Debates of Sept. 14th, 2009

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I regret that I cannot give my hon. colleague the answer that his worthy question deserves. However, I can assure him that Canada is open to free trade discussions for foreign investment protection agreements with countries throughout our hemisphere. We do believe that by engaging we do have the ability to leverage--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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 Winnipeg North, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Malpeque, Health.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say hello to the people I represent in Terrebonne—Blainville and Ste-Anne-des-Plaines as Parliament resumes.

We are here today to discuss Bill C-23 at second reading. This bill concerns the implementation of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill for various extremely important reasons.

When two countries sign a free trade agreement, it is because they are preferred trading partners and the volume of trade makes it worthwhile to reduce trade barriers. But the Colombian market is a small and not particularly lucrative market for Canada. Canada has limited trade with Colombia. Of course, we export western grain there, but when the whole world needs grain, we are not going to export the most grain to Colombia.

Colombian investment in Canada amounts to $1 million, while Canadian investment in Colombia totals roughly $1.058 billion, which can essentially be attributed to the extractive industry.

The Colombian subsoil is extremely rich. Ore and energy resources such as coal account for 31% of Canadian imports. Colombia is therefore extremely attractive to Canadian extractive companies. It is also rich in natural resources.

In concluding this free trade agreement, the government is motivated not by trade, but by investments and the mining sector. This agreement will make it easier to protect Canadian investments in Colombia.

The Bloc Québécois is not against protecting Canadian investments in another country, but we want the agreements protecting those investments to be fair and equitable and take into account the common good. This is not true of this Canada-Colombia agreement.

The current agreement contains many clauses based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. This chapter had favourable results at least a decade ago, but for some time now, it has been misused, because it allows foreign investors to turn to international courts when a country wants to amend and improve its laws.

It is also possible under chapter 11 to use the threat of court action to prevent a government from improving people's living conditions. Lawsuits can be for an unlimited amount.

First, Colombia is not on an equal footing with Canada in terms of living conditions. Second, the proposed agreement uses chapter 11 of NAFTA, a chapter that has been roundly criticized everywhere and poses problems everywhere.

As I was saying earlier, free trade agreements are generally signed by states with similar economies. The economies of Canada and Colombia are completely different. Colombia is an extremely poor country. It is estimated that 47% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2006.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, poverty is most prevalent in rural areas and affects 68% of the population. In addition, the current unemployment rate is one of the highest in Latin America. In view of this fact, what is the value of a free trade agreement that benefits mining companies and that will not necessarily improve the standard of living for the country's population given that they must work for the mining companies? We know what these companies do. I will come back to that later on.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. In June 2009, witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade and told us that the worst humanitarian crisis was unfolding in Colombia.

The impunity prevailing in Colombia has led human rights groups to believe that there is collusion between the Colombian political class and paramilitary groups.

Colombia is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to workers' rights. We know that union activists are assassinated and that thousands of people have disappeared. People are displaced because small farmers and miners sometimes own land that is coveted by big mining companies. In most cases, these people receive no compensation.

There is a great deal of opposition to this free trade agreement. Canadian civil society is opposed to this agreement, Colombian civil society is opposed to this agreement and many organizations in Quebec are also opposed to this agreement. A committee called the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive industry in Developing Countries was created in 2007. This committee made recommendations to the government. What did the government do? It rejected them outright. It did nothing and did not implement any of the roundtables' recommendations.

Recently, members of this House who sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade also wrote a report based on their deliberations, their trip to Colombia and their meetings with witnesses. This report reproduced some of the conclusions of the famous round tables.

What did the government do? It rejected the report out of hand and gave us a slap in the face, saying that it had signed this agreement and asked only that we vote for it. That is irresponsible, and it shows disrespect for the members who sit in this House and the companies that sounded the alarm and warned the government that the situation in Colombia was not exactly what the government thought.

But we know that this government protects major investors, and this agreement protects Canadian investors abroad who will not be punished for the crimes they commit against the Colombian people and Colombian companies.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement and speak out publicly against it.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She cares deeply about human rights, and when it comes to foreign affairs, she puts a lot of emphasis on international development assistance.

Earlier, in my speech, I spoke about a Conservative member who mentioned that in Colombia, international assistance was very important, and was improving the situation in the country, and that this free trade agreement would make things even better.

Even when it comes to international assistance, Canada acts with its own interests in mind. Since there are not many investments or investors in Africa, Canada has taken this money and sent it to South American countries so that South American countries, Colombia in this case, will be tempted to sign such agreements, since the government is providing international assistance as well as protection for investors in Colombia.

I would like to know whether this is how my colleague sees this.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the government-supported relationship between international development and corporations is a bad one. Allow me to explain: twice during the time I was a member of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development, Canadian companies received funding through CIDA. They used money distributed through CIDA to get paramilitary staff on the company payroll. They gave CIDA money to military employees. That money was used to pay hired guns, not to help the people. I sure hope that CIDA has solved that problem, particularly with regard to TVI and TVI Pacific Inc.

According to the documents, there can be no doubt: at one point, CIDA disbursed $14,000. That is not a lot of money here, but in Colombia, it might be worth $100,000. TVI used that $14,000 to pay professional soldiers to protect company assets and prevent people from using the only remaining source of drinking water because it had contaminated every other source around the site. That was an abominable practice that I hope is no longer happening.

Perhaps my colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, who travelled to Colombia, and who hosted Colombian envoys, can tell us whether this is still going on or whether the government has put a stop to it.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the last questioner said, we have actually doubled our aid to Africa. We have not withdrawn money from Africa at all.

If Canadian civil society is arguing against the FTA, I am not hearing it, and the people in Edmonton Centre are certainly part of civil society.

My colleagues seem to suggest we should just do free trade agreements with comparable economies, but I would suggest there would not be that many free trade agreements we could pursue because most economies are not comparable to Canada.

Does my hon. colleague not think that trade and free trade agreements are a good opportunity to increase employment? She talked about concerns regarding employment and prosperity for the people of Colombia. Is giving them opportunities not a good way to increase employment and increase their prosperity?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member needs to review his notes. On the contrary, aid to Africa has been cut, but there have been some transfers. It may not look like it, but aid to Africa has been cut. I would like my hon. colleague to check his figures.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, as chair of the House of Commons international trade committee, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Despite what members may have just heard, it is an exciting agreement for many reasons, especially during this time of global economic uncertainty.

From the earliest days of this global crisis, our Conservative government's message has been clear. This is not the time to turn inward and protectionist; rather it is the time to open doors to cooperation with key partners around the world, partners like Colombia.

Through this free trade agreement, Canadian investors and businesses in a wide range of sectors stand to benefit from better access to the growing Colombian marketplace. While the agreement opens up a wide range of exciting new commercial possibilities for Canadian business and investors alike, it is significant for another reason as well. It includes a side agreement on the environment, an agreement that includes key provisions that will help ensure that our two countries pursue the highest possible levels of environmental protection as we intensify our commercial relationship.

Our Conservative government is committed to protecting the environment. It is a commitment we can see reflected in all our policies. Moreover, our government believes that trade liberalization and environmental protection can be, and indeed must be, mutually supportive goals. They go hand in hand. This agreement proves it.

Our environment agreement commits both parties to maintain the highest levels of environmental protection, and to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws. Our agreement reaffirms commitments our two nations made under the United Nations convention on biological diversity, a convention to strengthen biodiversity and to respect, preserve and maintain a traditional knowledge of indigenous communities in that respect.

Colombia has one of the most diverse biological resources of anywhere in the world. Canada is committed to working with our Colombian partners to help preserve these resources in a manner that takes into account the interests of indigenous peoples. We are also working closely with Colombia to help Colombia build new partnerships and promote best practices in environmental stewardship. Canada is a world leader in this regard.

As a member from Alberta, I can say that this is especially true in the resource sector when it comes to environmental stewardship and environmental impact assessments. We can offer a lot to our Colombian partners in terms of expertise and best practices. Indeed, Canadian companies are leaders in corporate social responsibility in minimizing the impact of their activities on the environment.

When the trade committee visited Colombia, we heard great praise for the corporate social responsibility of Canadian companies working in Colombia, companies like Petrobank, Nexen and Enbridge, for not just providing safe, secure jobs but investing in the Colombian people, in human rights training, social investments in health and education and in infrastructure. In fact, they are already a deep presence in Colombia, which not only speaks to corporate social responsibility and the economic opportunities of our relationship, but also to our shared commitment to sustainable development and environmental responsibility.

We heard from dozens of witnesses, over and over, during the visit of the international trade committee to Colombia about the corporate social responsibility and leadership of Canadian companies, their treatment of workers and the benefits to their workers.

Once again, with the side agreement on labour, our goal is to ensure that our intensified relationship with Colombia is a responsible one for workers and also for the environment. As our government continues moving forward on opening doors for Canadian businesses abroad, including in markets like Colombia, we want to ensure that our presence is a positive and helpful one.

We believe that free trade can play a positive role around the world. The environmental agreement with Colombia is a great example and a clear indication of our government's principled approach to free trade and to our global partners.

I ask hon. members for their support of this agreement, of our many efforts to help Canada thrive through the global economy, and of our continued commitment to environmental sustainability and responsible business practices.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member, who is a past chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment. I am not surprised that his remarks were coming around to sustainable development and the tremendous concerns that have been expressed for biodiversity in the Amazon Basin and in various regions of Latin America and South America.

If we accept that the objectives as he has outlined in this agreement are worthy of signing, and while he has said that Canadian companies have been sensitive to their social responsibilities, there are many international companies that are not subscribing to those same values. What mechanisms exist in our international trade agreements and in this free trade agreement to make sure that the government of Colombia will be accountable to making sure those objectives he has talked about, and they are very worthy, are achieved?

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, one of the bases of this side agreement is the enforcement of environmental protection laws and rules and also made clear under the United Nations convention on biological diversity. These conditions, rules and regulations have been accepted by both parties to the agreement, broadly.

During the course of our debate in committee, we heard about the progress the Uribe government, which is six or seven years old, has made broadly in accepting this modernizing and reaching out to people to help them get out of poverty. This is just one of the reasons to diversify away from the drug climate and help to provide decent jobs to people so they can break the trend of having to work on drugs.

One of the Canadian Wheat Board members appeared before the committee and said:

[A] Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction in Colombia.

Reforms introduced over the past decade have served Colombians well.

As recently as 2006-07 the World Bank listed Colombia as one of the world's top ten economic reformers, not performers but reformers, and last year the economy grew by 6.5%. This is just part of how Colombia is getting control over the economy and helping the people.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the side agreements will ensure the highest level in environmental standards for Colombia and Canada if we sign this agreement. Could he please advise the House what penalties could be imposed if Colombia or Canada does not meet the highest level in environmental standards?

Did the Government of Canada consult with Canada's first nations and environmental organizations prior to going to Colombia? In openness and transparency, did the government include them in its delegation?

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been amused throughout the debate listening to the questions, comments and debate provided by the socialist party on my left.

We had these same arguments when we began the free trade discussions with the United States some 20 years ago, that we were going to lose jobs, lose our pensions, lose our water and become hewers of wood and drawers of water.

The facts are quite different from that. Canada is a leading performer in the G8 . It has the highest employment generation in the G8 and the highest increase in values of exports to the U.S. This is what it has done for Canada. This is what it will also do for Colombia to help Colombians.

Dozens of witnesses across the demographic field in Canada and also in Colombia praised it. Certainly, we heard the disgruntled views of the socialists.

Sometimes I wish that more people in the country had an opportunity to listen to these debates, because if they listened to this stuff, they would know the dangers of a coalition with the socialists.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak against this agreement. Having spent 35 years as an environmental professional, I feel it is my obligation to speak against it for the specific reason that our trade agreements in this country have regressed over the last 20 years.

Almost 20 years ago, we entered into the North American free trade agreement. Regrettably, at that time, environmental and labour issues were sidebarred. I would have hoped that two decades later, when we have a government that claims a strong commitment to environmental protection, human rights and labour standards, it would finally take the next step and actually put environmental protection and indigenous rights on the same level as investors' rights. Regrettably, the side agreement to the trade agreement with Colombia is a complete backward step from the agreement we at least had on the environment under NAFTA.

I looked with great interest at the side agreement. I think I am like anyone else in the House in considering it a privilege to work for the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which was established according to the side agreement to the NAFTA. I commend the governments at the time for coming forward with a very detailed side agreement, regardless of the fact that it was not binding, with penalties if the parties did not effectively enforce their environmental laws.

We see the opposite. We see complete regression in trade agreement after trade agreement that the current government has negotiated. It is embarrassing. We are supposed to be showing the best face for the environment and the way that development should occur. The government has stood in the House time after time, talking about its commitment to sustainable development, its commitment to address climate change and its commitment to environment. Yet here we have solid evidence in this free trade agreement. There is absolutely no commitment to real action on environment.

There are a lot of words. I looked at the agreement very carefully. At the very minimum, I would presume that we would take the agreement that was negotiated with the United States and Mexico and build on that. We have learned a lot in two decades. We have had many independent reviews of the work of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. What has happened? We have thrown those learnings out and simply looked at this with blinders.

I ask a simple question for the member who spoke before me. What penalties will arise if either of the parties, Canada or Colombia, fail to implement strong environmental standards? There is absolutely no recourse. There are no penalties in the side agreement of the Colombia-Canada agreement. That is absolutely reprehensible.

I can go through every aspect of the agreement and indicate where it has failed most critically. Under the NAFTA side agreement, we form a commission similar to the European commission, a wonderful model that shows the government is genuinely committed to ensuring that we have sustainable development when we enter into trade with another country. There is no council. Under the agreement with Canada, the United States and Mexico, we establish a council of highest-level environment ministers.

Under the North American agreement for free trade, we also establish an independent secretariat, employing professionals from all three countries. We have no council or secretariat. Under the agreement with the United States and Mexico, there was at least an advisory council of representatives of business and the public to those three ministers. We have no such council under this agreement.

We are stepping backward very fast. The side agreement is basically non-existent. It is simply paper. There is nothing to it. There are vague references to corporate social responsibility. If a government manages to pass an environmental law, it should enforce it. However, there is no independent watchdog.

Unlike the North American agreement, where citizens of any of the three countries, Mexico, the United States or Canada, can file a complaint of failure to effectively enforce the law and that complaint will be reviewed by an independent secretariat and reported back to the council, there is no such independent review. It is to be undertaken by somebody within the bureaucracies of one of the two countries.

I fail to see any positive aspect to this agreement. I am looking forward to the government explaining to me what it sees wrong with the North American side agreements.

I know that over time the Government of Canada backed off on commitment to the North American agreement, which I find regrettable. It is a fantastic institution. I had the privilege of being the first head of law enforcement co-operation and as a result helped to form, with the enforcement agencies of Mexico, United States and Canada, the first regional network on effective environmental enforcement, two effective networks: one enforcement of wildlife laws and one for pollution control. There are no such measures under this side agreement.

Most important, the part of the NAFTA side agreement that the Government of Canada brags about time after time is the commitment to transparency and participation in law making. In the North American agreement every new law and policy must undergo advance scrutiny and participation. Under this agreement, there is no such provision.

I could go on and on about the failings of this agreement. I am frankly completely amazed. Given the expertise that we have under the Chilean agreement, under the North American agreement, why have we decided to be so regressive in environmental matters? When we are talking about a country like Colombia, a developing nation, we cannot divide environment from human rights. They are one and the same. Where we have a major development coming in that is displacing a community and in particular an indigenous community, we are talking about violations of human rights. It is absolutely critical that this be a solid, binding agreement and that we hold that country accountable if it does not live up to those obligations, particularly where there are Canadian investors.

I do not think it appropriate that the Government of Canada pass over that responsibility simply to a Canadian investor. Were I a Canadian investor I would not want to have to be fulfilling that complete role. It is the obligation of the parties to the agreement that should be ensuring that the trade is fair, sustainable and it observes our basic human rights and environmental protections, the very conditions and obligations commitments we have signed on to time after time with the United Nations.

The government should withdraw this agreement, go back and revisit it. Let us have the same kind of strong requirements that are in the North American agreement and let us step it up a notch. Let us ensure that we have very clear penalties if the governments of Colombia or Canada do not live up to their environmental obligations.

The environmental provision is very critical, but on the transparency and participation, we absolutely must improve the provisions in this agreement, particularly given what we have heard in the House today and heard previously about what may or may not be going on Colombia. Absolutely we need to have an independent entity that is reviewing what is going on with environment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, having been a member of the trade committee and having taken a great deal of interest in this free trade agreement previously, I have appreciated hearing the commentary of the various members. Environmental issues were the primary area of discussion and question that I brought forward, including the CEC and the side agreements environmentally.

Has the member been listening to the people of Colombia? I was part of a delegation that went to Colombia with the trade committee. We met for extensive hours for many days with labour, social justice, the United Nations, environmental groups and individuals, indigenous communities, refugees as well as business and government representatives. I can assure the member that out of all of those meetings every time I posed the question of whether it would be better or worse for the people of Colombia to have a free trade agreement with Canada, with the exception of one meeting with one set of people, every other group said, “We would be better off with a free trade agreement”. That includes the environmental groups.

Therefore, what would the member say to the environmental groups that were very clear with us that they believed the scrutiny, profile and investment that came with a free trade agreement would be better for them and their concerns and their constituents than not having that agreement?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken clearly. I have worked for 35 years with organizations that represent indigenous peoples. I have worked with public interest environmental legal organizations in South America. They are asking for exactly what I am asking. It is not a question of whether there should be fair trade between countries. The point is they are that saying they would like to have the benefits that come with it. There are no benefits. There is no open right to scrutiny. There are no safeguards. There are no penalities to protect their interests in this agreement. Until those provisions are added in, we should not bring forward this agreement to be signed.

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

Madam Speaker, I beg to contradict the member for Vancouver Quadra. She obviously was not listening to the people in the labour movement, the people of human rights advocacy organizations and environmental organizations. Those who were not affiliated with the government in some way were very clear in saying that this was not in the interests of the Colombian people. That was very clear from the trade committee hearings.

The government threw up all kinds of consultants, people tied with the government formally or looking for other ties with the business community and the Colombian government, but the impartial observers, those who were on the Colombian scene were very clearly opposed to this agreement. I do not want the record to leave Canadians with a false impression of what the trade committee hearings in Colombia were like. It is exactly the opposite to what the member for Vancouver Quadra contended.

I have referenced the fact before that President Uribe has clear ties with the drug trade and was elected with drug trade money as the BBC reported. How does the member for Edmonton—Strathcona think that kind of tie would play with Albertans who, like everyone else, are opposed to any sort of privileged relationship with an administration that was built on the drug trade?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, actually that was one thing I immediately looked to the agreement, whether the provinces would be bound. I am proud to say my province was the first one to step up to the plate to sign on to the NAFTA side agreement on environment. I do not know what the position of the Alberta government is. I look forward to hearing what the government will tell us.

Most of the resource activity in mining, oil and gas is regulated by the provinces. I would like to learn from the government about what the position of the provinces is and what the position is on the adequacy of the side agreement on environment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to participate in the debate, as many members have, simply because so many constituents have responded to Bill C-23 about the free trade deal with Colombia. I wanted to share with the House, though members have probably heard these arguments before, that the issue here for those who are opposed to this bill is human rights. That is the issue.

If I may put some context into the background, I have a letter which states:

Contrary to claims that “respect for human rights has improved under President Uribe” and that “engaging Colombia through free trade will give Canada more leverage to influence the Colombian Government in the area of human rights” the situation has not significantly improved and the premise that free trade will lead to greater influence is tenuous at best.

That is an interesting assessment. We have seen this before in discussions on trade arrangements with other countries. A number of members have raised labour law issues and the fact that labour leaders have been targeted. Indeed there have been some serious questions that have also been raised by the committee that studied this.

It would appear to me that the questions still have not been fully resolved. For that reason, I really believe that this bill is not being advanced by speculation about whether a side deal is as good as a clause in the agreement itself. One member referred to it being equally robust, and that is fine.

We have had experience in this before and the issue of side deals has come up many times before. That goes maybe to the heart of it. If the basis for the bill is that the side deal is going to provide the tools necessary to ensure that progress is being made on some of the issues of concern to many Canadians, it should be understood and accepted by virtually all who have the facts. That does not seem to be the case in the House, and the issue of human rights has been raised.

The parliamentary committee recommendation was that the deal not proceed in its current form. A big part of that argument was because of the uncertainty and questionable assertions with regard to the human rights conditions in Colombia right now.

The letter states:

...international human rights organizations continue to denounce the daily horrors in Colombia.

I would think that the history of Colombia, in terms of the characterization of the problems that the country has, is generally known. It is a country in fact that has a population of some 46 million people. Its population is 50% larger than that of Canada, but our trade is about the same. We have a balanced trade position with them.

The assertion that somehow this trade deal is going to put us in a position where we will be able to influence the human rights situation of Colombia is, to me, a stretch. I think it is better that we are certainly at the table and able to demonstrate and work with the UN and other parties, but even the U.K. has recently backed off in its support for Colombia.

It is extremely important for the House to assess these questions and to make an informed decision not only on whether this is going to be an instrument that is going to provide the opportunity for an improved trade situation, because to the extent that Colombia enters into trade arrangements with other countries, there will be situations established in which Canadian exports will not be competitive, and we will lose the work.

Everybody wants Canada's economy to do better, but at what price? That is the question being asked by many members. What comes first, or can we have it both ways, and can we have assurances that somehow we can have a situation in which Canada, in fact, can play a meaningful role in improving the human rights situation in Colombia?

As I indicated, there are other countries that, as a consequence of the current facts in Colombia, are revoking their support for the Colombian regime. That is serious. The U.K. ended its military aid to Colombia because of the systemic crimes committed against the Colombian people. When the U.K. makes that kind of move, we have to question whether there is a fundamental soundness to the argument. This is not known and it is not accepted.

I do not have the other background material, but as I read through some of the other assertions, there is a reference to the practice by the Colombian army of dressing up thousands of murdered civilians as guerillas in the government's rush to show results in the country's conflict. That is very plausible. These are the kinds of things that happen in countries where there is oppression of other human beings.

Burma is another example, one that our colleague from the Yukon is very involved in. He has helped the House become more aware of the plight of civilians, and in this case labour leaders, who have been systemically dealt with in a way with which we would not want to be involved, quite frankly.

There is a question as to whether our investments in Colombia will contribute to improving human rights. That is a question. We say we hope it will. We hope it is because we are at the table, and we hope it is because we have the ability to communicate and discuss in a bilateral way some of these issues, but I am not sure whether Canada is in a position to tell another country what to do. I am not sure what influence Canada can bring.

Historically, Canada has had an excellent reputation for being a model of a proud, generous, tolerant nation that has a history of peacekeeping, conflict resolution and all those good things, but that reputation has been strained under the current government, quite frankly. There is the suggestion that we have to do this because Colombia is making deals with others. There has to be a balanced approach.

The assertions of the minister in his speech on May 25 painted quite a rosy picture about the significant progress that has been made. I have read about some of the allegations of complicity by some with the Colombian government and about the fact that there have been systemic murders of people. These are the kinds of things that make it absolutely necessary for us to have the necessary tools to have the influence we would like to have and still have this deal. I understand that trade is important, but at what price? The issue of side deals is also of concern to me.

Quite frankly, after listening to the debate today, I am of the view that this matter should go back to the committee. There are still some open questions and they are not going to be resolved by people asking their questions and giving their answers in this place without getting more facts or the facts. Somebody has to be accountable for this. It is time for Parliament to be accountable, and I believe that getting information and testimony from expert witnesses on the key questions raised by hon. members today will help this process enormously.

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

Madam Speaker, that was certainly by far the best speech I have heard from Liberals and Conservatives today. I thank the member for Mississauga South for bringing a voice of sanity to that corner of the House. His comments were extremely appropriate.

He talked about the fact that the United Kingdom has suspended its military programs with the Colombian military because of the widespread and persistent massacres and human rights violations taking place by the Colombian military.

The member spoke about there being nothing in this agreement that would actually reinforce human rights, but quite the contrary. The fact that the human rights situation is deteriorating in Colombia is something that should pull Liberals and Conservatives back from the brink.

My colleague did not mention the issue of the drug trade and the fact that the drug trade fuelled President Uribe's election, but that is something we will be asking Conservatives about when they stand to speak in the House.

The member for Kings—Hants stood up and basically endorsed the government's position without even bothering to actually read the agreement. Does the member for Mississauga South feel that the Liberal caucus needs to have a real discussion about this so that Liberals who are opposed to this agreement can stand up and be counted as being for human rights and against this agreement?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I read the speeches of all four of the parties on May 25. I can assure the member that if he looks at them he will see that those issues have been directly addressed by all of the parties. Those concerns are there and have been acknowledged. Even the minister acknowledged them. He did not duck the question of human rights.

It is the minister's view that there is a venue in which we can participate in a beneficial bilateral free trade arrangement with Colombia while at the same time introducing an element that would allow us to more fully participate in enhancing improvements in the human rights situation.

I cannot speak for the member for Kings—Hants but I think he would agree that the House should not proceed with the bill without getting the facts straight, and that may require sending it back to committee.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member will know that there is a great concern among Canadians about corporate social responsibility. I am sure that he has been receiving lots of letters about the responsibility of Canadian corporations when operating in the extractive sector.

We have in this Colombia free trade agreement an opportunity to put Canadian companies to a world class standard of corporate social responsibility. This would ensure that when Canadian companies are operating in Colombia and elsewhere, they operate to the highest environmental standards, to the highest human rights standards, et cetera.

It seems to me that if Canada had a legislated corporate social responsibility standard for Canadian corporations operating abroad, a lot of legitimate concerns raised by folks would be somewhat alleviated. May I suggest Bill C-300? I would be interested in the hon. member's comments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has convinced the House many times over that for every complex problem there is a simple solution, and that is wrong. There has to be a comprehensive solution.

His private member's bill on corporate responsibility and saying that a company is going to qualify for aid and support from its own government if it is an ethical investor and does the rights things are really about rewarding good behaviour. I guess that is what we are always talking about.

This bill is troubling to me in a greater sense from the standpoint that we seem to be moving toward having one party saying that we have an opportunity for a trade deal that is going to be beneficial to Canadian business, and it is pretty convinced that the human rights things are going to improve, but they are not there yet. The arguments are not there. The evidence appears to be mounting that the human rights situation is not getting better, and that is what we have to deal with.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I would like to clear the air. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has again been quite vocal with his wild accusations about President Uribe of Colombia. He has oft accused the president of being involved in the drug trade and of encouraging paramilitary action throughout Colombia. He accused him of murder and many other human rights violations.

In a very precedent-setting event, President Uribe of Colombia came to the international trade committee where he spent almost two hours answering questions from members of that committee. In particular, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had a whole armoury of questions to ask the president and he asked them sometimes in a very rude and obnoxious manner. He accused the president of using drug money to get elected and he accused him of murder and other atrocities. Every time the President of Colombia answered him in a very direct and factual manner and refuted whatever the member for Burnaby—New Westminster had said.

What type of audience did the member for Burnaby—New Westminster give the President of Colombia when he was answering the questions that were posed to him? He ignored him and talked to his colleagues on the same side of the committee. He did not want to hear the responses from the President of Colombia because they were in opposition to his thoughts, his opinion and his philosophy. The fact is that it is probably more about a socialist in our Parliament having a diabolical philosophical direct opposite with the President of Colombia and his government. It is more about that than this free trade agreement which would help commerce between Colombia and Canada.

We need to remember one important thing. Those folks in the New Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves for some of the things they have said. In the last election in Colombia, President Uribe, then candidate Uribe for president, and his party ran on a campaign that included free trade with Canada and other countries. They ran on a free trade policy and received a huge majority in their win.

Is that good enough for the NDP? No. A democratic event that takes place and elects a government is not good enough for the NDP members because they simply do not agree with that.

A question needs to be asked. Why are the NDP members so afraid of democracy? I say shame on them for trying to undermine a democratic event that took place in Colombia and which elected a president by due process, simply because they do not agree with the philosophy of that government. That is what it is all about.

The wild accusations by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster that go on and on forever, notwithstanding any responses, which he obviously does not hear at any time, are simply because of the NDP's fundamental opposition to the government and its philosophy.

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

They're drug lords.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Now he is calling the president a drug lord. Now is that not the most disrespectful thing we could ever hear? I congratulate the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for once again showing his complete lack of respect for the office of the President of Colombia.

I want to talk about this agreement. The previous government speaker outlined the various benefits of this agreement to a number of key Canadian sectors, from agriculture, to paper, to machinery.

I would like to take the opportunity to look at our relationship with Colombia through two different lenses, the lens of trade and services and the lens of investment. I will begin with the benefit of the free trade agreement to Canadian service providers.

As we know, our services sector plays a huge part in the engine that runs our economy: financial services, legal services, engineering, architecture, high technology, and the list goes on and on. In total it is responsible for 69% of our GDP and three in four Canadian jobs, something for which the NDP seems to think it is the champion. However, when we want to create Canadian jobs through free trade agreements, it is opposed to it. The NDP would shut down the softwood lumber agreement tomorrow if it had a chance.

One can imagine the rejoicing that would go on in the southeastern U.S. softwood lumber mills to not have a softwood lumber agreement. We can imagine the kind of tariffs, duties, penalties and fees that would be added on to Canadian lumber going into the States. That is what the NDP want. It wants to shut down free trade agreements, Canadian business and Canadian jobs, the same way it is threatening to shut down the economic stimulus package by voting against the government and calling for an election.

Where does the NDP stand? It is not the champion of Canadian workers. It is the champion of continuing the recession we are in. That is what the NDP is championing.

I am pleased to see that our free trade agreement with Colombia opens up many new doors for the Canadian services sector. Canadian service providers already have a substantial presence in the Colombia market, something the NDP does not recognize or would possibly like to shut down, which would mean the loss of more Canadian jobs. Our services export is in the area of about $40 million to $50 million a year. It is not small change. It is not our biggest export but it is part of our economy.

Driving these numbers are Canadian financial, mining, engineering and petroleum extraction sectors. Sectors like these stand to benefit greatly from the new free trade agreement and we will expand it. Our Canadian companies will do better. They will expand and create more jobs for this country and will help our economy. It is things like that that do not seem to be important to the NDP.

The agreement stands to give our Canadian companies greater access to the Colombian marketplace than ever before, creating jobs, expanding our Canadian businesses and growing our economy, things that are important to most Canadians but not the NDP. It also would give Canadian service providers an added measure of confidence. Under this agreement, they will enjoy a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment.

Moreover, our two countries have agreed to begin discussions on mutual recognition agreements, starting with engineering, that would allow for standards and qualifications to be recognized in each other's countries. It would be pretty effective to have something like that brought in. This would save service providers in both nations time and money and would let them get to work more quickly in each other's markets, creating jobs, helping the Colombian economy and helping the Canadian economy. Does that matter to the NDP? I do not think so. The NDP is not happy when things are good and when the economy is buoyant.

The NDP cannot go and tickle the ears of those who are having a tough time in a poor economy and make them all kinds of promises that it cannot ever fulfill. It cannot do that when things are good. Therefore, it does not like buoyant economies, good economies and surpluses. It does not like business.

This free trade agreement with Colombia is one of many that we want to develop with South American countries. We are working with Peru, Brazil and Colombia. We will search out new opportunities with countries with which we can have free trade agreements because it is good for the Canadian economy and it is good for the Canadian workers. It is good for the economy of the countries with which we sign free trade agreements because it helps their country. It brings Canadian technology into a country that was maybe lacking that. Without a free trade agreement that technology would never go to Colombia, Peru or Brazil.

This is a good thing. I wish the NDP would get onboard like the members of the Liberal Party who sit on the international trade committee have gotten onboard.