Debates of Sept. 14th, 2009

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, just quickly, on the human rights situation since President Uribe took office, the violence has decreased by 40%, murders have decreased by 50%, kidnappings are down by 90%, and over 45,000 paramilitaries have been demobilized. The fact is that there is a continued focus on human rights, economic development and looking after people, giving them hope, opportunity and chance. That is what we are doing.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-23, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

Anyone who has been following the debate so far will not be surprised to learn that I will be speaking in opposition to this bill. All members of the NDP caucus are deeply committed to using all means possible to expose the truth about this deeply flawed agreement. We have grave concerns about the agreement's absolutely unacceptable content and the complete injustice of signing such an agreement while the human rights situation in Colombia continues to deteriorate.

This is a question of fundamental human rights and no compromise can be made. The prevailing assessment by the Canadian and Colombian governments, which suggests that all of Colombia's problems have been taken care of and that the country is ready and open for business, simply lacks credibility. The Uribe Colombian government has one of the worst human rights records in the world.

Let me paint a statistical picture. There are 3.8 million internally displaced people, 57% of whom are women. The UN calls this the worst humanitarian disaster in the western hemisphere and it is growing. Some 955 cases of extrajudicial executions by the army over the last five years have been documented. The numbers are rising. Colombian soldiers are accused of executing peasants in rural areas and passing them off as leftist rebels killed in combat, a practice known as “false positives”.

Sixty-two Mafia-like, ex-paramilitary, drug-trafficking criminal networks control economic activities and political institutions in 23 of the 31 provinces and are vying with guerrilla groups for control of the drug trade. Despite the demobilization of over 31,000 paramilitary death squad members, abuse and insecurity prevail in the countryside.

Over 60 lawmakers, including senators, governors and mayors representing the president's political coalition, are under investigation by the country's attorney general and supreme court for alleged relationships with paramilitary chiefs, labeled as terrorists by Canada, and collusion in elections fraud. Seventeen are in jail together with Uribe's former head of secret services, campaign manager and high-ranking military officials.

These facts do not just suggest but prove that the Canadian government is wrong when it says that the problems in Colombia have been redressed. It is not just New Democrats who are pointing that out. We are joined by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, Colombian trade unions, the Canadian Labour Congress, human rights advocates, victims of violence, Colombian judges, prosecutors, government oversight staff, journalists, legislators and Afro-Colombian, indigenous and other community leaders.

All of these groups have called for caution in initiating free trade with the Colombian government, at least until there are demonstrable improvements in its record on human rights and an end to the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of these human rights violations.

Trade can contribute to a country's social and economic development, but only if trade policy supports not undermines human rights and development policy goals. Experts have concluded, given the context of violence against trade unionists and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of peasants from their resource-rich land, that the trade measures in the Colombia FTA will exacerbate the human rights crisis while the labour rights and environmental provisions in the deal are ineffectual.

It is these two aspects of the deal that I would like to focus on in the few remaining minutes I have left to speak on this trade agreement in the House today. As the NDP's labour critic, let me begin by addressing the labour side agreement. Contrary to the Conservatives' contention that by some magical trickle-down effect free trade agreements will inevitably bring an end to human rights abuses, the labour side agreement to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does nothing to guarantee the protection of labour rights.

The shocking reality is that, in the event of the murder of a trade unionist in Colombia, labour protection simply means that the Colombian government would have to pay money into a development fund. Kill a trade unionist, pay a fine. Over 2,200 labour activists have been murdered since 1991 and the hunt for trade unionists in Colombia will go on if the price is right. Such is the Conservative government's concept of labour protection.

The penalty for killing a trade unionist was capped at $15 million in any one year, paid by the Colombian government into a development fund. To put this into perspective, one year's maximum payment of $15 million equates to $5,628 per trade unionist already killed.

How would Canadians feel if the Prime Minister agreed to do the same kind of treatment to those here who intentionally set out to kill labour organizers within our own borders? This is an outrageous lack of appreciation of human life and it is no labour protection at all.

It is impossible to separate human rights from international trade, and negotiating a free trade agreement with Colombia is no exception.

Before ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia, we must development and implement a human rights impact assessment to ensure there are binding and enforceable protections for labour and human rights within the framework of fair trade. In fact both the Canadian and Colombian governments should welcome such an independent and impartial assessment. They claim that conditions have improved and human rights violations have decreased already, but in reality they know the situation in Colombia would never pass such scrutiny.

That brings me to the agreement on the environment. As I outlined, we know that paramilitary terror and massacres have been used to try to dismantle indigenous Afro-Colombian and other social movements and vulnerable groups in order to take over their resource rich territories for the benefit of the mostly multinational extractive industries and agriculture, such as African palm oil. Few controls exist to ensure that extractive companies behave responsibly.

Let us be honest: the Colombian market is hardly a top-tier market for Canada. Only 0.15% of Canadian exports actually go to Colombia. As Glen Hodgson, vice-president and chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada has pointed out:

Our annual trade with Colombia is about the same level as that with South Dakota and is actually smaller than that with Delaware or Rhode Island. Compared to other markets much closer, Colombia is not really a major player. Eighty per cent of Colombia’s imports to Canada are actually duty free already. The gains from free trade are probably not as great as they would be in other cases.

So why is this free trade deal such a priority for Canada? It has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with investments. Since this agreement would contain investment protection provisions, it would help Canadian investors in Colombia, particularly in the mining sector. If past agreements are any indication, the investment protection provisions in the Canada-Colombia agreement would contain provisions that would allow investors to directly sue a foreign government if it adopts regulations that diminish the output of their investments.

That means that progress on environmental and labour laws would be actively constrained by the very language of the free trade deal. It puts the interests of Canadian investors ahead of any improvements in the Colombian standard of living. So much for the Conservative government's contention that this trade deal will actually encourage and facilitate improvements to human rights and environmental and labour standards.

If I am right that this deal has much less to do with trade than with protecting the interests of investors, then it all comes down to politics. However, I would like to remind the government that concerned citizens in Canada far outnumber Canadian mining operators in Colombia. Those citizens have made their opposition a clarion call to action.

The Prime Minister should be well aware of the thousands of postcards he has received from the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. I am proud to have a particularly active chapter in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. It has gathered signatures from petitioners of all ages calling on the government to live up to its commitment on corporate social responsibility. They want to see the recommendations of the national round table implemented now.

Standing with the people of the global south, they insist that the Prime Minister and the government develop legal mechanisms to hold Canadian mining companies accountable for their actions abroad. The line in their petition that the Prime Minister really needs to hear is that they are not going away.

That is the real political message. Faith groups, labour groups, environmental groups, indigenous groups and human rights groups are all not going away, and neither are New Democrats. We are united in our opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and we will continue to do everything in our power to seek justice for the citizens of Colombia by stopping this irresponsible deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for outlining some of the issues we have already raised in the House.

There are a couple of other issues that have arisen since we last discussed this in the House in the spring when the NDP forced the Conservative government to pull this bad deal off the order paper. The first is that a drug lord imprisoned in the U.S. has said that he and his illegal paramilitary army funded the 2002 election of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. This particular drug lord was the successor of drug lord Pablo Escobar, in the city of Medellin, and was already linked in the past to President Uribe. We also have very clear information from the Washington Post that the Colombian presidential palace had ordered wiretapping and general surveillance of supreme court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists.

When we add that to the question of the ties of this administration to murderous paramilitary thugs, my question for the member for Hamilton Mountain is how Conservative members can say they are opposed to the drug trade, criminality, brutal thugs, then try to give a preferential trade agreement to an administration that has its hands soaked in blood.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has given me the terribly difficult task of trying to get into the heads of the Conservatives. Clearly anybody who has been following the debate closely will know their position makes absolutely no sense.

The points raised by my hon. colleague are obviously spot on. This is not an agreement that anybody in the House should be able to support. In fact the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has taken a leadership role in rallying people, not just in the House but right across this country, and indeed internationally, in opposition to this trade agreement.

Let me remind members of the House why that is. It is because they all agree with New Democrats that there is a failure on labour rights protection and environment protection. The investor chapter should scare anybody who has taken even a moment to read the bill before the House today.

I cannot get into the minds of the Conservatives; I cannot explain their position to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. But frankly I cannot explain the position of the official opposition on the bill either. It makes no sense. We should all be united in our opposition to Bill C-23.

I want to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his leadership in trying to persuade as many Canadians as possible to join us in this important cause of fighting for human rights, not just in Canada but around the globe.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that the member for Hamilton Mountain cannot get into the head of a Conservative MP, nor would she want to, and nor would any of us want to.

We have Conservatives who are purporting in their ridings locally that they are fighting against the drug trade and drug gangs in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, which has been particularly subject to the murders and violence that come with the drug trade. Yet they are endorsing an administration that was elected on drug trade money, an administration that according to the Defence Intelligence Agency was actually built on the backs of the drug trade.

How does the hon. member think the constituents of those Conservative MPs would react to that information?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, my constituents would react in the same way the constituents for Burnaby—New Westminster would. They would be shocked and outraged, and I think they would find the hypocrisy in the two positions unbelievable.

This is a corrupt regime. Our government should have no truck nor trade with that regime, and all of us in the House need to stand up in opposition to this free trade agreement. New Democrats can be counted on, to a person, to oppose this deal. I only wish that members on the other sides of the House would join us in this fight.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak about the important impact the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would have, especially on the youngest citizens of that country.

In the speech preceding mine, the NDP said we should not enter into an agreement because violence is out of control. Its position is to develop an assessment.

Our position is to take action to advance the plight of the most vulnerable. We note that the Government of Colombia has taken steps that demonstrate a real effort to curb violence against workers; bring the people responsible for such crimes to justice; promote security, peace and human rights and establish the rule of law.

Nevertheless, children are still being hit hard by the ongoing conflict in Colombia. For the past 50 years Colombia has been experiencing an internal armed conflict involving the army, guerrilla groups and paramilitary organizations. For many Colombians this conflict has translated into decades of economic turbulence and poverty, constant risk of losing their homes and inequality and human rights abuses.

The most vulnerable often pay the highest price. The children and youth of Colombia pay the highest price. Not only are they subject to losing their homes and families, many live in remote rural areas with almost no social support. Young people are often the targets for sexual exploitation. Thousands of children have been taken from their families and forced into fighting as child soldiers. Approximately 11,000 children are recruited as child soldiers, sex slaves or spies. Twenty-five per cent of the people involved with the paramilitary organizations are under 18 years of age, and thousands of children are killed and maimed each year by small arms and land mines.

Children and youth make up 42% of Colombia's total population, but tragically they are also 57% of the country's poor. For these children economic growth represents hope for the future and a chance to come out of conflict, suffering and poverty.

Trade will produce the economy that will provide them with an education, sustainable livelihoods and the ability to contribute to their families and communities. It will give them the opportunity to rise out of the current tragedy and enjoy a better tomorrow.

That is why approving Canada's free trade agreement with Colombia is so important, not only to strengthen our existing trade relationship but to better the lives of Colombia's youngest generation. Our government recognizes that the future of Colombia hinges on its children growing up to be healthy, strong and active participants of society. The way to a brighter tomorrow is to free them from the current situation. Supporting economic development in Colombia will not only reduce poverty and inequality, it will also break the cycle of violence that has slowed Colombia's development. It t will prepare future generations to build a better society to call their own.

As a strong defender and advocate for children's rights, this government believes it is Canada's duty to help improve the lives of Colombia's youngest and most vulnerable: the children. We are working closely with Colombia to make that happen. Our government encourages peace and democracy, a stronger bilateral economic relationship, an open and frank dialogue on human rights, close co-operation on security and humanitarian issues, co-operating to keep drugs off our streets and cleaning up dangerous land mines in Colombia.

Canada is the biggest contributor to children's rights and protection in Colombia. Our government's international development programs are working with Colombians to protect children from violence, preventing the recruitment of child soldiers and helping them regain the place they can call home.

Over the last five years we have contributed over $64 million to development programs in Colombia. Almost 25% went toward strengthening the rights of children and youth as well as projects to protect them from the aftermath of violence and conflict.

In May the Minister of International Cooperation announced our government's clear intention to place children and youth as one of our priorities for international aid. This is reflected in many of CIDA's bilateral development projects in which children and youth are a clear focus.

For example, together with PLAN International Canada, our government is developing ways to help prevent teenagers from being sucked into violence in Colombia and instead encourage them to become key participants in the conflict resolution process. We have contributed $17 million over five years to UNICEF's program to bring education and humanitarian assistance to at-risk children in Colombia's 11 most vulnerable provinces.

We are also working with Save the Children Canada and the Norwegian Refugee Council on a program that delivers alternative education opportunities for out of school indigenous, Afro-Colombian, homeless and vulnerable children, youth and adults.

Through a local fund for children's rights and protection, our government is helping to increase the ability of Colombian officials to come through on commitments regarding the rights of children and increase the awareness of children's rights among the general public.

The results of these programs speak for themselves. Recently our efforts on the ground prevented the recruitment of 15,000 children and youth into armed forces and assisted in the reintegration of 260 former child soldiers into their old home communities. Through our efforts, 70% of all demobilized children and youth will now receive enhanced health, education, protection and reintegration services.

More than 6,000 adolescents have developed skills to assist in conflict resolution as well as other life skills within their schools with the help of 400 peers trained as youth leaders. Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1612, Canada encouraged the government of Colombia to establish the monitoring and reporting mechanism for children in armed conflict.

Our support led to the implementation of regional and national government policies and programs to protect the rights of children, youth and other vulnerable groups. More than 12,000 civil servants are trained in a new Colombian law on children and youth.

My fellow members in the House should be pleased to know that this government's programs are getting results at every stage, reversing the fortunes of children who have become involved in the conflict and preventing many others from sharing the same fate.

This government's programs support reintegration of demobilized children and youth through family reunions, education to allow them to catch up to the level of their peers, and job search skills that will help them take advantage of local employment opportunities.

Colombian children and youth are being shown how to lead more fulfilling lives so that they will not fall prey to the financial temptations of joining illegal armed groups and engaging in various illegal activities. Thousands of youth are trained in conflict resolution and taught how to take control of their futures. With improved access to formal and informal education and safe schools, they are able to grow within productive learning environments. And by working with the government of Colombia, Canada is helping to strengthen policies and programs and services that protect children and guarantee their rights.

Overall, I believe Canadians can be proud of the results we have already achieved through our development programs in cooperation with the government of Colombia and local Canadian NGOs and multilateral organizations. Where the NDP would stop this action, stop helping the disadvantaged, I am proud to stand here and say that the Canadian government on behalf of the people of Canada is working in all these productive ways. This bill is part of that resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I am drawn to ask this question of the member because of the huge interest that he has taken with respect to economic development and trade ties not only with the Latin and South American countries but also with the countries of the Caribbean. The Prime Minister visited the CARICOM countries and talked about the kinds of issues that the member has addressed through his discussion of the bill before us.

Can the member outline for the House that there is a broader policy paradigm around which these free trade agreements are being developed? He has concentrated on the value added to children and families in Colombia, but is the government working with labour organizations, trade organizations? He mentioned non-governmental organizations, which are extremely critical to effective reciprocal agreements under this free trade umbrella. Could he outline what the government's rationale is in general terms and what the specifics are with respect to working with trade organizations and labour organizations that are fundamental to the advantages and added value that he alluded to in his remarks?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a very good question. I say it was a very good question because we have to take a look at each individual free trade agreement. In other words, in the case of Colombia, as I have outlined, because Colombia and Bolivia are two of our countries of focus in South America, some of the comments I made about this agreement are going to be different from comments that we would be making about a free trade agreement with another jurisdiction, another country.

However, in broad-brush terms, from my own personal experience, having had the responsibility and privilege of being the member of Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia for 16 years now, I can say that I have worked very closely with the trade organizations and have a tremendous amount of respect, and I know that our government has a tremendous amount of respect and wants to make sure that these are balanced agreements.

In the 10 minutes that I had, I focused my speech specifically on children and youth at risk. There are many other aspects to this. I am sure that when further comments are made by my colleagues about this agreement, they will be able to fill in some of the blanks. Suffice it to say that, yes, that is definitely a part of our consideration.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to our Conservative colleague say that when we trade with a country and that country's revenues increase, ultimately the lives of people who face hunger or other problems are improved. I disagree, because often it is not the wealthiest countries that take the best care of their people.

How can we trust a country that is assassinating union members and displacing whole populations?

I travelled to Colombia and found that many people are being displaced from their farms so that certain mining companies can take over the land.

How can the government think that with increased revenues, this country will better redistribute wealth to the poor? I do not believe it.

I was looking at the statistics recently, and they show that—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member to give the Parliamentary Secretary a chance to respond.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think if we take a look at the first comments I made in my speech, we will see that the Government of Canada believes the government of Colombia has taken real steps that demonstrate a real effort to curb violence against workers, bring justice to the people responsible for such crimes, promote security, peace and human rights, and establish the rule of law.

Is the job finished? No. It probably has a long way to go. Should we do what the NDP would do, just throw up our hands and leave them? No, I do not think so.

We are committed to working closely with the people of the Colombia as represented by their government to get this kind of an agreement moving forward so they can have useful, productive employment that they can go to so they can generate the wealth required to be able to do the things the member is referring to.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing out that the House is currently debating an NDP subamendment to a previously proposed Bloc Québécois amendment.

The Bloc amendment referred to the Conservatives' disdain for the democratic process with respect to the review of this free trade agreement. We were in Colombia from May 11 to 14, 2008, where we met with people, groups, civilians, unions, business people and displaced people resettled in small towns. They all told us their stories. The subamendment conveys the Bloc Québécois and the NDP's opposition to this agreement, a position shared by human rights defence organizations.

The Conservatives, and even some Liberals, have said the most absurd things. Basically, they say that doing business with countries whose social conditions, labour conditions and environmental conditions are not up to par will automatically make things better. But it will be anything but automatic. In many cases, as in this free trade agreement, it is not about trade per se, but about protecting the investments of Canadian corporations, particularly mining corporations with underdeveloped senses of responsibility operating in those countries.

The parliamentary secretary for international trade recently said that about 100 Canadian mining companies are involved in some 200 projects, many of them in Colombia. Let us not forget that we have talked about social responsibility and mining companies right here in the House. There can be no doubt that most of the mining companies claiming to be Canadian are actually foreign companies operating through Canada because this country does not hold its mining companies accountable for their activities abroad. This free trade agreement is much more about protecting investments, and we all know that protecting investments, chapter 11 style, means placing companies' interests ahead of people's interests.

The Conservatives are saying that everyone agrees with this free trade agreement. Perhaps they are not following what is really going on. Just look at all the groups that oppose this free trade agreement. In Canada alone, many civil society associations oppose this agreement, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the FTQ, Development and Peace, the Public Service Alliance, Lawyers Without Borders, communications unions, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

Many stakeholders from Colombian civil society also oppose this agreement. Three of my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I met with the Coalition of Social Movements and Organizations of Colombia, a meeting that was arranged by that organization. I would remind the House that that organization is made up of the National Organization of Indigenous People in Colombia, the Popular Women’s Organization, the National Agrarian Coordinator, Christians for Peace with Justice and Dignity, and the National Movement for Health and Social Security.

We were able to personally meet many stakeholders during our travels to Colombia in May 2008.

While we were in Colombia, the government said it had signed this agreement in principle with Colombia. We had not even completed our consultations. We had not yet submitted our report or made any recommendations, which were supported by the opposition parties and clearly said that an independent organization needed to be formed, one that would be able to assess any progress made over time in the area of human rights and able to say if there had been any real improvements significant enough to allow us to officially sign the free trade agreement.

The Liberals agreed. They have since changed their position. They are leaning more heavily in favour of economic development, perhaps to the detriment of other social, labour or environmental considerations.

Not everyone in Colombia is in favour of this. I mentioned the organizations from civil society. Some Colombian senators are also against this free trade agreement. Senator Robledo, among others, is against it. He says straight out that Colombia’s experience so far with free trade has been damaging and has led to a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich, the impoverishment of many Colombians, and the denationalization of the country. He says that its free trade agreement with the United States amounts to an imperialist re-colonization reminiscent of Colombia’s historic relations with Spain.

He takes a similar view of the agreement between Canada and Colombia. In a CBC documentary broadcast in March 2008, Senator Robledo expressed his opposition to the free trade agreement, which in his view gives multinational corporations the same rights as Colombians, and even greater rights.

He has also criticized some of the direct foreign investments in his country, including gold mines operated by Canadian corporations. In January 2009, he published an article on the behaviour of Colombia Goldfields, a Canadian transnational corporation that opened and then abandoned a mine in Marmato, Colombia. There is no need to tell the House that the environmental effects were still evident. So there was no corporate social responsibility.

This free trade agreement exists more, therefore, to protect corporate investments. The Conservatives have just told us that we had to get there first, before the United States, or we would lose market share. I do not know where they get their figures, because our trade with Colombia has increased. Since 1999, Colombia has become a larger trading partner, especially as a market for Canadian exports. Over five years, exports of Canadian goods to Colombia increased by an average of 18% a year, while the general average growth rate was 4.9%. Without a free trade agreement, merchants and business people are able to do well in Colombia on a company or individual basis, without affecting human rights, labour rights or environmental rights.

The Conservative member said that a lot of money was being invested. We know. The Conservative Party is greatly reducing our international aid, in Africa for example. It is turning to the South American countries and encouraging them to sign free trade agreements with Canada.

The Conservative government’s position is therefore very self-interested. We should have proof of continual, lasting improvement. Last June at an international labour union conference, we were told that it was a snow job. The Colombian government has conducted a huge marketing campaign, probably with the indirect assistance of the Government of Canada, to give the impression that things are improving. Nothing is more misleading, though, than when they say here that the number of assassinations of union leaders has decreased.

I do not recall any such assassinations in Canada.

Even here though, as a result of the Conservatives’ lack of effort, our social programs also leave something to be desired sometimes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

As previous government speakers have emphasized, it is an enormously important agreement for Canadian businesses and for investors alike. It opens up new doors and new opportunities for them during a very uncertain time in this global economy.

As was previously noted, trade and investment can help a nation such as Colombia move through troubled times and create new opportunities for people and communities to thrive and to prosper. At the same time, these nations look to countries like Canada for support in addressing a range of serious concerns that have a direct human impact.

Colombia is one of the oldest democracies in Latin America. It has a strong tradition of democratic institutions. Decades of internal conflict have put Colombia under severe pressure, but in recent years, personal security has definitely improved. Indeed, this is recognized by the global community and by international organizations present in Colombia.

Illegal armed groups, including paramilitaries and rebel groups, have been weakened. The formal demobilization of over 30,000 paramilitaries and the weakening of the two primary guerrilla groups are key developments in Colombia's efforts to break the cycle of violence.

Colombia has a justice and peace law that, although not perfect, provides a legal framework for truth, justice, and reparations. With the support of the international community, government authorities and civil society have undertaken a series of actions that contribute to a momentum towards truth, justice, the rule of law, and the fight against impunity.

It is vital for Canada and other countries to pursue policies of engagement and support for peace in Colombia. Canadians can be very proud of our role in assisting our Colombian partners along this path. Canada's engagement in Colombia includes support for Colombia's peace process, co-operation on land mine action and counter-narcotics, and assistance to address inequality, to reduce poverty, and to meet the needs of vulnerable populations.

In the last five years alone, Canada has disbursed more than $64 million in Colombia through the Canadian International Development Agency. CIDA's projects on children and youth have allowed the development of policies and programs that take the rights of children and youth into consideration and help protect these children from violence. Projects have also prevented the recruitment of children into illegal armed groups and ensured their reintegration into their community.

As well, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada's global peace and security fund has disbursed $14.5 million since 2006. We are also one of the largest supporters of the mission of the Organization of American States to support the peace process in Colombia.

This is critical work to support peace and to monitor the demobilization of illegal paramilitary groups in that country. This year, Canada is also contributing to an independent evaluation of this mission's work, to ensure it better fulfills its mandate and responds to newly emerging dynamics in Colombia.

Canada's global peace and security fund also provides vital support to protect the rights of vulnerable groups, including women, indigenous peoples, and Afro-Colombians. In addition, Canada actively engages multilaterally and bilaterally on human rights in Colombia, including through the United Nations Human Rights Council and the International Labour Organization in Geneva. Our statement on the UN Human Rights Council's universal periodic review process was very explicit in underlining the areas of progress and those areas where further work is required.

Canada continues to be an active member of the Group of Twenty-Four, a group of countries that encourages and facilitates dialogue between the government of Colombia and international and national civil society organizations working in the country. Our embassy in Colombia has also been very active on many fronts to support efforts in that country for the promotion of human rights.

During my visit to Colombia in March, Canada and Colombia established formal, senior-level consultations on human rights. I am happy to say that a successful first round of these consultations took place in Bogota in July. These consultations allow for a further exchange of views on domestic human rights issues, as well as discussions on multilateral human rights initiatives.

For a country like Colombia, free trade can open up new avenues for success. It can create jobs in communities where opportunities now are scarce or nonexistent; it can provide a solid foundation for families to build for the future; and it offers an alternative to the protectionist, isolationist thinking that we see in some parts of the world that since the beginning of the economic downturn our Prime Minister has made clear is not the answer. This growth can help solidify efforts by the Government of Colombia to create a more prosperous, more equitable, and more secure democracy.

Rules-based trade can also contribute to a domestic environment where good governance, transparency, and the rule of law are respected.

In other words, we believe that economic opportunity goes hand in hand with democracy, peace, and security. In fact, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, this balanced, responsible approach is guiding Canada's policy of engagement--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to remind the hon. minister to refrain from mentioning the name of sitting members.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Absolutely. My apologies, Madam Speaker.

Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, this balanced, responsible approach is guiding Canada's policy of engagement with our many friends and partners throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

We firmly believe that economic opportunities can reinforce these objectives. That is why we are committed to being a helpful and open partner for nations throughout the hemisphere, with nations such as Colombia.

In many ways, when we look at this free trade agreement, we are looking at a lot more than lowering tariffs and providing investor protection. We are also clearing a path for prosperity and giving Canadians and Colombians alike new opportunities to prosper, improve their lives, and contribute to their communities.

Canada has always been a strong and active voice of global co-operation and the open-doors approach to international trade.

This free trade agreement would certainly benefit Canadian businesses and investors, but let us remember that it would also benefit Colombians. It would give them new opportunities to prosper and to thrive in the global economy. That is why I ask for the support of all honourable members for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, the public who are watching this debate today, particularly the thousands of Canadians who have written to Conservatives and Liberals asking them not to do this appalling bad deal and try to force it through the House, can see a real shift in the Conservative approach. The Conservatives are now not talking about the trade deal, and of course, they cannot because the trade deal is so egregiously bad, but they are talking about the Canadian International Development Agency.

The NDP is on record as saying we need to increase funding to CIDA, because a lot of the programs it runs, including those in Colombia, help to benefit the Colombian population. It gets around what is an appalling corrupt and murderous regime.

The problem is the regime itself. The regime is not subject to rules. The regime has paramilitary ties. As the BBC recently exposed, and as Diego Murillo, the successor to Pablo Escobar in the Medellin cartel, stated quite recently, President Uribe's successful election campaign was funded with drug lord money. Uribe has very clear ties to murderous paramilitary thugs, including the AUC, which was born in his province, flourished and spread under his governorship, and led to the deaths of more than 100,000 Colombians.

How can that member stand in the House and defend the indefensible, a regime that has committed human rights violations and is tied to drug lords and murderous paramilitary thugs?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not where to start given the confection of anachronistic stereotypes, disinformation and gross inaccuracies. I will work backward from the accusations, which we heard earlier today, regarding the legitimacy and the courage of President Uribe whose government has been commended for significant progress over the past six years, both in terms of disbanding the paramilitaries and working toward reconciliation, despite the unhelpful performance of two neighbouring countries that provide sanctuary for terrorist groups and continue to displace innocent civilians and indigenous peoples.

I would suggest that the hon. member go to Colombia himself and acquaint himself --

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

I've been. I've been.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Then the member was there with his eyes closed.

The member raised the matter of whether Canada was alone in this matter. I would ask the hon. member to ask why the European Free Trade Association, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein have conducted free trade negotiations with Colombia, as have the United States and the European Union. All of these countries are as sensitive as Canada is to issues of human rights and ethics in government.

I must say that the NDP is dealing with, as I said, stereotypes from the eighties.

I would also disagree with the point made by the member about thousands of letters protesting this agreement. In fact, when I was there, as were two other members, the member for Kings—Hants and the member Toronto Centre, we were impressed by the fact that the private sector unions welcomed this free trade agreement as a way of improving conditions for their workers, for the growth of their individual companies and for new opportunities.

I would also suggest, and I hesitate to do it while the member is not in the House, that a member of his own party, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, travelled with me and I can tell the member that he was impressed from our meetings with civil society, with trade unions, with the church, with victims--

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

He's going again.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Whether or not he--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask members not to engage in debate directly. I will move to another quick question.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

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

Madam Speaker, the member did not address it but I wonder if he would like to.

The concept of a rules-based trade agreement also has regional implications with respect to what is happening in Venezuela. I think that international peace is also a corollary to developing these kinds of rules-based trade agreements.

Is there hope that that kind of road would also follow a regional path that would be in the interest of international peace?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The minister for a very brief response.