Debates of May 25th, 2009

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I do not need any lessons from the hon. member and I do not accept her premise of what I said in the House.

I did not say that I supported or did not support the bill. What I have said is I am not against free trade per se, but this bill in particular needs to be reviewed and needs to be changed. I thought we were here to debate this and to decide what happens from here.

Some changes need to be made to the bill and I ask the government, in the process of this debate, to take the bill back and at least go through the recommendation made by the standing committee to do a proper human rights assessment and then come back to the House with it. The government may choose not to do that, but I am spending my time here today because I feel we need to be having an open debate and discussion on what is going on and improving some things if possible.

I have identified a number of areas where I believe the bill could use a tremendous amount of improvement and further study. I suggest that some of those are the human rights impact, definitely the labour side deal because it is not strong enough and does not even meet the NAFTA standards, as well as the environmental aspects. As well, the CIDA minister needs to come up with a recommendation.

The bill needs a great deal of work done to it. Some of these things need to be done. I ask the government, at this stage, to take a look at some of the suggestions that have been made in the House and hopefully decide to bring to bear the kinds of things about which we have talked.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of Bill C-23. I will start by giving the main reasons why we are opposed to this bill, and then I will explain some of those reasons.

It seems to us that the federal government's main motivation in entering into this free trade agreement is not trade—members will see why we say that—but investment, because the agreement contains a chapter on investment protection. The agreement will therefore make things easier for Canadian investors, especially in the mining sector, and we know that there is considerable interest in investing in Colombia.

That is the main motivation, in our opinion, but judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia would be ill conceived.

All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Such clauses are especially dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best. By protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement could delay social and environmental progress in this country, where the need for progress is great. This is serious, and I would like to hear what my Liberal colleague has to say about it.

In fact, Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and certainly in Latin America. To advance human rights around the world, governments—those willing, that is—use a carrot and stick approach. They support efforts to improve respect for human rights and reserve the right to take away privileges if progress slides back.

With this free trade agreement, Canada would forego any ability to bring pressure to bear. In fact, not only would it give up the possibility of using the carrot and stick approach, but it would be surrendering all power to the Colombian government.

To convince us of its good intentions, the government keeps saying that this agreement would come with a companion agreement on labour and another one on the environment. The fact of the matter is that such agreements are notoriously ineffective. Unless they are part of the free trade agreement, which they are not, investors could destroy with impunity Colombia's rich natural environment, displace populations to facilitate mine development or continue murdering unionists. Companion agreements cannot be used against any of this if they are not part of the free trade agreement.

As for the free trade agreement per se, the Bloc Québécois is against trading off the government's ability to press for human rights to provide Canadian corporations with foreign investment opportunities.

We must ask ourselves what is the purpose of a bilateral free trade agreement with Colombia like the one with Peru. I could quote figures, but for the benefit of those listening, I will simply say that statistics do not show a substantial increase in trade, but only a slight one.

This situation is an exception to the usual signing of a free trade agreement, because they are usually made between special trading partners who trade sufficiently to make it worthwhile to lower trade barriers.

The Colombian market and trade with Colombia are not particularly sizeable. The products Canada primarily sells there, such as western grain, can be sold easily elsewhere, especially during this crisis, and Quebec and Canadian exporters will see only limited benefit at best from the conclusion of this agreement.

Some Canadian businesses might be interested, but we fail to see what attraction there might be for people in Quebec and Canada. In fact, from what we can see, this free trade agreement mostly protects Canadian investors and investments in the mining sector. That is of greater interest to Canadian investors and to the government, which is sensitive to their lobbying.

I have to say here that we do not oppose investment agreements, but we oppose bad investment agreements, and this appears to be one.

Indirect foreign investment is growing exponentially. In order to create a predictable environment and ensure that a foreign investor does not end up losing his assets or being nationalized without compensation—this is the example always cited, as happened with oil in some instances—countries conclude treaties to protect investments. We have nothing against that.

The first Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the FTA, which included a section on investment protection, chapter 16, was the first agreement in the world to include a dispute resolution mechanism, which the two countries could use. I emphasize that it was between Canada and the United States, two countries with major trading activities and able to negotiate for their mutual benefit.

There was a dispute resolution mechanism available to the two countries. The agreement worked well. No discriminatory measures were taken against a foreign investor and no case was submitted to the arbitration tribunal. And yet, during the five years the agreement was in force, the value of Canadian investments rose by 41%. So it was not a bad agreement.

However, when it came to negotiating NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, these three countries driving the negotiations wanted to change the agreement on investment because of unreasonable concerns about the risks run by investors in Mexico.

Under chapter 11, foreign investors may apply directly to international tribunals, circumventing the filter of public good provided by the governments. This is not insignificant. It means that companies can apply on their own to international tribunals, whereas under the FTA, governments alone could do so. That is a big difference.

The results can be very different depending on whether companies or countries make such applications.

The word expropriation had a specific meaning in chapter 16 and a different one in chapter 11. It is so broad a concept that any legislation that might have the effect of reducing an investor’s profits can be deemed expropriation and result in a lawsuit. Foreign investors are allowed to go before international tribunals. Moreover, they can interpret the law in such a way that, if the government of a particular country passes legislation that reduces the value of their investments in any way at all, they can equate these losses to expropriation and launch a lawsuit. The amount of the suit is not limited to the value of the investment but includes all possible future profits. It is very abusive.

This chapter was denounced by everyone. If legislation to protect the environment reduces a foreign investor’s profits, the government is exposed to fabulous lawsuits. Despite all that, Ottawa signed several bilateral agreements over the years that are copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA. The criticism reached such a pitch, though, that the Liberals eventually stopped signing these kinds of agreements.

I want to digress a bit. I took part in the election in which Jean Chrétien promised to do all he could about the free trade agreement, the FTA. We know what happened then. Not only did he sign it, but he went on to conclude several others and became the great propagandist of free trade agreements. Under the Conservatives, Ottawa is back on the offensive and negotiating numerous agreements of this kind. In the one with Colombia, the Conservative government cedes to multinationals the right to determine the public interest.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore oppose the bill to implement this free trade agreement because of the clauses it contains that are copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA. We want the government to return to the old format for these agreements, which did not give the multinationals a free hand at the expense of the public interest. We are in favour of free trade, but not under any conditions at all.

We do not want conditions that will make people’s lives worse, especially when the people in question have no other recourse, like the Colombians in this case. They have virtually no individual or trade union rights and are at the mercy of investors whose strong, violent mercenaries will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.

A number of other members and I met with some individuals—trade unionists and people from NGOs—who had been designated by the people in villages under siege from multinationals to come and explain the situation to us.

There are human rights abuses. The Conservatives tell us over and over that things are improving and the situation is less catastrophic than before. The truth is that the human rights situation is quite a bit worse than it used to be. Most violations are committed by paramilitary groups and human rights workers are worried about the ties between these groups and the government.

I have a few statistics. In 2008, the crimes committed by these paramilitary groups increased by 41% in comparison with a 14% increase the previous year. There was a 9% increase in the proportion of crimes committed by government security forces. Even though the number of crimes is rising, the perpetrators remain as immune as ever. Only 3% of crimes end in a conviction. It is impossible to say under these conditions that there is any respect for human rights.

As for workers' rights, we realize this is one of the world's worst places for respecting them. Trade unionists are targeted for their activities. I have met a number of them. They told us they cannot not live freely. They are in hiding constantly. They are afraid of being shot point blank. And their fear is not groundless, because, since 1986, 2,690 trade unionists have been assassinated. It could be said that the number of murders has decreased somewhat, but, in 2007, 39 unionists were murdered—nearly one a week—and, in 2008, 48 were murdered. This is not a situation in which union members can be said to be able to exercise their right to exert pressure. As one union vice-president put it, thousands of people have disappeared, and unions continue to be persecuted.

Population displacement in Colombia is often the result of conflicts opposing government security forces, paramilitary groups and guerrillas. However, economic displacement is increasingly frequent. In most cases, the people displaced receive no compensation. Various means are used to force people from a given location: pressure tactics, threats, murders and land flooding. There are also stories of the many people living in small villages, in clearings near the sites of mines rich in various minerals, being forcibly moved off in all sorts of imaginable and unimaginable ways in order to make room for investors. There is nowhere for them to go. The American State Department and Amnesty International say that another 305,000 persons were displaced in 2007. There had been a lot before then. In 2008, over 380,000 persons had to flee their homes. In fact, since 1985, nearly 4.6 million persons have been forced to leave their homes and their land.

The Conservative government can go on saying that the human rights situation has improved, but Colombia is second only to Sudan in the greatest number of internally displaced persons. That is really something. That is an understatement. Would Canada be prepared to sign a free trade agreement with Sudan?

There may of course be side deals, but I have said such agreements are ineffective. I see no way of improving this agreement without it being changed very significantly.

As we do not see any such improvements appearing, we think that the free trade agreement presented here for implementation will in no way help the people of Colombia, Quebec and Canada.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that my hon. colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île made an extremely interesting presentation. She brought up new points that we had not heard so far concerning human rights in Colombia. She has a great deal of experience with free trade, human rights and the various countries involved.

Instead of putting us in front of a fait accompli and a free trade agreement already signed by both countries, would it not have been better if the government had first asked the members of this House for their opinions? It could have made an effort to find out what impact this agreement would have on human rights and inform the members of this House of the real reasons why it was signed.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. Knowledge comes to members as they accumulate age and experience. It is true that, over the years that I have been here, there has been much talk about free trade in the House of Commons.

This topic was discussed when NAFTA was signed, and we pointed out how ridiculous chapter 11 was. It allowed companies to apply directly to international tribunals, thereby depriving states of the opportunity to defend themselves.

I did not get the chance to mention this, but the concept of expropriation under this agreement is such that improved conditions for the citizens could be construed as having a negative impact on the potential for profits and, thus, through great lawyers using fancy words, be considered justification for expropriation. Such is the meaning of this agreement. Therefore, we must be extremely careful.

I come from the labour movement. I know that good negotiations require a good balance of power. This does not mean that the parties are fighting one another, but one party has the opportunity to discuss with the other because the latter cannot impose its will on the former. In this case, the parties are Colombia and Canada. Of course, Canada has the upper hand. All Colombia can “sell” to Canada is mining investments. When we examine the issue from every angle, that is what matters, and unfortunately, these mining investments are what is making life difficult for the people. It could not be any other way.

The Colombian government can say all it wants. While a few benefits here and there may come from this agreement, overall, it will be detrimental to the Colombian people and it will tilt the balance of power toward the government and away from the people.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my hon. colleague's speech. I agree with several of the points she raised. I think, however, that it is important to highlight a few things about that speech.

The situation in Colombia can be said to be mixed. It is true that there are massive population displacements as well as human rights violations. That is terrible. Colombia is not the only country in that part of the world where this happens, though; there are many. It is also important to point out that, in some segments of the population and some parts of the country, the situation has improved.

I clearly recall the situation in Medellin, for instance. There was a time when no one could go out on its streets. Today, the city is undergoing a great deal of development. It has changed dramatically over the past 10 years.

Our colleague said that this agreement cannot do any good for the people of Colombia. But will it make things worse? I am not sure that it will—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to interrupt the hon. member to give the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île enough time to answer.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will have to be brief.

I think that it will because of the provision concerning investments. We must not underestimate what that will entail. These investments are not made in cities, but over large areas, in the forests and savannahs where the people live.

Think of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the massive mining investments made in that country and the resulting loss of quality of life for the people. Those who live in a village may not have much to eat, but they can live from agriculture and gathering. It is a living.

However, when a mining company moves in and starts digging, putting up buildings, sending dust flying in the air or using chemicals in processing the minerals extracted, the people's lives are turned upside down. They have no control over that and know nothing about those things. In addition, without unions—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to interrupt the hon. member so that another question can be asked.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in what my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île had to say. I know she has a lot of experience in the union movement and with human rights.

The Conservatives, through the minister, claimed earlier that trade unionists are in favour of this agreement. He said all the unions support the agreement, even though that is absurd.

The Liberals claim that human rights associations support the agreement. That is just a way of justifying—a little— the fact that both the Conservatives and the Liberals are in favour of the agreement.

So far as the hon. member knows, is there a single organization with a good reputation on human rights or a single real union that supports this agreement?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people I know from these groups are utterly opposed to the agreement, not for what I would call futile reasons but for reasons they can justify.

When social conditions and human rights are like those in Colombia, the logic behind free trade agreements means that they cannot have any other result than to reinforce the power of the government and rich people and ensure that the underground resources benefit foreigners much more than Colombians.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Willowdale, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Government Spending; the hon. member for Sudbury, Financial Institutions.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-23 today, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, we join with other nations and their leaders as they ponder the issue of free trade in general and free trade with Colombia specifically. With the current turmoil we find in the global economic system and within major economies across the world, including our own, there is a natural inclination to pause with respect to trade agreements like the one we debate today.

While there is a temptation to close the doors and shutter down during the economic storm, for countries like Canada trade is at the very core of our prosperity. We are a trading nation and we rely on the success of our trade relationships for economic growth and continued prosperity.

In times like these it is tempting to show reluctance for open trade and in its place to seek protectionist policies. However, we only need to look to the 1930s and the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff act in the United States that was protectionist in nature and that clearly contributed to the further collapse of the world economic system.

My point is simply that trade for a country like ours is essential and must be encouraged.

Free trade relationships can be of significant advantage for Canada and for emerging economies with which we sign agreements as they continue their development process.

The question at hand today is not only the beneficial effects of free trade relationships but the ancillary issues that we must consider when entering into such agreements.

Colombia is certainly a nation that has struggled almost since its inception as the Republic of Colombia in 1886, We note that what is now modern day Panama seceded from Colombia in 1903. From the point of arrival of Spanish explorers in 1499 through to independence of 1819 and the departure of Gran Colombia, as it was known then by the current nations of Venezuela and Ecuador, Colombia has known periods of considerable instability.

In more modern times, we also reflect sadly upon the tumultuous 40-year civil conflict that has claimed between 70,000 and 100,000 lives. Through it all, Colombia has struggled to grow economically, socially and politically.

Despite internal conflicts that affect Colombia, for a period of almost 30 years, beginning in 1970, the country's gross domestic products grew at an average rate of 4% per year. A recessionary period in 1999 consumed the nation for several years but into the new century growth was steady and in 2007 it was 8.2% of GDP.

The International Monetary Fund reported Colombia's GDP at $202 billion U.S. dollars in 2007. This was the fourth largest economy in South America. It must be conceded, however, that while these numbers are impressive, much of the wealth has remained concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the country's population and this must be addressed in the future.

While a seemingly chronic issue for developing nations, it is something we must keep in mind as we debate Bill C-23 and the potential benefits that we hope will accrue to the general population of Colombia.

Colombia's economy has strong areas of growth and interesting aspects to it. For example, the massive United States market is supplied with 70% of its imported flowers from the nation of Colombia alone. In 2007, the American publication Business Week magazine named Colombia the “most extreme emerging economy on earth”.

Colombia's modern history was significantly altered with the election of the current president in August 2002. President Alvaro Uribe Velez has certainly changed the political landscape of Colombia. His administration has been marked by reform, significant progress on the internal conflict that has ravaged Colombia and a more practical approach to the economic challenges that have faced his country.

It is important to note that the presidency is set to change in 2010 when President Uribe reaches the constitutional limits and, therefore, cannot seek re-election. However, if a referendum recently approved by the Colombian Senate proceeds, he will have the opportunity to seek a third term. Most people will, of course, hope that reform and continuing economic growth will continue regardless of this political reality.

This abbreviated picture of Colombia's political and economic status is important as we consider Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that is before this House today. While economics and politics are enormous, when considering the approval of the free trade agreement with any nation so, too, are issues of social justice and civility.

Significant concerns have been expressed by various groups and individuals as the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is being debated not only in this House but across Canada. Just yesterday in The Toronto Star, the editorial board of the newspaper bluntly stated, in reference to Bill C-23, that “the bill deserves closer scrutiny”.

While we in Canada debate this free trade agreement, we are joined in such deliberations by the United States officials, most notably in the senate where ratification of the treaty signed by the previous administration in 2006 proceeds quite slowly.

The new president, Barack Obama, has enunciated his support of the United States-Colombia free trade agreement. However, there are concerns within the senate with respect to the situation in Colombia that could result in considerable delay in the passage of this treaty in the United States. President Obama's trade representative, Ron Kirk, is currently working with senators to “find a way forward”.

With our largest trading partner, the United States, looking closely at its treaty, we can all be assured that what we do here in Canada will at least have some impact upon the American lawmakers. It is unlikely that should the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement pass here, the United States advocates of their treaty would not point out the possibility of putting their business at a disadvantage to their Canadian counterparts if the United States senate delayed too long.

With that in mind, we must look closely at the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, both from the perspective of our own country and the potential benefits to the average Colombian who might stand to benefit from improved trade relations.

In terms of Canada's economic interests, we export goods valued at approximately $703 million per year. Colombia exports approximately $643 million worth of goods to Canada. In context, Canada's 2008 gross domestic product was nearly $1.5 trillion. Canadian companies have approximately $750 million invested in Colombia.

The reality is simply that while Colombia is creating an emerging nation in South America and one of importance, current trade between Canada and Colombia remains relatively small. However, a ratified free trade agreement with Canada is significant both in terms of potential investment and trade but also more indirectly in terms of the statement it makes both domestically here in Canada and internationally with nations across the world considering similar arrangements.

In that context, what are some of the concerns that are being expressed by groups and individuals here in Canada and in other parts of the world? Human rights concerns are at the forefront of the statements being made by the various groups.

By way of example, today the lower house in Switzerland has received a letter signed by 33 non-governmental organizations asking that their country delay ratification of a European Union-Colombia free trade arrangement until their concerns are addressed with respect to human rights in Colombia. The letter speaks of what they call “serious and systematic” human rights violations.

Only a few days ago, the Reverend David Giuliano, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada, wrote that he “believed our trade needs to be restricted by ethical, environmental and moral considerations”.

One source of the concerns with respect to Bill C-23 originated with the labour movement both in Canada and in other nations. Indeed, the national director of the United Steelworkers in Canada has announced it will host Colombia lawyer Yessika Hoyos Morales in Ottawa this week, as it enunciates its position with respect to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Ms. Hoyos Morales is the daughter of the trade unionist who was murdered in Colombia eight years ago.

Many international human rights groups continue to express their concern about the arbitrary action with respect to labour leaders and labour movement activities in Colombia. Labour leaders across Canada and around the world report that over 2,700 labour leaders have been killed in Colombia over the past 10 years.

The issue of human rights is also a concern outside the labour movement in Colombia. The civil war and the conduct of paramilitary organizations is of grave concern to many observers throughout the world. For much of the most troubling period of the civil war in Colombia the loss of innocent lives at the hands of paramilitary organizations was characteristic of a seriously troubled nation.

A further area of concern centres on the ongoing problem of the illegal narcotics trade that has so troubled Colombia and the nations in which these drugs create incomprehensible social problems, including the criminal activities associated with the importation of illegal drugs.

It is reported that the Colombian drug cartels continue to supply virtually all the cocaine that is used illegally in the United States and is the most significant supplier to other nations in the world.

The effects of this problem is of course not only to be found in the United States, but also in Canada and within Colombia itself.

This ongoing problem must be addressed is there is to be any long-term stability for Colombia and if the country is to take its place in the world as a truly emerging economy, particularly within the context of the South American region.

These issues clearly need to be addressed and which we, as legislators, must take into consideration balanced, of course, by the significant progress that has been made over the last number of years, particularly by President Uribe's administration.

Many will argue quite legitimately that by engaging nations like Colombia in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements we are likely to encourage them to participate more fully within the world community. In so doing we can help them with many of the concerns that are raised both on a national and international level.

It is important and absolutely essential that as we debate Bill C-23, we weigh these issues against what is widely recognized as profound and significant progress that has taken place in Colombia over the past few years.

President Uribe is generally recognized to have a high level of support among Colombians as a result of his success in creating greater stability in the country and as a result a more vibrant and progressive economy.

The many successes of recent years against the FARC rebels has spread hope among Colombians that even greater stability can be achieved and therefore economic progress that would normally follows.

While much of the success that has been achieved in this area by the Colombian government fails to garner international headlines, we periodically witness profound success in this conflict.

In 2008 we witnessed the spectacular freeing of the former presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, after having been held captive by rebels for almost six and a half years.

Kidnappings, a chronic problem in Colombia, have decreased in recent years, under President Uribe's leadership, to a 20 year low. Similarly the actions of paramilitary groups on the right have long been a terrible part of Colombia's modern history.

The Colombian government in recent years, through negotiations and enforcement action, has succeeded in reducing the action of these right-wing groups.

While there continues to be challenges that are certainly significant and the recently discovered involvement by some political figures is troubling, we must encourage the government to ensure that these individuals are being held to account. It is important that progress, however difficult, is indeed taking place.

In the area of criminal and civil strife, it is reported that homicides in Colombia have been reduced by 49% since 2002. Kidnappings, as noted before, are down by a percentage in the range of 85%.

We should also be concerned with respect to the displacement of people affected by the conflict within Colombia. It has been reported that over the course of the conflict, over three million Colombians have been displaced. These numbers are of course disturbing in a country with a population currently in the range of 45 million people. However, it is also important to note that from 2002 to the present, it has been reported that displacements of people have been significantly reduced.

Since 2002, the Colombian government has worked to improve health care for its citizens and infrastructure, particularly roads projects which are essential to improved domestic and international trade.

In terms if the illicit narcotics trade, progress has been made in the area as well. It has been reported that the amount of planting of illegal narcotics has in fact been reduced by 18% this past year after several years of increases.

My objective today has been to present both the legitimate concerns of many groups and individuals and also the points that have been put forward to support free trade and thus greater progress for Colombia.

As legislators, we are obliged to consider all aspects of the realities facing Colombia, its difficulties and successes as we move forward. We will always want to encourage Colombia to create an environment that helps all Colombians to achieve their fullest potential, live in safety and security and participate more fully in their country's political, economic and social life.

I encourage members to consider in a fair and balanced way all the issues associated with the debate on free trade with Colombia as we consider this issue both in the House and across the country.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague from Davenport, with whom I have worked on various committees. He generally knows his files very thoroughly.

He said right at the beginning of his speech that we should not be reluctant to liberalize trade and that trade was essential for Canada. We all certainly know that. The question we need to ask, though, is at what price. What if the price is the uprooting of people? Should we just close our eyes to what is going on in Colombia, things that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International decry as infringements on human rights? Should we just close our eyes despite what several organizations came and told us at the round tables we held on the issue of Canadian mines, for example, and what they do in foreign countries?

We should not forget that Colombia is one of Canada’s smallest trading partners. Our trade is hardly comparable. For example, Canada’s grain exports could have the effect of swamping all of Colombia’s small producers.

Our colleague stated some facts and explained a situation, but I did not really understand what his position is. Can he tell us? Is he for this agreement or against it?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her question.

In my remarks, I simply pointed out that certain things were occurring in Colombia, especially failures to respect human rights. It is terrible, it is true.

I am not opposed to the position of the Bloc and the NDP, which are critical of the terrible situations in this country in which human rights are not respected. However, some things have improved in this country over the years. It cannot be said that the situation is worsening year after year.

I know Colombia well. I do not know whether my colleague has visited Colombia, but I know it well. I have been there a number of times. In addition, I have Colombian friends familiar with the situation in their country. It has changed completely in recent years, particularly in some cities. I mentioned Medellin, for example. Ten years ago, it was nearly impossible to walk down the street. Today, people can go out, and there is a level of security that did not previously exist.

So, we can see certain changes, although the problems with the paramilitary continue. It is true. The situation is a very difficult one for the government. I would not like to be a member of the Colombian government right now, because the situation there is terrible. There are factions in the country—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member for Davenport, but I must give time to the other members to ask their questions.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not deal with labour rights protection and it fails to have any environmental protection. The investor chapter is modelled under chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows foreign companies to sue Canadian governments, whether it is on the environmental, labour or social front.

Colombia has the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere and is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists.

I do not quite understand whether the member for Davenport will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. If so, how would he justify the human rights violations and the environmental problems facing Colombia? The bill, as it is drafted right now, does not give any labour rights protection.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certain steps need to be taken. I am a member of trade committee and one of the first things we have to do is call for a human rights assessment. That needs to be done.

The second thing is to ensure that all those who want to speak to the issue, both from the human rights community and the business community, get an opportunity to speak before committee. It is important that we allow those individuals to come forward to give a wholesome view of what is taking place in Colombia. It is important to hear also from the people of Colombia. There is a possibility that trade committee might also visit Colombia.

The member might be surprised. I see issues of concern. I quite agree that there are a lot of human rights concerns. I have witnessed and heard about a lot of scary moments in Colombia. At the same time, I do not buy into the argument that by supporting this one could also be making the situation worse in Colombia. I want to hear the arguments before committee and then I will decide whether I will support it. That still needs to be fully debated.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite fascinated to hear the member for Davenport making such remarks. I would think I were listening to a Conservative member of this House when he says that the situation has improved in Colombia, that he does not know whether he should support the agreement or not and that he would like to hear witnesses in committee. The facts are there. The situation has not improved that much. For example, nearly 90% of the trade unionists murdered in the world are murdered in Colombia.

How can the member for Davenport claim in this House that the situation has improved in Colombia when 90% of the trade unionists murdered in the world are murdered in Colombia? How can he make such contradictory statements?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague has had occasion to visit Colombia to see the situation there. It has improved in certain sectors, but it is true that this is not the case in all sectors. It is true, as he has said, that the situation for trade unionists in Colombia continues to be terrible. I do not argue with his position on the subject. But it is not the case in all sectors. Some have improved, but not all. I know Colombia well and have been there a number of times. The situation is not the same today as it was 10 years ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in opposition to this bill. From the very good work the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done, we know that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, is deeply flawed.

We have heard members in the House say that New Democrats are against trade. That is simply not the case. What New Democrats have consistently called for is fair trade. When we are talking about fair trade, it is important to talk about the fact that fair trade includes rules and agreements that promote sustainable practices, domestic job creation and healthy working conditions while allowing us to manage a supply of goods, promote democratic rights abroad and maintain democratic sovereignty at home.

Healthy working conditions include human rights. That is the aspect of this particular set of agreements that I want to focus on today. We have heard members say a number of times in the House that things have improved. I want to quote from a number of different reports which state that that is simply not the case. “Making a Bad Situation Worse: An Analysis of the Text of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement” is an extensive report that looks at many aspects, including labour rights, the labour side of the agreement, the “Investment” chapter in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, market access in agriculture and the environmental side of the agreement.

I want to focus on the human rights aspect. I want to quote from that report, because the people behind the report are the ones who have done the work. They are the people who can speak with credibility to what is happening in Colombia right now. They state in that report:

Trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows states, who are willing, to promote developmental outcomes and protect the environment. But neither the political conditions in Colombia nor the terms of the Canada-Colombia FTA provide these reassurances. Indeed, while Canadians were promised that this agreement had been tailored to take account of human rights concerns, in fact the agreement turns out to be a standard “market-access” oriented trade deal, with ineffectual side agreements on labour and the environment.

Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement.

Ratification of this deal provides Canadian political support to a regime in Colombia that is deeply implicated in gross violations of human rights and immersed in a spiralling political scandal for links to paramilitary death squads. Canada’s own process is marked by secrecy and a disregard for the deliberations of parliament....

The FTA will hit small-scale farmers with low-price competition, and may further expose indigenous people, Afro-Colombians and rural dwellers to land grabs by Canadian mining companies equipped with powerful new investor rights, but no binding responsibilities.

In their executive summary conclusion, they state:

In 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT) concluded that the FTA with Colombia should not proceed without further improvements in the human rights situation in Colombia and without a comprehensive and independent human rights impact assessment (HRIA). It also called for legislated provisions on corporate social responsibility to address the implementation of universal human rights standards by Canadian entities investing in Colombia.

What we have heard so far in the House, particularly from the Liberals, is that we should go ahead with this agreement and trust that human rights will happen as a result of it. This is despite the fact that the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that there be a human rights assessment. I would argue that that human rights assessment needs to be done in advance of signing any agreement, because we know what happens when there are signed agreements. There are often very few enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure that those kinds of side agreements, whether they are about human rights, environment or agriculture, are actually implemented and enforced.

I want to touch on a couple of key areas of the agreement. It is stated in “Making a Bad Situation Worse”:

Substantive labour rights protections remain in a side agreement rather than in the body of the agreement. Enforcement of these rights is entirely at the discretion of the signatory governments.

Unlike the provisions for investors’ rights, the agreement offers no trade sanctions, such as the imposition of countervailing duties or the abrogation of preferential trade status, in the event that a Party fails to adhere to the labour rights provisions.

The CCFTA investment chapter pays mere lip service to corporate social responsibility, with “best-efforts” provisions, which are purely voluntary and completely unenforceable.

We have heard members in this House say that somehow these trade agreements are going to make everything fine, yet we know that the enforcement and compliance provisions are very weak. Why would we trust that the side agreements would actually be implemented?

In the document, “Background to the Canada-Colombia Trade Agreement”, there is a chapter titled, “A Human Rights Crisis—Crimes Against Humanity”. It states that independent Colombian and international human rights organizations are unequivocal that human rights violations in Colombia remain rampant. In the last few years, some numbers have gone down, for example kidnappings, while others have gone up, for example, extrajudicial executions, forced displacements and disappearances. There was a sharp rise in killings of trade unionists in 2008, last year. Overall the level of impunity in violations is egregiously high.

A number of independent bodies have examined what is happening in Colombia. International human rights organizations and Colombian human rights organizations talk about the continuing egregious violations of human rights, yet we are being asked to support this agreement in principle.

We have talked about corporate social responsibility. There have been private members' bills that have asked the House to implement corporate social responsibility internationally. It is stated in the document:

The investment chapter pays mere lip service to corporate social responsibility. Article 816 observes that each party “should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies.” This is a “best efforts” provision—purely voluntary and completely unenforceable. Similar ineffectual language on corporate social responsibility is also found in the agreement’s preamble.

Once again we have voluntary provisions, unenforceable best efforts. That simply is not good enough. If Canada is signing on to free trade agreements, we need to ensure that, as we talk about fair trade, we are not in a race to the bottom, but that we are looking at environmental, social and human rights standards that we would like to see across the board. Simply putting in place non-enforceable voluntary provisions is not good enough.

I want to touch for one moment on the report, “Forever Solidarity: A public sector trade union report on Colombia union report on Colombia”. In 2008 a number of trade union leaders went to Colombia for an up-close look at what was going on. I want to focus for one moment on the indigenous aspects of this.

We have been asked to trust that the Conservatives would negotiate an agreement that would take into consideration human rights. I want to turn for one moment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Conservative government refused to have Canada sign on to this declaration. There are many articles that would directly apply to indigenous people in Colombia, but I want to reference article 18, which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision making institutions.

Elsewhere in the declaration it talks about free prior and informed consent.

The Conservative government refused to sign on to the UN declaration. We know that there are gross human rights violations in Colombia against indigenous people. We are supposed to accept in good faith that the Conservative government, which does not support that UN declaration, will work toward making sure human rights are implemented through a free trade agreement.

This is what the trade union leaders found with respect to indigenous people:

We met with the poorest of the poor families displaced from their homes by paramilitary groups to benefit transnational companies, some of them Canadian, wanting to expand agriculture production, mining and other business interests. We were told that more than 4 million people, 10 per cent of the population, have been displaced without reparations.

We sat with single mothers and grandmothers who have no drinkable water, no sewage, no electricity, little money for food, and no chance of their children ever going to school. These citizens, largely from rural areas, must beg for a living on city streets.

The Permanent Peoples' Tribunal had two years of hearings, in six sectors of the Colombian economy, including the public sector, and it came out with a report. This is some of what that report talked about:

In the extraordinary case of indigenous peoples, the report cited widespread acts of cultural and community genocide. Twenty-eight indigenous groups are in “imminent danger of physical and cultural extinction” and 18 of the communities have less than ten members. They “are suspended between life and death.” The report went on to cite a horrifying list of human and labour rights abuses that is shocking the world.

Under the “indigenous peoples described displacement process”, in the same report, the president of the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia described the struggle of indigenous peoples in the Colombia socio-political context. “Neither pro-government nor pro-guerilla”, he asserted the claims of indigenous people to their ancestral land and their right to development. It goes on to talk about the fact that indigenous peoples have been chased away from their lands by the colonizers and that they have been fighting for their survival ever since.

Nowadays, there is a speeding up of the process. The indigenous peoples constitute 4% of the population but 8% of the displaced people. Every means are used to expel them: pressures, threats and murder. It is clear that neo-colonialism is firmly entrenched in Colombia.

The labour leaders heard presentations about the relation between transnational corporations and the displacement of indigenous groups. The Uribe government is handing over protected lands and parks to the international tourist trade to set up so-called eco-tourist sites, causing wide displacement of aboriginal peoples.

I could go on. This report has case after case of indigenous peoples being displaced from their lands. There has been no compensation, no consultation, no consideration of the protection of their culture, language and rights.

We are expected to believe that this free trade agreement is going to be good for the human rights of people in Colombia, for the residents of Colombia and the indigenous peoples of Colombia. Why would we trust that when the current Conservative government refused to sign on to the UN declaration of indigenous rights? I would argue that based on much of the information we have seen, there is no reason to trust that human rights will be protected or enhanced under this free trade agreement.

I want to briefly touch on more of the track record of human rights. I touched on the indigenous issue. I want to talk about the falsos positivos, that is, the false-positives. These are cases reported by units of the armed forces as positive results in their action against illegal armed groups that are reported in official reports as deaths under combat of insurgent actors and by other legitimate actions, according to the IHL. Later, given the denouncements of social organizations and human rights defenders, direct victims or their families, or by the local and international media, they have been revealed to be actions against non-combatant civilian populations, constituting serious violations against human rights and international human law.

The actions tracked by our databank have three main motives: political persecution, social intolerance, and abuse or excessive authority. The specific modalities of victimization in which our database categorizes human rights violations are, among others, extrajudicial executions, intentional homicide of protected persons, torture, injuries, individual or collective threats, disappearances and use of civilians as human shields.

This is a report that comes from the Center for Popular Research, Education and Policy. It is a special report on the balance of the second semester of 2008, and it was issued in April 2009. This report implies a decrease in 149 cases that occurred in 2007, but an increase in relationship to the 68 cases registered in 2006. It goes on to say that “according to denouncements made by families of victims and social organizations, the degree of influence that the official forces have had in these crimes against humanity seriously undermines the legitimacy of the military and police forces across the country”.

It goes on to talk about the fact that the military and police forces are complicit in misrepresenting the data about disappearances, about murders. These are well-documented cases.

I want to quickly refer to one other report called “Baseless Prosecutions of Human Rights Defenders in Colombia: In the Dock and Under the Gun”. This report has page after page of cases where people have been arrested or detained and then cites that either the judiciary, the police or the armed forces were simply wrong in what they had done.

I want to quote a case. This was in 2008. The president of the Permanent Committee of Human Rights was detained along with 15 other union and social leaders. They were detained by the National Police and a number of other forces. The signs of defects in the investigation cited that this person's detention, Sandoval, appeared related to his human rights advocacy, because he criticized the government's human rights record, especially on such issues as arbitrary detention, forced displacement and extrajudicial executions.

That is just one case. There are many more. I want to talk about a couple of the defects in the investigations because it shows how widespread and serious they are. We have heard members in this House talk about the fact that things are getting better, but this was in 2008.

We had other cases, in 2007, where the report says, “recklessly and with bad faith in trying to lead the proceedings, disrespecting her authority”. They were talking about the tribunal in this case. They went on to dismiss the complaints.

In another case, the former president of the Association of Displaced People, it said, “the only evidence against him was reintegrated witness testimony, which alleged that Torres gave information to the guerrilla resulting in the death of two people”. However, one of the people who supposedly died subsequently came forward to testify. Unless one can do that from the grave, I am sure we have a case of manipulated witness testimony.

I want to talk about other signs of defects in investigations. This was from members of the Civilian Community for Life and Peace, a group of displaced citizens working to reclaim their land without intervention by members of the armed conflict. They were arrested in 2006. They were detained after there was wiretapping to start an investigation for kidnapping. The person arrested was found innocent because the judge found that evidence was insufficient and that Perdomo had merely provided personal gifts to her sister, which did not constitute criminal activity. Furthermore, the judge questioned the credibility and expertise of the author of the intelligence report.

A lawyer and professor at the university was arrested in 2006 for the crime of rebellion, but it was allegedly rescinded before being executed. When they looked at the investigation, they found the prosecution did not notify Ramirez of the ongoing investigation against him until his arrest. The existence of the investigation was allegedly denied by judicial authorities in meetings with the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights.

I could go on and on about the human rights violations, about the improper and inadequate investigations, about the plight of indigenous people in Colombia. Over the last 20 minutes, I have talked about the egregious human rights violations that continue in Colombia to this very day.

Canada has an opportunity, if we are interested in pursuing some sort of trade agreement with Colombia, to talk up front about the human rights piece that needs to be in place to protect people in Colombia from disappearances, from kidnappings, from murder.

Canada often touts itself on the international stage as being a proud defender of human rights. This is an example where we could use some of that Canadian pride in human rights to insist that when we look at an agreement we make sure human rights are enshrined.

Therefore, I want to move an amendment to the amendment.

I move:

That the amendment be further amended by inserting after the word “matter” the following “, including having heard vocal opposition to the accord from human rights organizations”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The subamendment is in order, so we will move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan. She is always extremely effective in the House, and it was no different today. She comes from British Columbia, which has had a lot of problems, as she is well aware, of murderous thugs in drug trafficking gangs. I would like her to comment.

The Uribe regime has been linked to murderous thugs in drug trafficking gangs in Colombia, yet B.C. Conservatives are joining Conservatives from elsewhere in the country to hang a medal on these folks.

In declassified documents that were available a few years ago, the Defense Intelligence Agency in the United States described President Uribe in the following way. He was described as one of the most important Colombian narco-traffickers and that he is a Colombian politician dedicated to collaboration with the Medellín Cartel at high government levels. This is the drug trafficking cartel that has provided a very lucrative trade in hard drugs across North America. He is further described as a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar, who is one of the most notorious drug traffickers.

We have a direct tie with President Uribe, and there is much more evidence to come, yet B.C. Conservatives are saying it is okay. They can murder people and deal drugs and the Conservatives will cut a ribbon and sign a free trade agreement with them. How does the member think people in British Columbia are going to react when they find out?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reference a story in the Washington Post on May 17. The headline is “Scandals Surround Colombian Leader Top Aides Suspected in Secret Police Case”. The article states:

For weeks after the news broke, Colombians knew only that the secret police had spied on Supreme Court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists. Suspicions swirled that the orders for the wiretapping, as well as general surveillance, had come from the presidential palace.

Then on Friday, the inspector general's office announced an investigation against three of President Álvaro Uribe's closest advisers and three former officials of the Department of Administrative Security, or DAS, the intelligence service that answers to the president. Inspector General Alejandro Ordoñez investigates malfeasance in government agencies, and his findings can be used in criminal prosecutions.

The latest revelations have come on top of an influence-peddling scandal involving the president's two sons...

This is from the Washington Post. I assume that it did its homework.

Our government is attempting to align us with a regime that has serious corruption problems. In terms of the other testimony from people living in the country about the murders, kidnappings and disappearances, I have to question why we would expect the Conservative government to lead us into this kind of trade affiliation. We need to use this as a lever prior to signing any agreement. We need to look at the human rights record and enforceable provisions. An independent human rights assessment is one of the things that industry and trade committee called for.

I would argue that we need to look at trade agreements that enshrine human rights with enforceable mechanisms.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's speech, which I found very interesting.

Like her, no doubt, I have many Colombian political refugees in my riding of Drummond. These people were beaten and sentenced to death. Most come here suffering horrible after-effects. They were tortured, shot in the face and so on. I would not say I see them every day in my office, but several times a year, I see serious cases.

We often hear the government on the other side talk about law and order. It seems that they always use those words to describe what they would like to do in Canada.

I want to ask my colleague a question. Does she not think that when it comes to other countries, instead of talking about law and order here in the House, the government could be quicker to get involved and try to address problems?

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

Mr. Speaker, sadly, far too many members of the House have had dealings with Colombians who have had to flee their country. I know of a heartbreaking case where one of my constituents simply did not know if his family was still alive. It took many weeks to get some communication to find out that the family was alive, although one of the family members had been detained. We were fortunate in this case that the family was able to come to Canada.

I know there are many cases where family members are not reunited. We encourage those kinds of human rights. We are well placed on the international stage to talk about human rights but this kind of agreement does not support that.

We are talking about negotiating with a government that is under siege by people in its own country because of its alleged corrupt practices and alleged involvement in interfering in a process with opposition politicians and supreme court judges. I wonder what it is that is pushing the Conservatives into pursuing an agreement that clearly has other members, like the United States, backing away from it.