Debates of March 25th, 2010

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The point he raised is extremely important.

Some in business and political circles believe that free trade will automatically improve rights and democracy, but there is no way to verify that. Therefore, before opening markets, it is essential to ensure that Colombia, in this case, really has the political will to solve the problem. That is why there needs to be, in the agreement, a firm commitment to indicate that union rights will be respected.

Let me say again that the term union rights here means fundamental rights. It does not necessarily have to do with bargaining and certification. There are in this world as many types of union accreditation and as many types of bargaining as one can imagine. However, we must ensure total respect for the right to organize and bargain.

Again, that does not mean that it will be perfect, but a firm commitment from the parties is necessary and must be included in the agreement. The same thing goes for environmental rights, which are just as fundamental as union rights.

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

Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate the member for Joliette. He made a most interesting speech and gave us tangible proof of what he said with the story of a couple from his riding.

This bilateral free trade agreement should, in principle, be beneficial to both countries. We know that Canada will draw very few benefits from this agreement, and yet, Canada keeps bringing it back, insisting that we pass it.

Can the member for Joliette tell me why Canada is so eager to enter into this agreement?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Terrebonne—Blainville for her question, because it opens an opportunity to give the Canadian government an alternative with respect to opening the borders to trade.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports that kind of openness. It does approve any forms of protectionism that are extremely damaging to the economies of nations and the international economy.

It is quite clear, however, that this free trade agreement with Colombia is a legacy from the Bush administration in the United States, and the Conservative government, which was George W. Bush’s lapdog, is caught up in something it cannot get out of. It started something and now it cannot stop it, although in the United States it has been blocked in Congress until there are firm commitments regarding human rights.

Second, this follows the failure of the Doha round of negotiations. The industrialized countries tried to impose their agenda on the developing countries, particularly the emerging ones like China, India and Brazil. Those countries, with the support all of the African countries, did not accept our way of looking at development, since the industrialized countries would have been the only ones to benefit from it. In fact, we saw this in the previous round of negotiations.

Those countries wanted to find another way of negotiating other issues. Obviously, the developed countries, particularly the United States, but it is also true of Canada and Europe, overruled them. As a result, the strategy is now to negotiate bilateral agreements with the weakest countries.

Take the example of negotiations with Costa Rica. I have no idea what makes Costa Rica a major economic partner for Canada. Free trade agreements are being proposed with these extremely vulnerable countries, and this is a way of trying to surround the most promising countries for Canadian or American investors. It is a strategy put in place by the Americans. In fact, this strategy reminds me that Mao Zedong had exactly the same approach: he said that you had to use the countryside to surround the cities. That is what the Americans and Canadians are doing to the developing countries.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP about Colombians’ human rights and how this agreement would enable the paramilitaries and some Colombians who support their government to maintain the attitude they have adopted.

One of the attacks on human rights we do not hear a lot about is the attack on women. The government says it is important to end trafficking in women. In reality, Colombia is one of the worst countries when it comes to trafficking in women, because women, particularly indigenous or Afro-Colombian women, are vulnerable and come from communities that have been displaced because of development by mining companies or agricultural multinationals. Those women are therefore in a position of heightened vulnerability.

Once again, we see the hypocrisy of this government, which wants to support an economic system that will continue this kind of exploitation, this trafficking. The Bloc has often been taken to task for some of its philosophies in this regard. I would like to know the member’s opinion on this subject.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question, which complements my remarks perfectly.

These are indeed the most vulnerable groups. In Colombia, there are massive displacements involving aboriginal women. The ratification of a free trade agreement will further protect unscrupulous Canadian investors who may be doing business in that country. I do not want to paint everybody with the same brush, but we know there are some because complaints have been filed by humanitarian organizations.

In Colombia, certain cases involving Canadian companies were reported in the newspapers. This is not good for Canada's image and it is not good for Quebec's image. The Bloc wants Canada to be in good shape when we are going to leave it. We want to make sure that things are done properly and that there are laws in place to prohibit and prevent this human trafficking that we are condemning loud and clear.

In fact, this is why, in the coming weeks, the hon. member for Ahuntsic will introduce a bill that will truly target human trafficking. We are not going to do like the Conservative government, which proposes legislation just for show, just to look tough, when in fact the whole exercise is just an illusion, hot air and a smokescreen. But perhaps there is a connection between this smokescreen and powder in Colombia.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

There are only 55 seconds left for a very brief question from the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, the hon. member for Joliette said that the Conservative government looks like a lapdog compared to the U.S. government, as regards the free trade agreement with Colombia. I would like to remind him that, yesterday, the lapdog produced another little lapdog. Indeed, the Liberals are going to support the Conservatives to ensure that this free trade agreement goes through. I wonder if my colleague could give us his thoughts on this new position by the lapdog's offspring?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Joliette has 15 seconds to respond.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 15 seconds I will say that I am extremely disappointed to see the Liberals turn into quislings.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, we rise at second reading to debate among all parliamentarians a bill that deals with free trade. At second reading, parliamentarians are charged with the responsibility of debating the principle of the bill that has been put before them.

I believe all members in the House could support describing the principle of the bill before the House as one that engages fundamental principles of sound trade policy. That is what underpins this bill. When we look at the issue of sound trade policy, we ask ourselves what that means. What do Canadians want to be the underpinnings of Canadian trade policy? I would submit for all parliamentarians the three principles of sound trade policy are sound economic principles, sound environmental principles and sound social and ethical principles.

I would submit that all three of those principles have to be satisfied in any particular trade proposition put before the House if we truly are going to pursue a path of sound trade policy. I do not mean one of the three principles. I mean that all three of those principles must be satisfied. Let us consider each.

Let us consider the principle of sound economic benefits. If a trade bill put before the House does not reveal that it would be beneficial for the citizens of Canada and the citizens of the country that is the target of the trade deal, then that criterion is not satisfied and the bill ought to be rejected. If that bill before the House does not contain aspects to promote and sustain environmental practices that we all know are necessary for the world to adopt, but instead leads to environmental degradation, then that criterion is not satisfied either. Finally, if that bill raises serious social and ethical questions about violations of human rights and basic social rights, or if it contains measures that may exacerbate social inequality in either country, then that criterion is not satisfied either.

Why should we have those three criteria about sound trade policy applied in the House? Because trade is an instrument of policy. With our trade policy, we can influence. We can encourage nations. We can discourage and dissuade nations through the result of decisions made in this chamber. I do not say that our trade policy is determinative. We will not fix every problem in the world through our trade policy. However, our trade policy is a reflection of what Canada can do on the world stage as we take a position that might help make the world a better place in certain corners, or a worse place.

We can reward countries that are demonstrating positive behaviour. We can discourage those nations that are violating human rights, damaging the environment and exacerbating inequality. That is because, in my respectful submission, trade is not amoral.

Would Canadians want us to trade with South Africa if the system of apartheid were still in place? Would Canadians want us to trade with Rwanda if the genocidal regime were still in power? Would Canadians want us to trade with fascist Germany, if that type of regime was on earth today? They would say no. They would not want to engage, reward or give succour to those countries if those countries were pursuing policies that are dangerous, damaging and cause death.

Trade on the international stage ought to be, should be and must be a reflection of Canadian values. Canadians want our country to be a positive force on the world stage.

The New Democrats have always made those principles the cornerstone of our own policy on trade. The NDP would push for progressive, fair trade agreements that fulfill the following requirements: the agreement must promote human rights; it must be a win-win on jobs and raise the quality of jobs in both nations; it must raise Canadian standards of living and standards of living with the recipient country; it must respect and enhance environmental stewardship; and it must preserve Canada's ability to legislate and protect our sovereign areas vital to our own interests.

I studied the bill quite carefully in the last session and this session and I can tell the House that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as it is presently written, is contrary to all of the principles I have just enunciated, it clearly fails the human rights test and has only a marginal positive economic impact on Canada to boot.

Let us look at Colombia. It is one of the world's worst human rights violators. It is a renowned narco-state. A Canadian who does not know anything about South American politics will easily tell us that they recognize that Colombia is a major source of harmful drugs coming into our country.

It is a country with out of control paramilitary death squads and a country of gross inequality. Those are not just my conclusions. Those are the conclusions of a wide and disparate group of very respected international bodies. I will quote from a few. Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation have expressed deep concern that the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia has been signed without regard for the widespread and serious human rights violations that continue to be the daily reality in Colombia. They say that there is an ongoing and extensive link between state security forces and paramilitary death squads which continue to operate despite government claims to have successfully demobilized them.

There is an ongoing failure to bring the perpetrators of human rights violations to justice despite several high profile prosecutions. Justice remains the exception and impunity the norm, giving the green light to those who continue to abuse human rights.

This is not just last year's reality or the reality of the year before. It is carrying on this year as well. Most recently, these same groups have concluded that there continues to be the use of excessive force by state security against the mobilization of indigenous people expressing opposition to free trade agreements and other policies that they believe negatively impact their rights. There continue to be threats and attacks against land rights activists, particularly in areas of economic interest impacted by this agreement.

In 2008 alone, there were threats and attacks on trade unionists that increased by 16% and more than 40 people were killed last year alone in Colombia.

There has been an increase in extrajudicial executions by state security forces of civilians and there have been repeated public statements by President Uribe and other senior officials demonizing trade unions such as striking sugar workers, indigenous organizations and other groups that are speaking out about violations of human rights. Such statements have led to threats and violence, including killings.

Following critical reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in October, President Uribe publicly accused Amnesty International of fanaticism and dogmatism and the Americas Director of Human Rights Watch of being a “supporter and an accomplice of FARC guerrillas.

President Uribe also has demonized members of his own supreme court who were investigating links between politicians and the ruling coalition and paramilitaries.

The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights issued a press release in March calling on Colombian state authorities to guarantee the protection of human rights defenders and leaders of grassroots social organizations. It also urged Colombia's office of the attorney general to promptly begin an investigation into these events.

According to the Canadian Labour Congress, there are more labour activists and labour leaders murdered in Colombia than in all other countries on the planet put together. Colombia has 4 million internal refugees. This is a snapshot and a picture of the country with which we propose by the bill to engage in closer economic ties.

I want to talk a bit about equity. I did some research on the domestic situation in Colombia and two stark figures jumped out at me. The first is that 49.2% of Colombians live below the poverty line. Second, in terms of splitting up the population and their share of the wealth of Colombia and household income, the lowest 10% of people in Colombia have less than 1% of the nation's wealth, and the highest 10% of the Colombian population controls or owns 45% of that country's wealth. We are talking about a country where there is gross disparity between the wealthy and the poor and yet we want to reward that country by engaging and giving it the benefits of increased economic relations with Canada.

I find it interesting that when the government prorogued Parliament, it claimed that it did it, supposedly, to recalibrate the agenda, to consult with Canadians and to focus on the economy. When the House came back in early March, what was the first piece of legislation that it put before this House on any substantive issue? It could have been on any topic but it chose to introduce Bill C-2 on Canada-Colombia trade, a controversial and divisive piece of legislation and a rehash, by the way, of old legislation that was introduced in the last session.

I reiterate that the government could have introduced legislation on any topic it wanted. It said that it had consulted with Canadians. If so, it could have introduced a bill on jobs. Jobs are a priority for my constituents. We have a need for a national industrial strategy. We have a need for a green energy, green economic strategy. We need to create jobs in this country to help the working-class and middle-class take care of their families. We need to protect the environment and position our country to prosper in the global economy. Did the government bring in a bill on that? No.

It could have brought in a bill on housing. We have a need for a national housing strategy. My colleague from Vancouver East has put forward an excellent bill on this very subject that the government could simply adopt. The federal government could re-enter the affordable housing business. It could help create seniors' housing, housing for the disabled, co-ops, affordable rental stock and affordable market housing. It could have brought in a bill that would have housed millions of Canadians, which is also a priority in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Did it do that? No. It brought in a bill to increase economic relations with a murderous regime in South America.

Did it bring in a bill on child care? A national child care program is long overdue. My colleague from Trinity—Spadina has done excellent work in this regard. Many ideas have been proposed that the government could have adopted that would help working families, women and parents across this land. They would have helped to put Canadians back to work, because when we have quality, affordable child care spots, parents are free to go back to work. No, that was not a priority for the government.

The government could have brought in a bill on pensions. In the last session, the House adopted our motion unanimously in this House. We need to improve pensions for Canadians, strengthen the Canada pension plan, increase GIS and OAS, and lift seniors out of poverty. One year of the government's spending on corporate tax cuts would be more than enough to lift every senior currently living in poverty out of that condition. What did the government do? The Minister of Finance just announced that we will engage in consultations on pensions.

We get action on engaging in economic activity with countries that are killing their citizens, but we get consultations on lifting pensioners out of poverty. We do not need consultation in this country. This House has unanimously adopted a New Democrat plan that we put forward and that is what we expect a responsible government to do.

When the government prorogued Parliament and it went out to consult with Canadians and recalibrate, did it consult with Canadians about the advisability of signing trade deals with human rights abusers? Did it go to Canadians and ask them if they wanted to have a trade deal with Colombia? Did it ask Canadians how they felt about 40 trade unionists being killed last year? Did it ask Canadians if they wanted to get a little closer with those people? I do not think it did.

I want to stop for a minute to illustrate how we feel on this side of the House about this matter: Ken Georgetti, Buzz Hargrove, Robert Bouvier, Ken Lewenza, Sid Ryan, Paul Moist, Leo Gerard, Judy Darcy, Hassan Yusuf, Leah Casselman, Tom Dufresne, Jim Sinclair, Debra McPherson, Ed Frenette, Phil Benson, Darryl Walker, Wayne Fraser, Bob White, Wayne Peppard, Barbara Byers, Marie Clarke Walker, Denis Lemelin, Lorene Oikawa, Don MacLeod, Steve Hunt, Reid Johnson, Gary Kroeker, Irene Lanzinger, Andy Ross, Barry O'Neill, Amber Hockin, Kay Sinclair Kevin, Phil Venoit, Kevin Rebeck, Don McGill, Susan Spratt, Jim Pearson, Ivan Limpright and Cindy Oliver. Let us pretend those people were murdered last year in this country by paramilitary groups. That is what happened in Colombia last year alone.

I worked for a trade union for 16 years and represented workers when they had grievances in their workplace. I sat at bargaining tables with their employers, in the private sector and the public sector. We sat cooperatively around the table and talked about each other's interests. If I had been in Colombia last year, there is a chance I would have been killed. Is that the kind of country we want to sign a free trade agreement with? How would Canadians feel if those people I just named had been murdered by roving paramilitary right-wing groups in this country and some other country in the world wanted to foster closer relations with us? How would we feel about that country and how it regards our civil rights, our human rights?

My constituents in Vancouver Kingsway know about trade and the importance of relations with other countries. Vancouver Kingsway is a multicultural riding. Citizens in my riding come from dozens of countries around the world. Many of them are involved in import and export businesses of all types. I have thousands of small businesses in my riding working with other businesses overseas. My constituents favour building strong cultural, diplomatic, economic relationships with other countries because they recognize the benefits of economic cooperation. They know that we need to share our ideas and technologies, that we need to foster economic growth in developing countries and in our own communities, that we all want and have an interest in alleviating poverty, and that we want to build a global community. They know that trade can and should be mutually beneficial, but trade, they also know, must be done right and it must be fair.

Trade deals must benefit citizens and trade must never trump human rights. My constituents, and I believe all Canadians, do not favour giving trade priority over human rights. Canadians do not favour dealing with countries that are regressive as opposed to progressive.

The bill before us is a bad intentioned bill and it is one that would not be consistent with those values I just spoke of. Many countries in this world are showing improvements in human rights and many countries would see a real benefit to its citizen from increased economic ties to Canada. The government should be seeking out those countries. We should be fostering closer relations with countries that build the kind of country and the kind of world that Canadians want to see in our own country and our own world.

I would encourage all parliamentarians to put aside their partisan interests, look at the facts and join with all Canadians in building a trade policy that is consistent with the principle of peace, prosperity and respect for human rights.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with one thing the hon. member said, that we will not put human rights before trade. I think all Canadians believe in that.

Last week, in lieu of the concerns that we all have as we move forward, I hosted a round table discussion with Minister Adriana Mejía Hernández to actually discuss this and give us facts.

With all due respect, the Conservative Party was there, the Liberal Party was there, the Bloc was there. I personally invited the NDP there and found it insulting that not one of them showed up to ask questions.

However, my questions are these, because we must deal with facts.

The European Union is dealing with Colombia, that is, the EU with its 27 member countries. It has pretty rigid prerequisites for trade: human rights, et cetera. Some of its members are also dealing with Spain.

In 2000, there were almost 30,000 homicides in Colombia, and now these are down by 50%. In 2002, there were almost 3,000 kidnappings, and now only 213. They talk there about how the number of union members have increased. I could go on, but I just want to point out to the member that what he is dealing with are innuendoes, not facts.

We should go there, work with these people and show them a different way, a Canadian way, and help them overcome some of these difficulties that nation is going through.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that can be said about Liberal trade policy is that it changes from year to year. I was in this country in 1988, when his party opposed free trade. I was in this country in 1993, when his party, the Liberals, said it would abrogate NAFTA. Of course, when the Liberals came to power, they did not have any problem completely abrogating whatever they had said on child care and housing to get elected. They did none of what they said in those areas. Now the member is standing in the House today and saying he is in favour of free trade.

I think it is a disgrace for the Liberal Party of Canada to be standing and encouraging Canada to sign a free trade agreement with a country like Colombia. The member says the situation is improving there despite dozens of people still being murdered. Imagine if we had dozens of people being murdered in this country, or even 12. Would we say the situation is improving? There should not be one person killed in a country for standing up for his or her beliefs, for standing up for the basic human right to do something as audacious as wanting to organize co-workers in a collective way to deal with an employer. As long as one person is being killed for that purpose in any country, I say on this side that we should never reward that country with a free trade agreement.

I would urge him and his other colleagues in the Liberal Party to have the courage to vote against this bill.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my NDP colleague who spoke against the free trade agreement with Colombia. Obviously I share his opinion on this and I am proud to belong to a party, in Quebec, that shows great concern for human rights, as do many civil society associations, from both Canada and Colombia, that are opposed to this agreement.

I can understand that this bill would be brought forward by a Conservative government born from the right-wing Reform Party. However, to see that the Liberal Party is willing to support this kind of bill, despite all the fine speeches it made in the past, is something that is totally beyond me and that saddens me for the future of this country when I think that the Liberal Party is currently the official opposition.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this. How does he see the future of this country when the two main parties in the House seem to support this bill?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think what Canadians see is what we all see in this House, that the current iteration of the Liberal Party is virtually indistinguishable from the Conservative Party, in terms of major policies. That is, of course, when we can discern what the policy of the Liberal Party is, because it often takes contrary positions. The members contradict each other day to day and year to year and it is difficult to determine what they actually believe in.

I must say that the members opposite, the government, at least have the courage of their convictions and are actually consistent with their beliefs, philosophies and principles. I give them credit for that, however much I may disagree with them from time to time. However, the Liberal Party is completely adrift.

Again, by pursuing a policy indistinguishable from that of the government on deepening and embracing trade with countries that have horrible human rights records and terrible, deep social inequality is a sad testament to where the Liberal Party is today.

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

Madam Speaker, I have breaking news.

Just a few hours ago the Liberals floated this trial balloon of somehow letting self-monitoring take place, so that the Colombian government would monitor itself. I would just like to read the first of the press releases that seem to be coming in.

This one is entitled, “Liberals sell-out on human rights with amendment to Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement”. It is by the Council of Canadians, Canada's largest citizen organization, with 100,000 members, five times more than the National Citizens Coalition the Prime Minister formerly headed.

It says the following:

A Liberal proposal that would fast-track the passage of a free trade agreement with Colombia would put Canada at odds with international allies and betrays a parliamentary commitment to perform an independent human rights impact assessment first.

A council trade campaigner adds that:

The Belgian government today rejected a new investment treaty with Colombia because of ongoing and often unchecked human rights violations, and spying on NGOs by the Colombian intelligence agency. Incredibly, the Liberals are ready to ignore all this by letting the Colombian government monitor its own human rights violations.

The council also states:

The Liberal proposal flip-flops on a previous commitment...that the free trade agreement should not be ratified until an independent human rights impact assessment can be carried out first.

Carleen Pickard, one of several Canadian members of the pre-election monitoring group that went down to Colombia, states that:

Canada entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia now not only sends the wrong message to Canadians and the Colombian regime, it also may make Canada and Canadian companies complicit or passive supporters of continued violence in Colombia.

I would like the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway to comment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to express the gratitude of millions of Canadians for the fine work the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done on this file.

There is a fundamental lack of logic in the position that we should trade with known human rights abusers because we can make things better that way. If that were the case, then we would have no principles whatsoever when determining whom we are going to trade with. We could take the worst violator of human rights in the world and believe that we should start trading with them from the mistaken logic that if we trade with them somehow it will improve things.

Another grotesque lack of logic is that we can let a country like Colombia self-monitor. Talk about letting the cat among the pigeons. One simply cannot do that.

We talk a lot in this House, and I hear a lot from the other side, about responsibility and accountability. Well, to me responsibility and accountability mean that one put one's actions before one's words, that one puts up before one shuts up.

Colombia should demonstrate to the world over an extended period of time that it respects international norms of conduct. Then and only then ought it be considered as eligible for the benefits of a free trade agreement with our country.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I just want to inform the New Democrats, who of course do not support any free trade agreement, that this agreement actually requires the Government of Canada and the Government of Colombia to both author a report that will be tabled both in their congress and our Parliament on an annual basis.

We will be able to debate that report at the trade committee and actually hear from the authors of that report there, where we can question them and also hear from NGOs, civil society representatives, the business community and labour unions on an annual basis. This actually sets a gold standard for engagement.

Will the NDP stop misrepresenting this and calling it—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. I must give the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway a few seconds to respond.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the question by the hon. member is one that continues to perpetuate an absurd lack of logic.

This deal will open up Colombian territory to foreign resource extraction. It will worsen Colombia's refugee crisis. There will be no Canadian jobs created by this agreement. It will be a benefit for corporations, not workers. It will make things worse for workers in Colombia.

The trade unions do not want it. The human rights organizations do not want it. Civil society does not want it.

I wonder why the member is pushing so hard to trade with a country that is—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, today is March 25, 2010, and the negotiations between Colombia and Canada began in 2002.

On June 7, 2007, the international trade minister at the time announced that the negotiations with Colombia and with Peru had been resumed.

On November 27, 2007, a motion was introduced to study the future agreement with Colombia, and in April 2008, we started hearing testimony in committee.

There were two years of negotiations and several months of consultations between the civil societies and representatives of the Canadian and Colombian governments.

In May 2008, our committee had the opportunity to go and visit Colombia and conduct consultations there. We were in Colombia in May 2008 when we heard that the government had finalized its negotiations and would sign the free trade agreement. However, the committee had not finished its consultations. We were in Colombia consulting people. The trip was actually much appreciated by the opposition members, who were deeply moved by it.

It seemed at the time that even the Conservatives were profoundly affected. Every time witnesses told us about human rights violations, the displacement of people and killings, especially of union activists, the Conservative members seemed touched by their cause.

We also visited a small municipality where displaced people had gone. We had an opportunity there to hear the deeply moving testimony of people who had seen their fathers or husbands killed and who had been displaced by military forces, probably FARC, paramilitary forces or guerrillas. We could not help being very moved, because these people were talking about things that had happened to them.

I thought at the time that the Conservatives and the Liberals had been touched by what they heard. Lord knows how many times the Liberals have changed leaders over a short period of time. We know now that though the leaders may change, the ideas remain the same.

Returning to the Conservative government’s denial of democracy, we were in Colombia when we heard that the negotiations had ended and that the government wanted to sign the agreement. We know what ensued: prorogation, an election, prorogation and a motion to limit debate and not continue the discussions.

In actual fact, it was good that Parliament was prorogued again, because it enabled us to start the debate on Colombia all over again. We are not starting right at the beginning. Some members think seriously about these things, and their position has not changed because the situation has not really changed.

The NDP is against this free trade agreement for reasons on which the vast majority of us actually agree. The NDP tends to oppose free trade, but we do agree with the NDP about human rights, the environment and everything that could happen in Colombia.

I had the opportunity to meet President Uribe twice. Unfortunately, he failed to convince me that he was sincere. In Colombia, I found it hard to understand the high levels of public satisfaction with that government and its president. He was first elected in 2002. Thanks to changes made to the constitution, he managed to run a second time and get re-elected in 2006. He then tried once again to amend the constitution.

The French daily Le Monde wrote the following on February 27, 2010: “On Friday, February 26, Colombia's constitutional court invalidated a law passed in September and designed to organize a referendum which, if it had been approved, would have changed the constitution to allow the head of the state to run in the May 30 presidential election. This means that Alvaro Uribe, who left his mark in that country with his firm stand against FARC guerrilla forces, may not be able to run for a third mandate.”

There are some who are very pleased about that. Civil society and unions are among those of course, and also those people who have been suffering for eight years. In fact, they have been suffering for longer, that is 40 years during which they were caught in a corrupted system. However, members of the international community thought there was a real will to change things, including the Conservatives, who blindly believed this to be the case. The will to change things had little to do with improving the plight of the overall population and acting as quickly as possible. The president's goal was primarily to change the constitution and get re-elected for a third time.

Let me again quote Le Monde: “In July 2008, his government snatched from the FARC fifteen of their most valuable hostages, including Franco-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt. That year, some observers were even talking about FARC's demise. However, guerrilla forces have been gaining ground since and remain present on half of the territory.”

So, some efforts were made, but they were minimal and they only sought to project a positive image to foreign countries that, of course, President Uribe wanted to welcome to his country to engage in free trade.

Just to show the lack of seriousness of President Uribe, who said he was an angel and was doing everything he could to ensure that democracy would prevail and that violence would disappear, here is another excerpt from Le Monde: “The constitutional court decided to invalidate in its entirety the law under which a referendum was going to be held, said the president of the court. Before that, the judge had harsh words for this legislation which, in his opinion, seriously violated the basic principles of a democratic system. These violations included irregularities in the funding of the campaign to promote the adoption of this legislation, and also during the legislative process.”

We came back from Colombia in May of 2008.

We continued hearing witnesses and holding committee meetings and produced a report that does not really correspond to the position taken by the Liberal Party today. I would like to read a few of the recommendations made in that report, recommendations that the Liberal Party supported. I will not read them all, because there are a number of them, but I will read the main recommendations.

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada should not sign and implement a free trade agreement with the Government of Colombia until the Canadian government has taken into account the recommendations contained in this report, including those of the dissenting reports.

The second recommendation reads as follows:

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada maintain close ties with Colombia without signing a free trade agreement until there is confirmation that the improvements noted are maintained, including continued improvement as regards displacement, labour law and accountability for crime, and until the Colombian government shows a more constructive attitude to human rights groups in the country.

And the third recommendation states:

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada draw on the work of the organization Rights and Democracy to give an independent body the mandate to conduct studies regarding the impact on rights and the environment when it is negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, as in the case of the agreement with Colombia.

Clearly, what the committee recommended was not signing this agreement as long as there were no policies in place and no ongoing improvements in terms of human rights, labour rights, the environment and impunity, and until there was an end to violence and murders of trade unionists.

Yesterday we learned that the Liberal Party was going to assess the situation and that it might support us, but that assessment will take place on March 31 each year. How can we accept a government's claims that everything that is happening in Colombia will automatically work itself out as soon as we begin trading with them and have a free trade agreement? That is impossible.

The government should have used that to—I would not say impose, because Colombia remains a sovereign state—ensure that Colombia improves the situation for its citizens, maintains this improvement and demonstrates it.

The Conservative government has a plan for South America. At one point, it held negotiations with groups, but there is now a plan to move step by step, country by country, without no other thought than to take advantage of the situation.

I always come back to this, and it is pretty much my pet subject when I talk about free trade and globalization. On the subject of globalization and the actions of the multinationals, which moved pretty well across the globe in a mad dash, to whose benefit or disadvantage did it all take place? This is what happens in a number of countries. They exploit the labour force and the environment and often, unfortunately, even undermine human rights. This is blatant.

Now, imagine what it would be like if we could put a human face on globalization where all these elements were included in a free trade agreement and would provide the necessary tools or even give teeth to this agreement to ensure that people respected human rights, the environment and the workers, too.

But that is not happening. Why show this great interest if for no other reason than to develop a piecemeal policy to enter into free trade agreements with South America?

The United States signed the agreement in 2006, but never ratified it. It was never passed in Congress because of the human rights aspect. Just before the election of Barack Obama, I travelled to Washington, where I met senators and people from Congress. They seemed to want to change their mind, but did not do so. One of the reasons Canada wants to move as quickly as possible is to get the edge on the United States and negotiate tariff reductions that are more favourable to Canada than to the United States.

Statistics on crime in Colombia paint a very grim picture. In 2008, while we discussed the free trade agreement in committee, crime committed by paramilitary groups rose by 41%. The Conservatives, however, told us that things were going well and the situation was improving. Crimes committed by the government security forces rose by 9%. Despite the increase in crime, impunity remains unchanged. Only 3% of crime ends in a conviction.

Since 1996, 2,690 trade unionists have been killed. While murders of trade unionists have declined somewhat since 2001, the murders have resumed since 2007. There were 39 murders of trade unionists in 2007 and 46 in 2008, while we were hearing witnesses in committee. The Conservative Party said the situation was improving, when it was worsening. They said trade unionists had made progress.

Colombia does not have a legal framework to govern collective bargaining. On that point, about 95% of the public sector workforce is not covered by legislation governing collective bargaining. The situation is similar in every field, but I am sensitive to what the Colombian community is experiencing. Blindly signing whatever free trade agreement is presented is not the way to help them. We need to have a genuine desire to help these people get out of this stagnant situation and treat them as equals. Conditions have to be comparable and the agreement has to help both parties.

At present, we have the impression that the Canadian government wants to exploit Colombia. Colombians have enough problems already. I hope Canada will not make things worse.

In the past, we could count on the Liberal Party, which had genuinely demonstrated compassion and a desire to improve the situation in Colombia before doing business with it. The Conservative government said we had to hurry up because we needed to do business, to export and import.

The figures show that no free trade agreement officially applies, but there has been an increase in trade with Colombia between individuals. The fact that no free trade agreement applies has not reduced transactions between the two countries. In the normal course, they increase.

Some members of the committee have changed because the party leaders changed, but I recall that the previous leader of the Liberal Party was very sensitive to this situation. I think this kind of agreement would not have been accepted. The environmental aspect was important to him, and it still is.

There is also the human rights aspect. It is inconceivable that we would sign a free trade agreement without making sure that effective policies have been implemented. We must not act like Uribe and blow smoke in our eyes for a brief instant. It is known now that he will not be there any longer, so it is increasing.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, we now know what the government was doing while it was recalibrating after proroguing Parliament. It was basically cooking up a deal with the Liberals to support Bill C-2. Make no mistake, this agreement could not pass in the House if it were not for the Liberals' changing sides and cooking up a deal with the government to support it.

In 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken, but that was under the previous Liberal leader and the previous Liberal critic. There was a change of leader and a change of critic, and the new critic has been quoted as saying that Colombia has more robust labour rules than Canada does. I could go on. We have numerous quotes from the member.

We know that Colombian labour laws stifle workers' rights. The rate of unionization is less than 5%, the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere. It seems to me that the Liberal Party has turned completely 180^o in its position on this issue in the last year.

Could the member somehow enlighten us as to what is going on with the Liberals?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is asking me to enlighten him on some of life's mysteries and on some political mysteries that are often impossible to explain.

There are flip flops. A party gets a taste of power and at some point, the tide turns. And then the tide turns again and that party is left wondering what it would do if it were in office. It thinks that it can ill afford to be against the free trade agreement because, after all, it supports free trade and trade is important. God knows how dangerous that kind of thinking can be. I find it difficult to understand that kind of behaviour.

However, it can be explained by the fact that that party wants to return to power and has often acted a little or I should say a lot like the Conservatives. The Bloc Québécois made a lot of proposals to the Liberals when they were in office. It is strange to see that today, they support practically all of them whereas when they were in office, they rejected them categorically.

In short, life's mysteries are easier to explain than Liberal mysteries.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-2, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act at second reading. As members know, we are here hopefully to put onto the table fundamental facts, which should be driving the conservation and building up the case that, if this matter gets approval in principle at second reading and goes to committee to hear from expert witnesses, there will be a body of evidence coming from members here. Unfortunately, second reading is being used for something a little different, and that is unfortunate because I know there are many hon. members here who do have this kind of information.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member if he has anything to contribute to the understanding of the bill, whether or not he has any evidence that other jurisdictions that were discussing trade relationships with Colombia have had second thoughts or there has been emerging information that there is some reluctance now, and whether or not there are jurisdictions, in fact, that have announced they will not be proceeding at this time, notwithstanding what leaders of countries said. These are important factors the House should be aware of, and we should use this time wisely. I ask the member for his comments.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

To ask the question is to answer it, Madam Speaker.

By shying away from signing this free trade agreement on the basis of human rights, the United States are acting somewhat contrary to their nature. Some European countries have also done so while we were considering this proposed agreement. I encourage the hon. member and those who might not be aware of what transpired to read the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade and its recommendations. I am tempted to say that the recommendations received 100% support from the Liberals, but I could be mistaken, so I will say 99% support. I want to give them some leeway, because I am really not that mean.

I urge all members of this House to read this document carefully and, then, talk to their colleagues who came with me to Colombia and ask them what they saw there. The people with whom we met did not have any direct interests like mining companies or businesspeople in other sectors do. These were people who experienced oppression, violence and reprisals. It could go as far as murder, depending on what stand they took in that society.

In my riding, we have many people who came from Colombia. Sherbrooke is home to many immigrants. In fact, I think it is one of the cities in the region with the most immigrants. We have many Colombian immigrants. Some of my constituents have experienced things similar to what the hon. member for Joliette described earlier. There are also students from Colombia who are being constantly oppressed. This is still a reality in 2010. More often than not, where does change come from? From university students with a craving for justice and freedom, who are oppressed and under constant threat.

I encourage all members of the House to read the report. Through efforts in terms of international assistance to help the various sectors of activity dig themselves out, something could surely be done and a free trade agreement could be signed with the people seeking to be free.