the Conservatives have used their majority to limit the time to review this bill. Only five hours of debate on a treaty that was negotiated over three years. This is ridiculous. I also find it difficult to understand why Liberal members would agree to signing an agreement with Honduras.

We are promoting an agreement with a brutal dictatorship, and I am choosing my words carefully. By signing this agreement, we are giving legitimacy to a regime put in place following a coup. The Subcommittee on International Human Rights heard several witnesses from Honduras and experts on this issue. I heard horror stories. Since the coup in Honduras, journalists, union representatives and people who are asking for greater democracy are being killed. In fact, they will kill anything they do not like in that country. Honduras is the murder capital of the world, and most of the murders are not even properly investigated by the police.

Professor Gordon of Wilfrid Laurier University, who testified before the committee, said that the possibility of a free election needs to be called into question. Some members of the opposition parties have been assassinated. In 2013, there was an average of 10 killings a month. According to Professor Dana Frank from the University of California, 80% of crimes in Honduras go unpunished. There are many documented cases of police corruption. Between January 2011 and November 2012 alone, the police carried out 149 summary executions of civilians. In January 2013, the United Nations asked for the removal of four judges of the Supreme Court of Honduras for violations of international standards and because there was a serious threat to democracy. In February 2013, the United Nations working group on the use of mercenaries indicated that the Government of Honduras had failed to properly regulate private security companies. These companies are involved in numerous cases of human rights violations, including murders, disappearances, forced expulsions and rapes.

Moreover, censorship is common in Honduras. It is alleged that journalists are corrupted and advertisements are manipulated to ensure that coverage is positive and to silence opponents.

According to the national human rights commission of Honduras, 29 journalists have been murdered since the coup.

This is the question I would ask: if Canadian mining engineers were murdered, what recourse would Canada have? It would have none. There is no justice and therefore murderers are not even prosecuted. It is in the interest of Canadian mining companies to have a certain legal framework in Honduras. I would ask them the following question: what good is a legal framework when there is no rule of law in the country?

Should Canada support, by means of a trade agreement, a government of thugs? The Honduran regime is corrupt. All the stakeholders have said the same thing and even the U.S. Senate acknowledged that this is unacceptable.

Will this agreement benefit Honduras? I seriously doubt it. Two years after the coup, 100% of the increase in income went to only 10% of the population, while poverty increased by 26%. This agreement will only benefit a corrupt elite.

Canada used to be a world leader in foreign affairs, renowned for its ability to help other organizations and other countries become more democratic, freer, fairer to its citizens and more respectful of human rights. However, agreements such as this one, supported by the Conservatives and the Liberals, will make us take a step backwards.

Entering into such an agreement with a corrupt government shows little concern for human rights and sends the message to similar countries that this is acceptable to Canada. The Conservative government and its partners, the Liberals, find that acceptable. We are debating an agreement with a brutal regime, and closure has been invoked.

We are trampling democracy, here and elsewhere, and I am sad to see the Liberal members supporting this process. The Conservative government imposed closure 68 times to end debate. Is that a sign that the government is turning away from democracy?

The agreement with Honduras was negotiated without any transparency and despite repeated requests from stakeholders in various sectors of Canada's economy. The Government of Canada was never willing to make the text of the agreement public during the negotiation process. Given these concerns, I am disappointed that my colleagues from the other parties want to support this treaty. This agreement is stained with the blood of Hondurans.

We risk damaging Canada's international reputation if we enter into a partnership with such a regime. My constituents of Brome—Missisquoi sent me here in the hope of building a different Canada.

In light of the facts that we have been able to show despite the time allocation brought in by the Conservatives, I will not support Bill C-20. I hope that Canadians will remember that the Liberals and Conservatives voted in favour of a tree trade agreement with a brutal dictatorship.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada does have a development program that Honduras has been very appreciative of. The development funding supports regional multilateral initiatives as well as initiatives of Canadian partners in the areas of human rights, gender inequality, security, justice reform, citizen participation, and democratic governance. Canada believes that supporting economic and sustainable growth for the poor and reducing inequalities are essential to addressing the multiple challenges facing Honduras.

Recently there has been a new government and the new leader's priorities have been very much in line with our priorities. They also want to promote sustainable economic growth and reduce social exclusion and inequality through investments. They have worked through rural development, food security, health, and education. All of the priorities that we have, the new government in Honduras is working toward.

I would think that the NDP would be looking into some of the new changes that have happened in Honduras before its members continue to use such, I think, unacceptable language such that they have been using tonight. The member should know, with his recent remarks about working with the Hondurans and their blood, that in fact we are working very much with programs that are developing and--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

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

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

Unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives, who are ready to accept free trade agreements at all costs for the sake of a signing ceremony and photo ops, we, in the NDP, believe that the importance of international trade should be recognized.

We want to increase our international trade, but, at the same time, this has to be done in a manner consistent with Canadian values. We also want the Canadian economy to benefit from this trade.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of International Development and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I will echo the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Consular and remind my colleague again that efforts have been made on both sides, in Honduras. For example, Canada has implemented regional development programs. As for the new government in place, it is focusing more and more on sustainable economic growth and prosperity, which will help reduce social inequalities.

My colleague says that he wants to promote Canadian values, but I believe that what he really wants it to advance the NDP's partisan values, including turning down any type of trade agreement with another country.

As such, I will echo my colleague from York Centre, and again urge the NDP to leave the 19th century behind, join the 21st century and be part of what is happening in the international community. Being involved in international development also means doing trade with economies that are making an effort, instead of relying on all sorts of dictates that are totally disconnected from reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am saying that Honduras does not need a co-conspirator. What Pablo Heidrich, an economist at the North-South Institute, said before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 10, 2014, is that Honduras needs technical assistance and 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.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about this free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras. Obviously, I am opposed to this agreement, and I am proud that my party is opposed to it too.

There are three fundamental criteria that must be considered when evaluating trade agreements. First, does the proposed partner respect 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?

Unfortunately, the free trade agreement with Honduras does not meet any of these criteria. I therefore do not really see why we would agree to sign such an agreement with that country.

Honduras is known for its undemocratic practices, its corrupt government, its weak institutions and a record of human rights abuses. It has poor standards and is of insignificant strategic value to Canada in the context of a free trade agreement. I therefore do not see the point of such an agreement.

The NDP wants increased trade with certain countries. Contrary to what the government seems to believe, we are not against trade, but we think it is important to do business with countries that uphold Canadian values and to conclude trade agreements that also benefit the Canadian economy.

Let me paint a picture of the country in question. It is a very poor country with repressive and anti-democratic political ideology. Honduras has an appalling human rights record. The democratically elected government of leftist President Manuel Zelaya was overturned by a military coup in 2009. The government's actions and the elections have since been heavily criticized by international observers for not meeting acceptable democratic standards.

The 2009 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.The coup was widely condemned—I remember that because it was not so long ago—around the world, especially by all other Latin American countries, the European Union, the United States, and the UN General Assembly. Obviously it is very controversial.

I think it is important to point out that Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and it is the most dangerous country for journalists. It also has very significant income disparity.

In taking stock of the situation, I came up with some questions. Is this really what Canada wants? Do we really want to flout human rights, democracy and social justice in the name of free trade and business? Is that really what we want as a country? That is what I am asking my colleagues.

In other words, the government is asking us to support undemocratic practices, corruption, crime and a growing gap between rich and poor.

Of course, the government is going to accuse us of opposing every free trade agreement, of being anti-trade and of being evil communists. Quite the opposite, actually. On this side of the House, we are keenly aware of how important trade is for our economy.

We, too, support Canadian exporters and we do not disagree with everything. However, we do not believe this should happen at any price, especially given that internal analyses done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have shown that Canada's economy stands to gain very little from this agreement.

Therefore, I am wondering why the government wants to trample many Canadian values for an agreement that will not even benefit our exporters and will certainly not benefit the Honduran people.

I really do not see the value of this agreement, and we are not the only ones. A number of stakeholders support our position, including Sheila Katz, a representative of the Americas Policy Group of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. This is what she told 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.

That says it all. This is what Neil Reeder, director general, Latin America and Caribbean Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, said:

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.

I will end on that eloquent note. I could have quoted several other experts who oppose this agreement too, but I think these two quotes will suffice.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin on a point of order.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, be read the third time and passed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a pleasure to speak to this subject, but given the horrific record of facts that I am about to share with the House, I cannot say that is the case.

I have heard some members of the Conservative Party catcall across, asking why we do not like Hondurans. This has nothing with that. I would ask the government why it does not like democracy. Why does the government not like human rights? Why does the government not like freedom of the press? Why does the government not like keeping our society free of drugs?

Honduras is a country that had a military coup in 2009, when the military removed a democratically elected government at gunpoint and replaced it with a government that had no democratic mandate.

Honduras has widespread human rights abuses and massive corruption in both the government and the police. There is no functioning court system in Honduras. It is a narco-trafficking centre. It is considered by the U.S. State Department to be one of the most violent places on earth. It is the murder capital of the world. It is the most dangerous place on earth for journalists. Honduras has repressed the media to such an extent that PEN International has ranked it below Ukraine under Yanukovych and below Egypt today.

It is the cocaine trafficking centre of Central America, where the U.S. State Department estimates that 79% of all cocaine shipments emanating from South America land in Honduras.

It is one of the poorest nations in the western hemisphere. It has no strategic value for Canada, since the net total of all exports that Canada made to Honduras last year was $38 million. It has extremely low environmental standards, if they exist at all. It has extremely low labour standards, in that some 40% of the population of Honduras make under the minimum wage of Honduras. It has serious mining issues.

It is very interesting that both the Conservatives and Liberals have joined together to support the bill at second reading. We heard witnesses at committee who buttressed everything I just said, and there was no contradiction by a single witness who came before committee. In other words, Honduras is one of the most repressive, undemocratic, corrupt, and dangerous places on earth, and the government wants to extend preferential trade relations to that government and the Liberals want to assist it.

I understand why the Conservatives would do that. I have a bit more difficulty, given the propaganda and rhetoric coming from them, why the Liberals would.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has been championing a bill that is supposed to raise the standards of Canadian mining companies around the world. The Liberal Party is concerned about mining standards and it wants mining standards in third world and second world countries to be raised, including environmental standards, the rights of indigenous people, and corporate social responsibility standards, yet the Liberal Party supports a trade bill with Honduras, which probably has the most lax mining standards on the planet. I do not understand that.

I have heard the Liberals talk about human rights. They appear to be concerned about them. I will say it for the Canadian public and defend it to anybody who wants to look at the record and the facts: Honduras is one of the worst human rights violators on the planet.

I will go through the figures. Honduras is ranked 85th out of 167 on the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and that is a slide from 74th in 2008. Honduras is classified as a “hybrid regime” rather than as its previous designation as a “flawed democracy”. It is getting worse. So much for rewarding a country for getting better.

The government has continued to negotiate with signing a trade agreement, giving preferential economic terms to a country that is actually sliding away from democracy.

Transparency International ranks Honduras as the most corrupt country in Central America, and it has the worst income inequality in the region. I have commented about the U.S. State Department estimating the cocaine shipments originating in South America and landing in Honduras, drugs moved from South America through countries like Honduras and other Central American states into Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

Independent observers have noted the increasing levels of violence as well as organized criminal gang activity associated with trade in illegal narcotics.

It is a country that is awash in drugs and drug money, which raises the question of why any Canadian government would want to liberalize investment rules to make the flow of capital easier between the two countries. In other words, we would have more drug money coming into Canada because of this trade deal with Honduras.

According to The Economist, “...the countries known as 'the northern triangle' of the Central American isthmus [that includes Honduras] form what is now the most violent region on earth.” Let us stop for a moment and think about that. We have Syria. We have the Democratic Republic of Congo. We have Rwanda. We have Uganda. There are places on earth right now where the most horrific crimes against humanity are being committed, and Honduras is the most violent place on earth, and the Conservative government wants Canadians to extend preferential trade terms to that government.

In 2012 Honduras became the murder capital of the world, reaching a record high of 7,172 homicides, or 81 per 100,000 people. Since the 2009 coup d'état, violence and repression in the country have gone up and have reached an all-time high. To put that in context, Honduras has about one-fifth the population of Canada. That would be the equivalent of Canada experiencing 35,000 homicides. Can members imagine in this country if we had 35,000 homicides? That would be the equivalent per capita homicide rate in this country. That is the country the Conservatives want us to be trading more with.

In 2013, just last year, lest anyone think this is an old problem, there were on average 10 massacres per month. A massacre is defined as an instance where three or more people are murdered at one time. In the previous four years, fewer than 20% of all homicides in Honduras were even investigated, let alone prosecuted. We hear a lot of talk by the Conservatives about the rule of law. The rule of law means we have an independent police force and an independent judiciary. I have heard the Conservatives, for six years, talk about getting tough on crime, and they have signed a trade agreement with a country that does not even investigate murders. It is the most murderous country on earth. The police do not investigate and the judges do not even hear cases, and the Conservatives think we should be trading more with that country. Is that tough on crime? That is absurd.

I want to talk about journalists, because journalists in Canada should be writing about this. Freedom of the press and having an independent media is part of being a democracy. Today journalists in Honduras suffer threats, attacks, and killings. Six months ago, TV news anchor Anibal Barrow was abducted while driving in Honduras, and his dismembered remains were found weeks later. While several suspects have been charged with kidnapping, none have even been brought to trial.

Thirty-five journalists have been murdered in Honduras over the last five years. To put that in perspective, in per capita terms, that would be more than 150 journalists in Canada killed over the last five years. Can members imagine if in this country 150 journalists who were doing their jobs, holding the government to account, doing investigative work, covering politics, and covering the activities of the corporate sector were murdered, and we were finding their bodies in ditches? That is what is happening in Honduras.

This is not rhetoric. These are the facts in Honduras, backed up by every source there is. At committee we called witness after witness to testify to this, and there was not a single rebuttal. All we heard was silence, and the Conservatives and Liberals turn a blind eye to this.

Canadians want trade. We want to be trading with countries, but Canadians do not want us trading with butchering, murderous regimes. That is why Canadians would not accept a trade agreement with Yanukovych in Ukraine, but I noticed that the Liberal trade critic stood up and waxed eloquent in this House about how offended she was by the human rights situation in Ukraine and how we should stand up for human rights in Ukraine. That is the same Liberal trade critic who stood up and said that we should support a trade agreement with Honduras. I will say right now that Honduras has a far worse record on human rights than Ukraine did under Yanukovych. This is inexplicable.

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

I could go on about the violence against indigenous people and the violence against the LGBTQ community, but instead I will read some of the quotes we heard at committee, which the Liberals and the Conservatives just want to pass over.

This is Ms. Karen Spring, from Honduras Solidarity Network. She said:

Since 2009, the violence in Honduras has increased pretty dramatically, and coupled with a high impunity rate, this has been very troubling for the human rights situation in the country. Very few crimes are investigated, and even fewer are brought before a judge. The Honduran Supreme Court has estimated that the impunity rate is at about 98%, but depending on who you ask, I've heard the impunity rate can be between 80% and up to 98%.So, given the high impunity rate, it's really difficult for human rights concerns to be mediated, and there are really serious repercussions for human rights abuses related to Canadian investments in the region....

She goes on to talk about the communications director for the Federation of Agro-Industry Workers' Unions of Honduras:

[He is] a labour journalist who has a national radio program that's called Trade Unionist on Air, which he's had for 19 years, 5 days a week. He's recently been working on a union organizing drive and he makes frequent mention of a [local]...banana supplier.... Last June he started receiving death threats related to his work. Every time he went on the air and spoke about the...supplier he received death threats on his phone, and cars were circulating around his house and the radio station after his programs.

He has since gone into hiding, because his family was intimidated.

Ms. Spring went on to say that Hondurans have little faith in the institutions that are set up, that very few investigations are conducted, and that the fear people face is real. She also said:

...since 2009, 31 trade unionists have been murdered in Honduras and over 33 journalists as well.

This is what was said in committee about the 2013 elections, which the Conservative government said were fine:

The 2013 elections occurred in a really difficult human rights context, given the high impunity rate, given the high homicide rate. There was a report put out that looked at the political killings in Honduras a year and a half prior to the November 2013 elections, and it showed that there were 36 killings in total of candidates and pre-candidates who were set to participate in the November elections. There were 24 armed attacks against these candidates.The list shows that the majority of these killings were against the political opposition party, the Libre party. This list was published by Rights Action, and...a lot of the cases were actually published by the International Federation of Human Rights [and internationally respected body]...worried about the targeted assassinations of the political opposition in the lead-up to the elections.

Last year, in the Honduran elections, 36 candidates were murdered in the 18 months prior to them. Does that sound like a democracy? Does that sound like a country Canadians would want their government extending preferential trade terms to?

We heard from PEN, the internationally respected independent organization for journalists. Here is what its representative said to the committee:

Our report finds that journalists are targeted for their work, and that they are especially vulnerable members of the population... [F]reedom of expression in Honduras has suffered serious restrictions since the ouster of President Zelaya in June 2009. 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.

I have heard from some of the people on the other side who would say that it is drug involvement. It is not. The evidence is that the state is involved in some of these killings.

The representative from PEN went on to say:

This has had a devastating impact on the general state of human rights and the rule of law in the country, since violence against journalists often silences coverage of topics such as corruption, organized crime, drug trafficking, and political reportage. Fearing for their personal safety, many journalists [in Honduras] either self-censor or flee the country altogether.

I have heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House stand up on the international stage and rant and rave about the situation in Ukraine and how Canada and the Prime Minister stand up for human rights and democracy on the world stage. These things are a matter of principle, and they will take that position. It does not matter what the costs are. They turn around and sign a trade agreement with Honduras, which has just about the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere.

I hear laughing on the other side of the House. How do we square that? Canada either has a principled position on human rights and democracy or it does not. In the case of Honduras, it is a contradiction of massive proportions. It is hypocritical. It is opportunistic politics by the Liberals of the highest order.

We have an election coming up in Ontario. Premier Wynne is trying to tell New Democrats that she is progressive. If the people of Ontario knew that the Liberals in the House of Commons were supporting a trade deal with one of the most murderous, anti-democratic, human rights-violating jurisdictions on the planet, I wonder if they would still view them that way, because they are not progressive.

I will go back to what PEN said:

The taint of corruption and the culture of impunity have undermined trust among state agencies and public confidence in key institutions. Public distrust of the police is so great that only about 20% of crime is reported, and of that, less than 4% gets investigated.

I have heard Conservatives in the House talk about the lack of reporting of crime in this country. They say that crime is under-reported, and they say it is a problem in this country. Eighty per cent of the crime in Honduras is not even reported, because people cannot even trust police officers who come to their doors, because they may be on the payroll or they may be involved in the killing. What kind of culture is that?

Serious problems are evident throughout the criminal justice system. Police will say an investigation is under way when there is none. The office of the special prosecutor for human rights does not have the jurisdiction to try those responsible for the murders of journalists, and lacks resources to conduct even the most basic of investigations into human rights abuses....

She also said:

As our report sets out, only two convictions have been secured in the 38 journalist killings between 2003 and 2013—an impunity rate of 95%.

This is what PEN concluded:

To be clear: under international law, when the state is unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes, this is state complicity in human rights violations. Honduras is facing a serious human rights crisis. This is not just a matter of working with Honduras to move beyond a troubled past. Violence against journalists, complete collapse of expressive life, and impunity for violent crimes and human rights abuses remain the norm there.

Are these international journalists radicals that we should not pay attention to?

We heard from yet other witnesses:

Honduras is far worse than any of Canada's current trading partners in the region. To give you an idea of the situation in relation to others, in the global press freedom rankings of 191 countries...Canada ranked 29; Chile ranked 64; Peru ranked 89; and even Colombia, also plagued by narco-trafficking, ranked 112. Where did Honduras rank? They ranked 140, tied with Egypt, which has imprisoned two Canadian media workers in the past eight months. Since the coup in 2009, 32 journalists have been murdered in Honduras.

I want to talk a bit about mining because the Liberals have tried to convince Canadians that they are concerned about mining standards abroad. Here is the testimony we heard at committee that was not rebutted. After 2009, when the Zalaya government was trying to put a moratorium in place on new mining concessions and to bring in some mining laws, the new regime, which was installed at gunpoint by the military, got rid of that, and now it leaves the door open to open pit mining.

Water sources, except those that have been declared and registered, which are in a minority, are not protected. Mining is not prohibited in populated areas, meaning that forced expropriation and displacement of entire communities can continue to take place.

Community consultation is a theoretical right only, only after the exploration concession has been granted. Honduras has almost no environmental standards. It has almost no ability to police or regulate its mining.

I expect the member from Scarborough, who I mentioned before, to stand up in the House and say that he is opposed to this deal. If he really cares about mining standards, as he claims he does, then he will stand in the House and say, “I can't support this deal with Honduras”, where we are going to see environmental degradation, violations of indigenous rights, pollution, and dangerous working conditions.

Trade deals are about extending preferential terms. The New Democrats believe that we should be extending preferential trade terms to democratic countries, modern democracies that respect human rights, environmental standards, and labour standards. We understand that many countries are not perfect, but we think Canadians want those countries to at least be on a positive trajectory in that regard.

Canadians want to see trade deals signed with countries of strategic value to our country. The testimony from economists before our committee said that Honduras has almost zero strategic importance to Canada. In fact, it already has virtually zero tariffs in Honduras, so it is going to make zero difference to the amount we export from Canada.

I hope every member of the House who believes in democracy, human rights, and the rule of law stands with New Democrats and votes against this flawed deal. It is a poor piece of legislation.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have some sincere questions to ask my hon. colleague.

He gave a good speech. It was well researched, but I have some concerns. The member first talked about trade deals with countries that are favourable to all the things that he attested we should be in favour of, such as human rights and so on and so forth.

I have been here 10 years, and I have yet to see them agree with any free trade deal agreement.

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

Jordan.

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

They supported Jordan after the fact. They voted against it first, and then they supported it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I am sorry; there was Jordan. The NDP members did not stand to vote for it. We are still not sure where they stand on that one.

Nevertheless, the nub of the issue is this: if they believe that Honduras is as bad as they claim it is—and I do not doubt it, because there are a lot of human rights violations taking place there, and I agree with the member in many respects—what exactly do we do to engage Honduras to improve the situation? Do we shut down dialogue completely?

I firmly believe that opening up trade relations has a benefit in many of these countries, a fundamental benefit that we should consider as compassionate people.

I ask the member, if there is absolutely no free trade deal agreement, where do we go from here to improve the situation in Honduras?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member and I take his questions at face value.

The Liberal Party has its own contradictory past. I think Liberals campaigned against the free trade agreement in 1988. In 1993, they had a little red book that said they were going to renegotiate NAFTA. They never did that. That is par for the Liberal Party, which says one thing at election time and does another when it is elected. What is the Liberal Party's record on trade? I am not sure.

The hon. member is a little disingenuous. He knows for a fact that the New Democrats supported the trade deal with Jordan. Whether there was a standing vote or whether it was passed by division, the member, as a member of this House, knows it is irrelevant.

The question of who we should be engaging is a straw man argument. This Conservative argument—and I am surprised to hear a Liberal making it—is that if it is a really terrible country, we should engage with it. If that is the case, we should be signing a free trade agreement with Iran or North Korea. They have terrible human rights abuses. If engaging with those countries is the way to improve human rights, why not engage them? I do not hear anybody in those two parties suggesting that we sign a free trade agreement with those two countries.

It is because of this: when countries are so far outside of the international norm, when they are not conforming to even the basic standards of international behaviour, we should not be rewarding those countries.

When South Africa had apartheid, we did not sign a trade agreement with them to facilitate that regime. We brought in sanctions and boycotts. The government, and I will give it credit for it, has done that in Iran, when the country just refused to comply with basic norms of conduct.

I will just finish with this. This is what we heard in committee from a professor from York:

Trade and investment create economic benefits, but who ends up with those benefits? In Honduras the answer seems clear. It is now the country with the most unequal distribution of income in Latin America, and 43% of the labour force is working full time without receiving even the minimum wage. A study by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington found that in the two years after the 2009 coup, over 100% of all real income gains went to the wealthiest 10% of Hondurans...

I will stop by saying:

The de facto regime soon embarked on policies that included using the army and police in actions against citizens exercising their right to protest. Numerous suspensions of the right to assembly and protest were put in place, all of them out of compliance with the requirements of Honduran law and its constitution. Protestors were shot, beaten, and some died in open conflict with the military or police.

That is the country that—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his work on this file. It is certainly well researched, and he understands the issue very clearly.

The argument we hear from those who support this agreement is that we are a trading nation. We have been a trading nation and we have traded with all sorts of regimes in our history, including many repressive regimes, whether China or the former Soviet Union.

There is a distinction between trade and free trade. My colleague mentioned the idea of preferential treatment. In other words, if we sign a free trade agreement, it is preferential treatment to a country that we want to do business with as opposed to just trading.

Could the member expand a little on this point, because I think it is a bit lost on the other side?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it is lost on the other side or if it is just disingenuously portrayed by the other side, because it is quite obvious. Canada trades with all sorts of nations. We have goods coming to our country right now from China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Honduras. The only question about trade policy is whether we want to encourage economic relations with those countries. Trade policy is a tool that is used economically, but it is also a political tool.

Again, if that is recognized in the House, the government has imposed trade sanctions on Iran. We are not facilitating trade with Iran; we are actually stopping trade relations with Iran.

I want to pick up the thread of my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party and quote Mr. Ricardo Grinspun, who is a York University professor from the Centre for Research on Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He said:

I have argued that the idea that the FTA will bring jobs and assure prosperity to Honduras is not a substantiated claim. Indeed, 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, which we could discuss.

I go back to my hon. colleague's question. Those are the kinds of measures that we should be sending to Honduras. We should be saying to Honduras that we will work with it to improve its standards, if there is that willingness there in Honduras. However, surely we would require that country to demonstrate the commitment to international norms and standards first of at least a floor model before we start to extend benefits to it.

The government talks about the trade agreements it has signed. It has signed about six and it has all been with countries that are small or insignificant, such as Colombia, Peru, Honduras, Panama, Jordan, and the infamous Liechtenstein.

Whoever we choose to negotiate with and whoever we choose to extend preferential terms with, we on the New Democrat side believe it should mirror Canadian values. Canadian values mean we should be trading with countries that at least have a commitment to basic concepts like respecting people's right to assemble in the street, people's right to vote in elections, people's right to run in elections, having peaceful, democratic transition of power, having a functioning judicial system where crime is investigated, prosecuted and punished, where journalists can write with freedom of expression so the public can actually have a vibrant, democratic dialogue. These are basic norms.

It is surprising to me that in 2014, I have to stand in the House and defend those. I would have thought every member of the House would agree at once that these are basic concepts that Canadians demand should be in place before Canada decides to reward that place.

Again, the New Democratic Party will be the only party that will stand up for those principles, and I hope Canadians are watching.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief.

I want to thank my colleague for his very enlightening speech. I hope that the government got the message.

Free trade agreements play an important role in our economy, obviously. The fact remains, however, that we are dealing with a special situation here. Honduras is not a democratic country. What message would we be sending the world if we became its trading partner? How could people struggling in a dictatorship ever trust us once they are aware of this free trade agreement?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's reputation on the world stage depends on our adherence to international norms and our consistency in respecting them. When we sign a trade agreement with a country that every country in the world knows is not conforming to those standards, as Honduras is not, it sends a mixed message and it causes other countries to have less confidence in Canada. It causes them to question what our foreign policy is.

If we are to stand on the world stage and talk about freedom, democracy, and human rights, then we have to walk the walk. We have to be consistent. The Conservatives and Liberals are not being consistent in this regard on this file, and they should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill goes back, actually, not as a bill but, certainly, in terms of its negotiations to the time I was trade minister. That was quite some time ago. It has been a policy of this government to make the pursuit of jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity one of our significant priorities. In the case of an agreement like this, which has been on the books for some time, we are looking to implement it through this agreement. It is long overdue. That is one reason why we are seeking to have it passed. With that in mind, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 26, and seconded by the Chief Government Whip:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-20.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Will all those members opposed to the motion please rise?

And fewer than 15 members having risen:

I declare the motion carried.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway, who quite passionately articulated why New Democrats believe this international trade bill is flawed.

One of the things I have said in the House many times before, going back to the last Parliament, is that we do not debate trade. That is not what the government puts in front of us. It brings forward implementation bills. It does not ask if we should have trade with a particular country, what it should look like, or whether we should talk about certain aspects of it. No. It just says, “We have a deal. Here it is. Take it. It will be good for Canadians and it will be good for Hondurans.” However, everything my colleague talked about and all of the statistics he quoted said the opposite.

Honduras is a place where murder is rampant and journalists are disappearing and being killed on a scale that is unprecedented around the world, yet the government says, “We can trade a few more bushels of wheat or a few more tonnes of pork. That will be a good thing, and we won't have to worry so much about the other things in the bill. It will just be one of those things that annoy us”.

This is a government that used to say that human rights mattered. It was the Prime Minister who at one time did not want to engage with China because of the Chinese government's human rights record.

The largest market in the world was China. We all know that. It is a demographic, a pure number. When the Prime Minister first took power in 2006, he said, “We don't want to talk to the Chinese about trade because its human rights record is bad. We are simply not going to do that.” He then makes a deal with Honduras.

There is a bit of a template here, and it is ironic to look at. There was Colombia, Panama, and now Honduras. It is ironic that the Liberals down at the far end actually supported all three deals. In fact, the member for Kings—Hants actually talked about being able to get President Uribe to make sure there is some sort of monitoring group so that trade unionists and journalists are not assassinated and murdered. That is when the Liberals bought in to the trade deal.

What happened with that panel? It is the same old same old. Trade unionists still get killed and murdered at a regular rate, journalists still get murdered at a regular rate, and the Conservatives say, “That is okay; they voted for it”, and move forward. My colleague from Newfoundland, for whom I have great respect, said New Democrats have never voted for one before. Truth be told, we did. Of course, that happened to be the Jordan deal. It was a recorded division, so we stood and voted yes. As much as the other side says it was not a recorded division, it was the real thing. We actually stood and voted.

This idea that we cannot enter into a comprehensive trade deal that includes the rule of law and the protection of human rights is not true. In essence, it can be true and it can actually happen, but the government does not look at that. The House leader just stood and said this has been going on since he was a trade minister.

The problem is that the things that happened in Honduras when he was the trade minister have changed; they have gotten worse. Still the government is insisting on going down the road of firming up this trade agreement, passing it into law, and having a trade agreement with an authoritarian, oligarchic, elitist group of individuals who are not even a government.

What would the government say if 36 members of the House who were candidates in elections got assassinated? I do not think we would find ourselves in a particularly stable environment. This sort of sense that we have extended hours this morning being destabilizing is, quite frankly, not destabilizing at all. What is destabilizing is the mere fact that people die in Honduras on a regular basis and not of old age. They are murdered. There are horrendous numbers of multiple murders. Human rights and NGO groups around the world are saying it is clearly a massacre. It is not a question of someone breaking into a house and shooting mom, dad, and one child; these are targeted killings of journalists, labour leaders, and members of political parties who are running for government.

The Honduras government, with impunity, simply dismissed Supreme Court justices. I almost think some days the Conservatives would like to do the same with the Supreme Court justice down the street from us. However, they would not dare do that. That did not stop Honduras from doing it. On a trumped-up charge, the government there just said it would remove them. As my colleague said earlier, when we are dealing with the fact that 85% to 90% of cases are never pursued, how does anyone trust the rule of law when no one will actually pursue a case? It is even worse for someone who actually wants to report a case and does not trust the authorities enough to actually make that report. Never mind the fact they do not believe it would get investigated; they think they may actually be the target, rather than the perpetrators of the crime that is being committed against them.

This is such a small trade piece as well. The reality is that if our government could open up provincial borders, it would actually get greater trade than it would with Honduras to a magnitude of probably a hundredfold. Of course, human rights would not be an issue in our country because there is rule of law here. There is not this need to constantly look at the abuses that are happening.

If only we had a trade deal that would lift all boats, that so-called rising tide that lifts all ships. Well, it did not lift the ship Colombia. It did not lift the ship Panama. The Panama agreement is with a regime the UN and NGOs agree more drug cartel money gets laundered through than practically anywhere else in the world, yet we signed a deal with that regime too.

Significant deals that they are, the problem with the government is it signs a deal with CETA, or did it? There is no implementation bill in front of us, so clearly it does not have a deal. If it had a deal, there would be an implementation bill here. What it has is a hope and a prayer. Therefore, what it does is go out and sign a deal with Honduras because it cannot get one anywhere else.

Ultimately, where are we heading with a trade regime that literally takes on trade agreements with human rights violators around the world? Is that what we say with the rule of law? One of the things we put in the agreements is the rule of law, so if our companies feel victimized in a place where they go to trade, they have an opportunity to access what they believe is the court system so they can actually get due process. Good luck in Honduras. I highly doubt any Canadian corporation that goes before its tribunal would get due process when its citizens cannot get due process.

Conservatives at one point in time used to really believe in human rights. They believed that perhaps what we ought to do is enact sanctions. My colleague talked about it earlier with Iran and North Korea. However, I would remind my friends on the other side it was a previous prime minister of their party, Brian Mulroney, who was the leader who enacted sanctions against South Africa and won. What we saw at that moment in time when the prime minister almost stood alone in the Commonwealth was he was able to have the civil society groups and trade union groups come together, marshal the forces, and help end apartheid in South Africa. Now Canada can trade with South Africa. Apartheid has ended.

Many of us were watching on television screens around the world when Nelson Mandela was finally free. There was rejoicing in that country, and pride, even for New Democrats, thinking about the accomplishments of Brian Mulroney, albeit a Conservative prime minister. Even New Democrats would agree that it was a principled stand taken by the prime minister of this country that was just, was right, and for which he deserved the credit.

However, the current Prime Minister thinks it is okay to have trade deals with some of the most murderous regimes in the world, such as Colombia, Panama, and now Honduras, that those are just places to have trade deals with and that somehow it is okay. As long as we can get a couple of bucks out of the trade deal, we can ignore the other side. Maybe it will get better. We can only hope.

If the Honduran oligarchs get what they want, they do not need to make things better. Why would they need to make things better if they have the trade deal? This is not about the carrot; it is about the stick. We have to make them understand that the rule of law is necessary if they want to trade with us, that human rights are essential for their population if they want to trade with us, that murdering journalists and trade unionists and their citizens because they disagree with the government is wrong, and that if they want to trade with us it must end. No. This government decided to just have a trade deal. The idea is that if they just get a better trade deal, they will stop doing all of those things. That will not happen. It has not happened yet because, as my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said, then we would do it with North Korea. Surely to goodness we would say, “Okay, that will make it better there and we will just do it there”, but we have not, and correctly so. The government is correct to not have a free trade deal with Iran and North Korea. It is absolutely right on that, but it is wrong on this one.

We can argue free trade agreements. We can look at clauses in it we do not like, environment and trade union rights and those sorts of things. When we are dealing with a state that has the rule of law, has decent human rights protections for its population, then we are arguing about environment and trade union rights and some other things, but not about human rights.

In this case it is fundamental. It is about the human rights of the Hondurans. It is about their right to safety and liberty. It is about saying to them there are other ways to get them there, that there are other methods for us to help them build a society, build a capacity, build a sense of infrastructure within governments, and allow them a period of time to make changes to their civil justice system, to their Supreme Court system when they actually respect those judgments, and allow the capacity to build with their law enforcement agencies. There are ways for us, because of the expertise we have, to help them do that.

Therefore, it is not about isolating them in the way that happened in South Africa. That was a specific time, when a specific measure was undertaken that worked. This is not about simply saying we will let Honduras circle around the map and leave it be. We can offer the help and the hand of hope to it and say, “Here is how to build capacity, and when you build that capacity, there is an opportunity to get into a preferential trade agreement.” We think that would be a valid approach, rather than the approach that is being taken, which is just to have a trade deal and it will all work out. Then all of the other things will fall into place. The reality is that it has not worked before, so why would it work now?

My friend from Vancouver Kingsway recited a litany of statistics. They are true. They are just facts, not rhetoric or over-the-top hyperbole for the sake of saying it. This is what actually happens.

No member in this House thinks that is correct. We have a different viewpoint on how we would remedy it, perhaps, but surely to goodness we all understand that if a group gets what it wants, why would it change its position and way of doing things?

There is nothing in the free trade agreement that says “Thou shalt not shoot journalists.” Even for Colombia, there was a sidebar piece that the Liberals put in. It said that it would be monitored to make sure it does not do that, and if it did, perhaps there would be repercussions, even though that never materialized.

It is amazing to see the government decide that it wants a free trade deal that has no significant impact as far as trade is concerned in this country. There would be a few million dollars here or there, and a few areas in the agriculture sector that might benefit a little, but there is no one beating the door down saying that they need a trade deal in Honduras.

However, there are folks in the agricultural sector who are kicking the door down asking for the CETA deal. Of course, that is not there yet. However, there is no question that is a deal for the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector has been clear about it. The problem now is that they do not know what it is, because there is nothing that we have yet. There is no ink to paper and no deal in front of this House. Is there a deal, or has it evaporated?

It is almost flabbergasting. As Dr. Ricardo Grinspun said, “...the idea that Canadians can help the most needy people in Honduras through this FTA is a public relations message, nothing more. Moreover, the FTA would provide international legitimacy..”.

Probably one of the most egregious things is that it would provide international legitimacy for a group of individuals who think they have a right to run a country by force. We would give them international legitimacy by saying that we have a deal with them. They will go out to their other friends, if they can find any in this world, and say that Canada made a deal with them. Canada believes in the rule of law, and it has a Parliament, a mature democratic system, a Supreme Court and judicial system.

Honduras officials would use that elsewhere in the world and say that Canada thinks they are legitimate, as it gave them a deal. It only gives free trade deals to their best friends and the folks who participate in the same way that it does with the rule of law and protection of human rights. They would say to ignore what they do. They know it is ugly, but Canada thinks it is okay. Anyone who knows how to bargain for an agreement knows that is exactly what one would do. It is what other governments do.

What do we do? We worry about the CETA deal, which the Conservative government supposedly has. They say that it has to run to get the deal because the Americans are coming next.

Will Honduras seek deals elsewhere after it gets this one? Yes. Will its government officials use us as an example and say that they think we are a good place? Yes. There is no question that they will, and why would they not? Why would they not use the credibility that we give them through this deal to try to tell the world that they are a legitimate government because the Canadians think so? I think that is what we should expect, but why would we want to be the ones to give them that credibility?

The statistics that we quote to the government it already knows. Those statistics are not foreign to them. They know that.

The issue then becomes, why Honduras? Why now? Why not later, at a time when it has a rule of law that actually works, and respect for human rights and democracy in its Parliament? Why not when it enacts a democratic electoral system that does not put people under threat and does not kill them, so that they can run freely for office without feeling the repercussion of someone coming through their door and shooting them?

In this House, it is one thing to feel that during our election process we might bump a bit up against one another or we might go to a debate that could be passionate, but none of us has ever worried about going to a debate in case somebody shoots us. They do, and we will give that regime credibility and legitimacy, and that is a shame.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a somewhat shameful aspect to this agreement. Becoming a partner of the regime means becoming its willing accomplice, in a way. Indeed, of all royalties our mining companies will be paying, 25% will go directly to security. I do not know the exact amount involved, but we can assume these are significant amounts, since they will be used to purchase vehicles and weapons, as well as pay staff. Are the companies going to war or digging a mine?

I would ask my colleague to comment on that.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is baffling what Honduras is and why we want to have a trade agreement with it. Usually I can be very passionate on this side about debate, in the sense of taking the government to task, but I am actually saddened, to be truthful, that we would engage with this country when we know full well its record.

I could amp up the rhetoric and get angry, but I am to a point now where I am actually saddened by the situation. There are members on the other side who know this to be wrong. I am sure they do, notwithstanding the fact that it is a trade deal. The government side likes free trade deals. There is no argument about that. Its position is well known, and the position of the Liberal Party, in conjunction with the government, is well known: it supports free trade agreements. No one disputes that.

But surely there is a limit when it comes to trading. Surely there is a point where one says that there has to be acceptable behaviour, and surely we do not believe that Honduras' behaviour is acceptable. There cannot be a member in this House who believes it is okay that 36 journalists in the last 18 months have been shot. Surely no one agrees with that, never mind the thousands of others who have died along the way. No one can agree. It is true.

Yet clearly the government wants to pursue this unconscionable agenda. When it comes to this particular piece, I am not sure exactly why it would not want to just let this one slide until Honduras can build capacity.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and the way he was responding to those questions. He says he is baffled; we are baffled. We are baffled when we look over at the NDP, which has opposed virtually every single free trade agreement that has come before this House. Every time a free trade agreement comes up for debate and discussion, the NDP finds an angle to dispute.

I see the member for Sherbrooke over there chirping, “You're wrong.” He is referring, of course, to the one agreement the NDP agreed to, which was Canada-Jordan. However, it opposed Canada-U.S. It opposed NAFTA.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

It supported interprovincial trade.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member reminds me the NDP supported provincial trade.

The NDP opposes everything. It absolutely opposes every trade agreement. The NDP is fundamentally opposed to trade with every nation in the world. Maybe the member can tell us that.

This time he is finding an angle for the NDP to oppose the Canada-Honduras agreement. Why did it oppose NAFTA? Why did it oppose Canada-Israel? Why did it oppose every other free trade agreement that came before this House?

We all know the answer. Maybe he will 'fess up to it. It is because the union bosses over there in the NDP do not want them. Just be honest and tell people.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell them that my union boss would say he does not understand why that hon. colleague does not want to support human rights. I am baffled, quite frankly, by why that member would stand on his feet and wonder why we are baffled about defending human rights. If that is what it is about in this House, my friend, about why you cannot defend human rights, then I am truly baffled.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member has been in this House for a while. He knows he would not accuse the Speaker of doing anything like that, so he should refer to his colleagues in the third person and not directly. I am not sure if he had more to say on that question.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Always.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will give the member for Welland the floor back.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am baffled by my colleague's approach across the way when it comes to human rights. If human rights baffle the Conservatives, I am not sure why they should be allowed to stay in government past 2015.

That is why it will probably get thrown out at the end of the day. It is not about whether they have an excuse to vote against free trade. It is about whether fundamentally they think that free trade agreements should go hand in hand with the rule of law and human rights, or whether human rights should be ignored and they should sign a free trade agreement. It is either/or, and I am not really sure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my colleague a question.

He mentioned the hypocrisy of the Conservatives and the Liberals, who have now joined them, when it comes to sanctions imposed against certain countries. I am particularly thinking of the sanctions against Russia as well as the economic sanctions against Iran. My colleague also mentioned North Korea.

Canada imposes economic sanctions on states that violate human rights, democratic principles or international rights. That is why the government applied sanctions against Russia, a sovereign country.

In one case, the government chose to impose sanctions on a country where human rights and democratic rights are violated, but not in this other case: it would actually prefer to enter into a trade agreement with that second country. Why such a double standard, why such hypocrisy?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unusual or hypocritical that the government will impose sanctions here but not in Honduras. The members of the government can justifiably say that we did it with Ukraine years ago, and we have done it now with Russia and Iran and North Korea. I do not think that anybody disagrees in this House. When they took the position on Ukraine, we agreed. We said that they were right when it came to Russia. When it came to the annexation of Crimea, we on this side agreed with them.

What we are saying is to take a hard look at Honduras. We are saying to look at exactly what Honduras does, not from the perspective that they let mining companies in and the trade piece, but what Hondurans do to their own people. This is a place where the murder of journalists and citizens and parliamentarians goes on all the time, to a degree that is far greater than here. I am not sure why members on the other side would think that is not something we have to try to end through other than a trade agreement, but by helping civil society and helping them have the capacity to build a better and just Honduras.

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

Mr. Speaker, these folks would have a whole lot more credibility if they ever supported a free trade agreement. I think they can name one that they have voted for in the last 20 years. There is always an excuse as to why they are opposed to free trade. This time, they are trying to use human rights as the excuse.

I would like to ask this. What was the excuse when it came to Liechtenstein and Switzerland and they opposed those trade agreements? They oppose trade at every point. It is a different excuse at each free trade agreement. They do not support trade because they do not like it; they do not think that it works.

However, we know that it is the cornerstone of what makes our economy work. Canada needs to trade around the world. We are glad we are able to bring these agreements into place because it has improved our economy; it has helped us to survive the last several years of worldwide recession. Why is the NDP so backward on trade in general?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the member believes that if a trade deal is good for Canada, we can trample on human rights around the world. It does not matter. If that is the standard the government applies, that somehow human rights are an excuse, it is a sad day in the House.

Clearly, human rights should be paramount to a trade deal, not secondary to it. The parliamentary secretary believes it is not really that important for human rights to be respected in Honduras as long as we can sell a couple of bushels of wheat.

It truly is a sad day for democracy in our country, and a sad day for the government. That it would put money ahead of people's lives is what is truly sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to defend human rights around the world but, today especially, to discuss the implications of Bill C-20, the trade agreement with Honduras.

As we know, many statistics have been provided by various organizations on what is happening in Honduras. I will start my speech by presenting these statistics, which are quite alarming. I will then talk some more about whether or not we need more substantial economic ties with Honduras.

According to the 2012 democracy index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Honduras is now ranked 85th out of 167 countries, whereas it was ranked 65th in 2008. Today, Honduras is considered as a hybrid regime whereas it was previously considered to be an imperfect democracy. Therefore, conditions in Honduras have worsened. Independent observers have noted an intensification of violence and higher activity by organized crime and gangs associated with illegal drug trafficking. Countries such as Honduras and other Central American countries are transit hubs for drugs from South America on their way to Mexico and the United States.

According to the U.S. State Department, approximately 79% of cocaine shipments from South America end up in Honduras.

I will continue because there are many more statistics about this country.

According to The Economist, the countries in the northern triangle of Central America, including Honduras, form what is now the most violent region on earth.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, there were 92 murders for every 100,000 inhabitants in Honduras in 2011, making it the most violent country in Latin America.

According to the United Nations, Honduras is also widely considered as the murder capital of the world with a record number of 7,172 homicides in 2012.

Since the 2009 coup, violence and repression have grown as never before. In 2013, there were on average 10 massacres per month, according to InSight Crime, a website dedicated to investigations that defines “massacre” as the murder of at least three people at the same time. In the past four years, less than 20% of homicides were investigated, and even fewer cases were prosecuted.

According to the Americas Policy Group, the considerable impunity masks political violence.

Since 2010, there have been more than 200 politically motivated murders. Honduras is now considered to be one of the most dangerous places on earth for journalists.

According to a 2013 Human Rights Watch report, Honduras is the country with the highest rate of journalists killed per capita. Twenty-three journalists were killed there in the past three years alone.

According to the 2014 report by PEN International, at least 34 journalists have been killed since the coup in 2009, and there is almost complete impunity for the perpetrators.

In June 2013, 24 U.S. senators signed a letter expressing concern about the human rights situation in Honduras and requested that Secretary of State John Kerry make every effort possible to help ensure that the Honduran November 2013 elections were free, fair and peaceful.

A total of 94 members of congress called on the U.S. State Department to halt all military aid to Honduras in light of its violent repression.

The leading Honduran human rights group has revealed that at least 16 activists and candidates for the main opposition party were assassinated since June 2012, and 15 more have been attacked.

What is more, on August 25, 2013, three Tolupan indigenous leaders were shot and killed. There are extensive documented cases of police corruption. Between January 2011 and November 2012 alone, the police carried out 149 summary executions. The perpetrators of these crimes enjoy almost complete impunity.

According to Honduran government statistics released by PEN International, police investigate less than 1% of crimes in Honduras. Imagine if that were the case in Canada.

I also consulted Amnesty International's website; the organization releases reports almost every month. Here are some headlines: “Honduras: Children's rights defender beaten, detained”, published May 12, 2014; “Honduran media worker murdered at his home”, published April 17, 2014; “Honduras: Further information: Brother of killed journalist at risk”, published March 4, 2014; “Honduras: Sex workers targeted and killed in Honduras”, published January 10, 2014; “Honduras: Honduran journalist shot and killed”, published in December 2013.

Nearly every month Amnesty International publishes reports about human rights violations in Honduras. We are not inventing these statistics. These facts have been documented; they are clear. This is real. The Canadian government says it wants closer trade ties with a country that the international community considers to be a thug when it comes to its own citizens' rights, democratic rights that everyone around the globe should have.

Everyone knows that we are going to oppose Bill C-20 for a number of reasons. I will speak more about those reasons later in my speech. However, it is quite clear why I will be opposing Bill C-20, which is designed to strengthen economic and trade ties with Honduras.

That country is currently considered one of the worst in the world in terms of human rights violations. Despite that, police, authorities and all those involved are complacent and let things slide. I do not understand why the government wants to send the international community the message that we will do business with such an irresponsible and rogue country.

What is more, the Canadian government is opting to do the exact opposite of other countries. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who I am sure is listening closely to what I am saying, was a staunch advocate for Ukraine, and I hope he still is today. When certain regions of the country were invaded by Russia, he came to Ukraine's defence. Standing alongside the Prime Minister, he announced economic and political sanctions against Russia for its actions in Ukraine. That was the right thing to do.

Every MP here understands the importance of those kinds of gestures on the international political scene. As a country with a relatively significant role in international relations, we must opt for such measures. It has an important impact on international policy.

Economic sanctions were also imposed in other cases. Earlier, we mentioned Iran as a country on which we imposed economic and political sanctions. In the past, and perhaps today also, we talked about sanctions against North Korea. That is also a very oppressive and undemocratic regime. In such cases, Canada sometimes decides to impose economic and political sanctions. However, when we are dealing with Honduras, a country with one of the worst human rights records, there is no problem. Canada signs an economic and trade agreement as if nothing was happening in that country and everything was fine.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said we have been talking about it for years. He was Minister of International Trade years ago, and we have been talking about this issue for a long time. I said at the beginning that the 2009 coup changed a lot of things in Honduras. The economic and political situation may not have been the same when he was responsible for this file. It has probably changed a lot since that time. It is important to consider all the human rights violations in Honduras. I do not understand why we are now signing an economic agreement with such a rogue state when it comes to human rights. Therefore, we are going to oppose this bill at third reading.

I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, who worked very hard on this bill. He did a superb job, particularly in committee, but also in the House, pleading for human rights, which should be defended around the world, including in Honduras.

I do not understand how the government can claim to be a champion of human rights when it is signing an economic and trade agreement with a country like Honduras. These two things cannot be reconciled. I do not understand how the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example, can say that we respect and protect human rights around the world when we are concluding such an agreement with Honduras. I do not understand how the minister can reconcile these two things, because they are totally incompatible. All the statistics and all the facts prove it.

There are always three fundamental criteria for assessing trade agreements. Earlier, we were criticized for not supporting any economic agreements. We did support the agreement with Jordan. As a rule, we support trade with Europe. Europe has very high standards for human and workers' rights. We will take an official stand when we see the text of the economic agreement with Europe. However, we are not going to sign a blank cheque, as the Liberals did, regarding an economic agreement.

I want to get back to the three fundamental criteria for assessing trade agreements. Does the proposed partner respect democracy and human rights? Does it have adequate environmental and labour standards? Does it have values similar to Canadian values? If not, the country should not be one of Canada's economic and trade partners.

We can also look at whether the proposed partner is in the process of achieving these objectives. Honduras could have been in the process of achieving some of them. Canada could have decided to encourage this and to increase trade with this country.

However, it is clear that Honduras is not in the process of making improvements or achieving the Canadian values of respect for democracy, human rights and labour rights. Although it is possible to sign agreements with countries that are achieving these objectives, Honduras is headed in the opposite direction. International organizations that are present in many countries to ensure that they respect human rights have had some harsh words to say about Honduras.

In recent years, Honduras's rating has been declining. As I mentioned, the 2009 coup d'état caused a turnaround in the economic and political situation in Honduras.

That brings me to the second criterion for assessing trade agreements: is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? That is a very simple, yet important question. Does the country with which we are going to do business have a significant or strategic economic value to Canada?

Hon. members will agree that that is not at all the case with Honduras. Right now, this country ranks 104th on the list of Canada's export markets. In 2012, Canada exported only $38 million in goods to Honduras and imported $218 million, which represents a significant trade deficit. There is already talk of a significant trade deficit in Canada. With this type of agreement, which holds no strategic economic importance for Canada, our trade deficit will increase.

Canada is the second-largest foreign investor in Honduras. According to internal analyses conducted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian economy will benefit very little from this agreement.

That answers the second question we must ask when determining whether a trade agreement is needed or whether it will be advantageous to Canada: is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? In this case, the answer is no, it is not.

The third question we need to ask when evaluating a trade agreement is this: are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? That is the basis for evaluating a trade agreement. Are the terms of the agreement satisfactory? This question defines our way of looking at trade agreements.

The government often asks us why we never support these bills. However, we have supported some in the past. Taking into consideration these three criteria, the third criterion still does not allow us to approve the trade agreement with Europe because we have not yet seen the terms of that agreement. The third criterion involves determining whether the terms of the agreement are satisfactory. If we have not seen the terms, we cannot say whether or not they are satisfactory.

In closing, I would like to once more point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives and the Liberals, who have the same position. On one hand, they are saying that they want human rights to be respected throughout the world and that they are prepared to impose economic and political sanctions on countries where those rights are not respected. Canada is always prepared to defend those countries.

Canada decided to welcome them with open arms and sign trade agreements, but what it is really doing is supporting countries that do not respect human rights. It is saying yes to Honduras, which is one of the worst countries in the world. None of this makes sense. The government's logic is impossible to follow, as is that of their supporters on this, the Liberals. They do not seem to understand how bad this could turn out to be for the Honduran people.

I would be happy to answer my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed because I thought the Conservatives would ask a question and get involved in the debate. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Sherbrooke, Canada's youngest MP. That is a historical fact. Despite his youth, I am always impressed by his intelligence.

I would like to comment on the last point he raised about how both the Conservatives and the Liberals claim to support human rights. That is just lip service because the facts show just the opposite, as demonstrated by the free trade agreement with Honduras. The Liberals are supporting it despite that country's dismal human right record.

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that this is not the first time that the Conservatives have introduced a badly negotiated bill that does not prioritize human rights or the environment, nor is this the first time the Liberals have supported them.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that question has many elements.

I would have liked my Conservative colleagues to ask me some questions. I would have been pleased to hear what they had to say about this. However, they wanted to continue the debate until the bill is disposed of. However long it takes, I will defend human rights around the world at any hour of the day on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not showing up for work. We saw that this evening. Not one Conservative spoke to Bill C-24, which we debated a little earlier. As far as Bill C-20 is concerned, not one Conservative will defend their bill.

It is unfortunate, because I would have liked to have a debate of ideas on Bill C-20, but clearly, when the Conservatives adopted the motion to extend sitting hours until midnight, it was a licence for laziness. We see that today. The Conservatives are barely asking any questions, and they do not have the nerve to defend their bills. Then they will go back to their ridings, claiming that they worked late and hard and saying that they passed many bills. In fact, they did nothing. So far, they have missed almost 70 opportunities to speak and stand up for their constituents.

I would be disappointed if I lived in a Conservative riding and saw my MP unable to speak in the House and defend my interests. I would really be very disappointed for that and many other reasons.

Obviously, the Liberals, who are complacent about this bill—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Are there any questions and comments?

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the hon. member's comments about the Conservative members. It was just a short while ago that the government House leader stood and asked to extend the hours because we are here to work. We want to hear the debate, ask questions, and find out why the NDP is again so adamant against supporting a free trade agreement. Sure enough, New Democrats said they did not want to stay; they wanted to leave. However, much to their surprise, there are a lot more Conservatives here than NDP members. Therefore, we were able to pass it, and that is why we are here at this late hour, 12:40 in the morning, debating the bill. It is a little disingenuous to say that the Conservatives are not here to work because we are certainly here.

My question for the member on this specific bill is simply this. I asked it before and did not get an answer from the member for Welland. I am going to ask the member the same question. With the exception of the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, the NDP has opposed every single trade agreement, including Canada-United States—

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

They opposed Canada-Jordan too.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Initially, they opposed Canada-Jordan too, Mr. Speaker. They are against absolutely everything. Why is it that they have this fundamental policy in their party to oppose expanding markets around the world for Canadians? They stand and vote against it time and time again. Trade is good for Canada. Expanding markets for Canadians and Canadian companies is good for Canada.

I want to know from the member opposite why it is that New Democrats oppose every single trade agreement, including Canada-U.S. Surely, he is not going to stand now and say he has human rights issues with the United States of America. That is my question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

I am somewhat disappointed that he would ask me this question, because I spent most of my allotted time, 15 of my 20 minutes, answering that exact same question that he just put to one of my colleagues. I did focus on the three criteria to use to determine if the trade deal would benefit Canada. I can go over them again, if that is what he wants.

First, does the proposed partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If not, 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?

Where this agreement with Honduras is concerned, the answer to all three questions is no. The reason why we oppose this bill is pretty obvious. We did support other economic and trade agreements. We supported the trade deal with Jordan because it met those three criteria. On the trade agreement between Canada and Europe, we are still waiting to find out the answer to the third question: are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

We have yet to see the terms of the deal. We cannot take a stand without seeing the details of the agreement. In principle, we have nothing against increased trade between Canada and Europe, but at this point in time the Conservatives are refusing to give us any details.

Our position is clear. The problem stems from the members opposite, who cannot bear to hear the truth.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Sherbrooke on his reasonable and reasoned speech. I think that the government needs to consider the fundamental rights issues, rather than looking at reality with blinders on and focusing solely on trade interests.

The government of Honduras is the result of a coup. It has very bad human rights practices. Honduras is also a country with a lot of political violence. There have been 200 politically motivated killings in Honduras since 2010. We have a free trade agreement that is going to allow companies to sue the government.

Given the social tension that exists in Honduras, will this type of mechanism not risk exacerbating the repression? Will it not also endanger human rights activists, environmental activists and other activists who are trying to ensure that Honduras has a healthy, well-managed local economy that provides an attractive environment for investment?

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

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

There are very significant concerns about human rights. There are people who are working to improve the situation in Honduras but it is very dangerous for them. It does not make any sense for the Government of Canada to say that it wants to increase trade with one of the world's most violent countries.

On one hand, the government has decided to impose economic and political sanctions on countries that do not respect human rights or honour international treaties, such as Russia, Iran and North Korea. On the other, it has decided to sign a trade agreement with Honduras, the worst country in the world. I do not understand it at all.

I wish nothing more than for the situation in Honduras to improve for the sake of its citizens. They are entitled to a fair and transparent government that respects human rights, as well as to a fair and equitable justice system. I do hope things will improve in Honduras, but I do not believe it is in Canada's best interests to sign a trade agreement with a country while turning a blind eye to everything that is happening there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-20. I would like to thank my colleagues for being here and for allowing me to speak to this very important issue.

Incidentally, I would like to commend the member for Richmond Hill. He actually asked a few questions tonight. He took part in the debate, although I did not hear him speak. I would have liked to hear his take on things in order to ask him questions. It is all well and good to ask questions, but I would remind him that he is a government MP. As such, he could answer questions as well. Unfortunately, we have not heard his story. More accurately, his story seems to have evolved somewhat over the course of the evening.

I have here the Hansard from March 5, 2012. I was an MP. On page 892, we were talking about Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I invite my colleague to read it. I cannot read all of the names that are included because we are not allowed to name members who are present, but the NDP was there and voted in favour of the bill. I would also invite the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to read this and take note of it, because I hear time and time again that the NDP has never supported a free trade agreement. However, it is here, in black and white.

Even though we keep explaining it to the Conservatives, it seems they do not understand. We keep saying that when the government enters into its free trade agreements, it is not negotiating them well and it is not doing a good job choosing its partners. The objective is clear: move on to another scandal, talk about something other than the scandals and the corruption on that side. The government is signing all kinds of free trade agreements and is very proud of that fact. However, we must look at the facts. I remember talking about the free trade agreement with Panama. In that case, there were problems with tax evasion. In this case, with Honduras, there are human rights issues.

We are hearing rather peculiar questions from the other side. The Conservatives appear to be saying that human rights may not be that important after all, which means that they can be pushed aside. Of course, when the Conservatives go back to their ridings and talk with their constituents, they claim to support human rights, but when push comes to shove, during negotiations and discussions with a partner, they simply push these rights aside. I want to stress how important it is to consider human rights during negotiations. According to the Conservatives and the Liberals, once we sign a free trade agreement, the market will open up and everyone will be happy. They mean, of course, that everyone will be rich and happy.

This is not what happens in real life. I would like to remind my colleagues opposite of the agreement Canada signed with Colombia. Reports were produced afterwards. The Conservatives argue that by signing a free trade agreement, we are helping people in the other country. We have seen that the agreement with Colombia did not help at all, just the opposite, in fact.

What we are saying is that when the Conservatives go negotiating agreements left and right, they have to learn from their mistakes. They are poor administrators. They do not know how to negotiate agreements properly, and that is why those of us on this side of the House are opposed to those agreements. We have given them solutions and suggestions. We have made proposals and put forward amendments. Since they have a majority, they have always rejected our ideas.

It is important to me to be here tonight, to talk to them and tell them what they can do because more free trade agreements, such as the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, are on the way.

That is still under negotiation. Unfortunately, those of us on this side of the House do not have much information because the government is very secretive and lacks transparency, as usual. I suggest that my colleagues take a look at what happens in the United States. Their politicians have access to agreements and can read them. This is a time when they can negotiate something in return for the agreement.

One good example is Vietnam. I talked about this at second reading. Vietnam is part of the trans-Pacific partnership. The U.S. House of Representatives is putting pressure on its negotiators to ensure that they demand improvements in the realm of human rights and workers' rights in Vietnam before signing the agreement. That is meaningful action.

This should be a lesson to the Conservatives as well as the Liberals. We need to agree that a free trade agreement with Honduras is technically not that significant. It will not do a great deal for Canada as a trading partner. That is how they see it in the United States. They give a country a free trade agreement to help it improve its human rights record.

No one in this House can say that respect for human rights is not an issue in Honduras. Clearly, when a government rises to power after a coup and when journalists and opposition politicians are murdered, we know there are problems. Not once have I heard today, from either the Conservatives or the Liberals, that they disagree with what the NDP has said. They agree with us that there are problems in Honduras. However, the response of the Liberals and the Conservatives to these problems is to throw the dice and hope it all works out.

In contrast, the NDP says that we should take the lead. We are in a position to negotiate and demand change. It was for that reason that I entered politics. I wanted to change things. Quite frankly, I know that some of our Conservative colleagues also want to change things for the better. Unfortunately, I have not heard much from them to this point. I heard some questions, but I did not hear them defending their position.

I would like to have a debate with the Conservatives to know exactly how they think that signing this agreement will improve the plight of Hondurans and help improve respect for human rights.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, June 3, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 10, 2014, at the conclusion of the proceedings related to the business of supply.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 9, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-20.

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

Vote #201

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12:00 a.m.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.