Debates of June 9th, 2010

Bill C-2--Time Allocation Motion

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #65

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report stage

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. This agreement has been a long time getting back to the floor of the House. Quite frankly, we were worried that perhaps it would just be held up forever, in particular by the NDP. However, that is not going to be the case. Parliamentarians will finally get a chance to debate and vote on this important issue.

The implementation of the free trade agreement is a priority, as all free trade agreements are a priority for the Government of Canada. It demonstrates our commitment to helping Canadian businesses compete in markets abroad. Pursuing bilateral and regional trade agreements is essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians.

In light of the recent difficult economic times, expanding trade and investment relations through improved market access is more important than ever. Opening our market and pursuing preferential access abroad sends a clear signal that protectionism is not the right way to achieve increased global stability and prosperity. We cannot ignore this global economic downturn that our country has been caught up in, along with the rest of the world. The only way to find our way out of this global economic downturn is through increased trade, increased jobs for Canadians, and increased opportunities for Canadian businesses.

In particular, this free trade agreement demonstrates a commitment by our government to expand opportunities for Canadian businesses. In this age of fierce competition, emerging economies continue to climb the value chain and establish themselves in a wide range of sectors. This is why we continue to seek out more trade and investment opportunities for Canadian businesses and to level the playing field for our companies in an ever more complex and competitive commercial environment.

This government recognizes those challenges, and I am proud to say that we continue to take concrete steps to support the development of these new opportunities. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, along with the parallel agreements on the environment and labour co-operation, is essential to our larger commitment to free trade, and more broadly, to Canada's foreign policy goals.

Canada has already established free trade agreements with the United States and Mexico under NAFTA, and agreements with Israel, Chile, and Costa Rica. Our government took the initiative to implement new free trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association, Peru, and Jordan in 2009. In continuing with our successful trade efforts, this government also signed a free trade agreement with Panama, on May 14, 2010.

We continue to look ahead to other key global partners, including the European Union. We are also committed to advancing economic co-operation through our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners, including South Korea, the Ukraine, the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, the Caribbean community, and the Dominican Republic. This further illustrates this government's ambitious and active trade agenda.

Our government is dedicated to pursuing trade relationships that work for Canadians. Moving forward with building economic relationships, we are working to launch negotiations with new partners, such as Morocco. We are also continuing to enhance our great relationships with India and Japan.

Why is an ambitious trade agreement important to Canada? By eliminating barriers to trade and investment, our government is building new opportunities for Canadian businesses in global markets by helping them compete in an increasingly competitive and interdependent world. As a result, these actions stimulate the Canadian economy. By passing the free trade agreement with Colombia, we are helping Canadian businesses compete on the international stage.

Upon its implementation, Colombia will eliminate tariffs on nearly all current Canadian exports, including wheat, pulses, a variety of paper products, certain machinery, plastics, vehicles, and furniture. In addition, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will expand opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers.

Canada already values Colombia as a significant trading partner. In 2009, two-way trade with Colombia was more than $1.3 billion. We recognize that Colombia is an established and expanding market for Canadian products. Since 2005, Canadian merchandise exports have increased by over 55%, reaching over $600 million in 2009.

Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment. The overall stock of Canadian investment in Colombia has reached $1.1 billion.

In promoting this active trade agenda, our government recognizes that Colombia is a strategic destination for Canadian direct investment in mining and oil exploration, among other sectors.

Canadian companies are seeing a lot of potential in the Americas, and this free trade agreement will assist them in maximizing their opportunities. Furthermore, Canadians can offer much expertise. Services such as engineering, mining, energy, and financial services are areas in which Canadian businesses can thrive. Our government recognizes that these sectors are the mainstay of our economy in all communities across this country.

With rapid growth in the Colombian economy in recent years, Canadian companies have made important investments, and Canadian exporters of industrial goods have found ample export opportunities.

This agreement is an important achievement for Canadian exporters, as Colombia has signed a similar free trade agreement with the United States, Canada's main competitor in the Colombian market. Once in place, that agreement would place Canadian exporters at a significant tariff disadvantage compared with their U.S. competitors if Canada's own free trade agreement with Colombia were not implemented in a timely manner.

As well, Colombia recently concluded negotiations with the European Union, and that agreement could enter into force as early as 2011. Colombia is determined to pursue ambitious free trade opportunities with others. Our government will not stand by and put Canadian companies at a disadvantage. We will fight to ensure that businesses have what they need to compete abroad.

There are benefits in this agreement for all regions across Canada, with significant exports to Colombia coming from all regions. For example, the elimination of Colombian tariffs on most machinery and industrial goods, especially mining equipment, which generally range from 12% to 25%, will help Ontario and Quebec exporters maintain and expand their competitiveness compared to suppliers from other countries. I will give the House a personal example that applies to machinery.

I have a fabricating company in my riding in Nova Scotia that makes deepwater equipment for the oil and gas industry. It works in partnership with another company in Calgary. The company is looking at producing the equipment they presently ship to Colombia in Mexico, because Mexico has no tariff on equipment shipped to Colombia. This Canadian company is paying 15%, so we are penalizing it by 15% for trade that it is already carrying on with Colombia. This free trade agreement would allow it to compete on a level footing, and that will certainly help its business opportunities and its potential in Colombia.

The immediate removal of tariffs on wheat and pulses, Canada's main agricultural exports to Colombia, will greatly benefit the prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba by making these products more competitive in Colombian markets. On that point, let me comment.

On red beans, we currently pay a 50% tariff. Red beans are a significant source of protein. The ability to bring those beans into Colombia in three or four years' time, tariff-free, because there will be a gradual elimination of that tariff, would allow Colombians to access cheaper and more available food. It is not just food, it is good food. It is food that is easy to store, and food that is high in protein. All Colombians will be able to access more nutritious food. With more nutritious food, men and women who are working can do a better job, and the youth of the country can prosper, attend school, get educated, and find jobs in an economy that is growing. They will be able to move forward with the rest of the world. Colombia has sorely been waiting to take its place among the nations of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the fiction from the parliamentary secretary. Obviously, the fact that he and his Liberal colleagues cut off debate at committee and refused to hear from so many representatives from labour unions, civil society groups, the Colombian labour movement, and of course, aboriginal people and African Colombian groups has not helped his lack of information about Colombia.

He was mentioning earlier that the Colombian government and the paramilitary and military forces have not been involved in any massacres of aboriginal people. Therefore, I would like him to answer, on the record, does he deny that the Colombian military or paramilitary forces have been involved in the massacres of aboriginal peoples? It is a very straight-up question.

The second point I would like to raise is the issue of the government's wrong-headed trade strategy. We saw the softwood lumber sellout, which was one of the worst trade agreements ever signed. All of the other agreements the Conservatives have signed have led to a decrease in exports to those markets. Therefore, the economic arguments do not hold water either.

Is the parliamentary secretary aware that constant dollars are different from current dollars, so we have actually seen a reduction in trade?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

On the second question, Mr. Speaker, which is the idea that free trade agreements have seen a reduction in trade, everyone in the House, even the hon. member, knows that this is just patent nonsense. It really does not deserve or require an answer.

On the member's question about the Awa first nation, he is wrong about that also.

I am not talking about the Colombian government. I am talking about what that hon. member said at committee. I have it here in front of me. He said:

Obviously, there are fundamental concerns about...human rights. We had another massacre a few weeks ago. Twelve representatives of the Awa first nation were brutally killed. Human rights groups and eyewitnesses say that the Colombian military killed them. There has been no investigation. It is virtual impunity for this kind of crime. I understand that you're here to testify on human rights--

This was his statement to the witnesses.

--but if you would care to comment on how the Canadian government should act when an arm of the Colombian government brutally massacres 12 of its citizens...

We found out later that this was patently false. He gave false information to committee. It is a good time now for that hon. member to rise and apologize to committee members and the rest of the House.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was also very pleased to hear my colleague's intervention on this very important free trade agreement for Canada.

One of the things my colleague knows is that the NDP members have not voted in favour of one free trade agreement. Not one. They always come up with a reason for voting against. One day it is the big corporations. The next day it is human rights. The third day it will be labour or the environment. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to comment on how ideological the NDP members are in their approach to free trade agreements that are so critical to our Canadian economy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member not just for that question but for his interest in this case. If he does not mind, I am going to diverge from his question a little bit and go on to democracy in the House. It is time that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois allow members in this place to vote on this important issue.

We have debated it ad nauseam with over 100 witnesses at committee, with over 50 hours of debate in this place. We debated it as well in the last Parliament.

We have one party that continues to filibuster, continues to obfuscate, and continues to delay the democratic process. If members believe in democracy, it is time to vote.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this free trade agreement. As we know, Canada is one of the great free trading nations of this world. We have immeasurable natural resources and human capital. We are a well-educated country, among the best educated in the world.

We have so much to offer to the world. In fact, perhaps the greatest export are the four defining Canadian values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. That is what we can export to other countries that may have been lacking that for decades, perhaps centuries.

Our government has an ambitious free trade agenda to help Canadian businesses compete in international markets. This free trade agreement with Colombia is one of many efforts by our government to expand opportunities for Canadian business.

As we know, in this era of global competition, we must develop more investment and trade opportunities for our businesses. In fact, the world has faced perhaps the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. It is exactly during times like this when the economic challenges are so great that Canada must seek out new trading opportunities, new opportunities to connect with other countries to build our respective economies. Our government recognizes that these economic challenges are critical if Canada is going to compete in the world.

In fact, the Standing Committee on International Trade has recognized that. In 2007 the committee asked the government to identify countries where Canadian companies were operating at a disadvantage and to pursue defensive free trade agreements with them. Our government has done exactly that. We have responded by launching negotiations with Colombia and Peru in 2007 to ensure that Canadian businesses were not displaced out of these markets by their American competitors. We have this huge giant to the south of us that would love to pick up the business that is available out there in the world.

It is now three years later and while the Peru agreement has been implemented for almost a year, the business community continues to wait for the implementation of the Colombia free trade agreement. Of course, the reason for the delay is the obfuscation, delaying and filibustering on the part of the New Democratic Party that does not understand what free trade agreements are all about. New Democrats are isolationists. They love to build barriers. They would love to a build big wall along our border to ensure that nobody can trade with us.

By passing this free trade agreement, we are listening and responding to the needs of Canadian businesses to stay competitive. As the Canadian Council of Chief Executives indicated in its presentation to the standing committee, the passage of the free trade agreement will help Canadian workers, farmers and businesses stay ahead of their global competitors. A closer economic partnership with Colombia would reduce tariffs for Canadian exporters and also expand opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers.

Colombia is already a significant trading partner for Canada. In 2009 our two-way merchandise trade totalled $1.3 billion. Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment. The Colombian market is an exciting one with 48 million people, much greater than the population of Canada. Considering the sound macroeconomic policy and security improvements achieved by its current leadership, which have generated favourable economic conditions, a country like ours with so much expertise has a lot to offer to Colombia.

The potential for Canada goes beyond traditional areas such as oil and gas to also include infrastructure, agriculture and industrial goods, and services like engineering, mining, energy and financial services. We are a leader in the world in these areas and we have a chance to share this expertise with other countries around the world.

These are all areas where Canada has significant experience and where we shine. Our business community recognizes the opportunities in Colombia.

In fact, the Grain Growers of Canada noted:

The future in countries like Colombia is that there is a large young population. That's a market for the future. If we are in there and working with the Colombians, there's huge potential growth.

Clearly, this agreement is about strengthening our partnership with Colombia.

Beyond the commercial partnerships, the free trade, labour and environment agreements are also meant to complement our ongoing political relationship with Colombia.

I mentioned to start off with that Canada is known around the world. It is a lighthouse for the prevailing values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is incumbent upon us to export those values to countries that have not had those kinds of traditions.

To help solidify ongoing efforts by the government of Colombia to create a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy, we are taking the steps of engaging the areas of labour and the environment.

In 2010 the government of Colombia took the first step toward joining the voluntary principles on security and human rights by becoming an engaged government. That is good news. It is progress. It is the kind of progress that Canada wants to see. These voluntary principles provide guidance to mining companies on maintaining security in their operations in a manner that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms that we as Canadians take for granted.

Colombia has also demonstrated its continued effort to curb violence against trade unions and to promote prosperity and peace. Our government recognizes that challenges remain in Colombia and is committed to working with Colombia to address these issues.

Canada is not the only country recognizing the improvements in Colombia and working to increase economic relations with that country. In fact, that country is moving forward on an ambitious agenda that includes free trade agreements with many other countries. That is why we should not be left behind.

The European Union and the European Free Trade Association are advancing with their own trade agreements with Colombia. We have to compete with those economic unions. It is very important for us to stay up to speed and ensure we secure those trading relationships.

Our firms and workers expect that their government will work for them and put in place trade agreements to allow them to compete in the international markets on a level playing field. We cannot put our exporters at a relative disadvantage.

That being said, there are clear expectations of our companies.

The Government of Canada takes matters of corporate social responsibility very seriously. That is why this free trade agreement, as well as parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, includes provisions on corporate social responsibility.

Responsible business conduct reinforces the positive effects that trade and investment can have on the communities in which they operate.

At its very core, corporate social responsibility incorporates social, economic and environmental concerns into the daily operations of businesses for the benefit of the communities in which they are operating. Corporate social responsibility can improve human rights, labour standards and the environment, while increasing the competitiveness of businesses.

Given that Canada and Colombia have a significant investment relationship, it was critical to recognize corporate social responsibility in our free trade agreement and we have done that. Not only does this free trade agreement advance our policy to promote corporate responsibility in Canada, it encourages our treaty partners to increase corporate social responsibility promotion within their own countries.

Provisions in the free trade agreement encourage both governments to promote voluntary principles of responsible business conduct within their business communities. The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters highlighted the importance of this responsibility:

Canadian companies are nevertheless committed, especially in Latin America, to being socially responsible. Canadian companies are recognized around the world for adopting sound practices. A number of Canadian businesses are genuine role models in this area.

I will end my time by simply saying this agreement is critical to economic prosperity in Canada. We are, as I said earlier, one of the great free trading nations. We need to continue to seek out new trading relationships around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to just ask a question of my colleague and I want him to flesh out some of the history behind this and dig deeper into what he was saying. When he talked about the agreement, he talked about growth and economic growth and how this is going to be of great benefit to this country, as far as the economy is concerned, and I am assuming in sectors such as agriculture being one of them. I would like the member to focus just for a moment on the responsibility aspect, and perhaps he can flesh out in his mind or give the basis of why we are creating what we call parallel agreements for the environment, for example.

I particularly paid great interest to the social aspect of it because of things like workers' compensation, which I brought up earlier. I think that is going to be of great benefit to all countries. But in this particular case, what makes this side agreement so special and why is it going to be beneficial to Colombia? Why was it so necessary?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, as does the House, Colombia has had a very difficult labour situation. It had a very problematic human rights environment. There are many indications in Colombia now that it is making progress in trying to address some of the issues of violence, violence against unions, and making progress in the area of social responsibility.

That is why these parallel agreements on labour and the environment, and the incorporation of requirements for social and corporate responsibility within the free trade agreement, allow us to export our values that I already articulated in my speech to a country that has not had that legacy that we take for granted in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech defending and promoting this agreement, the member opposite said that the Government of Colombia had demonstrated that it wants peace and that it is able to respect human rights.

Has it demonstrated that by the fact that 39 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and 46 were murdered in 2008? Is that the kind of absurd proof he is talking about?

I would like to know what the member was talking about when he said that the government had demonstrated that it was committed to finding peace.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are two perspectives on the issue of engaging with countries that have had problematic human rights regimes and problematic labour regimes. One is to isolate them. One is to keep them out of the international trade community, set them apart, perhaps even impose sanctions.

The other perspective is to say these are countries that desperately need our knowhow, our knowledge, our technology, and above all they need to understand the values that make strong democratic countries and societies. We have chosen to follow the route of engaging with these countries.

What is really interesting is that one would expect that if the country of Colombia were so opposed to expanding its human rights framework that it would resist efforts to impose conditions on issues such as labour, corporate responsibility and the environment, but Colombians have welcomed that engagement. They have said they want to become more like the Canadas of this world. They embrace those values of freedom and democracy, and especially human rights. They want to partner with us to help build those democratic institutions.

In response to my colleague across the way, I would say the proof is in the pudding. I would say look 10 or 20 years down the road. I am confident that 20 years from now Colombia will look quite different. It will have a much more robust human rights framework. It will have a much more robust labour framework, one that all of us can be proud of, and can say that we were a part of.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement on numerous occasions in the House. I am delighted that, through the incredible leadership of my NDP colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, we so far have been able to stop this bill from becoming law. Now the government is shutting down debate through a draconian time allocation motion because it knows it cannot win its bill on its merits.

While I still can, let me explain again why we feel so strongly about this ill-conceived trade deal. In fact, in the roughly 10 minutes that I have to participate in today's debate, I will give 10 reasons why the Canada-Colombia trade deal should be scrapped.

First, Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world for unionized workers. More labour leaders are killed in Colombia every year than in the rest of the world combined. Trade unionists are terrorized to put a chill on union organizing. This keeps unions weak and wages miserably low. It benefits businesses' bottom line and keeps Colombia attractive for foreign investment.

Who is being targeted? The prime targets are activists who are trying to organize or join a union and bargain collectively or who are engaged in industrial disputes or in fighting privatization. They are teachers, prison guards, agricultural, food and health care workers and others from almost every sector. Who is killing these union organizers? Most of the murders are committed by paramilitary death squads. Paramilitaries are illegal armies that fund their operations through Colombia's illegal drug trade and illegal contributions from some companies like Chiquita Brands International. The paras have been classified as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government, along with other armed groups, such as the FARC leftist guerrillas.

The second reason is that Colombian labour law is simply not up to ILO snuff. A union-busting culture dominates Colombian society. Colombia's labour laws stifle unions and workers' rights. Recently, in order to show it is doing something positive, the Colombian government passed two labour code reforms, one on the right to strike and one on “associative labour cooperatives”, but even with recent changes, they still do not come close to International Labour Organization minimum standards.

Colombian workers face huge legal and bureaucratic obstacles to register a union and to bargain collectively. Some say it is easier to form an armed group than a trade union in Colombia. These anti-union laws, plus the violence and terror directed at unionized workers, have helped keep Colombia's rate of unionization at less than 5%. With its huge informal sector and high unemployment rate, which is officially over 11%, it means that only one in every 100 workers can negotiate a collective agreement, the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere.

Third, there seems to be impunity for the killers in Colombia. Not enough is being done to bring them to justice. Very few of the crimes against unionized workers and other civilians have been investigated. Even fewer of those responsible have been convicted. This is called impunity. The victims are often accused of being guerrilla sympathizers. Their murders are then not questioned. Ninety-seven per cent of the murders of union activists remain unsolved.

That brings me to the fourth reason. Simply put, no justice, no peace. The government insists that it has demobilized the paramilitaries so that they are no longer a threat. Under a program called the justice and peace law, paramilitary combatants were supposed to hand in their arms and admit to their crimes in exchange for reduced sentences, but thousands of the demobilized have simply walked away from the program and formed new, deadly groups, like the Black Eagles, who terrorize the poor and anyone who dares to dissent from Uribe's security plan. The Black Eagles even sent a nasty threat to the Canadian embassy in Bogota. This is a far cry from Colombian's demands for a process that exposes the truth of paramilitary crimes, delivers justice and ensures reparations to the victims.

Reason number five is the shocking government ties to paramilitaries. Today, 62 mafia-like ex-paramilitary drug trafficking criminal networks control economic activities and political institutions in 23 of Colombia's 31 provinces.

Violence and insecurity prevail in the countryside. Colombia's independent supreme court, one of the country's few bright spots these days, has launched a series of groundbreaking investigations into paramilitary presence in the Colombian congress. More than 60 congress members from Uribe's coalition, 20% of the congress, are being investigated for crimes like collaboration with paramilitaries, getting rich from drug trafficking and collusion in election fraud. Thirty of them have been indicted.

That leads to reason number six. The army and the government are implicated in crimes against humanity. In a suspicious move in August 2008, Uribe extradited 14 jailed paramilitary bosses to the United States on drug trafficking charges, a much lesser crime than their crimes against humanity. These criminals are now conveniently out of the way of supreme court investigations into their links with Uribe's and his officials' involvement in atrocities. The International Criminal Court of the Hague is looking into these events.

In November 2008, the world was outraged to learn that 27 high-ranking army officers were accused of a horrifying crime known as false positives. This involves the soldiers kidnapping and executing innocent civilians, dressing them as FARC guerrillas and claiming they were killed in combat. This practice developed in response to President Uribe's demands for results in fighting the FARC insurgents and offers of bonuses based on a body count. These revelations are just the tip of the iceberg in a series of charges of army involvement with executions, extortion, ties to drug traffickers and other crimes against humanity.

It is no wonder then, and this is the seventh reason, that diverse Colombian peoples are vehemently opposed to this trade deal. Colombia's unions have said no to the NAFTA model because it will cause more unemployment, poverty and hunger. Signing a free trade deal with Uribe will signal that state terrorism and killing trade unionists is okay.

Colombia's paramilitary opposition, the Alternative Democratic Pole, or PDA, opposes free trade because it will annex the economy to multinational corporations. For example, it will provide new land grabs for Canadian mining companies that get powerful new rights but not responsibilities. The Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca carried out a popular referendum in 2005 in which 98% said no to free trade. In October 2008, tens of thousands of people protested the free trade model, linking it to the death of mother earth.

This brings me to reason number eight. More trade and investment will hurt, not help, human rights. Independent human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and others, warn that this deal could actually undermine the struggle for democracy in Colombia. Without international pressure, the Colombian government will have no incentive to make improvements in human rights.

The ninth reason for opposing this deal is that Canada's own parliamentary trade committee said that human rights must come first. In 2008, Parliament's Standing Committee on International Trade undertook an in-depth study called “Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia”. Committee members even went on an official mission to Bogota to hear first-hand what people thought. The international trade committee report said:

The Committee recommends that an independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights impact assessment should be carried out by a competent body, which is subject to levels of independent scrutiny and validation; the recommendations of this assessment should be addressed before Canada considers signing, ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia.

Last, we come to reason number 10, specifically for my colleagues across the way, who first introduced this bill solely to support the international efforts of George Bush. Well, there is a new president south of the border and Barack Obama says yes to workers' rights. There is no way that this trade deal will pass south of the border anytime soon.

Let us do the right thing here in Canada, too. Let us put human rights before free trade and carry out an independent assessment of human rights violations in Colombia before ratifying and implementing this deal.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the New Democratic Party does not represent much of rural Canada. Maybe there is a reason for that. I listened to the presentations by the NDP members and not a bit of concern did they show for farmers across this country. This free trade agreement would mean that my neighbours and other farmers right across Canada would have a better market for their peas, lentils, wheat, barley and other agriculture products.

Do the NDP members even consider that in opposing this free trade agreement? Not at all. They oppose all free trade agreements. Every one of the free trade agreements that our government has negotiated will help provide a market for more agriculture products. That helps farmers. That helps my friends and my neighbours. The members of the NDP do not seem to care what it does to farmers in their constituencies and in neighbouring constituencies.

Why does the member not show a bit of concern for farmers and new markets that would be available for them, particularly at this time of low farm prices?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to take that question seriously when he says that New Democrats do not represent rural Canada.

Has the member actually looked at a map of this country? I would encourage him to have this conversation with the member for Western Arctic. He should have a look at the map and see how much of Canada we actually represent. He should have a look at northern Ontario. All of those seats are NDP seats. Please, have another look at the map.

With respect to the member's question, we know that exports have actually gone down after we have signed free trade agreements so this agreement is not going to help the farmers in the member's riding. Moreover, if the member is so absolutely certain that this free trade deal has nothing but benefits on all of the points that I raised, then why is he so afraid of putting this deal to an independent assessment before it is ratified and implemented?

I would encourage the member to do that. The member should stand up and say that he is willing to do that if he is so certain he is making legitimate points in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to help the hon. member with a little bit of a fact check.

She said that the agreement was a George Bush agreement, that Canada was following the Bush administration. In fact, negotiations between Canada and Colombia on this free trade agreement began in 2002 under former prime minister Jean Chrétien. In fact, they preceded the discussions with the Bush administration.

Second, with respect to the Obama administration, President Obama has commended the Uribe government for its progress on human rights. On the congressional side, we received a copy of a letter this week, which was tabled at the trade committee, from a large number of Democrat and Republican congressmen who support the FTA and urge President Obama to move forward with the legislation.

Third, 91% of Colombians voted for political parties both in the congressional and in the most recent presidential elections that support of all of these FTAs that Colombia has been signing. So, Colombians support it.

Last, the ILO has taken Colombia off its labour black watch this year. That is a significant move forward.

I know the hon. member is a fair, honest and unbiased member of the New Democratic Party, and as such she will agree that these facts are important and that all members have a responsibility to adhere to the facts. I would appreciate the member's input in this very important matter.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, due to the motion moved during routine proceedings today, a number of members were unable to table petitions. There are people here in Ottawa to witness the presentation of those petitions. Therefore, I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings for the sole purpose of allowing members to present petitions, provided we return to government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.