House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was documents.

Topics

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on a point of order myself.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The parliamentary secretary is speaking on a point of order and I will go to the member for St. John's East once he is finished.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would merely point out to all members of the House that the unanimous consent was given to the motion that I introduced earlier today, and I want to again go over one line that seems to be conveniently forgotten by all members. That line is when I said we were seeking unanimous consent to table related documents, untranslated and without prejudice to the procedural arguments before the House.

I say that because for those who say we were compelled to produce unredacted documents today is simply not true. We produced those documents as quickly as we could. I would think my colleague would have been, quite frankly, happy to see the government produce documents as quickly as possible, but without prejudice to the procedural arguments.

We still maintain our position. The documents, at this point in time and perhaps into the future, will remain redacted where the government and the executive believe that issues of national security are at stake. We will always honour that, as we should.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

With due respect to the parliamentary secretary, he did not answer my question.

When he made reference to the copies being produced, was he referring to those that the Journals Branch was producing, or was the government also producing these copies?

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. In direct answer to your question, the PCO is also making copies.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct something that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said in terms of responding to the request of Parliament.

Last week we raised a very formal notice and request for a question of privilege to be determined by the House. The Speaker gave the government House leader and the government itself time for an opportunity for the ministers who were affected by this to respond to the House. That was a week ago. That was not a time limit allowed to see if the government could come up with some political stunt like it produced this morning in terms of making documents that were censored available to the House. These are documents that have been available for some time. The dates are in fact stamped on them.

I have had a brief look at the piles of documents. Some of them say that they were released in January and some were released in February, which I assume means released by the government lawyers, so these documents have been available for quite some time. If the government had any intention of trying to deal with this order, it would have been negotiating and discussing with the members of the House opposite on how to do that.

Do we have some sort of indefinite time for the government to actually respond to the question of privilege that has been raised before the House?

This is a provocation and an insult to the Speaker, to have been given an opportunity to respond one week ago today and we have no response, but today a political stunt, coming up with documents that are censored, that are redacted, that we never asked to be tabled before the House in any event.

The government has chosen to interpret this order of the House on December 10 as a request and an order to make all these things public on the floor of the House. What the order said was that members of Parliament be given access to an unredacted form of these documents.

It was very clear, in my motion produced last week, that this could be done and should be done, but the government refused to do it. What it is doing today, through a political stunt, is trying to avoid responding to the question of privilege and taking advantage of the Speaker's generous notion of giving it some time to respond. The government has not taken that time.

I would have expected, given the nature of Friday, when many members are not here, that we would have heard from the government on Monday if it had something to say. This is now Thursday and what we have is something he said in rebuttal this morning “here are the documents”.

If that is the government's response, we would look forward to a ruling from the Speaker, very quickly, as to the state of this prima facie case request of privilege, and we would look forward to having that happen very quickly. This is an insult not only to Parliament, but also to the Chair and to the role of the Speaker in Parliament.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Before I go to other members on the point of order, I would like to make one brief point. We have certainly been in a position to deal with the issue of copies and members and parties will have to decide whether that is satisfactory or not.

Regarding the contents of the documents, which were tabled this morning, at this point, the Chair is not in a position to comment on the contents of the documents. It terms of whether the documents provided were those that ought to have been provided, the Chair is not in a position to do that.

As all hon. members know, the Speaker is considering the questions of privilege that were raised last week. This is clearly an important issue. I am confident the Speaker and his staff are listening carefully to the points that have been made by all hon. members this morning and that those will be taken into consideration when the Speaker delivers his ruling on those questions of privilege.

I urge if not some patience, I urge members to wait until the Speaker feels he is in a position to make the right ruling in this case. As I said earlier, this is clearly an important issue and I am confident the Speaker is moving forward with all due haste on this matter.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, to seek some further clarity from the parliamentary secretary with respect to the documents that were put on the table today in a form that was clearly imperfect, could he indicate to us if Mr. Iacobucci has seen the documents tabled today? Has Mr. Iacobucci cleared those documents that were tabled today, or are we now facing a situation where there are two categories of documents? There are certain documents that Mr. Iacobucci will see and will be asked to clear and certain other documents that pertain to the same situation which will not be drawn to the attention of Mr. Iacobucci.

There seems to be a double standard here in the way documents are treated and I think we need to have absolute clarity with respect to what kind of documents these are.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government replies, it is important to mention that the House Leader of the Official Opposition brought up a very good point: are the tabled documents the ones that the government considers acceptable, and does this mean that we will later have access to documents that contain more information?

That is a very good question. The government's action demonstrates just how far it is from complying with the House order of December 10, 2009. I would like to repeat the order, which was very clear: “—the House hereby orders that these documents [which were listed] be produced in their original and uncensored form forthwith.” And now we are being told that they are redacted.

This is why the Bloc Québécois agreed to leave English documents untranslated. It agreed because that is their original form. The same is true for French documents that have not been translated into English. If the opposition is willing to make an exception and agree that documents be tabled in their original form, it is because it expects these documents to be uncensored.

This morning the government used the ploy of asking that the documents not be translated, in order to appear to be complying with the December 10 order. But the government was only complying with the part of the order that was convenient for it—not having the documents translated. I think that both parts are extremely important.

The opposition has shown good faith. Unfortunately, it seems that the government, with this act, has tried to react pre-emptively to the Speaker's ruling on the point of order jointly brought forward by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

I would like to add one thing. Earlier, my colleague from Saint-Jean quoted page 337 of Bourinot. However, it is important to read page 338 as well, “But it must be remembered that under all circumstances, it is for the House to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient.” It is very clear that it is the House that must decide. We can find mechanisms—the opposition is amenable—to ensure that the members can do this without jeopardizing national security. However, it is not up to the government to decide whether or not a document should be transferred to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan; it is up to the House.

Once again—and this has been true of the official opposition as well as the Bloc and the NDP—we are willing to negotiate with the government on the method. But, in the end, it must comply with the order of December 10. Today's manoeuvre will not save them from sanctions if the Speaker rules that this constitutes contempt of Parliament.

At present, there is nothing to indicate that there has been no contempt of Parliament. I would even say that this morning's manoeuvre, a base tactic, confirms the fears of the opposition and the Bloc Québécois.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you asked us to be patient. Naturally, the Speaker needs time and must undertake some consultations before giving a ruling. However, I believe that if we wait too long, the situation will deteriorate, as we saw this morning with the government's provocation.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, let me start with a quick response to my hon. colleague, the House leader of the Bloc Québécois. He seems to make the point, as others have done before him today, that the House order of December 10 is something that our government must comply with. I would point out to the hon. member and all members here that we are disputing that.

As I have stated on several occasions in the House and outside of the House, it is the government's position that we are complying with the House order, meaning that we are producing every legally available document. However, we maintain the position that national security interests, and documents relating to national security, and documents that may be injurious to national security will continue to be protected by this government.

The House order of December 10 did not even contain one reference to the concerns we have about national security. The House order of December 10 merely stated that all documents, without respect or regard to national security, should be tabled. We are disputing that. Hence, we now have a situation where the Speaker will be ruling on several questions of privilege regarding that very point.

What must the government, in the opinion of the Speaker, do in regard to the production of documents? This is a very fundamental question. It is a constitutional question. That is why the Chair will be responding in due course, once it has heard all arguments from the government. However, to suggest that we must comply with the December 10 order of the House is absolutely incorrect. That order, quite frankly, is under review right now.

I would also point out once again, in response to all of the arguments that the documents tabled today contained redactions, that all of the documents we are producing on a regular basis, the documents we have produced in the past and will continue to produce in the future, are being examined by independent, arm's-length, non-partisan government officials who only have two points of interest in their deliberations: whether or not the application of law is being followed, and whether national security provisions are being observed and protected.

The documents produced today have contained redactions. In the opinion of those non-partisan, independent public officials, redactions are necessary. Until we hear otherwise or other arguments, or other rulings from the Chair, we will continue to produce the documents in a similar fashion.

My hon. colleague, the opposition House leader, asked whether the documents we tabled today have in fact been examined by Justice Iacobucci. No, they have not. Justice Iacobucci has not vetted these. However, what we have stated and what is in fact occurring as we speak is that Justice Iacobucci will be examining all documents. His purpose is to examine the redactions to determine whether they are proper.

Therefore, the documents tabled today will be reviewed by Justice Iacobucci in due course. He will be advising our government, and in due course his opinion will be presented to the House for all members. However, it is an independent review by Justice Iacobucci, who will be determining whether or not the redactions are in fact proper. That is the argument we have been advancing time and time again.

Let Justice Iacobucci do his work. The position this government has taken is that redactions done by an independent, non-partisan group of officials are proper. For the opposition members to say they want to ignore all of that, to ignore 140 years of parliamentary tradition and demand the documents in an unredacted form now, without regard for national security, is improper, quite frankly.

We wait with great interest to hear from the Speaker on his interpretation of our position as well as the opposition's positions. Mr. Speaker, I agree with your contention and implore all of my colleagues to let the Speaker examine these arguments carefully and make a ruling. I am sure he will do it in a most expeditious manner.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question that relates more to the beginning of your intervention. After the leader of the NDP spoke, you began speaking immediately to give a few explanations. I would like to suggest that, although it was not your intention, perhaps one of your explanations does not hold water. I would like to raise the matter now.

You said there were no photocopies because the documents were not translated. But there is no connection between those two facts. It is true that the parliamentary secretary who just spoke asked for permission—and received it—to table documents that were not translated. But let us be clear: a document with all the text blacked out, whether in English or French, does not need to be translated.

The Chair, the institution you are part of, learned last night that the government planned to table documents today. Thus, there is no possible excuse, apart from contempt. All of the Chair's rulings are made in context. If I may, I would like to suggest that you consider the profound contempt this government showed for the institution of Parliament when it tabled such a large quantity of heavily redacted documents. This clearly violates the order passed last December in this House. Being the phonies that they are, the Conservatives said they had not had time to photocopy the documents.

Heaven forbid we should interpret your response to the NDP leader as giving support to the government's argument. I am sure you would never do such a thing. Exceptionally, we agreed to the tabling of the documents so that the government could give its reply. However, as Dimitri Soudas sends speaking notes to the government, it is changing its tune somewhat, so that it fits with what Mr. Soudas would have us believe in the halls of Parliament. Once again, this shows the Conservative government's contempt for this institution and Canadians.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I would like to respond to the hon. member for Outremont.

When I responded earlier to the leader of the NDP, it was my intention to make two points. The first had to do with the translation issue, simply pointing out that it was the normal practice that documents be tabled in both official languages. Because that was not done in this case, unanimous consent was required, and it was granted. That is one issue.

The second issue had to do with providing copies. If I misspoke, I apologize, but my intention was to reference the fact that unanimous consent had been given for the documents being presented in only one language. The subsequent issue of making copies is not related to that in any way.

I would also remind all members that it seems to me that the two central issues being discussed today, the first being what the government ought to do and the second being whether the government has met that obligation, go to the heart of the points of order raised last week.

As I said earlier, this is a serious matter. I know the Speaker is taking it seriously. The three points of order deal with those matters. It will not be possible at this time to deal with some of the questions raised this morning because, ultimately, those questions will be dealt with in the Speaker's ruling on those questions of privilege. I would urge all members to wait until the Speaker delivers that ruling.

If the hon. member for Yukon has something he feels he needs to add, I will take a comment on the point of order now.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that PCO was photocopying the documents. How many are being made available to the opposition parties, my party in particular?

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's question, I mentioned this a little earlier in one of my previous interventions. We are making sufficient copies for all opposition parties. As far as the timeline, all I can say is we are getting them produced as quickly as possible.

Documents Regarding Afghan DetaineesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It seems to me that each of the parties has had an opportunity to put their views and their positions on this matter on the record.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Quite some time ago, when we left the regular debate on Bill C-2, the hon. member for Welland had just completed his speech. At this point, I would ask if there are any questions or comments for the hon. member for Welland.

I recognize the hon. member for Elmwood--Transcona.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member for the Bloc and the member for Welland talked about getting behind the real reasons for this trade deal because we know Colombia does not provide a big market for Canada. There must be other reasons why this agreement is being pushed to the fore. The suspicion is, of course, that it has to do more with mining companies and big business interests than anything else.

As the member mentioned, not only is the EU withdrawing support from its deal but Britain has cut off military aid agreements to Colombia. In addition to that, congressional leaders in the U.S. have as recently as a month ago indicated to us that there is absolutely no chance that this agreement would pass Congress.

Since the Conservative government always wants to follow the United States, why is it trying to lead in this case?

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

My hon. colleague is right, Mr. Speaker. There is a certain group that believes there is an upside for them and that is truly the mining companies. They are in Colombia at the moment. We have heard a great deal of debate around how well they are doing. A private member's bill talks about a code of conduct for mining companies. It seeks to have them do abroad what they do at home, especially Canadian companies. I agree that their conduct should be the same in both places. Everyone should be treated the same.

As my hon. friend from Elmwood—Transcona said, it is quite interesting to note the number of countries around the world that have put up their hands and said not right now when it comes to free trade with Colombia. These countries are going to take a step back and rethink this. In the meantime, they have asked the Colombian government to basically find a way to sustain itself within its own house when it comes to workers' rights, the protection of indigenous people, the human rights of its population, its narco-trade with narco-gangs, and the paramilitary. When it does this and Colombians, as workers, ask us if we wish to enter into a fair trade agreement, then we ought to do that.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

Noon

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland has done a lot of fine work in terms of the importance of the agricultural industry to Canada. Given that a lot of his work has been focused on the way in which the Conservative government has not stood up for the agricultural industry in Canada, I would like him to comment on some of the hypocrisy that we have been hearing.

The government is asking us to support this agreement because it is good for Canada's agricultural industry and livestock industry, but it ignores the call for support from that industry on the ground. It attacks the Canadian Wheat Board. It attacks the Canadian Grain Commission. I would like to hear his thoughts in that area.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

Noon

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question and I know the member is doing great work on behalf of her constituents.

Clearly, when we look at the agricultural sector across this country, we see a business operation, a business model, that has the highest rate of bankruptcies of any business in this country. It is quite literally falling out from underneath folks who have been in the business of agriculture for generations in some cases.

The family farm, as we once knew it, has almost been eradicated across this land. That happens due to all kinds of things. One is the void of good policy that will help the agricultural folks in this country actually survive. However, what we see is a crippling of them when it comes to prices.

What has been held out as a policy from the government is: “We will get another free trade deal that takes us into another market, and that will help”. What we have seen in the agricultural sector is that as markets open up, the price for commodities goes down in a lot of cases and producers are actually poorer for that.

More markets does not necessarily enhance the agricultural sector in this country. Ultimately, what we need to be talking about is what the agricultural sector looks like in Colombia and here, and how they can be linked. There are things that we grow in this country that Colombia does not grow and wants to purchase.

However, to allow multinational agri-business into Colombia to drive campesinos off the land and destroy the family farm in the way that we have done here is not a model for prosperity in Colombia nor is it a model for agricultural workers in this country. Owners of family farms across this land who need help from the government, and need that help now, do not need to have more impediments put in their place. An open market in some places, wherever it is, including Colombia, that is not helpful to both sides in the agriculture sector is not a good deal for either one.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

Noon

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, in 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade passed a recommendation that the human rights impact study be undertaken to determine the real impact of a trade agreement, which the government has totally ignored.

Curiously, at that time the Liberals were in favour of this impact study under their former critic. Then they had a change in leaders, and the new critic, the member for Kings—Hants took over. Now we see a virtual marriage on this issue between the Liberal Party and the Conservatives. They are working in lockstep. We see no speakers from the government or from the Liberal Party speaking to this bill at all. They are joined as one.

Could the member explain why this has developed?

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Madam Speaker, the member's question is a very important one.

Clearly, what we see is the government and Her Majesty's opposition in lockstep when it comes to free trade. This from a group that at one point, as the member correctly said, was in full favour of the international trade committee looking at the human rights abuses in Colombia.

I know that to be true because I have had the great occasion to actually sit at that committee, not only to substitute but to attend on most occasions. I have actually witnessed the fact that members of the Liberal Party are no longer in that position, which I think is really a sense of how they believe in free trade first and clearly they are putting human rights second, which is really unfortunate.

At one point in time, the Liberals actually said human rights first and free trade second. It seems that what they have done is they have decided, as my hon. colleague has said, to marry their position with the Conservative government.

Now, when it comes to international trade, we see there is no difference between the government and Her Majesty's loyal opposition. They are indeed united as one. They are the same when it comes to trade deals. There is no different viewpoint. They are both free traders. They both say the deal is okay, we should go ahead and sign it, and we should get on with it.

They have not raised a hand in opposition to it. They continue to say that it is okay. That, from my perspective, and I know from the New Democrats perspective and from the Bloc perspective, on the committee is unsettling to say the least. What it really tells us is that they will put profits before people. That is really shameful.

What it should be about, what we should all be about, is not only representing our constituents, not only representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast, but indeed when we enter into agreements with whomever around this world, we should respect them and want them to have the things that we have as they want for us. They want us to have that shared responsibility, and that sharing and caring that we talk about.

I would look to the Liberals and say that they should respect the decision that they had before, when it comes to human rights in Colombia. Let us have the investigation first and say no to this free trade agreement with Colombia.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Speaker, we would rather not be resuming this debate on Colombia. I think the only good thing that came out of the prorogation is that this bill died on the order paper. If memory serves me correctly, this bill at the time was Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

The Bloc Québécois is still somewhat surprised—and so are many Canadians and Quebeckers—to see the Conservative government's determination to negotiate a free trade agreement with Colombia, a country with which we have relatively little trade. There are other countries, other communities, the European Union for example, where Canada would do equally well to negotiate a free trade agreement or a partnership agreement, as it is doing with the European Union.

Knowing what little interest the government showed for years in opening negotiations between Canada and the European Union, we are surprised to see how determined this very same government is to implement this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

The first reason why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this free trade agreement is the clauses on investment protection. It is rather surprising that, in the case of the free trade agreement we just concluded with the European Free Trade Association, which the Bloc Québécois supported, we were able to get a clause on investment protection for Canada and the member countries of the association. That clause comes from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and is traditionally found in this type of trade agreement. It ensures that in the event of a dispute between investors, whether from Canada or one of the member countries of the association, the countries negotiate the settlement and make their representations to the relevant tribunals. It is not the companies that do so directly.

I remind you that we are not opposed to opening borders—we have supported a number of free trade agreements in the House beginning with the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA—but to these clauses. They make it so that it is not the governments that are making representations, but the companies themselves, which can go directly before the special tribunals to contest the decision of a government to establish industrial or social policies or make other choices intended to improve the welfare of its citizens.

I also note in passing that only recently, pursuant to the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, it was not the American company that took the Government of Canada before the London tribunal. It was the government of the United States, which contested a decision taken by the Government of Quebec, in this case, and it was the Government of Canada's lawyers who represented the interests of the Canadian companies before the tribunal.

NAFTA was the first free trade agreement signed by developed and industrialized countries, Canada and the United States, and a developing country, Mexico. There is some paternalistic distrust on the part of the industrialized countries, because they fear that the governments of developing countries will adopt policies that could have negative consequences, in Mexico, on Canadian or American companies and investments. NAFTA provided, for the first time, these new kinds of investment protections. Under NAFTA's chapter 11 a company may go directly before a special tribunal to challenge a government's economic, social or other policies.

We cannot accept that, especially in the case of countries such as Colombia or Costa Rica. We also opposed a free trade agreement with Costa Rica.

There is no balance of power between these countries and an industrialized country such as ours. Governments like that of Canada or the multinationals are continually imposing rules on them.

For this reason alone, the free trade agreement with Colombia is unacceptable in our opinion. The Bloc works very hard to ensure there are no abuses in the case of NAFTA's chapter 11. Up to now, we have been able to prevent them, but the threat will remain that an American company will contest a decision of the Government of Canada. It would be surprising to have a Mexican company do so.

UPS already started proceedings against Canada Post because it felt it was facing unfair competition from the Purolator branch of Canada Post. Fortunately, that hit a dead end. Multinationals want to use this sort of clause for purposes contrary to the common good.

There is already good reason to oppose the free trade agreement but there are even better reasons: human rights and trade union rights in Colombia. The government can prevaricate all it wants but the reality remains. There are constant violations in Colombia of human rights, union rights and the rights of citizens, especially aboriginals.

I will provide a few figures. The U.S. State Department and Amnesty International say that another 305,000 people were displaced in 2007. In 2008, more than 380,000 people had to flee their homes or workplaces because of the violence.

According to the Human Rights Council, there was a 25% increase in the number of population displacements in 2008. The same organization says that 2008 was the worst year since 2002 for population displacements. Since 1985, nearly 4.6 million people have been forced to leave their homes or their land. The number of displaced people is estimated to be more than 3% of the entire population. Every day, 49 new families arrive in Bogota.

Aboriginals are especially targeted. They account for about 4% of the population but about 8% of the displaced persons. Colombia is actually the second worst country, after Sudan, for the number of people who have been displaced as a result of threats, reprisals and violence.

Would the Canadian government consider negotiating a free trade agreement with Sudan? It would be extremely risky politically and harmful to our international image. So it is very unlikely. The same kind of situation exists in Colombia.

Canada already only goes through the motions of denouncing the situation in Colombia. The danger of a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is that we would simply abdicate our international responsibilities and, even worse, subcontract immigration cases to the Colombian authorities.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak about a family that lives in my riding and reflects the situation in Colombia. A citizen and his wife had to leave Colombia because they were threatened both by FARC and the government. After quite a saga, they managed to come to Canada, where they both got refugee status.

Thirteen other members of their family are still in Colombia and witnessed the massacre of the Turbay Cote family by a former Colombian parliamentarian, Luis Fernando Almario Rojas. The family that witnessed the former parliamentarian’s massacre of another parliamentarian’s family is currently under the protection of the Colombian police.

Anyone familiar with the situation in Colombia knows that the existence of paramilitary forces and the protection of the Colombian police or of a specialized police force meant to protect witnesses involved in such cases can provide little in the way of guarantees. That kind of protection is cause for much concern because, as we all know, corruption is not unlikely, and law enforcement personnel can easily be bought.

The members of these two families, my constituent's family and his wife's, have been threatened. They went to the Canadian embassy in Bogota to ask for refugee status, but their claim was denied.

Like so many others, they went to Bogota because they wanted to get away from the people who were threatening to persecute them. They were from Caquetá. The Canadian government says right on its website that, because of political instability in certain regions, including their region, Canadians and Quebeckers are advised against travelling there. Something just does not make sense here.

I am going to read the warning because we should all be aware of the Government of Canada's own assessment of the situation in these parts of Colombia.

The presence of armed drug traffickers, guerrilla and paramilitary organizations, including the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the ELN (National Liberation Army), poses a major risk to travellers. These groups continue to perpetrate attacks, extortion, kidnappings, car bombings, and damage to infrastructure in these areas. Landmines are used by guerrilla groups, especially in rural areas.

You are also advised against all travel to the departments of Cauca, Caquetá [the department that the citizen I mentioned, my constituent, is from], Guaviare, Valle del Cauca (excluding Calí) and Antioquia (excluding Medellín), to the southern parts of Meta department and to the city of Buenaventura, due to the presence of similar armed groups.

That is right on the government's website. How can the government warn citizens of Canada and Quebec not to visit these regions because they are full of paramilitaries, guerrillas and criminals, yet be so insensitive to what these two families are going through?

The worst part of the story, and the part that brings us back to the free trade agreement, is that the excuse given by the government's representative, the immigration officer in Bogota, was that since they are protected by the Colombian police, they have nothing to worry about. However, we know that many people in the paramilitary forces cine from the police and have direct contact with most members of the Colombian Congress.

It could be said that the government has contracted out the security these people need—through an immigration officer—instead of shouldering its international responsibilities and allowing these 13 people to rejoin their brother, son, and uncle in Quebec, in Canada, in beautiful Joliette. They would undoubtedly be safer under the watchful eye of the member for Joliette. None of the Colombian refugees here in our region are afraid. But that is not what happened. Instead, Canada's responsibilities were sub-contracted to an immigration officer and, ultimately, to the Colombian authorities.

And that is what is happening without a free trade agreement. Imagine what the situation would be like if there were a free trade agreement. This tendency to avoid seeing a realistic picture of Colombia would be even worse and even more Colombians who are in danger in their country would be rejected under false pretences.

This is not a unique case, but it is a case I will follow through on. I cannot accept an agreement that is strictly for trade reasons, for investment reasons and for protecting Canadian investors, particularly a few unsavoury Canadian mining companies. I am not in any way suggesting that is the case with the whole industry, but we must be aware of what is going on in many countries. This situation is not acceptable right now, and it could get worse with a free trade agreement that will, in a way, legitimize the Colombian authorities.

The government's reply is that there are two parallel agreements being discussed here: one on labour rights and human rights, and the other on the environment. That is interesting, because it means that what the government is currently negotiating with Colombia has nothing to do with human rights and is strictly commercial.

Having two parallel agreements that provide nothing—we can be sure of that—but that affect areas that have nothing to do with trade or even protecting investment shows that the Canadian government knows this agreement has a much broader scope than a simple trade agreement.

I remind the House that these parallel agreements first appeared in the negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement. That was rather interesting. I was not part of the negotiations, but I was part of the North American Forum on Integration, a coalition that was following these negotiations very closely. At the time, we had a Conservative government. Its leader, Brian Mulroney, was a Progressive Conservative, but the approach was the same. We were told that NAFTA would not affect the environment or rights, and that it was strictly a commercial agreement.

Unfortunately for the Canadian and Mexican governments, Bill Clinton's election in 1993 and inauguration in 1994 completely changed things. Bill Clinton was elected by claiming that the North American Free Trade Agreement would be enhanced by agreements on the environment, union rights and labour rights. Paradoxically, it was the American government that forced the Canadian government to negotiate these agreements. I remember that the government scrambled to bring us to Ottawa to give them an idea of what an agreement on labour or the environment was. In fact, I believe Montreal is the headquarters of the environmental secretariat.

We made recommendations that were not implemented because these agreements have no teeth and are not binding in the least. We have the proof—we have been living with NAFTA and its side agreements since 1994—that these produce absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the many reports by the two secretariats indicate that there has been no progress, and that the situation has even deteriorated sometimes in Canada, the United States or Mexico. Once again, we should not see this as a paternalistic attitude. Canada and the United States have taken steps backwards in many areas in recent years. I am thinking of union accreditation in the United States and even in much of Canada.

We need agreements that are an integral part of the trade agreement. I would go so far as to say that they must be a condition for obtaining the privileges set out in the free trade agreements or partnership agreements, as they are now called by Europeans. Compliance with international conventions on the environment and the major conventions of the International Labour Organization must be included.

That is the direction being taken. The Conservative government of Canada does not understand this. In the United States, President Obama is talking about a second generation of free trade agreements that will include these aspects. That is one reason why the ratification of the free trade agreement is currently blocked in the U.S. Congress.

Compliance with major international conventions can take many forms. It is not a question of imposing a model on developing countries.

In closing, I will give the example of union accreditation. In industrialized countries, democratic countries, there are countless means of accreditation. The practice differs completely from France to Canada to the United States.

However, in each country, some pressure is put to uphold the right to unionize. It is not always effective, but it does at least exist.

For example, in terms of union rights, it is important to respect the right of association. I do not believe that a free trade agreement will move Colombia in that direction.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, as we all know, Colombia is among some of the world's worst offenders when it comes to respecting the human rights of social activists and trade unionists. In fact, I note that the vice-chair of an expert committee of the Belgian Christian trade union federation said that in the nine years he has been vice-chair of that committee on the application of ILO rules and recommendations, the only countries he has seen that are comparable to Colombia in terms of ILO violations are Myanmar and Byelorussia.

I am wondering if the hon. member would comment on the relationship between lack of respect for trade union rights and the extrajudicial killings of trade unionists in the country and trade deals.