Debates of Sept. 15th, 2009

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, today we discuss a matter that not only involves Canada's economic and trade policy with Colombia, but is also a general statement of our general orientation of our general foreign policy.

This government has looked out to the world. We are not a government whose foreign policy is inward looking. We are a government that wants to engage and to reach out, to follow-up on the proud Canadian history of reaching out to the entire world. This is entirely appropriate since Canada is made up of individuals and families. Our history comes from all over the world. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is very much a part of that history. It is part of our government's willingness to engage and to reach out.

Under this government, Canada has become, and will continue into the future to be, a large player on the international stage. We do not do that by just reaching out to the high profile missions around the world such as Afghanistan and some of the UN peacekeeping missions. We do that by engaging the entire world, including places such as Latin America, Colombia, Peru, Panama, places where we are reaching out to engage in free trade, to engage with these countries to build Canada's economy, to build their economy, to build closer ties on an economic and cultural basis.

It is entirely appropriate that this government and all Canadian governments continue to build on free trade agreements and to engage in free trade throughout the world.

Canada's history is fundamentally that of a trading nation. We think of the schooners, like the Bluenose from Nova Scotia, that traded with the Caribbean, along the coasts of the Americas and my region of western Canada, the grain basket of the continent. We reach out and we trade with the whole world.

Canadian wheat is well known around the world as are our lumber and our mineral exports. The whole reason that Canada was settled had to do with trade, the fur trade, the Hudson's Bay Company, the courier du bois, the northwesterners. We are a country that was fundamentally built on trade.

To continue our success, to continue our history of prosperity, we need to continue that history of trade. We need to continue that pattern. We need to continue it wherever we go in the world.

When we look at the fundamentals of the trade deal with Colombia, we see opportunities for Canada. Again, concentrating on my region, we can look at some of the agriculture products for which Colombia is looking to Canada. Saskatchewan pulse growers have been very successful marketing to Colombia and they are looking forward to greater success.

One of the things that Colombians are most looking for and reaching out to Canada for is our agriculture technology for its pork industry, which it is looking to expand. Colombia is reaching out for Canada's agriculture technology for its beef and cattle producers. It is looking to have secure Canadian breeding and technology to expand its industries.

We look at the opportunities for Canadian natural resource producers, and not only the mining companies that go there, extract the minerals and bring the profits to Canada after putting in resources, investment and creating jobs down there.

We are also looking to take our natural gas and oil technology to Colombia because Canada has some of the greatest technology in the whole world.

This agreement is not only fundamentally good for Canada, but it is fundamentally good for Colombia. Free trade in and of itself is good everywhere, all the time. It has been an economic principle established throughout history.

As Europe and the broader world began to pull back from mercantilism and progressed onward to capitalism and free trade, we saw the unprecedented growth of prosperity. The industrial revolution was allowed to flourish.

Colombia is looking forward to expanding its exports to Canada. While currently Colombia concentrates on such products as coal and fresh cut flowers, and we all know about Colombian coffee, there are many other areas where the Colombian government and the Colombian people and businesses are looking forward to expanding.

Colombians are particularly looking forward to Canadian investment. They are looking to expand their biofuel industry and other industries that require the ingenuity and technology from other countries. Colombia is looking to do this because it desires a better economy, a better society for its people.

Some members of the House have been criticizing the agreement because of what it will do to the Colombian people, but they should look at some of the elements of the agreement. Colombia has to demonstrate to Canada and improve in certain areas, and there are agreements within the agreement on free association, collective bargaining, labour and labour rights, important things to help raise the standards for the Colombian people.

It should be stated these are not things that are being imposed from the outside. These are things that Colombia itself wants to do. Colombia knows it has had a challenging history and knows it needs to demonstrate to the rest of the world that it is important for Colombians to change perceptions of their country.

Let me deal with some of the questions and comments that have come from the opposition members who are opposed to this, and try to understand their logic and demonstrate why it is not appropriate in this debate. Essentially they are saying that we should not go forward with this agreement because President Uribe and his regime have been opposed to supporting the increase of human rights.

When we look at the statistics and the trend regarding murders, kidnappings and things that have been going on in Colombia, we see the trend is in a positive direction. The government has been doing its best to curb the violence, to solve the civil war. We should also note that it is in the government's and the president's interest to make this agreement work, to have human rights be more successful, because this is an agreement that is not only important for Colombia's relationship with Canada, but it is important for Colombia's relationship with the entire world. This agreement will demonstrate, particularly to the United States, that Colombia has made progress in areas in which it has been criticized. This is important to Colombians for what they can achieve not just with us but with the broader world. Therefore, they are motivated to continue the successes of the last few years.

It should also be remembered that this agreement is not merely with a president who, even if he is re-elected next year as the polls show is very possible, will move on in another five years. This is an agreement that has the support of Colombia's lower house and its senate. It is supported by members of different political parties and, as has been noted here, it is also supported by the private sector trade unions.

Considering the debate in this House has been about protection of labour rights, the protection of union leaders, it is important to note that private sector unions in Colombia have, by and large, been supportive of it.

We should also note that the logic of not pursuing a trade deal because of certain human rights criticisms does not hold, based on history or behaviour, to other nations. The question is not so much: Is everything perfect in a country? We know everything is not perfect in Canada. We know everything is not perfect with many of our trade partners. The question fundamentally should be the direction and desire of the people and the government of the country. The direction and desire of the people of Colombia is to improve their human rights situation, to improve their labour standards to make a better, more peaceful, more prosperous country.

If we applied the same rigorous standard of perfection to Canada, in Canada's history, no one would have had a trade deal with Canada. We have been a country that has been at the forefront of human rights, reaching out to the rest of the world, looking forward to improve and make our own country a better place. But in Canadian history, we have not been perfect; we know that and we understand that. If we desire and demand perfection from other countries, we are effectively saying we are hypocritical in not demanding other countries asking for it from us.

I ask hon. members of the House to support the agreement because it is good for Canada. It will increase our trade. It will increase our prosperity. We ask hon. members to support it because it is good for the people of Colombia. It will increase their trade and their prosperity. If we allow the perfect to be the opponent of the good, we will never progress.

This is an agreement which stands on its own merits. It stands in historical Canadian tradition of promoting human rights, promoting democracy and promoting trade. I am very proud to support it. I am very proud that my government has reached out to enter into this agreement with Colombia. I will be proud to vote for this agreement when it comes to a final vote.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the pride Canada has in its expertise at shipping grain around the world. That is true at the moment, but it is ironic that he would make that point on a day when the Conservatives have put terribly flawed changes to the Canada Grain Act on today's order paper for debate. The changes would reduce inspections and would allow things to get through, which would cause scandals in our grain industry that could affect the great reputation we have around the world. Every member of Parliament, except the Conservatives, has recognized this. There is a hoist motion on this bill because it is such a terrible bill. We have had the terrible experience of the Conservatives' policy of suggesting reduction in inspectors on the floors of meat-packing companies. We know the problem we had with the listeriosis crisis, when Canadians actually died.

I would hope the member would at least stand up in his caucus if he cannot do it publicly and decry that bill. It would reduce inspections on grain and threaten that tremendous reputation we have around the world for our wheat.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what my hon. colleague's question has to do with the debate about Colombia, but let me respond as someone who is proudly the son, grandson and great-grandson of western Canadian grain farmers and as someone who himself has farmed.

I am very proud to support what the government is doing when it comes to changes to the Canadian Grain Commission and its position on the Wheat Board. The member should know that industry tends to be supportive of these changes. The industry is also very aware that the quality of Canadian grain is one of our greatest selling points and it will do nothing to jeopardize the quality or reputation of our grains.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments and the opportunity to have this very important debate here in the House.

I would ask the member if he does not agree with the analysis of what has happened in the last year not only in Canada but worldwide in terms of the economic crisis. Was it not driven primarily by unregulated, unfettered activity by a market that was totally out of control and that nobody seemed able to manage?

We are still trying to work our way through it and come to some understanding of what we need to put in place and how we need to change the way we do business in this country. Members of Parliament have responsibility for their constituents, their constituents' jobs and small companies, and their communities. We still do not completely understand how free trade, which is another term for unfettered, unregulated markets, was the cause of the difficulty we are in now. We have still not figured out how to change that.

Why would the government enter holus-bolus into yet another free trade agreement that we do not quite understand in terms of its impact on Canada, never mind the impact that we know it will have on the people of Colombia?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, my speech on Colombia must have been pretty good, since I am not receiving too many questions on it. The questions seem to be on other matters.

The main premise of the hon. member's question was that free enterprise and free trade caused the economic crisis around the world last year. I would beg to differ. I would say that the American housing sector had been essentially socialized through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, government institutions and distortions through the U.S. tax system, which instead of being free market ended up subsidizing the building of homes.

What the United States engaged in was not socialism for the poor, but socialism for the rich, and it ultimately came back to haunt the Americans. Again, without those massive government interferences and various other aspects engaged in by U.S. political leadership, I do not know if we would have seen the bubble and the collapse in the United States that affected other parts of the world. I fail to see how free trade agreements in any way caused what happened last year.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by welcoming my constituents from the wonderful riding of Laval. They will note that, despite all the rumours circulating, all the MPs in the House of Commons and Parliament are continuing to do their work and will do so until the government falls.

What is most surprising to me about today's discussion on this free trade agreement is that, on the one hand, there seems to be the belief that this government, which has never recognized or respected the rights of people from our own country, the rights of Canadians and Quebeckers who go abroad and find themselves in dangerous situations, will now ensure that the rights of Colombians are respected simply by signing a free trade agreement with them.

The Bloc Québécois is not against free trade agreements or international trade. However, we are against anything that could hurt or be harmful to vulnerable people. We have seen this too often in the past. The fact that the government did not bother to wait for the committee to draft and table its report is even more hurtful and shows again the government's lack of respect in this matter. This is such an obvious lack of respect that it is a wonder my Liberal Party colleagues can nevertheless support sending this bill to committee. It is evident that there is no way of ensuring respect for the rights of Colombians.

This is a free trade agreement in which there is no guarantee for the people who are going to be displaced and who will have to move elsewhere. Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. member earlier, since 2007 there has been an increase in the number of murders and assassinations in Colombia. When I talk about assassinations, I am referring to political murders. There has been an increase in the movement of people who must leave their land because it is too dangerous for them to live there. These are small mine owners who are being displaced by large mining companies, or small-scale farmers who are being displaced by large agribusinesses. When these people are displaced, they move to large cities, such as Bogota for example. We know what happens in big cities when new people arrive with no way to make a living. People find themselves living in shantytowns, as is the case in Brazil, where such slums are a common occurrence and where people are not living, but surviving.

I do not think that when we sign a free trade agreement, these are the results we want to achieve through it. I wonder how one could possibly believe that these mining companies would take it upon themselves to maintain and respect the human rights of Colombians, when they are not subject to any regulations and when nothing forces them to do so.

Every year, for the past number of years, officials from Development and Peace have come to see us to tell us and show us what is already happening with mining companies in other countries. We see that human rights are also being violated in these other countries. How can we believe that these companies will suddenly endorse more progressive and open social values and ensure that the people they are going to displace will at least be relocated to areas where they can live decently? I do not believe that is the case. I do not believe in the good intentions of those businesses, which stand to make billions of dollars.

Colombia has very rich soil. It has a lot of ore. It also has emerald mines. I know that women love emeralds. That country has very rich soil that can generate billions of dollars in profits annually. The only way to stop and to sanction mining companies is to impose on them fines of up to $15 million annually for all offences.

What does $15 million mean when one can get billions of dollars? Absolutely nothing. That amount is meaningless on such a large scale.

If we had really wanted to ensure the whole thing would be done in a fair and equitable fashion, first, we would have waited for the report to be tabled. Second, we would have listened carefully to the Colombians who came to meet with us. Last spring, I met with five Colombian women who urged us not to ratify this free trade agreement.

We should, at the very least, have listened to their concerns, to their pleas, and thus realized that we are actually abusing a whole segment of Colombia's population in order to give a few members of the elite class something they can boast about, namely to have succeeded in reaching an agreement with Canada. It is an agreement that gives more to them than to Colombia's population, even though they have not done anything to deserve it.

Hon. members mentioned President Uribe, who was running again. He would certainly like to run ad infinitum. That does not mean he will necessarily succeed, but if he does unfortunately, what will be the effect on human rights? How can we possibly think there will be more respect for them? I do not think so. As soon as someone starts getting ideas about being a dictator, as this man is apparently doing, the only possible conclusion is that there will be no respect or support for human rights and that nothing will be done to lend credibility to the organizations that fight for them.

Someone said earlier there were reports from reliable, credible organizations that Colombia was on the right track and had made progress. That depends, though, on the organizations we listen to. There are organizations as well on the other side that fight for human rights. Five in particular are telling us that this is not true and that there are actually more and more acts of violence against union organizers, more and more displacements to the cities, more and more marginalized people and more and more disappearances.

If we want to compare these two assessments, we should give greater credibility to the most vulnerable people and be very demanding in what we require when we sign a free trade agreement.

We saw what happened with softwood lumber. If we are negligent and insufficiently attentive about the way these free trade agreements are phrased, we will discover that the results are not necessarily what we expected.

If the government had really wanted to show some respect for the people of Colombia, for Parliament and for the parliamentarians here who worked hard and were exemplary committee members, it would at least have waited until the report was tabled and its recommendations could be considered.

That was not done. I am hardly surprised to see this in a government that does not care about women’s rights here in Canada and the rights of Canadian soldiers. We saw veterans this morning whose means of subsistence had been cut. This is also a government that does not care about the rights of the first nations.

How could a government that acts in this way toward its own citizens be expected to act differently toward the citizens of another country for which it has no respect?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc member for her speech. She certainly made the point that a free trade agreement with Colombia should not move forward, especially because of the atrocities being committed there against unionized workers.

A number of accusations have been made against the Colombian government, including accusations of murder, which is a serious problem and cause for concern. Over the past 10 years, 60% of unionized workers have been killed. I can understand the concern she expressed in her speech.

Should we really turn our backs on these people? These are people who are living in poverty. Should we sign a free trade agreement or should we first protect human rights?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is simple. We must always consider human rights before profits.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech I thought the member mentioned working against problems of safety in other countries. I think she meant that if Canadians travel there. Of course, there is the totally dismal and unacceptable record of the government of treating Canadians differently and not protecting them when they go to other countries.

I have a lot of families in my riding with children, teenagers or young adults who travel overseas. To be afraid that they will not be treated equally by the government if they get in trouble is certainly a big concern for my party. I think it is also a concern for the member but I would ask her to elaborate.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his question. He is a new father, so he knows how important it is to care for the people we love.

The people who are being abandoned by the Canadian government or whose rights are being violated in other countries also have people who love them. They have also left behind families, people who love them, people who miss them, people who would like to be quickly reunited with them, but they are in other countries and are not able to return, or must wait a very long time before they are able to return.

Let us take for example the citizen who was waiting in an embassy for years, and who was billed for the food he ate. I thought it was disgusting that a government would bill someone for food when he is not there of his own free will, but is being forced to stay at the embassy before being sent home.

I understand my colleague's concerns, and I share them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Mauricio Vásquez was a teacher and union activist in Colombia who was killed. It is very disturbing that it is not just the hard industry union activists that are being killed in Colombia, it is civil society like teachers.

Does it deepen my colleague's concerns when civil society, like nurses and teachers who organize for public services, are assassinated in Colombia.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

We definitely have good reason to worry about the people of Colombian civil society, considering the climate of terror and fear that has reigned in that country for quite some time. The drug trade is very lucrative in Colombia, and as we know, drug lords will do just about anything to become more powerful.

We know, or at least we think, that paramilitary groups may be affiliated with the current government.

So, yes, I am worried. All those who have died thought they had the right to live and that they had—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Oakville.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this important initiative of free trade with our South American neighbours, the people of Colombia, in Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, and the measures and agreements on the environment and labour co-operation that are part of that agreement.

Canada has always been a trading nation, and a great portion of our economy and wealth historically came from selling goods that are mined, sourced and manufactured in Canada. As far back as the Hudson's Bay company, our historical wealth, which began hundreds of years ago with fish and furs, developed into manufactured goods and a high-tech industry. Canada could always produce more than our people need, because we have the resources and because Canadians are an industrious people.

I think of Daniel Massey, who in 1850 founded the Massey farm implement company in Newcastle, Ontario, and his son Hart, my mother's great-grandfather, a brilliant businessman who took over the family business. Having developed the most advanced farm machinery in the world, for example reapers and threshers that were sold all over Canada, Massey Manufacturing took on the world and won. It became one of the world's largest farm implement companies, and it continued to grow.

Hart Massey was one of the original masters of the corporate takeover. He managed to absorb the Ferguson Tractor Company and later Harris manufacturing company to create the world's largest farm implement company, Massey Harris.

This was accomplished despite the tariffs that existed. One can only imagine how much further Massey Harris might have gone had there been true free trade, as will be accomplished in this agreement.

I also think about one of Canada's leading companies today, Research In Motion, which makes the BlackBerrys that are so ubiquitous on Parliament Hill and business worldwide, a current example of how Canadian entrepreneurs, given a level playing field, can take on the world and win. Those entrepreneurs have always provided thousands of jobs in Canada, and increasingly, value-added high-tech jobs, the jobs of the future.

In so many cases, such as our high-tech industry, software industry and even in mining and resources, it is important for governments to sometimes get out of the way of our most industrious and creative citizens by lowering barriers that are not benefiting the economies of nations with which it should be trading more.

This agreement opens the door, without trade barriers, to Canadian wheat, paper products, mining, oil and gas, engineering and information technology. I think of two of the world's largest engineering firms with head offices in my riding of Oakville: Amec and Acres International. They are already world-beaters. They already engineer projects all over the world, but they will have better access to Colombian business as we move forward and deepen our presence in Latin America.

Trade creates new jobs and new wealth. All one has to do is look at Ontario's auto pact, which has existed since the 1960s. It is one of our earliest free trade agreements. In my riding of Oakville, we make four Ford models currently, including the Ford Edge. Eighty per cent of the cars and sixty per cent of the auto parts manufactured in Ontario are sold in the United States. Thousands of jobs in Ontario depend upon car and car parts sold in the U.S. The auto industry knows what we know, that Canadian workers are reliable, hard-working, well-educated, healthy and productive.

This industry is totally integrated. I have a constituent in Oakville who runs a plant in Brantford, Ontario. They make engine manifolds that go to plants in the United States and Mexico. They are installed on the engines and come back to Oshawa and other parts of Canada where they are installed in cars that are then resold in the United States.

This is how far a free trade agreement can integrate an industry and create wealth. That is why one out of four jobs in Canada today comes from free trade. Canada has prospered mightily from free trade.

Our largest trading partner, the U.S., has been hit hard by this recession. Its debt-to-GDP ratio is more than double that of ours. Many of its financial institutions have failed. The sales of our producers who sell to the U.S. are down. The place that was our greatest source of trading wealth and jobs has now become weaker.

However, we have been overdependent on the U.S. market for years. The U.S. economy will recover, as will ours, but I have always wondered why the previous government, in 13 years, did not pursue more free trade agreements to lower that dependency on our American neighbours.

We now have a leader with a long-term vision for Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and a government that is doing that, working with our democratic allies to open doors --

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member for Oakville to refrain from using proper names of colleagues; it is just ridings or titles.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in November the Prime Minister went to Peru to pursue a free trade agreement with the Peruvians, and we are currently debating free trade with Peru.

We have also concluded a free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Canadian products will now go into these countries without tariff penalties. Lower prices will mean more sales in those countries.

If our American friends are not in a position to buy Canadian goods, for any reason, then perhaps people in Europe or South America will.

The most exciting potential is with the European Union, where there are 27 countries. This government is moving towards a formal negotiation with all of Europe, the world's second largest economy, at over a trillion dollars. With such a trading partner the dependence we have had on trade in the U.S. market will diminish. If the U.S. economy weakens, for any reason, as it has during this worldwide recession--in fact it started in the United States--we will have other avenues for trade. Canada will become more independent by trading with more partners.

There are serious concerns over the human rights record in Colombia, yet its current administration has shown it wants to improve human rights. As people's lives become better in Colombia, that administration will become more stable and it will have the time it needs to improve human rights. For example, it has signed the accord to follow the ILO, International Labour Organization, rules, regulations and obligations regarding trade and labour, as Canada already does. There are sanctions for countries that do not follow these accords.

Perhaps most important, union leaders in Colombia have said that they support this agreement. They have said this agreement would improve the labour situation in Colombia. Who would know better than they?

The most important principle is that people's lives in Colombia and Canada improve over time. By doing business with Colombia, we have good reason to believe they will.

Free trade creates prosperity and jobs. Ongoing trade dialogue and interaction would expose what is best about Canada to the people of Colombia who are in positions of influence in their society. It will take time. However, the people in Canada and Colombia who have ideas and are inventive and produce excellent goods would all benefit from this agreement, as would the people who work in their plants and factories.

Canadian companies will continue to lead the world. I think of Fifth Light Technology, in Oakville, where a brilliant engineer has developed a ballast for fluorescent bulbs and they can dim bulbs by operating computer-based technology in a factory in their large building. They are able to reduce the lighting costs in large facilities by up to 70%. That is conserving energy.

If this technology were to be put in every commercial building, in Ontario, for example, the owners of the company feel we would need one less nuclear reactor.

This company is a world leader. This is the kind of company that could take its technology to Colombia or Europe or anywhere else in the world and be ahead of everyone else, while creating jobs here in Canada.

This is an example of our future as a trading nation, taking what we do best in the world while engaging our trading partners in human rights and principles.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Oakville for his speech when he particularly mentioned that one out of the four jobs are somewhere else.

In fact I was also troubled when he mentioned that the Prime Minister, his leader, had vision when it comes to creating opportunities for engineers. That is not what we are hearing from business leaders.

Last week, our leader, the leader of the official opposition, met with the business people who deal with China and India. I can tell the member that every single one of them said the Prime Minister has failed time and again when it comes to dealing with the Asia-Pacific Rim.

Why has the leader of the member's party not made a single trip to those two emerging world powers, which are where the opportunities for Canadians lie?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Prime Minister is planning a trip to China in the near future. This government understands that China is a tremendous potential trading partner. We do business in China already.

However, there always has to be a balance, as our friends in the NDP have talked about today, between human rights and business. I was very proud when the Prime Minister stood up for Huseyincan Celil, a Canadian citizen who was imprisoned without apparent reason in China. In any discussion we have on trade, with any trading partner, there has to be an open dialogue and discussion about human rights at the same time.

My colleagues on the Liberal side of the floor have talked about human rights as well, so I think they would be pleased with that. There is always a balance between trying to improve other countries' economies and trying to bring countries that do not benefit from the rights that we do into a better position on human rights.

No one thinks there are no injustices in Colombia, for example; there are injustices in every country. But if Canada wants to influence events, the government of Colombia has said it will abide by international labour agreements and pursue better human rights.

We feel, and I think experience shows, that countries are more likely to listen to other countries and institutions if their economy has become at least partially dependent on trading with those countries.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to stop the hon. member there. I know there are other members who would like to ask a question.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised by the description of the auto industry by the member for Oakville. We need to clarify something important. The auto pact that Canada signed with the United States was actually destroyed by our free trade agreement with the United States, and Canada has slipped from fourth in world assembly to tenth. Subsequently we have lost further market share. There is an important distinction to recognize here.

With respect to the member's reference about the jobs to Mexico, they used to be done in Canada. The member might want to talk to the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex about the Navistar international truck plant in his riding, which is closing because the work has been moved to Texas. Even the government is actually procuring a truck deal for $200 million. It decided to allow that to be done in Texas instead of Chatham, sending those workers home. On top of that, some of that work has been moved to Mexico as well. I think that is important.

What does the member believe is going to hold Colombia to account when we have had another 27 union activists killed there, civil society members including teachers, and after we sign this deal we will have no stick to put pressure on the Colombian government for reform?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the simple question is what would happen if our trading partners do not agree and abide by their agreements. It is very important to note the worst case scenario. The annex of the parallel agreement on labour cooperation sets out a maximum fine of $15 million for failing to respect the obligations set out in the agreement, but I believe it is moral persuasion that will work. We have an ongoing relationship with Colombia that we are working on and which this agreement will help to establish. We will have a presence in that country. That is the best way to assess, on a day-to-day basis, the human rights reality in that country.

We can monitor sections 1603 and 1604 of the agreement, which refers to the United Nations universal declaration of human rights and its labour standards. That covers the right to association, free collective bargaining, and rights concerning the health and safety of all workers in the workplace. In fact, this agreement enforces two high standards. Colombia signed a free trade agreement and it is willing to demonstrate it will maintain those standards.

We are happy to support this agreement to make that happen.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-23, a bill that has taken on great importance here in Parliament this week. In many respects, it is a bill that announces to the Canadian people that the most unlikely of alliances may yet come into being. The Conservatives and the NDP are twisting themselves in knots trying to put the best spin on all their flipping and flopping.

Let us talk about the text itself. This bill has its beginnings in the summit meeting that occurred last November in Lima. At that time, the Prime Minister said “...free and open markets are the best way to ensure the global economy can quickly rebound”.

Regardless of what has happened between November and now, I and my colleagues would like to take the Prime Minister at his word and believe that he meant what he said back then. However, for those of us who have been following the government's approach to Asian markets over the last three long years, it could only be seen as an eleventh hour conversion. If the Prime Minister had always believed what he said in Lima, the last three years would have been very different. He would have been aware of other points of focus in international trade, other borders beyond Colombia and the Americas.

This was an issue earlier this month when my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, and I sat down with some of our key stakeholders in the Pacific Rim export markets. The fact is that the last time there was any significant trade negotiations with an Asian country was back in 2001.

In all this time, three governments have completed six free trade agreements with countries in the Americas. These deals were structured much like this one. However, with a little research, we soon discover that the Americas account for only 11% of the world's GDP growth, while Asia accounts for 42% at 2008 purchasing power parity rates. To make things worse, almost twice as many Canadians are from Asia as are from the Americas. Our focus is misplaced considering the strength of our cultural ties.

In economic times like these, we cannot help wondering how much better positioned Canada would be if we had actually engaged in Asian markets over the last three years, never mind the Americas.

Perhaps the Prime Minister was afraid that the more time he spent in Asia he would become less Canadian or maybe someone would run ads saying that he was just visiting his own country.

However, perhaps I should just keep the focus on the bright side. Here we are and the government is doing something at least to open up Canada's markets to the world. If doing something means Colombia, let us get down to it and do it right.

Colombia needs to engage with us. The past 40 years of its history tells of illegal drugs fuelling paramilitary groups in one of the most destructive conflicts in the hemisphere. The conflict caused massive displacements, murders and human rights violations. No member of this House is under any illusion about Colombia's past. Our task now is to shape its future.

Now we see that this the very issue of human rights abuses, the one that Conservatives used to explain their failure on the China file, is not the sticking point it once was. With this Colombia agreement now a part of a confidence vote, it is no longer an issue with our New Democratic friends either. This is quite a flip-flop for them, needless to say.

Just this May, they were saying, “The NDP is standing on the side of millions of Canadians who oppose murder, torture and human rights abuses. We oppose the blood that is on this agreement”.

I guess those millions will hear a different story from them in the coming months or coming days.

They also claim that this deal makes a mockery of human rights. For members of the NDP, I guess it is a better mockery of human rights than the mockery they make of Parliament, lying in bed with the Conservatives at the first opportunity. So much for empty rhetoric. Let us look at the facts.

As a member of the international trade committee, I visited Colombia last year with my colleagues to talk to the people of Colombia. We heard from experts, businesses, NGOs, trade unions and officials. Our committee found that there has been progress in Colombia since President Uribe was elected in 2002: violence and murders are down 50%, kidnappings are down 90%; union member killings are down 70%; displacements are down 75%; tens of thousands are being reincorporated into civil society from demobilized paramilitary groups; 92% of children are in primary school; and 30,000 hectares have been reforested. However, against this progress, paramilitary groups continue to violate human rights, environmental programs lack adequate resources and corruption remains a major problem.

We must ask ourselves how we can build on our progress and engage Colombia on human rights. The Liberal Party has always believed that economic engagement helps build Canadian influence on human rights. People on the ground in Colombia agree.

The United Nations told us in Bogota that Canada can use the agreement to promote dialogue and improve accountability on human rights. Human rights activists in Colombia told the committee that trade agreements are an effective means to pressure Colombia to live up to its international human rights obligations.

To sum up, the Conservative government is squandering the tremendous potential of the Asian market and spending all its time and resources in the Americas.

It is clear that Saskatchewan is the only province in Canada that had a surplus budget last year. The success story is that it is the only province that deals with other countries besides the Americas and that is where its goods and commodities are going. We should all be learning from that province.

With this deal, Canada must support Colombia's efforts to tackle the drug trade, security and corruption. Let us make sure of it.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with some of what the member has indicated about progressing with free trade in Colombia to address some of these humanitarian issues. However, I take issue with some of the comments made with regard to our attempts to negotiate free trade agreements with India, China and so on.

I have a question for the member. I would like him to take this opportunity to explain and perhaps defend his Liberal Party's position for 13 years where it was only able to negotiate a paltry three free trade agreements, when in four years our Conservative government has “opened doors to Canadian businesses by signing new free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru, Jordan, Panama, the European Free Trade Association states such as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein”. We have opened eight trading offices in India and are about to open six trading offices in China.

I would like to give the member the opportunity to defend the paltry three free trade agreements that were done in 13 years compared to our Conservative record, which stands up very well to whatever it is that he is going to defend.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that it was the Liberal Party that started the talks on free trade with the Americas.

The member can go to British Columbia or travel across Canada and business leaders will tell her that it was a Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who took business leaders to those countries to pursue business relationships. It is all about forming relationships.

In the last three long years, the member's leader and Prime Minister of this country has poked China's eye. He has made no positive contribution to develop a relationship. Relationships develop trade and that is where the Prime Minister is lagging.

Instead of asking me this question, the member should be going to her leader and telling him to make progress on that file.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the two parties are fighting over who are the better free traders in the country and in our history, when any analysis of the difficult economy we are in will say, and everyone is agreeing, that it is unfettered, unregulated free trade globally driven by greed that has caused the difficulty we are experiencing now.

The government should be engaged in how we should restructure our economy to focus on the domestic needs of Canadians. Perhaps we should be backing away from this discussion about free trade, getting ourselves organized and encouraging other countries to do the same so we can right this ship and move forward with some confidence so that at the end of the day, no matter what we do, everybody will benefit.

I remember growing up in the little town of Wawa where 1,200 people mined ore and sent it to Sault Ste. Marie where 12,000 people turned it into steel and sent it out to communities across this country where hundreds of thousands of people made buses, cars and boats. It was the advent of free trade that brought a collapse to all of those communities and has given what we see today, which is a very difficult circumstance for many working men and women across this country--