Debates of March 25th, 2010

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with him wholeheartedly. He hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what I am referring to about the Canadian way.

We are a nation that respects the rule of law. We are civil society and we are described as a model in many ways. It is not good having this model only within Canada.

My father taught me one thing. I will provide the fish, but I want to teach them how to fish as well. This is what we are doing. We are going there to show them how we do things. I do not believe we should only keep handing out support. We will hand out support, but we will also hand out knowledge, the way of doing things.

The minister talked about the rule of law, the way we do things, and that is what it is all about. We are not going to do it by sitting here in Canada and becoming an esoteric society and saying we are good. We live in a global economy. We live in the global village. We have an obligation to the future generations, especially Canadian generations, to get out there and do the right thing.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the member and his party are supporting this bill so firmly. They must have some sort of interest in these activities.

The member said that there have been only 213 murders recently. I find that number shocking. More than 30 members of congress have been arrested in Colombia, including members of the president's immediate family. In addition, 60 paramilitaries are under investigation. These people under investigation work for the Colombian parliament. From 2007 to 2008, crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased from 14% to 41%.

One problem is the displacement of populations. The needs of the mining and agri-food sectors are the main cause of these displacements. What is happening to these people? They are not being properly relocated. They are being pressured by threats, murders and flooding. These people are being kicked off their land and mistreated.

How can the member and his party side with the Conservatives and support a bill that is bad for the people of Colombia?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. I have to be honest with him. I am not going to hide it anymore. I do have an interest and that interest is called what is good for Canada. It very simple.

On displacements, he is absolutely right. I guess he must have not heard when I gave the statistics, so I will give them again. With respect to displacements, in 2002 there was a number totalling 437,967 displaced people in Colombia. In 2009 it was 114,602. I am sorry that this is not zero. It should be zero, but find me one country in the world that is zero and I will ask it to please show us the way to do it.

That country is showing it is doing everything possible to address this horrendous situation. Surely we have an obligation to support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member referred to Colombia as a trouble spot.

The fact is the Americans, who the government tends to follow, had a bill before the Congress for three or four years before we had a bill before the House of Commons, yet it has not been passed. It was not passed under George Bush's tenure. It has not been passed under Barack Obama's tenure. In fact, it is not likely to be passed any time soon. Just a month ago Republican Congress people told us that this deal would never pass the U.S. Congress as long as the Democrats were the majority party in the United States. That is certainly going to continue until November.

Why are the Liberals facilitating the government in a trade deal that the Americans have decided they do not want anything to do with?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, this is Canada, not the United States.

Second, our system moves much more efficiently than the American's. We have seen the example most recently on the health care issue.

Third, President Obama has given guidelines to move forward on this trade deal.

Fourth, the Americans did beat us, as I mentioned earlier, on the Central America free trade agreement and Canada lost.

One thing he did say was that I called it a trouble spot. I agree. If it were not a trouble spot, we would not be having these discussions. We would not have the committee going indepth, hearing the concerns of witnesses et cetera, outlining and identifying concerns in areas directly to the president and down. He mentioned the fact about members of the president's entourage running an investigation. Find me one country that does not have some troubles and will call it Utopia.

Let us not take the holier than thou approach and say that there is total innocence. There is no total innocence in Canada, and there will be never be anywhere.

It is a trouble spot. That is why Canada needs to go there to do it the Canadian way, to show people the Canadian way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, my colleague and the vice-chair of the House of Commons trade committee. Does he believe the amendment we have proposed has the capacity to make a real difference, in terms of human rights engagement on a long-term basis in Colombia?

Gerardo Sánchez, the president of the apparel and textile industry of Colombia, has made the following statement, on behalf of the following Colombian unions, fibre and plastics, mechanics, soft drinks and beverages, fruit farming, sewing and embroidery, footwear, flower growing, energy, water, telecommunications, textiles and apparel. He says:

This procedure is welcomed by Colombian workers and we are thankful to the...Parliament of Canada for its position, because it helps strengthen a mechanism already in place that monitors and evaluates the progress in matters of human rights and freedom of association in our country, through annual reports to the...(ILO) and the United Nations.

It also helps our efforts, as trade unions, in [dealing] with the national government to adapt our legislation to the international standards...

Does the member agree with some of these union leaders in Colombia who see our proposed amendment as being constructive?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the critic for international trade, the member for Kings—Hants, is absolutely right. It is all a matter of monitoring. The recommendations speak for themselves. The fact is it would be monitored and addressed by both governments involved and the UN on a yearly basis. It is not just some paper that has been written, or an idea. It is an enforcement mechanism.

I will close with this. The fact that the number of unions, something which I outlined in the statistics I provided earlier, and membership in unions are on the rise is indicative of the fact that the country and that government is saying that it is not adverse to the protection of workers, child labour, women's rights, et cetera.

I believe it will go a long way with these reports. It is a statement of confidence, and I cannot thank him enough for that input.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House today, yet again in opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. This time it is Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I will say a word about the process. This is the second time the government has had to introduce the bill. It has been unable to pass it in each of the last two sessions of Parliament as a result of the staunch opposition to this agreement by the NDP caucus and by the Bloc, but in particular, because of our critic for international trade, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the House have been as keen to get the bill passed and out of the public limelight as the Conservatives have been. They know that when it comes to human rights, environmental and labour issues, this is a seriously flawed agreement, but their friends on Bay Street are pushing them hard to support the bill. Just as they have done on so many other occasions, they have completely rolled over.

In theory, therefore, the bill should have passed a long time ago, but the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has almost single-handedly out-organized them. Recognizing that people right across the country, and indeed around the world, are opposed to this trade agreement, he has built a coalition that will do anything in its power to stop this deal from coming into effect, and we in the NDP caucus have been representing those views in the House. I think every one of our members has spoken on the bill. Many of us more than once. We are doing it because the only tool opposition members have at their disposal to stop a bill from passing is to debate it until there is no time left at the end of the session for the bill to get to a vote. We have done that twice now, once in the spring session of last year and once again last fall.

Now we are dealing with the bill a third time, and we are prepared to go to the wall again. What is at stake is nothing less than the protection of human rights, environmental protection and labour rights.

Let me address each of these concerns in turn. Since we are on the eve of Earth Hour, let me start with the environment.

To the extent that free trade agreements result in increased investment, there are often corresponding issues of environmental degradation. This danger comes in one of two forms: a lack of adequate monitoring and enforcement of existing environmental regulations; and shortcomings in domestic environmental policies.

The issue of monitoring and enforcement relates directly to the conflict in Colombia. The Colombian government does not have an effective presence in all parts of the country. As a result, its capacity to perform functions such as enforcing environmental regulations is limited and business compliance with these regulations is low. As free trade increases investment activity, there is a corresponding increase in the likelihood of significant environmental damage.

The second issue is that Colombia's existing environmental policies and regulations are simply not sufficiently well developed. Environmental groups in Colombia point to the fact that Colombia has some internationally recognized environmental legislation and is a signatory to nearly all major international environmental treaties. However, they go on to point out that there was a struggle between two visions in Colombia, economic and environmental. Many sectors in Colombia have seen environmental laws softened or made of secondary importance to economic sustainability.

Much more work needs to be done to build stronger environmental policies and to strengthen evaluation and monitoring standards. For example, Colombia needs to adopt policies to protect sensitive areas and to guard against environmental threats. The Colombian government has not taken any steps to identify environmentally sensitive areas to protect from oil and gas exploration.

Similarly, the issue of deforestation of the jungle in Colombia to make room for large-scale agricultural plantations is also of great concern. Nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement completely ignores these facts and fails to enforce environmental protection. The environment issue is addressed in a side agreement with no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. The process is seriously flawed. It is just a smokescreen.

We have seen in the past how these side agreements are unenforceable. We just need to look at the North American Free Trade Agreement. There has not been a single successful suit brought under the NAFTA side agreement.

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

Our annual trade with Colombia is about the same level as with South Dakota, and it is actually smaller than with Delaware or Rhode Island. Compared to some other markets that are much closer, Colombia is not really a major player...80% of Colombia's imports to Canada are actually duty-free already, so the gains from free trade are probably not as great as they would be in other cases.

So why is this free trade deal such a priority for Canada? It has nothing to do with trade and has everything to do with investments. Since this agreement would contain investment protection provisions, it would help Canadian investors in Colombia, particularly in the mining sector.

If past agreements are any indication, the investment protection provisions in the Canada-Colombia agreement would contain provisions that would allow an investor to directly sue a foreign government if it adopts regulations that diminish the output on its investments. That means progress on environmental and labour laws would be actively constrained by the very language of the free trade deal. It puts the interests of Canadian investors ahead of any improvements in the Colombian standard of living. So much for the Conservative government's contention that this trade deal would actually encourage and facilitate improvements to human rights and environmental and labour standards.

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

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

Its message to the Prime Minister is clear: “At the June 2007 G8 meeting, you stated that the implementation of the recommendations from the National Round Tables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries report would make Canada a leader in corporate social responsibility. One year later, more than 200,000 Canadians told you that they want to see these recommendations implemented. Little has changed. Farmland, forests and water resources are contaminated or destroyed by some Canadian mining operations. People are denied access to and control of the natural resources they need to live in the just, dignified manner to which all are entitled...Standing with the people of the Global South, we insist that you develop legal mechanisms to hold the Canadian mining companies accountable for their actions abroad”.

Here is the line that the Prime Minister really needs to hear: “We're not going away!” That is the real political message. Faith groups, labour groups, environmental groups, indigenous groups and human rights groups are all not going away, and neither are we in the NDP.

Let us look at some of the other concerns that are germane to this debate. As the labour critic for my party, let me go next to some of the issues raised by the Canadian Labour Congress when its president, Ken Georgetti, appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on behalf of over three million workers from across our country.

In essence, he argued that the signature of a free trade agreement with Colombia would condone the country's deplorable human rights record and implicitly endorse the Colombian government. Rather than sullying its own image through its close relationship with Colombia, Canada should work to uphold its reputation as a human rights leader in the international sphere.

It is worth quoting Ken Georgetti at length, particularly since he addressed the question of whether the labour co-operation agreement provides for an open and robust dispute resolution process, which is the key to protecting labour rights. This is an excerpt of the CLC's submission. It states:

After close examination, we find no evidence to suggest that the Labour Cooperation Agreement, which accompanies the trade agreement, will increase protections for workers in Colombia. The CLC fully agrees with the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers' statement that:

“(T)rade agreements are not written to improve labour standards and there is little evidence that such agreements can become vehicles for the enforcement of labour rights.

While some improvements have been made in the Canada-Colombia agreement, the essential structure of the labour clauses found in previous trade agreements (the NAFTA, Canada-Chile and Canada-Costa Rica), FTAs remain largely unchanged”.

All of these labour side agreements exhibit the same deficiencies. First of all, provisions are found in side agreements rather than in the main text of the trade agreement. They focus on the enforcement of existing domestic labour laws rather than on raising labour standards. Enforcement mechanisms are slow and cumbersome. The dispute resolution mechanisms remain entirely at the discretion of the signatory governments. They are premised upon a model of political cooperation among the signatories and hence, the complaint process is not transparent as it should be and depends on bureaucracies of the parties rather than by independent or even quasi-judicial bodies.

The dispute resolution mechanism is in stark contrast to the rules established for disputes of investment in that the agreement offers no trade sanctions, such as the imposition of countervailing duties or the abrogation of preferential trade status in the event that one of the parties commits a violation regarding labour rights and standards.

Again, our long experience with NAFTA is instructive. Of all complaints submitted during the 15 years of NAFTA, all have ended with consultations among ministries of labour. Not one case has proceeded to an arbitration panel.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is different from previous labour provisions related to Canada's trade agreements in a number of respects. It contains a chapter on labour that is internal to the main agreement, as well as a separate labour cooperation agreement, LCA, or labour side deal. The substance of the labour rights and obligation is found in the side deal, not in the main text.

In less than 500 words, chapter 16 of the CCFTA sets out general statements and objectives with regard to labour. They recognize their obligations under the ILO and affirm that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing protections afforded in domestic labour laws. Other than that, the labour chapter simply states that parties will obey their own labour laws and will administer the labour cooperation agreement.

In article 1 of the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement, the parties agree to ensure their laws embody ILO principles. The LCA begins by affirming the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, while two commitments refer to the ILO's decent work provisions. This is an important improvement over previous LCAs. However, the obligations outlined in article 1 do not compel governments to make specific improvements in labour law. Rather these basic commitments are basically a statement of good intentions.

In acknowledging basic ILO obligations, the side agreement goes beyond the NAFTA generation of labour provisions. Because Canada and Colombia are already obliged to follow these principles due to their membership in the ILO, however, this is not a particularly laudatory advance. As described in the ILO's follow-up report:

[According to the declaration] all Members, even if they have not ratified the Conventions in question, have an obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those Conventions, namely: (a) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; (b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; (c) the effective abolition of child labour; and (d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

The parties agree that they will not waive labour laws in order to encourage trade or investment. This is a positive step. The problem, however, is that the word investment is deleted in all subsequent references to this goal in the complaints process. In other words, the LCA will not pursue a complaint that the labour law was not applied in order to encourage international investment. As well, the article allows the parties to waive labour laws for any other reason.

Neither is an egregious one time violation of the commitment to enforce labour law subject to sanction. Even if a party is charged with not enforcing its labour law repeatedly, or in a systematic way, then it is acceptable for that party to defend itself by saying it simply decided to allocate resources to some other pressing labour need. Thus it shall not be considered in violation of the agreement and complaints can be dropped.

Articles of the LCA provide for submission, acceptance and review of public communications, which may lead to ministerial consultations between the parties. A review panel may be requested, not by the complainant but by the other party and then convened.

If it considers that the matter is trade related and the party under review has failed to comply with its obligations under the agreement a report is issued. If a party refuses to comply with the report, the panel may then impose a monetary assessment of not more than $15 million U.S. annually, which is paid into a fund to be expended on appropriate labour initiatives in the territory of the party that was subject of the review.

This is the only penalty for labour rights violations under the agreement. To paraphrase, the shocking reality is that in the event of the murder of a trade unionist in Colombia, labour protection simply means that the Colombian government would have to pay money into a development fund. Kill a trade unionist, pay a fine.

Over 2,200 labour activists have been murdered since 1991 and the hunt for trade unionists in Colombia will go on if the price is right. Such is the Conservative government's concept of labour protection.

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

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

For all of those reasons the Canadian labour movement believes that the labour side deal will not guarantee labour rights and freedoms because even the weak laws that do exist are not enforced nor will they be enforced as a result of this labour co-operation agreement.

Labour rights are not respected. Workers are not protected. There is a lack of social dialogue and violence is being used deliberately against the trade union movement to eliminate it as an effective defender of workers' rights.

The labour side deal provides no enforceable rights for workers. It is subordinated to the main text of the agreement. There are no mechanisms for independent action by trade unionists and the offending governments have wide sway over what happens in any proceedings that are brought by the other party.

Simply issuing a fine when other trade and investment conflicts are dealt with in all seriousness through investor-state arbitrations, judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, and the party-to-party dispute resolution system, indicates the cynicism embedded in this agreement.

To the question of whether the labour co-operation agreement would be considered an historical advance in defence of workers' rights, the CLC clearly says that it is not.

I know that my time is winding up and I have not even had a chance to address the myriad of other well documented human rights abuses whose victims are primarily human rights advocates, journalists, indigenous people, Afro-Colombians and, as I said earlier, members of unions.

Such abuse is rampant in Colombia. Let me paint a quick picture of what is happening in Colombia. The Uribe Colombian government has one of the worse human rights records in the world. There are 3.8 million internally displaced people, 57% of which are women. The UN calls this the worst humanitarian disaster in the western hemisphere, and it is growing. Nine hundred and fifty-five cases of extrajudicial executions by the army over the last five years have been documented, and the numbers are rising.

Colombian soldiers are accused of executing peasants in rural areas and passing them off as leftist rebels killed in combat, a practice that is known there as false positives.

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

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

Given our knowledge of what is happening in Colombia, it is essential that Canada wield a stick to encourage improvement in Colombia rather than offering Colombia rewards. Rejecting the free trade deal would send a strong signal to the Colombian government that human rights are a vital key to gaining legitimacy in the international sphere.

At a minimum, before ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia, we must develop and implement a human rights impact assessment to ensure that there are binding and enforceable protections for labour and human rights within the framework of fair trade.

In fact, both the Canadian and Colombian governments should welcome such an independent and impartial assessment, after all, they claim that conditions have improved and human rights violations have decreased. However, in reality they know that the situation in Colombia would never pass such scrutiny and, if they know that, they must stand in the House and vote against the free trade deal between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about something that was mentioned earlier and peaked my interest. Dr. Jorge Rojas Rodriguez is a civil society leader in Colombia and president of the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement. He says succinctly that “this proposal sends a strong political message to Colombia about Canada's interest in seeing the human rights situation improve in the coming year”.

He also points out on several occasions where a civil society in preparation for this innovative proposal, he calls it innovative, believes the amendments have the potential to set an important precedent for free trade agreements, but he also links that to the improving of human rights in this particular situation.

Dr. Leon Valencia says much the same thing. He says:

This will provide an important yearly forum to discuss the situation in Colombia, and will give Canadian citizens the opportunity to monitor human rights violations in our country.

I sincerely ask what is so wrong about what these people are saying that compels the member to shut down the negotiations and to call off this agreement, which many people feel could be the vanguard toward better relations with Colombia, in much the same way that some people will say that with China we have also improved the record there as well through initiatives around free trade?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really welcome this question because the plan that the member just asked me about is the Liberal amendment to the bill that is before the House. What that amendment suggests is that both parties need to table reports here in Parliament so we can debate whether the “conditions” of this trade agreement are being met.

I know that my Liberal colleague loves such reports but I also know that the Conservative members in the House love those report cards even more, because they laughed themselves silly when the Liberal leader said that he would issue a report card on the Prime Minister. Nobody in the House took those reports seriously, and that is what is wrong with the Liberal amendment.

We do not need report cards. We need action. We cannot say that we will let the abuses happen and then we will report on them after, then we will think about them and see how we can improve them. We need action now. The human rights abuses need to be stopped before they happen. This trade agreement is flawed because it exacerbates those tensions, those issues in Colombia, and we need to take action to stop them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that ridicule never killed anyone, because this House would sustain numerous losses.

I have heard the Liberals talk about an amendment to monitor the human rights situation in Colombia. Since we started talking about this agreement—over the past few years, three years at least—the human rights situation in Colombia has not improved, it has deteriorated. Now, they are saying they want to sign the agreement and monitor the human rights situation, as if monitoring the situation was going to make things better.

I find the amendment the Liberals are about to put forward completely ridiculous. As media reports and various situations show, increasing numbers of trade unionists are being murdered and entire populations are being displaced.

I would like to hear my colleague on that.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member. Either we believe in human rights or we do not, and to suggest, as my Liberal and Conservative colleagues have, that human rights are getting a little bit better is like saying that somebody is a little bit pregnant. Either we believe in human rights or we do not.

If the Liberal and Conservative members are so sure that their perspective on human rights in Colombia would stand up to scrutiny, then why would they not agree at the front end to implement a human rights impact assessment so that we know exactly what is happening in an objective way, instead of statistics that are being thrown about here with absolutely no validators to support an agreement that is seriously flawed.

It is not just the Bloc and New Democrats who are saying that. People who have been on the ground, like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and unions from across this country, including the CLC which represents over three million workers, have all arrived at the same conclusion. People might say that I am wrong but I would suggest that those groups are definitely not.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that my colleague from Hamilton Mountain is our labour critic, I know we can depend on her to bring labour issues forward. She has talked about environmental and labour laws. She has talked about no trade sanctions for violations and for a waiver of labour laws.

She also talked about NAFTA, which is the one I want to touch base on. The results of what happened with NAFTA have created a lot of problems for Canadian industries and companies. I was at the Cattlemen's Association dinner reception last night. They indicated that they were not against trade deals but that they wanted to see fair trade deals. They did not want to see what happened with NAFTA.

Could my colleague advise us as to what the biggest import is from Colombia into Canada at this point?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed that reception last night with the cattlemen. I am really glad that my colleague had the opportunity to go. I am pleased that she is asking this question because much of the argument here, particularly on the government side, has been about the need for this improved trade relationship.

In reality, if we were to unravel the agreement, we would see that what is coming into Canada is beef and grain. Some Canadians who are watching today may think we have plenty of beef and grain of our own and that we do not need a free trade agreement with Colombia. What is really at stake is not trade at all. It is not about beef and grain. It is about Canadian corporations having the right to invest in mining operations in Colombia, which is why we are so worried about the displacement of indigenous people and Afro-Colombians, and about the degradation of the environment.

Canadians are profoundly worried about corporate social responsibility and the government's inaction on those important issues. People are rallying together around what is happening in the global south and this trade agreement does absolutely nothing to enhance those objectives.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the member and her colleagues have mentioned the labour agreements that have been agreed to here. Just yesterday I noticed that the government tabled a prospective free trade agreement with Jordan that also includes parallel agreements regarding labour.

Some of the things that interest me very much would be workers' compensation and the like. She takes specific aim at these measures, not just the specific measures but also outside of this agreement. Yesterday, one of her colleagues mentioned including this within the text of the free trade agreement.

I am assuming what she means is that it will have a far more beneficial effect, but does she know of a free trade agreement that does that? In essence, how would that be more powerful than the parallel agreements we speak of here?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the side agreement is completely inadequate on its own. Moving that inadequate side agreement into the main agreement would do absolutely nothing. If we are serious about protecting labour rights, we need to have that comprehensively addressed in any trade agreement that we sign.

More important, it is not just what we have on paper. As part of that, we need to set up a mechanism for enforcement, otherwise those rights are not worth the paper they are written on. From that perspective, as I just spent 20 minutes talking about, this agreement between Canada and Colombia is seriously flawed.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken to Bill C-2.

I sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade, and before the agreement was signed I was also in Colombia as part of a delegation to meet with unions, various NGOs, women's groups, labour groups, businesses and members of the government, in order to assess whether this agreement was valid or not.

At the time, it was the Standing Committee on International Trade that was studying this agreement. The government sent us to Colombia at great expense to observe the situation. However, before we could issue our report and recommendations, following our meetings with members of the government, unions, labour representatives and various groups involved, the government signed the agreement. It is unbelievable.

I was truly shocked to see that a government could be so irresponsible and waste public money that way. Sending a delegation of members of Parliament to Colombia to meet with stakeholders costs money. If the government had any respect for the democratic process, it certainly would not have signed the agreement before reading the recommendations of the Standing Committee on International Trade. But it did sign the agreement and we made recommendations afterward. It is a nice file that probably ended up on a shelf somewhere in the Library of Parliament.

The government went ahead with this agreement. Everything the members who are against this agreement have said in the House is in the recommendations and the observations that were made during our visit to Colombia.

The Conservatives often complained about the debate being hijacked. According to them, too much importance was being placed on the issue of human rights, because this was a trade agreement.

In a recent comment, I thought I heard the Liberals say that they wanted to propose an amendment to the Standing Committee on International Trade, to monitor the evolution of the situation in Colombia.

For two or three years, Colombia has been negotiating different agreements with Canada, as well as the United States and European countries. For the most part, they are opposed to this agreement being signed, because of human rights violations in Colombia. The situation has not improved, and I do not see why it would change.

If I were a representative of the Colombian government and wanted to sign an agreement, I would have done everything I could to make my country more democratic and to solve the problems related to violence and crimes against unionized workers. At least 30 government representatives are currently under investigation for criminal offences.

I would have also taken action to avoid the number population displacements. Mining is the primary activity of some Canadian companies in Colombia, and their practices leave thousands of Colombians homeless. They currently live in ghettos outside of Bogota.

We saw these ghettos, and the situation has not improved. Many unionized workers and union representatives are still being assassinated. Since mining companies must mine in new areas, entire populations continue to be displaced, and they are not left with any resources or means to survive. Statistics show that Colombia is not doing enough to improve the situation.

The United States is, by and large, against signing this agreement, as is Belgium. A press release from Belgium said that the government in the Flemish region also refused to ratify the Belgium-Luxembourg investment agreement with Colombia. Colombia is known for its violations of human, social and environmental rights. Belgium will also oppose the signing of this agreement.

In Canada, however, the Conservatives plan to ratify the agreement with the help of the Liberals, who intend to propose a so-called amendment, but that does not mean much. They will not necessarily vote for that amendment in the House. As we have seen this week, they are perfectly capable of voting against their own amendment.

The Conservatives, with the help of the Liberals, are determined to sign an agreement with a country that does not respect human rights.

We do not support this bill. Our position has not changed since the last session despite the amendment that the Liberals plan to present to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

This amendment is absolutely ridiculous in light of the changing situation in Colombia as reported in the media. Furthermore, statistics show that the number of murdered unionized workers is rising sharply. Violence against workers defending their rights has not diminished. No new environmental standards have been adopted to make mining companies demonstrate greater respect for the environment.

The Liberal amendment will not change a thing because the measure will be overseen by both parties to the agreement. According to the amendment, the governments of Canada and Colombia will be the judges and the judged when it comes to assessing respect for human rights. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone is aware of the situation in Colombia. For the past several years, the country has been struggling with the longest-lasting internal conflict South America has ever seen. This long, seemingly endless conflict has resulted in countless human rights violations, including kidnappings, targeted killings and massive internal displacements that have relegated entire populations to ghettos.

During the Standing Committee on International Trade's mission, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and NDP members saw all of this for themselves.

I do not recall if my Liberal colleague was with us on that mission, but I am sure that if he was, he saw the situation for many displaced people who had been kicked out of their homes and off their land.

During free trade negotiations, the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are being forcibly displaced and that union leaders and union members are frequently the targets of violence and murder should be particularly worrisome. Yet this does not seem to bother the Conservative and Liberal members. They truly believe that we must enter into a free trade agreement that will have little impact on the Canadian economy, and this has been pointed out on many occasions. In fact, this will help protect the investments of mining companies in Colombia and the people who are making money there. The economic spinoffs for Quebec and Canada are often minimal. Furthermore, these numerous human rights violations are taking place with the complicity of the Colombian government.

I see a member of the Liberal Party is exiting the House. Perhaps he can no longer bear to hear such things, but this is the reality.

The Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, is saying that the political situation and security have improved considerably in Colombia. I do not know where they are getting their facts and statistics. According to documents obtained by the Bloc Québécois, the situation does not appear to have improved. I also heard some of our NDP colleagues attest to the same documents and the same facts. They agree that the situation has not improved.

La Presse and other international newspapers have reported that many other countries did not want to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia for this very reason. The Conservatives and the Liberals are doing some reading, but I do not know where they are getting their facts.

The free trade agreement between Colombia and the United States was drafted a few years ago, in 2006. We have been talking about an agreement with Colombia for two or three years. The United States has been debating it for four years. However, it has been delayed because the Americans do not want to sign it. Americans are not the most progressive when it comes to social and labour conditions. And yet, they are saying that they cannot sign the agreement because of the lack of respect for human rights. Fair trade requires rules and respect for environmental as well as labour standards. Colombia does not currently respect these standards.

In a speech, the Liberals stated that signing an economic agreement would lead to an improvement in the human rights record, and would help Colombians raise their standard of living as well as improve their living conditions. Let us not be fooled. We know very well that the simple signing of a free trade agreement with this country will not lead to a better distribution of wealth or make the country take better care of the least fortunate, especially when about thirty members of the current government are facing criminal charges.

Will wealth be redistributed? Will they fight social inequality? Will they restore the livelihoods of those who have lost their land? No. We will not swallow it hook, line and sinker. Quebeckers will not believe all that. Quebeckers often say that something can always be done, but everything has its limits.

I think that this agreement has crossed the line. We are not complete imbeciles, yet that is what I am hearing in the House: skewed versions of the social, political, economic and cultural realities in Colombia and, above all, the reality of crime there. Neither the Liberal Party nor the people of Colombia seem to be taking the situation into consideration. They simply want to protect the investments of mining companies in that country. And those companies often undertake their activities without any respect for environmental standards.

In Canada and Quebec, 80% of imports have no tariffs. So this agreement would not significantly improve trade, given that 80% of imports are not even regulated by tariffs. We saw it in terms of international trade.

The President of the United States, Mr. Obama, repeated that he has no intention of signing this free-trade agreement with Colombia. He once again spoke of the terrible working conditions and the Colombian government's lack of respect for workers' rights. Add to that the fact that the government in Belgium's Flemish region does not want to ratify an agreement of this kind either. In Canada, however, the Conservatives and Liberals do not seem to be very preoccupied with or worried about respecting human rights.

It is disturbing to see political parties sign these kinds of agreements. These parties have governed in Canada and, unfortunately, they still have an impact on Quebec's economic development. We are still paying half of our taxes to Ottawa. These parties still have some influence on our social and economic policies. This goes against the values of Quebeckers. Working conditions, respecting the right to strike, respecting workers, unionized workers, women, democracy and justice, are all fundamental values in Quebec. However, this agreement seems to deny these values of solidarity and greater justice for citizens.

Human rights conditions have not really improved in Colombia. Last year, 49 union leaders were assassinated in that country, compared to 46 in 2008 and to 39 in 2007. Through their amendment, the Liberals want to keep track of what is going on in Colombia. I just provided a few figures. I hope that some Liberals will take note of them, because these numbers show what is happening.

Colombia wants to sign an agreement with Canada and with other countries, but the human rights situation is not improving at all.

According to a Human Rights Watch report released in February, illegal armed groups in Colombia have not been demobilized effectively and they continue their intimidation and violence campaigns.

We always get a little carried away because these are critical issues for the future.

In each bilateral trade agreement, it is important to know the reality in the county with which we are doing business. We should take the time to assess the consequences of our decisions, as much for us as for our partner country. Moreover, we should not take into consideration just the commercial aspects of the agreement, but also the human rights situation.

In the case of Colombia, I think that such an agreement—particularly because of the chapter on investment protection—is very worrisome and could affect even more Colombia's ability to protect its population's needs and interests.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nickel Belt, Industry; the hon. member for Labrador, Status of Women.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I will not make a comment at this point as I believe I covered this earlier.

Some of the complaints being brought up in the House today are obviously about the lack of attention being brought to bear on human rights, but more about labour standards, which some member contend are not as great as they should be.

In the future, let us say with the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement or even the comprehensive free trade agreement we are now negotiating with the European Union, which I am sure my hon. colleague from Bloc would not have too much concern about, how would he propose changing these free trade agreements to allow for stronger labour standards and a stronger record on human rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleague's question is very interesting.

I remember during one debate in the last session, a member from the Liberal Party moved a motion on the corporate social responsibility of companies with economic activities in other countries, such as Colombia. I know the hon. member who moved that motion well. He is a good MP. Having these companies respect the environment while conducting their activities was really important to the Liberals, but we must also respect working conditions. We need to put an end to the exploitation of workers and unrelenting attacks against certain people. I am talking about murder. People are getting killed.

All these conditions should not factor into an agreement. This is not the type of thing we see in a free trade agreement with Europe. It is more about fairer trade. As far as I know, in Europe, in France and Belgium, unions are respected.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for our Bloc colleague.

Earlier we were talking about mining companies. In my riding of Nickel Belt, there is a mining company from Latin America. Last week, a demonstration was held by roughly 5,000 people including dozens and dozens of unionists. Obviously, if we were in Colombia, the demonstration never would have happened because the unionists would have been killed.

I would like to know the Bloc member's opinion on this. Why do the Conservative government and the Liberals want to do business with a country like Colombia, which has no respect for human life in its own country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with our colleague who just asked the question.

As I said in my speech, human rights and union rights are not respected in that country. The problem is that Canadian companies are going to carry out their economic activities in these places and will often exploit the workers. It seems that there is a certain mentality in international trade. That could come back to haunt us, as we would say in Quebec, because companies become accustomed to not respecting unions and union members. They may condone abuse and violence to achieve their objectives when negotiating with workers.

I met with union leaders when I toured Colombia. These people have a great deal of courage. They are fighting to defend their rights. As we know, ties have been established between Canadian and Colombian unions. These ties should be maintained because important work is being accomplished.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a very good presentation. He has a very good understanding of the problems of Colombians. He is a former union leader and the citizens of Berthier—Maskinongé have a member who is well-informed.

The Liberals, together with the Conservatives, always try to minimize the impact of this agreement. They say everything is all right, that life is beautiful and that everyone in Colombia is doing their best to ensure that human rights are respected. That is simply not true.

Furthermore, they say that 114,000 Colombians were displaced last year in order to make more room for the mining industry. That is like moving an entire federal riding. They say that 114,000 is not a huge number because, before that, 400,000 people were displaced per year. Furthermore, Colombians are not displaced in a civilized manner. They are pressured, threatened, murdered or their land is flooded. That is how it is done in Colombia.

I would like to ask my colleague what does Canada stand to gain from signing a free trade agreement with Colombia?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford, who did an excellent job for a number of years as a member of the FTQ union. He is still just as passionate about defending humanitarian causes and workers' rights.

Some 30 members of the Colombian congress are currently under arrest. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a link between the members of the Colombian congress and the paramilitaries, who play a big role by murdering many unionized workers.

The number of crimes committed by government security forces increased by 9% last year. The situation is deplorable.

As for Canada and Quebec's interest in signing an agreement with Colombia, members of the Bloc Québécois who were on the Standing Committee on International Trade brought up a specific chapter of the agreement regarding protecting investments. That is the focal point of this agreement.

The mining companies can develop resources in Colombia without having to respect environmental standards and human rights. Furthermore, if lawsuits are filed against these companies, their investments in Colombia will be protected. Precedents are not taken into account.

That is important. I noted that 80% of current Canadian imports from Colombia are not subject to tariffs. That is the only thing of interest we see in this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-2, and I want to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his presentation. I did have a question for him.

A month ago, he and the member for Kings—Hants and I were on a congressional visit in Washington and this topic did come up in some of our meetings. Even though the U.S. bill has been before the United States Congress since 2006, as the member just indicated, it did not pass Congress while George Bush was president and has not passed Congress since Barack Obama has been president, and it will not pass Congress anytime soon. We were told in our meetings by Republicans who support President Uribe and the free trade agreement that they knew it was dead. We were not getting this from Democrats, but Republicans.

It makes one wonder about a group, the government and the Liberal opposition, that tends to follow the United States like little trained seals, like little puppy dogs who follow the Americans and do not do anything the Americans would not do. It seems rather strange that somehow they have quickly put together a little agreement here to get this deal on its way.

The question is, why? How does this deal made here benefit the Liberals? What do the Liberals have to gain from this? This whole agreement has caused them a lot of grief within their own party. Under the previous leader, they were onside asking for a human rights assessment. Then all of a sudden the leadership changed, the critics changed, and they flipped totally the other way and now support the government.

We managed to remove this bill by our efforts last year, and the only way it could possibly have been brought back was with the Liberals' compliance. The Liberals have now made an arrangement and put an amendment that is acceptable to the government.

The question is, for what? After all the grief they had put up with in their caucus, and we are promising them much more grief as the days progress, there must be a lot at stake here for the Liberals to be doing this. I do not know what the government had to promise them to get them onside. Perhaps it was nothing, but I just see a lot of effort being made here for very low returns.

It was pointed out by one of the speakers in the debate earlier today that this bill is nothing more than a red carpet for mining companies. Currently there is $1.3 billion in trade between the two countries. That trade will not be affected by a free trade deal. If we do not pass the free trade deal this year or next year, the $1.3 billion in trade will continue, so what is this trade deal supposed to accomplish?

Do we have projections? Has anyone seen any projections? I think I asked the question last year if anyone had seen any projections from the government of what two-way trade will be next year and the year afterward. We have not heard anything from the government on that. We have not heard any speeches from the government in the last two days. We have not heard much from the Liberals either.

It reminds me of that old song, I think by Peter, Paul and Mary, Where Have All The Flowers Gone? I just substitute the word “Liberals” there. I hear some comments from their bench, but the fact of the matter is that we have a lot of issues, a lot of bills, a lot of things to be addressed and done in this Parliament, and I have questions here.

The government talks about its tough on crime agenda incessantly, saying it is something that has to be done. It is, as Mulroney used to say, the sacred trust. What does the government do? It prorogues Parliaments and wipes out all the bills. So much for the sacred trust.

Now we get back into Parliament. Does the government bring back the crime bills? No. It wants to talk about free trade with Colombia.

Clearly, there is an agenda, one that certainly I do not understand. I do not know that we are really clear about it either. However, members of the Bloc, the previous speaker and others, have alluded to the fact that this is a red carpet for mining companies and big business, that this is all to support investment. They are presumably friends of the other two parties because I have not been lobbied lately by any big mining companies.

Most of the details of this agreement, in terms of why we should not sign it, have been spoken to by other members. For example, Colombia itself is not a significant trading partner with Canada. It is only our fifth-largest trading partner in Latin America. We have dealt with the whole issue of 2,690 trade unionist having been murdered in Colombia since 1986 and that the number in 2008 was up substantially the previous year. One Liberal said that it had been reduced so we were clear to go now.

However, I do want to talk about fair trade. Whenever the NDP opposes one of the Conservatives' free trade deals, they ask us what sort of deal we would support and what it would take to get the NDP to support a free trade deal. In response we say that it has to be a fair trade deal.

The fact is there are more people than the government thinks waking up to the possibilities of what could be in a fair trade deal. We only have to look at the co-operative movements. Even Starbucks sells fair trade coffee. I think the younger people growing up are getting a good education as to what fair trade is all about, as to opposed to “free trade”.

Free trade is all about exploitation, multinational exploitation, essentially flooding, for example, the Colombia agricultural market with cheap agricultural products, displacing farmers who have been on the land for hundreds of years, putting them out of work, forcing them to go to cities where more problems are created and then they become dependent on foreign food.

How could that possibly be a good idea? The whole idea is to develop products in one's own environment and not import things. Trading is great. We cannot grow bananas in Manitoba, so we have to import those from somewhere. However, if we could grow them there, we should grow them there. We should be self-sufficient. Communities should be self-sufficient wherever they are and they should always strive for that.

We are certainly in favour of trade, but we want to have fair trade. We do not want to be flooding markets with cheap products, putting people out of work and ruining the environment in the process. When the environment is ruined and all of the damage is done to the environment, the companies simply walk away and let the government clean up the mess. That is great for investors. If they can buy shares at $20.00, then they go up to $100 and they can pocket the gains, I am sure they will support that type of economic activity. However, we in the House are supposed to think a little more deeply about the matter than simply holus-bolus rolling over and accepting what some corporate group wants us to do.

On that basis, the question is this. What do we mean by fair trade? We mean new trade rules and agreements to promote sustainable practices, domestic job creation and healthy working conditions, while allowing us to manage the supply of goods, promote democratic rights abroad and maintain democratic sovereignty at home.

From my information, tomato farmers in Mexico were put out of work by the thousands when the free trade agreement was expanded to Mexico. Those workers are basically out of jobs. People are no longer able to support themselves on their farms, and they have to buy cheap imports.

How can we promote fair trade? We can promote it by making speeches in Parliament, but the best way is by educating the public to the elements of fair trade so they can in turn put pressure on their MPs and not grow up and develop the way government MPs have. To that extent, we will show some progress but it will take some time.

New trade agreements should encourage improvement in social, environmental and labour conditions rather than just minimize the damage of unrestricted trade. Federal and provincial procurement policies should stimulate Canadian industries by allowing governments to favour suppliers at home. Supply management boards and single desk marketers like the Canadian Wheat Board could help replace imports with domestic products and materials.

The Wheat Board has been under constant attack from the very beginnings of the Reform Party. The present government continues to take whacks at it. It seems the Wheat Board is one of the Conservatives' pet peeves, particularly if they get a majority government.

This is yet another reason why we should never allow the Conservatives to form a majority government. If the Conservatives had four years of a majority government, we would not recognize the country. That is why the public has not given them a majority government. The public will never give them a majority government because Canadians know, at the end of the day, that the Conservatives would do something they could not tolerate.

Another way to promote fair trade is by having local community and individual initiatives to buy fair trade imports and locally produced goods. We see local community and individual initiatives. People in my community are offering fair trade coffee. It causes people to think about this, and that is what we have to do.

If we cannot beat the Conservatives at the boardroom level, and I guess we will never be able to do that, or beat them in advertising, we will have to beat them on the streets. At the end of the day, that is what we will have to do.

Why fair trade and not free trade? Fair trade policies protect the environment by encouraging the use of domestically and locally produced goods. There is less freight, less fuel, less carbon. Why would we ship a product across the continent? It makes no sense to me to send truckloads of produce across the continent when the product can be produced locally.

The environment is a huge issue. Some companies hide behind free trade agreements. They can get into a jurisdiction and hide behind a structure that does not require them to take care of the environment. If they can use all sorts of pesticides without the proper controls, then they essentially gain in the long run because they make more money. At the end of the day, they pollute the environment and perhaps sell a product that is not as healthy as it should be.

Free trade policies, even those created with the environment in mind, do little to impede multinational corporations from polluting the environment, which I have already indicated.

The environmental side agreement of NAFTA, for example, has proven largely unenforceable, particularly when compared with other protections for industry and investors.

A system of fair trade can encourage the growth of Canadian jobs, both in quality and quantity. Fair competition rules and tougher labour standards will put Canadian industries on a level playing field with our trading partners and slow the international race to the bottom, which has resulted in the loss of Canadian manufacturing jobs. We have seen over and over again manufacturing jobs leaving North America and moving to other countries because of the “free trade” deals.

Free trade rules, on the other hand, have hurt Canadian job quality. Since 1989, most Canadian families have seen a decline in real income.

Fair trade can also protect labour rights by fostering the growth of workers' co-operatives and labour unions. Like the environmental side accord, the NAFTA labour agreement has gone mostly unenforced, giving industries that are willing to violate workers' rights incentives to relocate Canadian jobs. Fair trade policies which favour co-ops, unions and equitable pricing will protect workers in the developing world who might otherwise be exploited and take away reasons for Canadian producers to export the jobs. That is all part of rebalancing these agreements, making them more fair than where they are right now.

Fair trade rules will also protect societies and human rights around the globe. That is certainly the big issue we are dealing with in Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, although not the only issue.

Although some predicted a human rights benefit from unrestricted free trade, and we heard that from the member for Kings—Hants over and over again, this has yet to be seen. In contrast, conflicts between locals and multinational corporations in such places as Peru become violent. A fair trade policy that aims for benefits for all parties can protect the most vulnerable from human rights abuses.

That is what it is all about. We have already dealt with this issue, with many people saying that this is a minor trade agreement in the whole scheme of things. I do not know why the government would drive it to the top of its agenda and have the Liberals roll over the way they have, but I guess they are used to that. This is tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig.

The member for Kings—Hants has dressed it all up and he is happy to go along with this, but members in his caucus are not so happy. I do not know how members will vote because the other day we saw two or three Liberals, as a matter of conscience, vote against their own motion and a number of others skipped the vote.

I really do not know what will happen with this vote because several members in the Liberal caucus will proudly vote with us in the NDP. Some members in that caucus will probably miss the vote because there is more to be gained by not being here or voting against than standing up and voting for it.

The previous leader of the Liberal Party and the previous critic had it right two years ago when they were on the international relations committee. They opted for the review that we all wanted. What is wrong with a review? If there are no human rights abuses in Colombia, then why are they afraid of an independent human rights examination. If there are no abuses, it will pass with flying colours and we are on our way.

To have the Liberals simply change leaders and critics and flip their policy is very strange. It has certainly aided in the divisions that currently exist in the Liberal Party. The NDP Party will be happy to watch the drama unfold over the next few days and weeks to come.