Debates of Sept. 14th, 2009

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, since the member for Cariboo—Prince George took my name in vain throughout his entire speech, it is only fair that I get a rebuttal. That was from a member who never bothered to read the softwood sellout before he voted for it in the House that has cost hundreds of jobs in his riding, thousands of jobs across British Columbia and tens of thousands of jobs across the country. He says that is okay despite the fact that we now need to pay $68 million in additional penalties. The penalties are imposed because of the softwood sellout, not because we might change or get rid of the softwood sellout. The penalties are in now and taxpayers are paying now.

However, I will come back to Canada-Colombia because that is the most important thing. The BBC reports that Diego Murillo, the successor to Pablo Escobar, said very clearly just four months ago that he contributed large sums of money to the campaign of President Uribe in 2002. This is someone who has also been connected with paramilitary organizations.

My question is very simple. The people of Cariboo—Prince George are honest, hard-working people who oppose the drug trade. Why does the member betray his constituents by endorsing an administration that was elected with drug lord money? This was reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation, the most respected news gathering organization in the world. How can he possibly justify links to drug lords that are tied to the administration and the ties to paramilitary organizations that have massacred 100,000 Colombians? Those are very simple questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I do not turn to the BBC every time I want to find something out or be informed of some information. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster posed that question directly to the President of Colombia when he was here. The President of Colombia answered it very clearly. Would that member accept that? Of course not. He would not accept that because he does not like the President of Colombia in the first place nor does he like the government. Therefore, no response that would show that the so-called BBC report was in error or that it did not have the information correct would satisfy him because he fundamentally does not like the government of Colombia nor the President of Colombia. That is my response to that question.

Just because he has gathered something from the BBC, which I do not know much about, maybe it is like the CBC, I do not know--

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

Washington Post, tons of stuff.

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

Mr. Speaker, he knows very well that the people of Cariboo—Prince George have been well-served by their member of Parliament for the last 16 years and 6 elections. They put a lot of trust in the things that I do in the House and the things that I say. I have thanked them in every election that they voted for me. The last time was a record number. The people of Prince George know where I stand on crime and punishment and the nonsense that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has spoken about.

I must say that lot of people in Prince George and the central interior are working in the forest industry because of the softwood lumber agreement. If the NDP members had their way, every softwood lumber mill in the province would be shut down. No one would be working and there would not be a stick of lumber going south of the line at any price because the softwood lumber companies in southeastern U.S. would see to it that there were duties, tariffs and penalties imposed on every stick of lumber that went there. That would shut the industry down. Is that what they want? The industry supports the softwood lumber agreement. He does not. We are right. He is wrong.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in saying that I do not support 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.

Knowing Colombia's current social situation in terms of human rights and politics, one can understand why the Bloc Québécois does not support the Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia. It is crucial that we analyze the impact and repercussions that the terms of this agreement will have on the people of Colombia, for there will be many. We must ensure that the rights of Colombians are respected and that their opinions will be taken into account before we ratify this agreement.

Civil society and the people of Colombia are opposed to a free trade agreement that enhances the rights of foreign investors and exporters, but does nothing to take into account local issues in terms of development and human rights. Yes, trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows those states that are willing to promote development and protect the environment as well. At present, the uproar against this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is only growing in strength, in Canada and in Colombia.

According to the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the two side agreements—one on labour rights and the other on the environment—will only exacerbate the problem of human rights violations, and the legislative provisions meant to guarantee those rights and protect the environment will not work.

We cannot enter into a free trade agreement with Colombia without looking at the human rights situation in that country. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to life, security of the person, freedom of expression and freedom of association. It is therefore incomprehensible that the Canadian government should ratify a free trade agreement, given the Colombian government's deplorable record of violating human and workers' rights and the thousands of assassinations of union delegates for which it is responsible.

I wonder whether the Canadian people, who consider themselves a democratic society and stand up for workers' rights, can sanction a free trade agreement with a country where people put their lives at risk just by demonstrating or wanting to join a union. It is regrettable that the Canadian government is supporting a regime that is heavily involved in human rights violations and mired in a huge political scandal because of its ties to paramilitary groups.

There seems to have been a major governance problem in Colombia and a questioning of the government's legitimacy since the parapolitics scandal broke in 2006. I am not here to judge Colombia's domestic politics, but we have to be honest. A number of politicians were arrested for having ties with the paramilitary forces responsible for carrying out thousands of assassinations, imposing a regime of terror and expropriating land. In addition, those responsible for the crimes against union officials and civilians are very seldom found guilty in court. Impunity remains in Colombia. Only 3% of the crimes committed led to a conviction.

In the meantime, the paramilitaries are reasserting control over the territory, and the government is doing nothing to stop them. Anti-union culture prevails in Colombia, and human rights violations and violence towards unionized workers are common. This is a serious problem. It is very risky to be unionized in Colombia. Union members are terrorized, as are activists who are trying to form a union, to join one, or to engage in collective bargaining, taking part in labour disputes or fighting privatization. Since 1986, 2,690 union members have been killed in Colombia. This number increased by 18% in one year, going from 39 homicides in 2007 to 46 in 2008, not counting the activists who are threatened or kidnapped. Most assassinations are carried out by paramilitaries. Anti-union laws, along with the violence and terror, have helped keep the rate of unionization below 5%.

The serious human and labour rights violations are not the only problem in Colombia. The effects of the introduction of the extractive industry are damaging the way of life of Colombians and often forcing them to leave their land.

The free trade agreement has a chapter on investment. It tends to give greater protection to Canadian companies that invest in the mining sector and exploit resources. The Bloc Québécois worries that these investment protection measures give far more protection to Canadian investors than to the local population and the environment.

According to the CCIC, this chapter is nothing more than wishful thinking when it comes to corporate social responsibility. In fact, the provisions simply require companies to give it their best shot. They are purely voluntary and are absolutely impossible to enforce.

Extraction companies have a social responsibility toward the people of Colombia. Canadian investments in Colombia, which are primarily in the oil, gas and mining sectors, total $3 billion, and will probably reach $5 billion within two years.

Canadian mining companies have to be careful not to become complicit in human rights violations or cause forced displacement of any populations, since regions that are rich in minerals tend to become theatres of violence, paramilitary control and displacements. A few Colombians have been killed after they opposed the Colombian government's concessions to a Canadian industry to begin mining operations.

In Colombia's current environment, in which the state cannot seem to guarantee the security of its territory, the Colombian government and security forces are unlikely to be capable of maintaining proper control of the foreign companies that are exploiting resources there.

According to the KAIROS group, Mexico's experience with NAFTA demonstrates how free trade agreements favour corporations to the detriment of the rights of individuals and communities. Foreign investments based on NAFTA's chapter 11 rules often fail to recognize aboriginal peoples' right to be free, informed and willing participants in the activities that take place on their territory.

According to Amnesty International, over 60% of the three million displaced people in Colombia have been forced from their homes and lands in areas of mineral, agricultural or other economic importance.

The Bloc Québécois has always supported the adoption of mandatory standards and accountability measures with respect to the activities of mining companies abroad.

The Bloc Québécois agreed with the national roundtable advisory group when it called for the adoption of mandatory corporate social responsibility standards for mining companies operating abroad, for punitive measures for offending companies, and for the creation of an independent ombudsman to conduct impartial investigations to validate complaints.

However, the Minister of International Trade chose to reject most of the national roundtables' recommendations and implement voluntary standards. The Conservative government is not doing anything to compel Canadian companies to implement socially responsible practices when investing abroad.

In its June 2008 report to the House, the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended creating an independent organization to assess the impact on rights and the environment when negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, like Colombia. But Canada carried out no such assessment. Or if it did, it did not make the results public.

The Bloc Québécois is open to trade, as long as it is fair. Trade agreements must include clauses mandating compliance with international standards for labour rights, human rights and the environment.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the thoughtful remarks of the member who just spoke, unlike the member for Cariboo—Prince George whose ideological tirade appeared to have absolutely no concern for humanitarian or environmental issues in Colombia whatsoever, and also unlike the comments from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who either has forgotten or is completely misrepresenting the testimony that I was present for during the visit of the international trade committee in the spring of 2008.

I will note that many of the witnesses were personally brought forward by the NDP and that member. We saw and heard from hundreds of people. With the exception of a very small handful of people, those witnesses acknowledged the serious shortcomings in Colombia regarding human rights, the environment, and security, yet confirmed their belief that this imperfect free trade agreement would be a benefit compared with no free trade agreement.

My question for the member would be, is the issue whether this is a perfect free trade agreement or not, and I agree with her that it is not, or that having this free trade agreement would be beneficial to the lives of Colombians compared with having no free trade agreement?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that we have to tell it like it is: Canada and Colombia are simply not major trading partners. One of Canada's primary exports is western grain, and we have no trouble finding takers for that, particularly during this time of economic crisis. Canada mainly exports cars and grain, which represented about 23% and 19%, respectively, of our 2007 exports.

The government's primary motivation for signing this free trade agreement is investment, not trade. Most Canadian investments in Colombia are in the mining industry. These industries typically operate in rural and remote regions, regions that contain most of the country's natural resources and where, coincidentally, there is the most violence. These regions have experienced 87% of all forced population displacements, 82% of all human rights and international humanitarian rights abuses, and 83% of all union leader assassinations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her speech. As usual, it was very incisive.

We know that first nations organizations, Colombian aboriginal groups, Afro-Colombians and women's groups are opposed to this free trade agreement for the simple fact that it contributes nothing to the well-being of these peoples. On the contrary, the violence experienced by these groups at the hands of paramilitary operatives is related to the fact that the latter can do whatever they want in order to take over the land of the indigenous peoples.

Does the member believe that it is mainly because of the reaction of first nations groups, women's groups, Afro-Colombian groups that all members in this House should oppose this agreement?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my NDP colleague that that is key. In light of the outcry, we have a moral duty, as the government, as elected members of this House, to scrap this agreement. Who has not met, in their office, NGOs and individuals who have spoken out against the violations of human rights that occur in Colombia?

In my opinion, the government should show moral responsibility before ratifying or adopting this agreement given that all opposition members are against it. We must ask ourselves if we can take a different approach to helping that country.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is not just an agreement with a country a great distance away; it is an issue that will make a very real difference to the people in my constituency, in the oil and gas industry and to my neighbours and friends who are farmers.

I have listened to members from the New Democratic Party in particular. I do not think they have spoken in favour of any free trade agreement, certainly not in the 16 years I have been here, and I do not expect they will start now. Members from the Bloc tend to oppose free trade as well.

However, I have been quite surprised by members of the Liberal Party speaking against this agreement, and for reasons I simply do not believe are legitimate. I think it shows they have not studied the agreement and they have not paid attention to the testimony presented at the international trade committee. That is a sad thing.

I have farmers in my neighbourhood, but also right across Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba who have just started a very late harvest. It has been a very small harvest in many parts of Alberta and western Saskatchewan. There was a terrible drought in those areas. The choices they have to market their goods makes a difference to them. If they have more choices, there is more demand as more markets are opened up and the prices tend to increase.

Particularly in a year like this where a drought has had such a negative impact, it is critical that they get every penny out of every bushel or tonne of the commodities they grow. For cattlemen this agreement could have a very important positive impact, and it is the same in many sectors.

I would encourage all members of the House when they are speaking about the bill to see it as something that does touch us directly, because it does touch me, my friends, my neighbours, farmers, people in the oil and gas sector and many other people in a very real way.

It also affects the people of Colombia in a very positive way. When we can have a win-win situation, why on earth would one be against the agreement? In sitting here listening to the debate today, quite frankly I am wondering how members of those parties can be against the agreement.

I would like to talk about some of the other things. The positives are easy to see: the new markets, the higher price for commodities are easy to see. This agreement demonstrates this government's commitment to help Canadians move through the economic times in the positive way I talked about, but it includes parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment as well.

I heard my colleague, the chair of the international trade committee, speak very eloquently earlier about how it will benefit the environment. I think that argument seemed to be well accepted by the House. In fact I do not believe I heard any argument against that. If I did, it was probably from the member who is against every aspect of the agreement it seems, but I do not remember hearing that.

I want to make the point that we have a strong and comprehensive labour cooperation agreement that will help improve labour standards for Colombian workers in many different sectors.

I have heard some hon. members raise concerns about the potential impact of free trade agreements on workers. It is an important concern for this government. Let me assure the House that this government believes that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights. We are simply not going there.

That is why the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement is such an important part of the overall agreement. It commits both countries to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration on the fundamental principles and rights at work.

The International Labour Organization declaration covers a wide range of workers' rights and obligations, including the right to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, which is something we all work towards, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination in the workforce.

Our agreement with Colombia goes even further than the International Labour Organization declaration. It goes further in at least three ways. First, it commits both countries to provide acceptable protection for occupational health and safety. Second, migrant workers will now enjoy the same legal protection as nationals in terms of working conditions. That is more important in a world where workers move around more freely and more often. Third, it has minimum employment standards covering such things as minimum wages and overtime pay. However, as members can appreciate, these commitments are only as strong as the dispute resolution mechanisms and penalties backing them up.

We have a much more comprehensive agreement when it comes to labour, but it is critical and the agreement also focuses on enforcing those standards. That is why I am pleased that the agreement includes appropriate penalties for not living up to these commitments.

To ensure the highest possible compliance, the agreement provides for an open and transparent complaints and dispute resolution process. As part of this, members of the general public can submit complaints to either government concerning non-compliance of labour laws and the provisions under the ILO declaration.

If the matter cannot be resolved through this process, an independent panel review process kicks in that may require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a cooperation fund to be used to resolve the matter identified through the dispute resolution mechanism. Through the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement, Canadians will have a unique tool at their disposal to ensure the Colombian government continues to demonstrate the political will and provide the necessary resources to improve the labour situation.

At the same time we clearly recognize the challenges that nations like Colombia face in complying with each standard set out in the agreement. It is difficult for us to meet these standards, but it is much more difficult for a country like Colombia, which is sincerely trying to move ahead to get away from some of the wrongs of the past.

That is why our agreement will be complemented with a $1 million, labour-related technical cooperation agreement, which has started to implement projects in Colombia to promote and enforce internationally recognized labour standards, particularly in areas of labour inspection, tripartite consultation, and enforcement of labour rights and occupational safety and health, a program that will help Colombia enforce its domestic laws and meet very high standards established by this agreement.

Canada is committed to helping our Colombian partners make the most of our new free trade agreement. That includes ensuring better protection for Colombian workers, in particular trade unionists.

The Conservative government is re-engaging with our partners in the Americas and promoting the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity. This agreement helps add to that effort on our part.

I will conclude by reiterating that this agreement is important to me personally. It is important to my neighbours and friends, to farmers, people in the oil and gas industry and to many other Canadians across this country. It is not some idea that does not make a real impact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's presentation. Of course he would have more credibility on the agricultural file if his government were not seeking to actually undermine prices that farmers can get through the Canadian Wheat Board. If the government were not trying to undermine those prices, he would have credibility on the issue.

However, I do want to get back to the comments made by the member for Cariboo—Prince George. When I asked him about the links between President Uribe, highly documented by The Washington Post, the BBC and a lot of other organizations, and about drug lords such as Pablo Escobar, the member for Cariboo—Prince George said that it is okay because President Uribe said he was not guilty.

I would like to ask the member if he agrees with the member for Cariboo—Prince George that one can simply say, “I am not guilty”, and that is enough, despite the preponderant level of evidence that is there from very reputable human rights organizations, journalists, et cetera.

Suppose somebody dealt in drugs in the member's riding or killed somebody, and the person just said that he or she was not guilty and got off scot-free. Would the member support the approach that a person could simply say that he or she is not guilty? Would that be good enough for a Conservative member?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member brought this question up again, because I listened to his question to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George and I heard what he gave as background for his question.

The expert he referred to was a drug lord himself who indicated that he had given money to Uribe. If I were balancing the testimony of the president against the testimony of a drug lord, I would tend to come down on the side of the president. The member can choose to weigh his evidence in any way he sees fit, but I think he is wrong on this.

In terms of the issue he brought up about how I would deal with drug dealers, I would deal very toughly with them.

This will help move Colombia further along the path that it has started down. It has a long way to go, but it has made a lot of progress. It will help move it further down the path, where it relies less on the drug trade and more on trade in legitimate goods. That can only be good for the people of Colombia, and it can only be good for people right around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, that certainly begs a response, because we have not just the testimony of one drug lord but evidence from a variety of sources, evidence that has been provided to members of the trade committee and information that is available to members of this House.

Therefore the question really is why the Conservatives did not bother to do their due diligence on this and see the many citations and evidence of the background of President Uribe, his rise in Medellin, his ties to Pablo Escobar as confirmed by the American government, and his more recent ties to drug lord money and paramilitary gangs.

The evidence is all there. It is just that no Conservative or Liberal member actually chose to do their due diligence and do their homework.

My question for the member, whom I like personally but with whom I disagree strongly on this issue, is why he did not do his due diligence. Why did he not actually look at the evidence? Why did he not go beyond the speaking notes that come from the Minister of International Trade which are clearly inadequate for what Canadians are calling for?

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to go beyond the rhetoric of a president who says “I am not guilty” and find out the truth. Why did the Conservatives not do that?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been very careful and really diligent in looking at the exact information the member is talking about, and we have come to the conclusion, as have most people who have looked at this agreement, that this agreement will help move Colombia down the road to becoming more productive, with more law-abiding citizens within the country. It will be a positive thing for the people of Colombia, and it will be a positive thing for the people of Canada.

I think the member is wrong on this, quite frankly.

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

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Colbert has a word for Republicans in the United States basically making up facts. The word he uses is “truthiness”. What Colbert has said in The Colbert Report is, “Truthiness is just feeling something in the gut, rather than doing your do diligence and looking at your facts”. That is what the NDP has actually done. It has looked at the facts and done its due diligence and not relied on truthiness, which is what we have seen from the Conservatives in this debate so far on Canada-Colombia.

I know many Canadians have written to the leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister. Thousands of letters have gone to the Leader of the Opposition's office because so many Canadians deplore how the Liberals have sold out human rights on the issue of Canada-Colombia. Those thousands of Canadians have been watching the debate and what they have seen is one side simply presenting whatever emotional poll it has and another side presenting the facts.

Because the NDP effort is fact based, what I will do is talk about the facts of Colombia and this trade agreement. Hopefully I will have enough time, though not a lot of time, to talk a bit about the NDP approach on fair trade. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP is the only party that actually does public consultations on trade policy.

We believe Canadians need to be engaged on trade issues. We believe Canadians actually need to discuss trade, that trade has implications and that bad trade policy can have as negative implications as good trade policy can have positive. Unfortunately, under the Liberals and Conservatives, we have seen very little good trade policy.

The first fact to talk about is what is actually happening in Colombia. The most important thing to look at is what has happened since these negotiations started with Canada-Colombia. What has happened over the last three years?

The Centre for Popular Education and Research, and that is citing a study rather than just saying things are better in Colombia, has shown that over the last three years there has been a marked increase in paramilitary killings, extrajudicial executions and the so-called false positives by the Colombian military. That has been cited. As we well know, the false positives are why the United Kingdom pulled out of its military arrangement with Colombia.

While the Canadian government is trying to push forward, other governments, like Norway and the United Kingdom, and even the U.S. Congress have pulled back. Obviously there is a problem.

The facts are the following. The number of trade unionists killed increased 18% from 2007 to 2008. It is up even higher this year. The number of disappearances has increased. The number of false positives, which is an innocent word that describes a horrible reality, has increased.

I will cite another source because it is important to get real facts out on the table, not just the emotions or the truthiness the Conservatives feel. I know they love President Uribe, but they cannot let their wild, whacky emotions, because he is an ideological soul brother, get in the way of the facts. The reality is that most people I know who even vote Conservative would be absolutely outraged with these ties with paramilitaries and the drug trade that has been fully documented.

Another fact is the comptroller general of Colombia mentioned recently that drug traffickers and paramilitaries now “own” almost half the agricultural land in Colombia. The concentration of land has intensified. Sixty-one per cent of agricultural land is now in the hands of 0.6% of the population.

We are trying to put in place a trade deal that enhances ownership rights of a very small proportion of the population. Changes in land tenure law as well would mean that those who have been forced off the land by the paramilitaries and forced into communities like Soacha, which I visited along with the trade committee a year and a half ago, once they stay away from that land because of fear of death, they lose their ownership rights. There are four million displaced citizens, the largest forced migration on the planet, and our trade agreement would enhance the strategy of paramilitaries and drug lords to run these innocent, hard-working people off their land.

The other thing I want to address is the whole issue of what human rights organizations are actually saying. Organization after organization has denounced this agreement.

Making a Bad Situation Worse: An Analysis of the Text of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement states:

Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement. President Barack Obama has indicated the United States will not proceed with their FTA with Colombia given continued and escalating violence against workers and the impunity with which these crimes are committed. What is Canada doing?

That was asked by an organization which is a coalition of national organizations.

Forever Solidarity: A Public Sector Trade Union Report on Colombia says: “Free trade will hurt, not help Colombians”.

All of this is available to members of Parliament if they choose to do their due diligence, if they choose to do their homework.

One might say the situation has not improved in Colombia and is getting worse, statistically, by every measure. That is very clear. However, that individual might like President Uribe. I understand the Conservatives' love for President Uribe but let us look at the facts.

We have heard testimony about what President Uribe's career has been like. Again, all of this stuff is available to the public domain. The Colombia Journal mentions that young Uribe rose in Medellin, supported by Pablo Escobar. He was removed from office after only three months by a central government embarrassed by his public ties to the drug mafia. When he became governor later on security forces and paramilitary groups enjoyed immunity from prosecution under governor Uribe.

A document that was obtained through Access to Information put out by the Defense Intelligence Agency, and again available to members of Parliament, mentions in terms of the top 100 narco-traffickers Alvaro Uribe Velez, a Colombian politician. It states:

--senator dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cartel at high government levels. Uribe was linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the U.S. His father was murdered in Colombia...Uribe has worked for the Medellin cartel and is a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria. He has participated in Escobar's political campaign to win the position of assistant parliamentarian.

That information was corroborated by other agencies in the U.S. When the information came out, the Bush administration tried to move into high damage control mode, but that information is publicly accessible.

Now we move to the current day. Since the last time we debated this issue, we heard the BBC's breaking news about Diego Murillo, talking about his substantial contributions to the campaign of Mr. Uribe in 2002. Diego Murillo was the successor of drug lord Pablo Escobar in the city of Medellin.

As the Washington Post reported, “Scandals surround Colombian Leader--Top Aides Suspected in Secret Police Case”. I am quoting now from the story on May 16:

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.

This is the situation that Colombia is in. The Conservatives want to give a privileged trading relationship to this president and his administration. This is someone whose political career was tied to drug lords and later on tied to murderous paramilitary thugs who are responsible for the deaths of up to 100,000 people.

Any voters, whether they voted NDP, Bloc, Liberal or Conservative, who have the ability to look at both sides of this issue, would say in the case of that extreme violence, in the case of the impunity with which these crimes have been committed, that we should not give a privileged relationship to an administration that has very clearly fallen short of the fundamental norms and values that Canadians hold. I do not think any Conservative could go back to his or her riding and defend ties to an administration that was elected with drug lord money and has ties with paramilitary thugs. That is why the NDP is opposing this trade agreement.

What are we putting forward? We are saying quite simply that fair trade, something we favour, has to be built on a series of values. We have to respect democracy, respect the environment. We have to look at a fair trade approach that builds social, environmental and labour standards. This is what we put forward.

We also believe in doing our homework on every trade deal, whether it is the softwood sellout, the shipbuilding sellout or this sellout of human rights. We have analyzed and actually looked at the impacts, and that is why we have been able to speak up with such authority. Most Canadians agree and want to see this deal stopped.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to raise an issue in the House following a question I asked in April of this year regarding a tragic situation in an aboriginal community in Manitoba.

The question I asked originated with the very tragic death of Chace Barkman, one of twin babies from the remote Garden Hill First Nation in Manitoba. The twin babies were medevaced to Winnipeg to undergo emergency treatment for meningitis that went undetected at their local nursing station. One of those twins, Chace, died. As a result, our eyes and ears and minds are focused on what Parliament and the Government of Canada need to do to ensure that a death like this never happens again.

Unfortunately, the statistics coming out of first nations communities are so overwhelmingly negative that we do not have much hope that this situation can be turned around anytime soon. The government has failed in fact to take concrete steps to deal with the tragic circumstances facing children and all residents in first nations and Inuit communities across this land.

We have had our own studies. One done in March of this year, which should have alerted the government to the problems at hand, was entitled “Indigenous Children’s Health Report: Health Assessment in Action”. It showed, as many other studies have done, that children on reserve were far more likely to suffer chronic diseases, 14% of on-reserve children had asthma, and the list goes on. We have our studies, yet they do not seem to make a difference.

We turned to international bodies for their glimpse of what is happening in our country. The results are staggering. Let me just refer to the UNICEF report, a very recent report from 2009, that states the following:

The fact is, the numbers just don’t add up. In almost any measure of health and wellbeing, Aboriginal children – including First Nations, Inuit and Métis – are at least two or three times worse off than other Canadian children. As children, they are less likely to see a doctor. As teens, they are more likely to become pregnant. And in many communities, they are more likely to commit suicide. The result is a generation of children whose health and well-being is unjustly compromised.

Let us also remember that UNESCO has done a similar report suggesting that aboriginal children are among the most marginalized in Canadian society and despite some advances in almost every measure of health and well-being, aboriginal children, including first nations, Inuit and Métis, are at least two or three times worse off than any other Canadian children.

Is that not enough for action? Today, we have seen nothing from the government. In fact the whole landscape around the pandemic of H1N1 has only put further attention on the failure of the government to take action and do what is necessary in terms of an area where it has jurisdiction, where the federal government is ultimately responsible.

At the time of the tragic death of Chace Barkman—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member's time has expired. I will have to go to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to providing quality health care services to first nation communities, including Garden Hill. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family following the illness of their children and the loss of their son.

The government is committed to addressing the broader health issues for all Canadians and to continue working with first nation communities to attend to the determinants of health of its first peoples.

Patient confidentiality prevents me from talking specifics of this case. All complaints regarding client care are reviewed by Health Canada medical staff. Health Canada also offers continued support and to debrief the family following completion of reviews.

Health Canada invests over $2.1 billion nationally for health services to first nations and Inuit. Budget 2009 commits $305 million over the next two years to strengthen current programs and improve health outcomes. This will be supported by an additional $135 million that will go towards health services infrastructure, including health clinics and nursing stations. This funding was announced in Winnipeg on September 1.

In Manitoba, Health Canada's first nation and Inuit health branch has an annual operating budget of approximately $350 million. Health Canada also provides first nations people living on or off reserve with health benefits not insured by provincial health care.

The provision of health services is a shared responsibility between federal and provincial governments. Primary care, including nursing, physician services and allied health can be accessed through federal nursing stations.

Health Canada works in coordination with the Province of Manitoba to provide physician services to a number of first nation communities, including Garden Hill. On-site physicians are provided in communities on an itinerant basis; however, the nurses are able to consult with a physician as required on a 24/7 basis.

Health Canada employs nurses to work in first nation communities across northern Manitoba. These health care professionals are committed to providing quality health care and have developed strong working relationships with their communities.

The Garden Hill First Nation is served by a recently built nursing station. Community health nurses working at Garden Hill are available on a 24/7 basis. On average, there are six to seven nurses on-site at the nursing station.

On April 16 of this year, Health Canada officials travelled to Garden Hill to hear the concerns of community leadership first-hand. In addition, officials continue to travel regularly to Garden Hill First Nation to meet with community leadership and staff. During these meetings, Health Canada officials hear the community's concerns and work collaboratively toward resolution of issues.

The nursing stations provide primary care, public health and basic emergency services. Clients requiring additional care are transferred to a hospital via medical evacuation following consultation with a physician.

This Conservative government is committed to improving the health of first nations and Inuit across the country, as evidenced by our budget 2009 commitment of $440 million over the next two years.

We will continue to work with the Garden Hill First Nation community, the immediate family, and first nation communities across this country to support them in times of crisis and to work with them to maintain and enhance individual, family and community wellness.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary fails to recognize that, in fact, the nursing station at Garden Hill is, as has been described by others, of World War II vintage. There is no permanent doctor on-site. The nurses do the best they can, but in fact the current government has not lived up to its responsibility to ensure that every child in this country is treated equally, regardless of where they live, regardless of their economic circumstances.

We know the social determinants of ill health are poverty, lack of housing, lack of access to education, and the list goes on. What has the government done in terms of meeting those needs?

I would suggest that one example of just how little the government has done is to look at H1N1 as a case study and realize how many first nation communities like Garden Hill have been knocking at the door of the government saying, “Why don't you recognize that the circumstances we are faced with are creating a much more serious outbreak of H1N1 pandemic and we turn to you, government, to help us deal with them?”

Why does the government not--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that the Garden Hill First Nation is served by a recently built nursing station, with community nurses working on a 24/7 basis. On average, there are six to seven nurses on-site at the nursing station.

The Conservative government is committed to supporting and strengthening health care for Canada's first nations and Inuit. It is an issue that the Prime Minister and this government take very seriously, and this government has acted.

That is why in budget 2009 we provided $305 million over the next two years to improve health outcomes and strengthen current programs. As well, we recently announced an additional $135 million for improving health services infrastructure.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on April 20, I asked two questions to the government concerning the criticism of the Ontario chief medical officer of health, who in the report his office released stated clearly that the federal government, specifically this minister given the responsibility for food safety, had failed Canadians during the listeriosis crisis of 2008, which resulted in the deaths of 22 people.

The questions raised in April have yet to be answered. The only recourse to the government's refusal to respond to serious concerns is for there to be a full inquiry under the federal Inquiries Act. The Conservatives on the agriculture committee, and indeed the government itself, refuse to allow a full public inquiry to occur. They used a parliamentary manoeuvre, leaving the impression of a reversal of a majority vote of the agriculture committee calling for a full public inquiry.

This manipulated majority does not reflect the true majority on the committee. In fact, the original report of the subcommittee calling for a full public inquiry after months of hearings still stands, but we have yet to hear the government response on that report.

The fact that the government went to such lengths to manipulate an outcome tells us more about the Conservatives' desperate determination to avoid a full public inquiry. The question is, why? What is the government really afraid of?

There would appear to be a number of reasons.

Remember that this is a government that called a full public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, in which a former prime minister is alleged to have taken money from a German businessman two decades ago. No one was injured. No one died. That full public inquiry is into the possible sleazy activities of a Conservative prime minister.

Last Friday the government issued its response to the listeriosis crisis by implementing the Weatherill report. While the official opposition has indicated that a number of recommendations in the Weatherill report are worthy of consideration, the statement of the government reinforces the need for a full public inquiry.

For example, in the Weatherill report, Ms. Weatherill claims that it will take a third-party auditor to find out the numbers of inspectors.

On July 21, the minister said it was impossible to determine how many meat inspectors there are. That is interesting, considering that the CFIA told the subcommittee on April 20, 2009, that there were 1,467 meat inspectors. On May 14, the minister told the House that half of the 3,228 inspectors were involved in meat inspection.

So who misled with Ms. Weatherill: the minister, the CFIA, or both?

I guess it is simple. The fact is that the government does not have the numbers right and cannot report to Parliament in a direct fashion.

On another matter, I asked the government in April why it did not take action when it was first notified of the crisis on July 29, 2008, yet CFIA claims they were informed only on August 6. Testimony before committee showed that those were the facts as alleged by the Ontario ministry, yet it is not even mentioned in the Weatherill report. Why? If it was before our committee, why the discrepancies in the two committee reports?

In closing, the bottom line is that there are all kinds of areas where there are discrepancies. Why is the government avoiding a public inquiry?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, regarding a public inquiry, I was there. I sit on the agriculture committee and I also participated in the food safety subcommittee.

After hours and hours of testimony by a myriad of witnesses, not a single witness called for a public inquiry except for one, a very Liberal-friendly witness, one who has donated financially to the campaigns of the Liberal member in particular. That is important to note.

Yes, the food subcommittee did include a request to have a public inquiry in the report but that is only because the opposition are numerically superior on the subcommittee and on the main agriculture committee. That is why the recommendation was there.

The opposition called for a full meeting by the agriculture committee this summer. We did meet this summer. Another point regarding this meeting is that when the first report was released that finding was rammed through by the opposition before it had seen the independent report released by Ms. Sheila Weatherill.

When the opposition called for an additional meeting this summer, we and the opposition had an opportunity to look at the recommendations put forward by Ms. Weatherill as the independent investigator. Once the committee took into account what was in her report, all of the lessons learned report, all of the testimony that we heard in both the subcommittee and in the main committee, the committee passed a motion that a full public inquiry was definitely not necessary. In fact, that decision is being reported to the House.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's initial remarks on who requested a public inquiry at committee leaves one wondering if he is really following the Prime Minister's advice that “we'll teach them a lesson”. Is there a black list that the Conservative members seem to be following of who they check out? I do not know how they check them out. How do we know if they donated money to the Liberal Party or not?

The fact is that people have a right to come before the committee and, if they so decide based on evidence, call for a public inquiry. That is what they did and that is what we supported.

On this point, the University of Manitoba food microbiologist, Rick Holley, a member of the academic advisory panel on food safety at the inspection agency said that lack of knowledge about food-borne illness, how it happens and its cost to society in terms of death and illness is a weak spot in the Canadian food safety system that none of the recommendations of the Weatherill report addressed adequately. He basically calls for more work to be done and that there should be a full public inquiry--