Debates of June 5th, 2014

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 166. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 167 to 272.

Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 9, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

moved that Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, be read the third time and passed.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement today.

Since 2006, our Conservative government has been focused on the priorities of Canadians: creating jobs, growth, and economic opportunities for all. One of the ways we have been achieving real results for Canadians is through opening new markets for Canadian businesses.

The Canadian economy relies on international trade. Our companies, over 40,000 of them, are already exporting. As the global economy becomes more and more interconnected, value chains grow and more of our businesses become active internationally. In Canada, one in five jobs is dependent on exports. Today trade-related activity represents more than 60% of Canada's gross domestic product.

Canadian companies are among the best in the world. Not only can they compete, they can succeed in the global marketplace. Our government is creating conditions to support the success of our companies, and we owe it to them to take action.

Canada has always been active in international trade. With the global economic crisis and the toxic threat of greater protectionism, the need for open markets has now become clearer than ever.

Canadian businesses have expressed broad support for trade and investment agreements. These agreements directly benefit small and medium-sized businesses for whom red tape and delays can be particularly burdensome. Our Conservative government continues to be a strong advocate on the world stage for free and open markets. In fact, the Minister of International Trade recently announced that Canada will join 13 World Trade Organization members, including China, the European Union, Japan, and the United States of America, in negotiations toward a new World Trade Organization plurilateral agreement on environmental goods. More open trade in environmental products will increase the availability and lower the cost of environmental goods, such as hydraulic turbines, air handling equipment, water treatment technologies, and waste management or recycling equipment. It is an ambitious agreement that will significantly facilitate the achievement of the green growth and sustainable development objectives of the World Trade Organization economies by creating a win-win situation for trade and for the environment.

Rather than take a wait-and-see approach and hope for the best, Canada decided to proactively focus on diversifying our trading relationships through regional and bilateral free trade agreements. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade, 2013 was the most successful year for trade in Canadian history.

Last October our Conservative government reached an agreement in principle on the Canada-European free trade agreement. It is a great achievement, I might add. This is a major milestone on Canada's international trade negotiations agenda. Through the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, our companies will gain preferential access to a market of over 500 million affluent consumers and a collective gross domestic product of $17 trillion. A Canada-European Union joint study concluded that the agreement would increase Canada's GDP by $12 billion annually and would grow bilateral trade by 20%.

In addition to this historic agreement in principle with the European Union, since 2006 we have concluded agreements with the European Free Trade Association, which includes Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein, and with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, and Panama. We most recently concluded negotiations with Korea. We are also working expeditiously to conclude negotiations with the members of the trans-Pacific partnership as well as bilateral agreements with Japan and India.

To help Canadian investors, since 2007 we have concluded or brought into force 22 new or updated foreign investment protection and promotion agreements. These are just a few examples of our international trade achievements to date.

Contrast this with the Liberal record on trade, signing only three free trade agreements, agreements that are being broadened and modernized by this Conservative government, and having expensive political photo ops without any proven results or follow up, unfortunately. We have left behind that decade of Liberal trade neglect. To do this, we conducted consultations right across this great country. We engaged around 400 business and industry stakeholders. These were not just large corporations but the small and medium-sized businesses that are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

This is why we are so proud of the global markets action plan we launched in November 2013. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is a concrete plan for Canadian business developed with Canadian business. The global markets action plan focuses on our international economic engagement by identifying priority sectors and markets. It also underscores the importance of economic diplomacy, and of course, it aims to help Canadian small and medium-sized companies expand their global reach.

Through this government's initiatives, we want to support Canadian companies, whether they export goods or services or want to invest, to be competitive in these new markets.

Speaking of new markets, our government has long recognized the growing importance of the Americas. The Prime Minister confirmed this when he made that region a foreign policy priority in 2007. Increased trade and commercial engagement is part of the Prime Minister's vision for a more prosperous, secure, and democratic hemisphere, and it makes sense to Canadian businesses too. Total trade between countries in the Americas and Canada increased 34% from 2007 to 2013, not to mention that Canadian direct investment was up 58.6% from 2007 to 2012, a big jump.

How does Honduras fit into our ambitious free trade plan to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians? That is a very good question. In 2011, the Prime Minister announced that we had successfully concluded free trade agreement negotiations with Honduras. I would like to note three key reasons why it was important for Canada to conclude this agreement.

First, Canadian companies were already at a competitive disadvantage in Honduras, and that is a fact. Since 2006, American companies have benefited from having an established free trade deal with Honduras.

Listen to what César Urias, director, Latin America, for Canada Pork International, said to the international trade committee during its study of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. He stated:

In 2004...Canada exported 1,345 metric tons estimated at $2.2 million, approximately one-third of Honduras pork imports. By 2006, Canadian pork exports dropped to zero as the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States free trade agreement...came into effect.

This unlevel playing field was made even worse when the European Union concluded its free trade deal with Central America, including Honduras, in 2010. That free trade agreement has been provisionally applied with Honduras since the summer of 2013. Our companies need to catch up with our U.S. and EU counterparts. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would put them on a level playing field, a level playing field for which they have been asking.

Take as an example what Vincent Taddeo, vice-president international for Cavendish Farms, said. He stated:

The Canadian government must make the timely establishment of free trade negotiations a greater priority and ensure a more level playing field for our exports and exporters; ...be proactive and aggressive in negotiating and conducting other free trade agreements.

I can assure our pork farmers, producers, and workers at companies like Cavendish Farms that this Conservative government is heeding their call.

Second, when we negotiate a free trade agreement, we are looking at the potential for trade in the future. From 2009 to 2013 our two-way merchandise trade with Honduras grew 59.2%. This trend speaks to the potential for further growth of our trading relationship with Honduras. Once the free trade agreement enters into force and our companies begin to see the benefits of tariff elimination, imagine the enhanced opportunities for Canadian business. When our businesses trade, they create jobs and opportunities for workers here in Canada.

To take a snapshot of what this agreement would mean for our pork producers, I will again refer to Mr. César Urias' comments when he stated:

The free trade agreement with Honduras is estimated to generate sales of $5 million to $7 million in the first year following implementation.

That is just in the first year. Stories like that from our industry prove why this agreement needs to be passed and as soon as possible. I repeat: as soon as we can.

What the anti-trade New Democratic Party does not understand is how broad the benefits would be for Canadians, even after Mr. Urias spelled it out for its members at committee, when he explained:

...[the free trade agreement] benefits the very base, the very foundation of the producing sector, as well as farmers, distributors, transporters by train, truck, or you name it. It even benefits financial services, insurance, and credit industries. There's a large, vast effect that is replicated in many other industries, not just...[the pork industry]. It's not just a focused effect. It spreads all over.

When this improved market access for goods is combined with the agreement's provisions on investment, services, and government procurement, we will have created the conditions for Canadian companies to succeed in that market.

Investors would also benefit. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement includes provisions designed to protect bilateral investment through legally binding obligations, and to ensure that investors would be treated fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner. Through the free trade agreement, investors would also have access to transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlement. The investment provisions of this free trade agreement would support a stable legal framework that would protect Canadian investments in Honduras and vice versa, including guaranteeing the transfer of investment capital and protecting investors against expropriation without prompt and adequate compensation.

Finally, this agreement underscores Canada's ongoing commitment to our partnership with Honduras. Honduras is a country with many difficulties and it would be easy to, as the NDP constantly demands, turn our backs in the face of human rights and security challenges. However, this government firmly believes in engagement, not isolation. That is the real way to achieve results. Only by continuing to build an open and credible dialogue can we support positive change in the country.

Even Jim Bannantine, president and CEO of Aura Minerals, a Canadian mining company operating in Honduras, agrees. He said:

...the free trade agreement, through the economic integration and jobs, is the best effect on the security in Honduras. By far the number one positive factor in security in Honduras, that allows us to practise our...[corporate social responsibility] and operate unimpeded, is jobs, economic growth; jobs make the best defence against this violence.

This commitment to building positive change is evident in Canada's multi-faceted, bilateral relationship with Honduras, from our people-to-people links to Canada's development program, and extends into our free trade agreement negotiations. This is why it is important to Canada that we include provisions like corporate social responsibility and anti-corruption and why we negotiated parallel agreements on labour and environmental co-operation.

During his testimony, Mr. Bannantine made it very clear that the Honduran people are seeing results, when he said:

On the...[corporate social responsibility] side, there are lots of examples on the ground. A couple of million dollars a year go to the local community.

For these reasons, the free trade agreement is a cornerstone of our bilateral relationship. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would absolutely benefit both our countries.

I urge all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. Let us get together and pass Bill C-20 as soon as possible.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps we should put things back in context. I am prepared to believe that we have lost the treaty with Europe, as the treaty has not been signed, but going from a treaty with Europe to another treaty with Honduras is a long and painful drop.

Need I remind the House that, economically, Honduras is not as significant as the railway disaster in Lac-Mégantic?

If the Conservatives paid a little more attention to rail transportation in Canada, it would be a lot more profitable from an economic point of view than trying to reach an economic deal with Honduras.

The member spoke about a level playing field, about transfers and about protecting our investments. When the international community is telling Honduras that its Supreme Court justices are corrupt, when the United Nations and some U.S. senators are saying that the most senior judges in Honduras are corrupt, what kind of legal protection will there be for our investments? I would really like to have an answer.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just would remind the member that what I said in my speech earlier was that Canadian businesses, small, medium, and large, are working on an unlevel playing field. The European Union already has a free trade agreement with Honduras, as does the United States of America. We have seen our inability to compete by these onerous tariffs. They have denied Canada's pork producers, as I gave as an example, where they were selling half of the supply of pork down to zero.

While the member raises concerns on a variety of fronts, let us keep our eye on the ball. We want to support Canadian producers, we want to support Canadian jobs, and we want to engage in a positive relationship with Honduras. I hope that member will join with me.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily mean to be mean and pop the member's bubble on his speech, but I must say I am somewhat surprised on two points.

The one is that he never acknowledged the wonderful performance of former prime minister Jean Chrétien, who actually initiated the discussions with not only Honduras but Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, recognizing that was a region in which Canada should be moving toward freer trade agreements. That is one of his failures in acknowledging, I suspect.

The other one is that he makes reference to the European Union. He says that it set this agreement. We have not been able to locate a document where the Prime Minister actually signed it off as an agreement.

I wonder if the member could do us all a favour and table or make a commitment to table, sometime between now and when we leave, an actual document that the Prime Minister signed, as proof that there is, in fact, some sort of agreement with the European Union, because we have not been able to find it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Winnipeg North for basically putting in Hansard all of my failures. When he comes to pointing out that the Chrétien government was so great on trade, there were 3 agreements versus 38 agreements with us now.

To paraphrase a former Liberal member, they did not get it done. I certainly can appreciate that the member wants to see good things for Canada. I do as well. I hope that the member can encourage his Liberal caucus to vote with us, so we can see an enhanced relationship with Honduras. It would be good for Canada, but also good for the Honduran people.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on a well-organized and insightful speech on not only the conceptual arguments in favour of free trade but also the benefits of having a free trade agreement with Honduras.

I would like to begin by saying I am glad that the parliamentary secretary mentioned our record of 43 trade agreements negotiated since 2006 versus the Liberal record of only 3 trade agreements negotiated. I am glad my hon. friend brought up Jean Chrétien, because he said he was going to tear up the NAFTA. I am glad that the parliamentary secretary mentioned Pork International, because if there is one thing the Liberals are experts at, it is pork.

Our government has taken Canada from being a trading nation to a nation of traders. Could he inform the House, particularly the NDP that believes we should set up walls and go to back to Smoot-Hawley, of the benefits of free trade and why it is so important that we have maintained focus on trade agreements with other countries around the world in order to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be mindful that one out five jobs in Canada is dependent on trade. The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior had written that free trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”.

I believe that Canada has a special future, but it is not going to be put out by vague ideas or platitudes or charismatic speeches. It will be done by giving business and Canadian entrepreneurs the opportunity to succeed. That is something government can help with. We can help negotiate free trade agreements. We can help make sure there is investment protection.

I believe in Canada's ability to grow and to compete with the best of them. I would ask all members to give entrepreneurs the opportunity to compete. Let us make this country special and more so now—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always astonished by the way the Conservatives talk about their record on free trade with other countries.

Honduras, for instance, ranks about 104th on the list of Canada’s export markets. In 2012, Canada exported $38 million in goods to Honduras and imported $218 million. We have to recognize that this is quite a substantial trade deficit.

When this government came to power in 2006, our trade surplus was $26 billion. Today, we have a deficit of $62 billion in terms of our trade with other countries.

Can my colleague explain what has gone wrong?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a step back. When we look at trade, we see that trade benefits both parties, or else they would not agree to trade in the first place. Trade balances and surplus change from month to month and from year to year. We had a case where Canada was selling more pork products to Honduras, but because someone else was able to engage and to see tariff-free access, it went down to zero. For those people who rely on that income in places like Merritt in Nicola Valley in British Columbia in my riding, it is very important.

While the member opposite may dismiss the value of Honduras, I would say there are eight million people who want to see a better future, and they look to Canada as being a place where we can trade with them and they with us and we can have prosperity on both sides of both of our borders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my Conservative colleague's remarks tonight. I have great respect for much of the work he does, particularly around the Canadian wine industry.

I am a little surprised that he is boasting about the Conservative record on trade when we have seen such growth in the trade deficit under the Conservatives, who inherited a significant trade surplus. Beyond that, the Conservatives are signing trade agreements with relatively small economies like Honduras.

Why is it that if the Conservatives believe in economic engagement as a way to engage in other issues, including human rights and social development, they have ignored and let atrophy our relationship with powerhouses like China and Africa, with which we had incredibly strong, favoured relations for decades under both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's comments as well as his support for some of my work on the interprovincial transfer of wine.

To go back to the topic of trade deficits versus trade surpluses, those change over time. We should also remember that economies also change. Sometimes an economy will start out with very little resource development but eventually move into value-added. For example, in the auto industry we will sometimes bring in parts from other countries and then put them together using Canadian labour and Canadian know-how and sell them at a surplus.

I would again point out to the member that a tenet of trade economics 101 is that everyone benefits. We can look at the work of David Ricardo. It is one of the principles of economics. Everyone benefits from trade, or else people would not trade.

My last point is that if a country wants to do business with Canada, wants to work hand in hand to build investment and build prosperity, I would hope that the government would look at it seriously and would always go forward with a deal that would make sense for both countries.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague’s previous speech on Bill C-20, concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras, that for the Conservatives, it is quantity that counts, and not quality. Canadians know that we have to negotiate trade agreements that offer winning conditions for Canada, which is precisely what the Conservatives have not done.

I would like to say that I oppose this bill. I also had the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where we examined this bill. First, let me reiterate that the NDP is in favour of international trade. We want to trade with other countries. We want to sign agreements with democracies around the world that can help Canadian manufacturers and contribute to our economy. However, our approach is not the same as the Conservatives’. We believe we must negotiate agreements that meet important criteria.

I would like to speak to the House again about the three criteria that all free trade agreements must meet to earn the support of the NDP. First, we have to ask whether the proposed partner respects democracy and human rights principles. Does the partnership enable both countries to establish and apply adequate environmental and labour standards? If that is not the case, is it really a good idea to support the trade agreement? In that case, the answer is no.

Second, we have to see whether the proposed partnership is of significant value to Canada and whether it will really benefit us. It is clear that the Conservatives have not done their homework on this subject. In fact, Honduras currently ranks 104th among Canada’s export markets, in terms of export value. We know that it is an economy even smaller than the economy of Ottawa-Gatineau. That gives us an idea of the strategic value of trade with Honduras.

Third, we have to determine whether the terms of the proposed agreement are satisfactory. This is also not the case for the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Like me, people may wonder why the government chose Honduras to negotiate a trade agreement. This is a question that a number of Canadians are also asking themselves. My Conservative colleague boasted about the number of free trade agreements the Conservative government has signed. In fact, that shows how desperate the Conservatives are, since they are working from a weakened position on the international scene.

I would like to give a brief summary of the reasons why they came to negotiate a free trade agreement with that country, which has such a small economy and flouts human rights.

We know that once Canada had barely managed to sign a multilateral agreement with the Central American economies as a whole, it looked to the weakest political player, Honduras, to negotiate a specific agreement as part of what is an ideological pursuit of free trade agreements.

In August 2011, the Prime Minister announced the conclusion of negotiations between Canada and Honduras, and in November 2013, the Minister of International Trade and his Honduran counterpart signed the free trade agreement.

Therefore, the reason that an agreement had to be negotiated with a country like Honduras, a country that, moreover, does not respect human rights and has virtually no reliable democratic institutions, is that negotiations with the other countries in the region had failed.

I am now going to explain how the economic benefits of a free trade agreement with Honduras are minimal. It is not as the Conservative member said. According to internal analyses done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian economy will apparently get very little from the agreement. We can see that the Conservatives do not even pay attention to the reports produced by their own department.

As I said, Honduras currently ranks 104th among Canada’s export markets, in terms of export value. The 2011 statistics show that the total value of exports of goods was only $38 million, while imports came to $218 million, which represents a substantial trade deficit.

We wonder whether the Conservatives even took the time to do an impact analysis, to see whether there are really any benefits from this agreement, particularly knowing that tariffs are already very low with Honduras. In fact, a majority of tariffs are below 5%. We wonder why the Conservatives are in such a hurry to negotiate this agreement.

The witnesses raised another concern at the Standing Committee on International Trade, which is the lack of transparency.

We know that the agreement was negotiated with no transparency at all. In spite of repeated requests by civil society in Canada, the Government of Canada did not release the texts of the agreement during the negotiation process.

I would like to digress a moment, if I may. We can see that the Conservatives have taken a particular approach to negotiating free trade agreements: they do not consult adequately with Canadians. They do not consult with civil society, with workers, with first nations or with other groups, and they do not make the text public.

The Standing Committee on International Trade also studied our free trade agreement with Europe or the European Union. During these meetings, witnesses stated that the consultations had not been extensive enough.

I would like to quote what was said by Jerry Dias, Unifor’s national president:

...we've been critical of the way this deal has been negotiated, without the full and meaningful participation of trade unions, environmental NGOs, and other groups in Canada's civil society.

The text of the free trade agreement with the European Union was made public in other jurisdictions. U.S. decision-makers had access to the draft texts, and European parliamentarians too had access to these texts. The Conservative government asked for our trust and prevented us from having access to these draft texts.

I think this lack of transparency is deplorable. It concerns me a great deal because it has become a habit of this Conservative government. It is a habit that prevents civil society groups from consulting with members of Parliament, giving advice to the government and providing the negotiators with facts and information that might help them in negotiating free trade agreements in the best interests of Canadians.

It should also be mentioned that the token environmental impact assessment of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, which was released in October 2013, omitted any assessment of the impact of Canadian investment in Honduras. Those figures were deemed confidential.

In addition, the side agreements on the environment and labour are inadequate. A number of witnesses at the committee meetings said so. The reason they are inadequate is that they are not accompanied by any real measures for enforcing them. In fact, as we say, they lack teeth. They lack the power to be enforced.

According to the section on investments in the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, companies can sue governments in international tribunals, something that undermines the ability of governments to make decisions intended to safeguard the public good.

Canada’s federal government must be able to make decisions that safeguard the public good without businesses having a veto over them. This is necessary.

Now, I would just like to go to the heart of my argument, which concerns human rights, because this is something that is very important to me and something that we have discussed on numerous occasions in this debate.

We can talk about the economic impact of this free trade agreement. However, Canada also has a duty to behave responsibly on the international scene. It has a role to play in promoting human rights, and as members of Parliament, we must encourage the government play this role.

In 2011, in Honduras, there were to 85.5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. This means that in 2011, Honduras was the most dangerous country in the world. This is a very serious matter. I would like to say more about the issue of freedom of the press and explain how grim the human rights situation is in this country.

Journalists and human rights advocates have a pervasive sense that they are under threat, and that the state is at best unable or unwilling to defend them or at worst complicit in the abuses, which is also the general feeling of a large majority of the population. Between 2003 and 2013, there were only two convictions, even though 38 journalists were murdered. That represents an impunity rate of 95%.

It is worth noting that, according to the witnesses who came to the parliamentary committee, there are likely no real investigations in Honduras. That makes it complicated to assign responsibility for the murders of those journalists. We were able to hear witnesses from PEN Canada, a civil society group that studies human rights and journalists' rights.

PEN Canada submitted a report to the committee. The report is entitled “Honduras: Journalism in the Shadow of Impunity”; unfortunately, it is available in English only. I strongly suggest that everyone listening this evening read that very informative report. It contains a lot of useful information. The report specifically looked into the stories that the journalists were covering at the time they were murdered, and found common themes, like corruption, political intrigue, and organized crime.

In terms of the government’s participation, because of the links between organized crime and Honduran security forces—whether the police or the army—it is very difficult to separate the acts of violence committed by those non-state actors from the human rights violations committed by agents of the state. In some cases, we have seen that circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the state was either complicit in, or was actually behind, the murder of journalists.

When we look at countries in the region, we see that Honduras is in a worse situation than Canada’s current trade partners in the region. Honduras is not like the other countries. We really must see it as an exception.

To give you an idea of our situation compared to other countries, it is important to note that, according to Freedom House’s global freedom of the press index for 191 countries, Canada ranks 29th.

Chile is ranked 64th; Peru, 89th; and even Colombia, another country that is grappling with drug trafficking, is ranked 112th. Honduras is ranked 140th out of 191 countries, tied with Egypt, a country where the rights of journalists have been repeatedly violated since the protests of a few years ago.

This agreement is not in keeping with the course of current affairs in Canada. When it comes to freedom of the press, Honduras has a track record that is far worse than its neighbours or Canada's other preferred trade partners.

PEN Canada also pointed out that a lot of the topics that are putting journalists in danger include business, investment and trade. All evidence suggests that journalists who write about far more controversial and sensitive subjects, such as the environment, natural resources and land disputes, are at a far greater risk than their colleagues of being victims of violence or murder.

The Conservatives keep saying that signing a free trade agreement will improve the human rights situation in Honduras. Honestly, do they believe in magic? Not only have Honduran institutions been unable to protect the fundamental human rights of Hondurans, but the government has a history of being involved in human rights violations.

When I asked Karen Spring, who testified before the committee, whether she thought the free trade agreement would have a positive or negative effect on human rights issues, this is what she said:

I would say even the enforcement mechanisms that are established in Honduras under Honduran law are not being enforced in any way given the high impunity rate, so I would say the human rights situation will be negative if we encourage further economic interests in sectors that have traditionally been linked to mass human rights abuses that haven't been mediated by the state.

I also asked Ms. Spring whether she thought Hondurans would benefit from the agreement. This was her answer:

...I would say foreign companies, foreign investment, and the 10 to 12 [Honduran] families who have traditionally run the Honduran economy and political arena [and who will benefit].

According to the experts, not even Hondurans will benefit from this free trade agreement.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to discuss other subjects. I oppose this bill and I hope my colleagues will too.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend were right, I would agree with her. However, the problem is this. We have to give the New Democrats credit; at least they are consistent, but they are consistently wrong.

We just have to think back awhile to when first a free trade agreement with Canada and the U.S. was negotiated and the NAFTA. The New Democrats and their union friends were all dancing in the streets, holding hands, singing Kumbaya and saying how they had to destroy the free trade agreement and the NAFTA.

However, once the NAFTA was in place for a few years, the CAW and then later Unifor all said that it was the best thing that had ever happened to trade between Canada and the United States and that it had led to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs and increased trade between the two.

How will $58 billion in reckless spending and a $21 billion carbon tax help create jobs in Canada more than negotiating free trade agreements between Canada and countries around the world? Could she answer that question for me, please?