Debates of Sept. 28th, 2009

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to my colleague's speech more than 10 days ago. He reminded us how bad the Canada-Columbia free trade agreement was for Canada and for Quebec.

This was 10 days ago, and not all of our honourable colleagues heard the speech. I would like the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to tell us again why he opposes this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her question.

Of course we are opposed to this agreement for many reasons. First, we know very well that it is not a free trade agreement that targets trade. It focuses more on protecting investments. Therefore it is an investment-protection agreement.

Furthermore, I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which travelled to Colombia to meet with unions, management and all kinds of social groups. They all told us outright that Colombia is a corrupt country. Last week Ingrid Betancourt was in Quebec and she told us that there are major problems in Colombia at present.

A free trade agreement that protects investments—especially one that protects mining companies—will not solve the problems and improve the lot of thousands of Colombians who have been displaced by these large companies.

Supporting a free trade agreement will not improve protection for union workers who are the targets of paramilitary assassins. For these reasons, my colleague and I, as well as the entire Bloc Québécois, are opposed to the signing of this agreement with Colombia.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague because he hit the nail right on the head with this issue. On this bill, the Liberals and the Conservatives are only interested in protecting the ability of capital to move wherever it wants.

However, when we raise the numerous human rights violations, the 28 or 29 workers who have been killed this year alone, not by drug cartels or violence and street gangs, but people who are organizing in their workplace, the response we have received from the Liberals and the Conservatives is that every country has problems, even Canada, but that the best way to help the country is to ignore the problems. Their response seems to be to ignore people who are being killed working in the very plants in which we are looking to invest. They tell us that as long as we allow capital to do whatever it wants without any obligations, somehow conditions will improve in Colombia.

Given the member's experience with the people he has spoken with, why does he think the Liberals and the Conservatives are showing no interest whatsoever in the killings that have taken place this year while this thing was being debated under their watch?

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

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

Why is that the case? When it comes to free trade agreements—and we know that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does not address any real issues—both the Liberals and the Conservatives have basically said that if we do more business with a particular country and that country generates more income, there will automatically be better redistribution of the collective wealth to support society's poor.

But it is not automatic at all. Quite the contrary. For example, the Americans have a lot of money in circulation, but they are still fighting for a public health system.

So it is not true that, if a country amasses more dividends and income, things will be better for people with problems and high crime rates like Colombia's will come down. That is what we keep hearing in the House, but I disagree completely.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise in the House today and speak on behalf of this bill; in support of my colleague the Minister of International Trade, who is doing an absolutely fantastic job on this file; and on behalf of our Prime Minister, who is espousing the virtues of trade around the world and doing a great job on the international stage.

I want to touch on something that is near and dear to my heart and near and dear to the hearts of my constituents: the agricultural sector. That is the part I will be focusing on in my remarks today with regard to Bill C-23. Our government is pulling out all the stops to help ensure that Canadian farmers succeed and to build a strong future for the agricultural sector as a whole.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is a strong example of how the government is working to maintain and expand markets for our agricultural exports. Our Conservative government has been working very hard to build new opportunities in global markets for our producers. Our government has negotiated free trade agreements with key markets including: Colombia; Jordan; Panama; the European Free Trade Association, including the countries of Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein; and also Peru.

During the constituency break that we all had just recently, farmers and producers, particularly in my riding of Wetaskiwin, told me how happy they were with our progress on market access and the initiatives that we put forward. We produce so much more beef, pork, grains and oilseeds than we could possibly use here in Canada. Because we are an exporting nation, it is absolutely critical and fundamental to our producers that we have market access and a level playing field for our producers to trade and compete on. That is absolutely vital to the producers that I represent. I am proud to represent them and I am proud of the work our government has done on this file.

The government signed the Canada-Colombia bilateral free trade agreement on November 21, 2008. This free trade agreement will strengthen our existing trade relationship with Colombia. It will provide Canadian exporters and producers with improved access to this very important market.

Colombia has been an important partner in agricultural trade. In 2008, Canada exported agrifood products worth $212 million and imported $297 million worth of products, mainly coffee, bananas, flowers and sugar. In fact, Colombia is the second-largest market for Canadian agricultural exports to South America. It is a very important trading partner indeed.

Canadian producers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on exports into Colombia. Many agricultural exports such as wheat, barley, lentils and peas will receive immediate duty-free status. That is very important. Commodities such as beef and beans will also benefit from immediate duty-free access within specified volumes. Canada is not alone in pursuing an ambitious bilateral free trade agreement agenda. Colombia has concluded similar agreements with the United States and is negotiating another one with the European Union.

Allowing Canadian agricultural exporters to remain competitive with other preferential suppliers to Colombia is key to maintaining a competitive sector. This free trade agreement will ensure that Canadian exports compete on par with exports from the United States to the Colombian market for products such as beef, beans, whisky, vodka and maple syrup.

To the benefit of our processors and consumers, Canada will immediately eliminate tariffs on nearly all agricultural imports from Colombia. Signing a free trade agreement with Colombia has also provided momentum for Canada to engage the Colombian government in substantive technical discussions toward lifting Colombia's ban on Canadian beef and cattle.

Step by step, our government is reopening markets to Canadian producers. This strategy is sending a strong message to the rest of the global community that it is time that their consumers once again enjoy our top quality Canadian products.

Our government looks forward to exploring new and expanded opportunities for Canadian agricultural exporters and farmers. As we move forward, the government will continue to consult closely with the entire agricultural industry regarding how best to advance Canada's interests. We are working with our trading partners to establish bilateral and regional agreements and we are working with industry, all with the common goal of building our agricultural trade and opening up new opportunities for our farmers and processors.

Opening and expanding markets around the world creates opportunities for our producers to drive the Canadian economy. During this time of global economic uncertainty, we have to maximize trade opportunities on the world stage. As our Prime Minister has said:

Canada will be watching how the United States implements the “Buy American” clause in its stimulus package, because it could quickly send the world economy from recession into depression.

That is how serious the threat of protectionism is at this time. That is why it is so important that our country engages other trading partners around the world. It is good for Canada. It is good for the partners that we trade with and it is good for their respective citizens.

Furthermore, protectionism does not help farmers or Canadian businesses, but our government's trade initiatives do. They help all farmers and all Canadians by creating jobs and long-term prosperity.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question.

We know that trade between Canada and Colombia is minimal compared to our overall trade with the Americas. Yet Canada has a great deal of money invested in Colombia, especially in the mining sector.

What is the real reason for signing this treaty? It is called a free trade treaty, which gives the impression that it is primarily about trade. But is it not true that it is designed to protect Canadian investments and that the goal is to create conditions that unfairly favour Canadian investments?

In fact, clauses in the treaty provide that, as in many other treaties signed by Canada with southern nations, investors whose profits decrease as a result of the adoption of progressive labour and environmental protection policies can sue the Colombian government and prevent Colombia from making social and environmental progress.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's question. He is asking me a question about mining after my speech primarily focused on agriculture. He wants to talk about mining and I would like to talk about wheat, but that is okay. I will answer his question anyway.

The free trade agreement that we are signing with Colombia is progressive. I always ask myself: Who do I have the most influence with? Do I have influence with somebody who is my friend, or do I have influence with somebody who I do not have a relationship with? When it comes to creating relationships with our friends, I like to think that Canada has much more influence with its friends than it does with people with whom it does not have a relationship.

Colombia is emerging. It is doing the right things. Yes, there are some troubles but these things have been overcome. Crime and killings are on the decrease. The government is getting focused on providing security and a safe environment for its workers and its citizens.

Canada is a model in the way we do business, in the way we conduct ourselves around the world. It will be great when Canada's influence in Colombia is extended through this agreement because it will bring further prosperity, further harmony, and produce great benefits not only for the people of Canada but for the people of Colombia as well.

Helping to bring people up creates more human rights and a better quality of life for all citizens involved on both sides of this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who has been tireless in raising the important issues around this free trade agreement.

I would like the member for Wetaskiwin to specifically comment on the fact that in 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that no agreement be signed with Colombia until the human rights situation there had improved. As well, the committee recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken to determine the real impact of a trade agreement.

This is in the context of the fact that indigenous people in Colombia are going to be affected by any free trade agreement. Appropriate consultation is consistently called for in Canada when first nations are going to be impacted by any kind of potential development.

I wonder if the member could specifically comment as to his views on this human rights impact assessment on the indigenous people in Colombia.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my comments in my speech were mainly regarding agriculture but if nobody in the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois wants to talk about agriculture I am fine with that as well.

The reality is that there have been some issues. Absolutely. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been asking many questions in the House with the precision of a frisbee thrown in a hurricane.

The labour agreement that is covered is a side agreement. There is an environmental agreement, a labour agreement and the right to freedom of association. That is a great improvement for the citizens of Colombia. The labour agreement would ensure collective bargaining agreements and that is a great thing. One would think the NDP would be solidly behind collective bargaining. For some reason those members are going to vote against collective bargaining.

The abolition of child labour is another great thing in this agreement and that is consistent with the United Nations declaration. Other great things include: the elimination of discrimination, providing protections for occupational safety and health and employment standards such as minimum wages and overtime pay. I have no idea why the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are so outraged by these things.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the former speaker's remarks, but maybe I will try to include those in the points that I am going to make today.

I would like to speak about four particularly egregious parts of this free trade agreement, and then I would like to talk a little bit about the difference between free trade and fair trade, which I think is an argument and a discussion that we need to have.

This free trade agreement really is a failure regarding labour rights protection. It does not include tough labour standards, and by putting it into a side agreement, outside of the main text without any vigorous enforcement mechanism, it is destined to do absolutely nothing. There are problems with that.

The second egregious aspect of this free trade agreement is a failure regarding environmental protection. The environmental issue is also addressed as a side agreement. It has no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. It is as simple as that.

The third egregious part of this free trade agreement is the investor chapter. I have been out on this and my party has been out on this for a number of free trade agreements, including NAFTA. This investor chapter is almost copied directly from NAFTA's chapter 11 on investor rights. The bottom line is that it allows companies to sue governments. That is dangerous. It involves the sovereignty of nations.

The fourth egregious part, and this is what the previous speaker was talking about, is agriculture and agricultural tariffs. Colombia's poverty is directly linked to agricultural development in a country where 22% of the workforce is agricultural. Now an end to tariffs on a number of Canadian goods could very well flood the market with cheap goods and could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in the agricultural sector of Colombia.

Those are the four aspects of this agreement that really cause me some grief, and I think cause the rest of the NDP some grief.

Let me talk about free trade and fair trade. What do I mean when I talk about fair trade? We hear this expression all the time. Fair trade is really trade rules and agreements that promote sustainable practices, domestic job creation and healthy working conditions, while allowing us to manage the supply of goods, promoting democratic rights abroad and maintaining democratic sovereignty at home. All of those are elements of fair trade.

Free trade agreements that we have entered into, and I have spoken back in my riding and in this House about NAFTA and softwood lumber and other agreements, really fall quite short of being considered fair trade.

The question remains, how do we promote fair trade? When we make agreements, we can have new agreements which encourage improvement in social, environmental and labour conditions rather than just minimizing the damage of unrestricted trade. Federal and provincial procurement policies should stimulate Canadian industries by allowing governments to favour suppliers here at home.

How else can we promote fair trade? Supply management boards and single-desk marketers, like the Canadian Wheat Board, can help to replace imports with domestic products and materials. Lastly, we can promote fair trade with local, community and individual initiatives to buy fair trade imports and locally-produced goods.

Why fair trade and not free trade? Fair trade policies protect the environment by encouraging the use of domestically and locally-produced goods. We hear all about the 100 mile diet and all sorts of things going on in this country. I have a large agricultural sector in my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

What using locally-produced goods basically means for the environment is less freight, less fuel and less carbon. By promoting environmentally-conscience methods for producers who ship to Canada, we can make a positive environmental impact.

By contrast, free trade policies, even those created with the environment in mind, do little to impede multinational corporations from polluting with abandon. The environmental side agreement of NAFTA, for example, has proven largely unenforceable, particularly when compared with other protections for industries and investors.

A system of fair trade that encourages the growth of Canadian jobs, both in quality and in quantity, fair competition rules and tougher labour standards will put Canadian industries on a level playing field with our trading partners and slow the international race to the bottom. That has resulted in the loss of thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs.

Free trade rules, on the other hand, have hurt Canadian job quality. Since 1989, most Canadian families have seen a decline in real incomes. Fair trade can also protect labour rights by fostering the growth of workers' co-operatives and labour unions.

Like the environmental side accord, NAFTA's labour agreement has gone mostly unenforced, giving industries that are willing to violate workers' rights incentives to relocate Canadian jobs. Fair trade policies which favour co-ops, unions and equitable pricing will protect workers in the developing world who might otherwise be exploited and take away reasons for Canadian producers to export jobs.

Fair trade rules would also protect societies and human rights right around the globe. Although some predicted a human rights benefit from unrestricted free trade, this has yet to be seen. In contrast, conflicts between locals and multinational corporations in such places as Peru have become violent. A fair trade policy that aims for benefits for all parties can protect the most vulnerable from human rights abuse.

Here are some facts about Colombia.

Colombia is not, in the grand scheme of things, a very significant trading partner for Canada. It is our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America.

We have heard before in this debate, from various quarters, about the problems and the violence that goes on in Colombia. I have been to Colombia recently and while things have improved in the last six years in terms of numbers, it is still a country where three people a day on average are killed by land mines. That is the highest in the world. It is a dangerous place to live and it is a dangerous place to work.

What we can do with a trade agreement is help to promote a country that is healthy and respects human rights. Maybe that should be one of the most important things about a trade agreement, certainly a fair trade agreement.

If we think about the environment, nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction. The rights of indigenous peoples are trampled upon. Many people do not know that the very southern border actually runs along the Amazon River, where many of the indigenous peoples in Colombia live. It is a very important spot environmentally and a very important spot for indigenous people and indigenous rights.

Almost four million people in Colombia are internally displaced, and 60% of this displacement is really in regions of mineral activity, agricultural and other economic activities.

I do not believe that this free trade agreement is very well thought out. I do believe that improvements could have been made. We could end up with, rather than a free trade agreement, a fair trade agreement, if only the government had the will to do so.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. I keep coming back to a fundamental question that I have not heard answered by the Liberals and Conservatives, who are supporting the bill. In the very year when the bill was being negotiated, 28 or 29 union activists were taken out and murdered in Colombia. That is a staggering number.

We are told that there are always problems anywhere. There are not problems like this in many places that we deal with as equal partners. The Conservatives and the Liberals tell us that the crime rate is dropping. We still see an increase in murders. However, overall crime rate is not the issue. The issue is a fundamental lack of human rights respect so that international capital can exploit certain resources.

My colleague mentioned four million displaced persons. We are not talking about a country that is at war, unless we are talking about a country that is at war internally. Of all the questions we have asked, I have never heard one answer from the Conservatives or the Liberals as to what they have done to raise these issues. They talk about side agreements, but what does my hon. colleague think about the difference it would make if the Conservative government said to the government of Colombia that it wanted to know what steps it would take to investigate the murders of union activists by paramilitaries? That would make a real difference for a change rather than simply rubber-stamping an agreement that has no teeth?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the big problems with this free trade agreement is that environment and labour rights are side agreements. When we have side agreement and we do not put them in the actual text of the agreement, they become largely unenforceable. We know that from experience. We know that through NAFTA. We know that through softwood lumber. We know trade agreements need to be strong on those elements. They need to ensure that human rights are not abused.

This agreement should present Canadians with an opportunity to help Colombia improve its record and to work toward a goal where we can work together and where human rights are not abused.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I have a question for him.

We know that the Conservatives and the Liberals believe that unionized workers in Colombia will be better off if this agreement is signed. However, I have looked at some statistics. In 2007, 39 unionists were murdered in Colombia. In 2008, 49 were murdered. There has been a 25% increase in the number of murdered unionists since negotiations on the agreement between Canada and Colombia began. Colombia does not seem to be putting a stop to this reign of terror against unionists.

I would like the hon. member to give me his take on the situation.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further statistic that 27 trade unionists have been murdered since January to last month. The carnage continues. It is difficult in a country where there are approximately 1,800 murders a year. That is not including people who are killed by landmines and other things. It is a problem Colombia has dealt with for decades and decades and indeed centuries.

I had an opportunity to speak to some government officials some months ago in Colombia. They said that this was a problem that had gone on for 2,000 years. I have been told that it is the oldest democracy in that part of the world, and this is nothing new in that country.

I stand and talk about fair trade and human rights to make the point that we can make a difference as a country when we enter into trade agreements with other countries.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-23.

I am proud of my party's position. I am particularly disappointed, however, in my colleagues from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. To them, a free trade agreement has become a panacea to allow globalization to take form and evolve. What they do not seem to realize is that if the agreement does not include provisions on workers' rights, the right to a safe environment and human rights, then we are in serious trouble.

Having examined the provisions in this agreement, I see that it is not actually a free trade agreement. I can say this to my colleague who spoke earlier and who is doing an excellent job on this file. We hear a lot of talk from the other side of the House, and on this side from the Liberal Party, about trade. It is very important. However, this is more of an investment agreement. When it comes to investments, we really want to protect Canadian investors and make sure that they do not become victims, for example, of nationalization. For instance, after they have invested their money, from one day to the next, the government could decide that the investments belong to the government from now on. We therefore understand the importance of reciprocity treaties between two economies to ensure that these things do not happen.

However, when it is associated only with doing business to the detriment of the environment, the workers and human rights in that country, we must put a stop to it. And that is the case with Bill C-23 before us.

When a government in a developed country, a western government like Canada or the United States, signs this type of treaty, it must ensure that it is able to put pressure on a government that does not respect human rights, workers or the environment. However, this treaty does not contain such provisions. The economy is given free rein. We are told that it will work itself out, and a side agreement or additional agreement will be added for the rest. Yet past experience shows us that this never works. It never happens like that. The free trade agreement is signed with a promise to add an agreement on the environment or on human rights later, but as time goes on any agreement is seen as so minor that it is not worth the trouble.

The Canadian government is therefore renouncing the carrot and stick approach. Such an approach would allow us to tell a government that we will withdraw whatever it was we were offering if it does act responsibly, and if things improve, we can tell that government that other things will be added. That goes hand in hand with Canada's vision, or the vision of any forward thinking society.

We therefore do not believe the argument that the agreement can be signed now, and the side agreements on the environment and human rights will follow at a later date.

There have been some problems. For example, chapter 11 of NAFTA is rather explicit. It covers a lot. I remind members that the free trade agreement we are negotiating is fairly similar to what is in that chapter.

The problems with chapter 11 of NAFTA have been pointed out; for instance, foreign investors could proceed directly to the courts without going through the government. When a government has a social conscience, it acts as a filter. It tries to ensure that any developments are fair and just. But in the agreements, the investors are able to go directly to the courts, regarding present or future investments, to dispute the fact that a government did not do its job and that the investor was harmed.

Suppose that there are children working in Columbia and we do not agree with this, but the investors claim that they earn more when they hire children, or when they ravage the environment, and that those things are not important because they want to increase profits. That is what it could come to.

There are also amounts for legal action that are not necessarily related to current investments, but that could be related to future ones. It will be a free-for-all. From then on, as soon as there are social or environmental measures that go against the interests of investors, they could take legal action. This was a problem contested and criticized by many people, and the previous government stopped including chapters that let the investors run the show.

Allow me to explain what I mean when I say that this is not a trade agreement. Usually, two countries that sign an agreement are on a par financially. But Colombia's GDP was $256 billion in 2007. Canada's was $1,610 billion. This is not the same level. Colombia is not in the same league as Canada. I believe that what the government wants is not necessarily a trade agreement, but an agreement on investments. Colombia has attractive mines. Investors want to invest in these mines. Therein lies the problem. Investors will be able to challenge more progressive social policies and environmental protection measures that the government wants to put in place. They will be able to challenge such measures in court.

Colombia's per capita GDP is $5,314, while Canada's is $48,000. What is in this sort of agreement for Quebeckers and Canadians? Nothing. It is not a trade agreement. It is an agreement on investors. Investors have a major stake in this type of treaty. That is why we are opposed to this agreement.

Colombia is a poor country where 47% of the population lives below the poverty line. Will this agreement improve the lives of Colombians? Will it lead to greater respect for the environment?

No, it will not. It will have a negative impact on our companies, because they have standards to comply with in the areas of human rights, workers' rights and the environment. And will we allow these countries to do whatever they want? They will make children work for 15¢ or 20¢ an hour. How will our companies stay competitive in the face of such measures and such lax standards? This is a negative step. I call on my colleagues to come to their senses.

In addition, there is an incestuous relationship between the famous paramilitary groups and the government. It is said that Colombia has become a narco-state. I believe it is true. Last week, I read that 30 members of the Colombian Congress had been arrested and that 60 others were under investigation. There is an incestuous relationship between the paramilitaries and the government of this narco-state. We need to wake up.

I call on my Liberal and Conservative colleagues to amend Bill C-23 and not pass it as is. We say yes to investors and trade, but not at the expense of workers, the environment and human rights.

I hope that our colleagues will take their lead from the Bloc Québécois, which has a very enlightened position on this bill, in my opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague, and I could not believe some of things he was saying.

Are we more likely to help Colombia or anybody else progress in their human rights record or their economies by working with them or ignoring them?

I have to point out something that the hon. member said. He seemed to give the impression that because the GDP in Canada is $48,000 and the GDP in Colombia is $5,000 that somehow it is unworthy of Canada to work with and help Colombia. I cannot believe he actually said that. The GDP in Afghanistan is about $500. By extension, does that mean we should ignore Afghanistan and all the things it needs and the help that Canada can bring it just because it is not up to our standard of GDP?

For heaven's sake, I cannot believe the member would say that.

I ask the member, generally speaking, whether it is Colombia or Afghanistan, can we help people better by working with them in helping to bring their standards up by entering into these kinds of agreements, or do we just ignore them and say, “To heck with you. You're not up to our standard. Why should we work with you?” That is ridiculous.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that this is not the first time I have opposed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. We often cross swords in Standing Committee on National Defence meetings because he tends to grandstand a lot.

That is not what I said. All I did was compare our two economies. If the parliamentary secretary really wants to help Colombians, he should make sure that the agreement includes clauses that cover the environment, union rights, workers' rights and respect for human rights. That does not exist in Colombia. That is the right way to help them, not by putting on blinkers and saying that it is all about trade, that it is good for investors, that everything is good, and that the investors and big companies investing there are like some kind of panacea.

The people I am worried about are Canadian workers and the workers and people of Colombia whose lives will not get better under this agreement. This is not the first time I have disagreed with the parliamentary secretary, and I could go on about that at length. Have things improved in Afghanistan in the last 10 years? I think not. This is neither the first nor the last time the parliamentary secretary and I will have differing opinions.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague from Saint-Jean's remarks. I am always surprised at how both Liberals and Conservatives always share the same perspective on a bill.

I would like my colleague to explain why the Conservatives and the Liberals are once again supporting the same approach, the same idea, and why they are protecting investors.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. They have the same view. This sounds familiar to me. I often say they are in bed together.

When this government started introducing right-wing measures, the Liberal Party followed it. These two parties have the same position on a whole host of issues concerning Quebec. What is more, they adopt the same positions, but not just when it comes to Quebec. The first time I noticed this was on Afghanistan. I heard this party say for a year that it would not maintain our presence in Afghanistan and that position changed from one day to the next.

The same is true with politics. When they feel like they are about to gain power, they do not want to move too quickly, they want to protect themselves. Today, in this matter, as with Afghanistan and many other issues, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have the same view. They are in bed together.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, and the two side agreements to that trade agreement: the side agreement on environment and the side agreement on labour co-operation. We know this as the Canada-Colombia free trade implementation act.

I think it has been said many times in this corner of the House that there is absolutely no way New Democrats can stand by and allow this kind of arrangement between Canada and Colombia to go ahead. This is a despicable international agreement to be proceeding with at this time, given the excesses of the government in Colombia.

We do not need to go any further than to look at the record of the Government of Colombia when it comes to trade unionism. The number of trade unionists who have died in Colombia in recent years is in the thousands. Even in this very year, 2009, so far we know that about 27 trade union activists have been murdered in Colombia. That is an incredible record of oppression and violence.

As we are debating strengthening our ties with Colombia and opening more opportunities for doing business with Colombia, I wonder how we can explain that to the families of people like Adolfo Tique, who was murdered in January, or more recently, Mauricio Antonio Monsalve Vásquez, who was murdered just last month in Colombia. What do we say to their families, as Canadians, when we are proposing to enter into this kind of agreement, establishing this kind of relationship with the Republic of Colombia when these kinds of excesses are being perpetrated against workers, families, the people of Colombia?

I do not think there is any way we can possibly justify proceeding with this kind of agreement with Colombia at this time.

There are some very serious problems with this legislation. I have already mentioned the failure on labour rights protection. It is without a doubt that Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries on the planet for trade unionists. They are victims of violence, intimidation and assassination by paramilitary groups, some of which are said to have links to the Colombian president himself.

There are no tough labour standards in this agreement. The labour agreement is a side agreement to the main trade agreement. We know that these side agreements are the least effective parts of such international agreements.

There is nothing in this trade agreement that would enforce human rights protection for trade unionists, for instance, in Colombia. In fact there is a penalty clause, which amounts to the ability for Colombia to actually pay for ongoing human rights violations. There is nothing that says Colombia has to stop the violations; it can pay a fine and those violations can continue. It is not a particularly effective mechanism for improving the human rights situation in the country.

There is also a side agreement on the environment that is related to this. Again, side agreements are lesser agreements. They are not effective. They have been proven ineffective. There is no serious enforcement mechanism that would force either Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. Some people have called this a smokescreen in the agreement, that it is not a serious part of what was undertaken in terms of the development of this accord between Colombia and Canada. It is something that leaves an awful lot to be desired before we would enter into this kind of agreement.

This agreement also includes the same investor chapter we have seen in NAFTA's chapter 11, investor rights, which gives powerful rights to private companies to sue governments. The private companies' interests are enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. We have seen this used to override the democratic interests of Canadians, for instance, when it comes to enforcing our democratic interests in our agreements in trading relationships with the United States. Now we are proposing to enter into a similar kind of agreement with Colombia, with all the extra problems an agreement with that particular country involves.

There is also a serious problem with agricultural tariffs in this bill as well. We know that Colombia has severe poverty and that poverty is directly linked to the agricultural development sector in Colombia.

If tariffs are removed, what will that do to the Canadian agricultural sector, especially to cereals, pork and beef? I—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. I must interrupt. The member for Burnaby—Douglas will have five minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

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

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to once again question the government on an issue of lack of transparency and lack of truthfulness on the part of the government.

During question period on April 21, my colleague for Malpeque and I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to clarify some information in a report that he had tabled on April 17. In the report that he tabled, he claimed that on July 18, 2008, the National Microbiology Laboratory had informed the Ontario Minister of Health that it discovered matching genetic fingerprints in two separate human cases of listeria.

Everyone knows that when the listeriosis crisis hit, 22 Canadian lives were lost. However, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health contradicted the report of the government and said that the information was in fact received on July 30 and not July 18 as the minister's report contended. We asked the minister to please clarify whether it was on the 18th or the 30th.

At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture claimed that the matters and issues had all been dealt with in committee. He said:

Mr. Speaker, all of these questions were answered in the subcommittee last night. We heard from both Mr. McCain of Maple Leaf Foods and from the CFIA itself...I would recommend that he review the transcripts.

I reviewed the transcripts, and there is no clarification there. I ask the government once again when, in fact, was the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health informed that the National Microbiology Laboratory had discovered matching genetic fingerprints in two separate human cases of listeria? Was it on July 18 as the minister claimed in the report tabled in the House on Friday, April 17, or was it July 30, as the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health mentions in his report of April 2009?

It is a simple question. Which is it?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the member opposite has not followed the hearings of the special committee on this very subject. If she had, the member would have a clear understanding of the timelines which were gone over at the committee.

We have seen some of the leadership of the opposition party on the other side failing to even follow what is going on in the House of Commons. I guess I should point out that the House of Commons agriculture committee has declined to support a public inquiry, so we believe the matter has been discussed at length.

I thank the member for the opportunity to speak to all of the positive action that the government has taken since the report of the independent investigator, which came out this summer. These investments that we have made improve our ability to protect Canadians from outbreaks related to food-borne illness. That is something the previous Liberal government failed to do as the Liberals continuously gutted food safety funding during their tenure.

Indeed, to restored trust in our food safety system, our government has studied and is acting upon all of the recommendations made in the reports of the independent investigator and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, as well as the respective lessons learned by PHAC, Health Canada and the CFIA.

The government has reviewed Canada's food safety systems and emergency response operations in the context of the outbreak and each of the lessons learned reports. The reports are detailed and frank assessments of what worked and what did not and demonstrate our government's commitment to a robust and effective food safety system.

Our Conservative government is responding quickly, professionally, tirelessly and effectively and has worked co-operatively with its partners during the outbreak investigation and the subsequent recall process. However, we recognize there are areas where we can improve, and we are acting on these. We are also moving ahead on all 57 recommendations made by the independent investigator, Sheila Weatherill, who was commended by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for her excellent indepth investigation.

Seventy-five million dollars is being invested over the next three years to immediately begin implementing these recommendations. Action will focus on prevention, surveillance, a detection and better response, including the hiring of 166 food safety staff, which includes the training of 70 new front line inspectors of ready-to-eat meats. It also includes providing 24/7 availability of health risk assessment teams to support food safety investigations, and implementing a national public health surveillance tool to improve detection, recording and analysis.

Already our Conservative government has made significant changes to Canada's listeria management strategy, including making environmental testing and reporting mandatory at ready-to-eat meat plants and reinstating end-product testing by government inspectors.

Food safety is a number one priority of our Conservative government, and we now have tougher food safety regulations than ever before. That is why it is this government and not the Liberal Party that Canadians can trust.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about how it is unfortunate that I have not followed the committee meetings and the hearings on listeriosis.

In fact, I have followed them. I have read the transcripts. The transcripts make very clear that the National Microbiology Laboratory discovered the human genetic code of listeriosis on July 18. I have also read the Ontario chief medical officer's report of April 2009 in which he clearly states that he only received the notification on July 30. I have also read the report that the minister tabled on April 17 in which he claimed that the National Microbiology Laboratory informed Ontario's chief medical officer on July 18.

I would suggest that the member go back and do his homework. It is typical of the Conservatives to obfuscate the facts and then turn around and attack other people. I suggest he does his homework. Maybe he and his government might want to tell the truth for once. Which was it, the 18th or the 30th?