Bill Siksay

[Public Safety, October 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Mohammad Mahjoub is still being detained without charge, trial or conviction on a security certificate. It has been nine years. He is still the only prisoner at the double maximum Kingston Immigration Holding Centre and he is still on his hunger strike, now at 144 days, over the lack of an independent complaints process.

His hunger strike is extremely serious. Permanent serious health consequences or death could happen at any moment.

What has the Minister of Public Safety done to resolve this situation? Is he pursuing mediation and will he allow the correctional investigator jurisdiction?

[Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and other Serious Crimes Act, October 21st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and passionate defence of the judiciary because all too often in this place there are cheap shots taken against judges and the excellent work they do for our communities across the country. I want to ask him about something else, some of which I know he discussed in his speech.

Statistics Canada did a study of conditional sentencing and community supervision and it showed that it was much less likely for people who have served conditional sentences to become re-involved in crime upon their release. They are far less likely, within the 12 months after their release, to become involved in crime again as opposed to someone who served a sentence in prison. It was actually found that in four provinces, 11% of people who were under community supervision on a conditional sentence became re-involved with correctional authorities within 12 months but among those who had actually been in prison, 30%, more than double, became re-involved with the criminal justice system.

I wonder if he might again address the whole issue of recidivism and the more positive outcomes that we are seeing from people who had conditional sentences and community supervision than those who actually go to prison.

[Canada Grain Act, October 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a question for my colleague.

I find it a little offensive, to say the least, the suggestion of Conservative members that those of us who live in urban ridings do not have a particular interest in what happens to the grain industry in Canada.

We know because we are consumers of that product, but we also know that in Vancouver and Burnaby there are many people who earn their living in the industries that support the grain industry. The people who work in transportation and the people who work at the elevators live in our communities and know the importance of this industry and they know the importance of the Canadian Grain Commission.

Could the member comment on the fact that some people in our communities are going to lose their jobs because of the bill, people who provide an excellent service as inspectors, who are professional and well trained and who have done the quality assurance on this product? People in my community know the importance of grain to the Canadian economy. They know that high-quality grain is important to our economy, and they know that there are people in our communities who do that work to assure that quality.

Why would the Conservatives be moving to get rid of them?

[Request for Emergency Debate, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting an emergency debate under the terms of Standing Order 52(2) on the extremely serious situation at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre where security certificate detainee Mohammad Mahjoub is on the 126th day of a hunger strike. Hunger strikes of this duration are extremely dangerous with the ever-present possibility of permanent health consequences and death.

Mr. Mahjoub has been detained since 2000 never having been charged, tried or convicted of a crime. That indefinite detention without charge or conviction can happen here in Canada is of profound concern especially since it happens under the terms of legislation intended as an expedited deportation measure.

Mr. Mahjoub is the only person in detention in Canada who does not have access to an independent ombudsperson to review complaints about the conditions of his imprisonment. The Correctional Investigator Canada provides this important function for inmates of all other federal institutions. This is the key issue of Mr. Mahjoub's hunger strike.

The possible if not imminent death of a man in a Canadian detention centre, a man who has been held for almost nine years without charge or conviction, is an emergency that demands the attention of the House. Parliamentarians must be heard on a situation that challenges fairness, that subverts due process and that belies confidence in our justice system.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the motion to concur in the report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on Canada in Afghanistan, a report that was originally tabled in the last Parliament but because it was still valid, was reported to the current session as well. I am glad that we have this opportunity to speak about what is happening in Afghanistan and what the future holds for Canada's efforts in that part of the world.

As a member of the NDP, I still believe that our mission in Afghanistan is the wrong mission for Canada. I have believed that consistently in my time here in the House of Commons and before. If I could do so, I would bring our troops home now because I think that the role they are playing departs from the role Canadians believe our armed forces should be playing around the world.

Our role in this combat mission is the wrong mission for this country. It is a departure from the values of peacekeeping, of separating combatants, of putting ourselves between those who are solving disputes through violence. I believe Canadians firmly believe that is the role Canada should be pursuing in the world. Our ongoing combat mission in Afghanistan is something that has not upheld those kinds of values in which Canadians firmly believe.

I also believe that this is a war that cannot be won. We have heard many others who are far more skilled in military operations than I make that same statement. It is not a statement that comes from someone who is unaware of the situation or the difficulties of engaging in war. Many people now firmly believe that that is the case.

I also believe that pursuing a combat role and a war in Afghanistan was never a way of ensuring security for Afghanistan, ensuring security for the people of Afghanistan, for making sure that human rights were upheld in that country and for ensuring women's rights. We have often heard that this was a war that had establishing women's rights as one of its goals. I do not think that any of those things can be established by military means. It takes a lot more and a lot of other kinds of efforts to make all of those important things possible.

We have seen a turn in the opinion about the war, even from people who initially supported it, even from those who have made it their career and their business to understand how wars are fought and won. This is a war that cannot be won.

We are there and I doubt that is going to change before the date of February 2011, which was set in this House a number of years ago, but if there is an opportunity to discuss bringing the troops home as another possibility, I will be there to discuss that possibility.

What do we do in the meantime? The report is very clear. It mentions in at least three of its recommendations the need for a new focus on diplomatic efforts.

Recommendation three talks about the need to set the conditions within Afghanistan for the possibilities of peace and reconciliation, of how the folks within the communities in Afghanistan need to work together to find that place where another possibility can be explored. That is a very key recommendation of this report.

Recommendation four talks about the role of the United Nations. Clearly the United Nations needs to be a key player in whatever the future of Afghanistan is. That was a very significant recommendation from the committee as well.

Recommendation five talks about the importance of regional diplomacy and the importance to have other countries of the region, the neighbours of Afghanistan, directly involved in finding a solution to this situation. We have heard that talked about this afternoon already.

New Democrats have long advocated for a diplomatic effort, have long advocated that Canada should be making more efforts on diplomacy. The leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Toronto—Danforth, was very clear that Canada needed to be pursuing every diplomatic means possible and needed to be talking with all of those who could bring about a different kind of solution than a military one in Afghanistan.

There was some derision for that, but it is interesting now to see that many of allies, that many military experts are also saying we need this kind of diplomatic effort, that it is not an option but a necessity to bring this situation to a conclusion.

I am proud of my leader for having been there earlier on and clearly in favour of Canada taking a role in that area.

We know the region is one that lacks a certain security. The insurgency in southern Afghanistan, which is now spreading to the north, also affects the security of the countries surrounding Afghanistan. Those countries have a direct interest in seeing a diplomatic resolution to what is happening in Afghanistan. They also need to be involved in pursuing that resolution. Canada should be talking with them to encourage their participation in finding that diplomatic solution. Countries like Russia, China, Turkmenistan, Iran and Pakistan all have a very clear interest in what is happening in Afghanistan and their security is all very much bound up in that.

Others have said that this diplomatic effort is absolutely crucial. The United Nations special envoy to Afghanistan has called for a political surge, which is his phrase, to match the kind of military surge about which we have often heard. We need that kind of political surge to ensure a satisfactory solution to this conflict can be reached. That is important to realize and the UN can play a very important role in that.

We also know that involving those other countries will lead to a sharing of the burden of responsibility for what is happening there. Canada has had a very large share of that burden and our men and women in the armed forces have disproportionately, in many ways, shouldered the burden of our involvement there, of the activities and of the war in Afghanistan. It would be good to involve the other countries of the region in sharing that burden.

Also Canadians have been involved in the region in negotiating earlier agreements. They are experts in understanding that part of the world, in particular Afghanistan. In particular, Mokhtar Lamani has been very involved over many years, working in Afghanistan and with the people of Afghanistan and in the region. He certainly should be involved in any future efforts to find a peaceful or a diplomatic solution to what is happening. He worked together with his colleague, Lakhdar Brahimi, the former Algerian foreign minister, on many of these issues. They did a report in 1988 and they were also involved with the Bonn conference report in 2001.

It is interesting to look back at those reports which came out of both Mr. Brahimi's and Mr. Lamani's original report. They also came out of the Bonn conference. The issues that were delineated are still with us today in Afghanistan. In 2001 they noted that the Taliban was training foreign fighters and it was a very destabilizing kind of effect. The drug issue in Afghanistan was still very destabilizing and the narco economy was a very serious problem for any effort in that region. There were very serious human rights problems as well.

Sadly, none of that has changed today. None of the efforts that have been expended in Afghanistan so far have been successful in addressing any of the concerns identified before the conflict began. Mr. Brahimi said that the Bonn conference process needed the participation of those in Afghanistan who were willing to talk, who were willing to be part of a diplomatic solution, which could include elements of the Taliban who were willing to participate in that kind of process.

Therefore, we saw in other instances where we needed that kind of broad diplomatic effort, a diplomatic effort that did not only include NATO countries and the UN, but included regional partners and the people of Afghanistan as well as the political groups there. Surely it is only common sense to believe that this is the way to a solution to this conflict.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has made it very clear that it is a very necessary piece of what needs happen and what needs to be on Canada's agenda as we move forward and that there is much more we could do as a country is that regard.

We know we have excellent diplomats who are very capable. We have experts in the region who are from Canada. There are ways for us to take advantage and play a very key role in a diplomatic solution, not just in our current military role in Afghanistan.

There are very serious issues related to the ongoing conflict there, serious issues that point to a lack of progress, which would cause many of us to question what has been happening there, what our role is and what success we can point to, if any, in that region.

I think many of us were disappointed in the outcome of the recent elections in Afghanistan. The ghost polls, the electoral fraud that seems to have been documented so far, and more reports will likely be coming out about that, is a huge disappointment. It must be a huge disappointment to the people of Afghanistan, who have been told time and time again that their future lies in the establishment of a true democracy in Afghanistan. They must be incredibly disappointed that their ability to have a say about how their country proceeds into the future seems to have been manipulated, that this does not seem to be working as it should and that their say in choosing their leadership has been altered in some way. That is a very serious problem and it is very disappointing. It again points to the question of what has been accomplished in Afghanistan.

There are very serious concerns, as well, about rampant corruption within Afghanistan and within its government. There is no doubt that much of this may be linked to the narco economy and the drug trade, which is a very serious ongoing problem. Other solutions to this have been proposed but they have never been taken up seriously by who those do that kind of work to establish a cleaner regime in Afghanistan. There are other suggestions and proposals out there that would try to deal with the narco economy in Afghanistan, yet very little progress has been made in those areas.

That is a very significant concern about our ongoing participation in this war in Afghanistan and one that does need our attention.

In recent days my colleague, the member for St. John's East, and in previous months and years the former member for New Westminster--Coquitlam, raised very serious concerns about the operations of the Afghan police and armed forces and about the detention centres and prisons in Afghanistan and what exactly happened in those organizations and institutions.

We have heard the very disconcerting stories about the sexual abuse of boys by members of the Afghan police and the Afghan armed forces, serious charges that are a huge concern to us all.

We have also heard the concerns regarding torture against detainees in those prisons in Afghanistan. In fact, in the past this is one issue that I have raised in our debate on Afghanistan, the Canadian policy of turning those who are captured in the course of Canadian military operations in Afghanistan over to the Afghan authorities, to Afghan prisons, where we know torture has been practised and is practised.

I have often said it is an inappropriate policy of Canada to turn over detainees to Afghan authorities after they have been captured in a Canadian military operation. I still believe it is a dereliction of our responsibility to the people we capture in the course of war. These ongoing allegations about torture in the Afghan prison system concern me greatly.

Some of these complaints have gone before the Canadian Military Police Complaints Commission. Yet in recent days we have also become concerned as to whether that body will have the ability to fully report on these very serious concerns. My colleague from St. John's East again raised that in question period today, to try to get the government to commit to the ongoing mandate for those who are currently working at the Military Police Complaints Commission on this report. This is a very serious report. It needs to be completed and they need to have the resources to fully finish that work before there is a change in leadership. I would heartily support the concerns and the suggestions made by the member for St. John's East in that regard.

We need to be fully clear about what our role has been with regard to these very serious allegations. If Canadians did not take responsibility for information they knew about the abuse of boys by the Afghan police or Afghan armed forces, we need to know that. We need to know what is happening in Afghan prisons. I hope a way can be found to ensure that important work is not interrupted or delayed.

Shortly after I was elected as a member of Parliament, I raised a concern during a take note debate on Afghanistan. I remember asking the minister and colleagues how Canada was planning to deliver development aid to Afghanistan and noted the fact that the aid was being delivered by the Canadian military. I had very serious questions then and I continue to have very serious questions about trying to deliver development aid by the military. It is utterly ineffective, it is the wrong way to go and it is a complete departure from how Canada has delivered military aid in the past.

We know that when a combatant military force is also responsible for delivering development aid, especially in an area where conflict is still possible and still regular, it sets those development projects up as targets of the opponents of our military forces. It is not an effective way to ensure that the development aid, if it is building a school or some other community facility, is not targeted by the enemies of our armed forces due to our combat role in the region. It is not a good way of delivering that aid.

In fact, if we look at the statistics, it seems our ability to deliver that aid has been extremely limited. It is my understanding that we have committed to building 50 schools in the Kandahar region for the period we are in Afghanistan. However, at this point only five of those schools have been completed. It is not a very good record given that there is only a limited time left in the mandate of the armed forces there. It is not looking promising that the commitment, that delivery of very important aid to the people of Afghanistan will be met. We have been unable to deliver on those schools as a key piece of that commitment.

A lot of question are being raised about the cost of the military mission in the war in Afghanistan, the cost in human terms, the number of Canadian men and women in the armed forces, the diplomat who have died in service in Afghanistan. We know their families, friends and communities mourn and grieve their losses, we all do. There has been a huge human cost.

We also know there has been a huge human cost on the part of the Afghan people. We do not often hear about the human cost to Afghan civilians. In fact, sometimes that information is kept from us. I applied to have those statistics a number of years ago. I was told that it could not be released. There is a very limited response in that way and it would be good to know what the true human cost of this conflict is. There is also the huge military spending involved in this mission in Afghanistan.

There is no doubt that significant taxpayer dollars are going to fight this ongoing war in Afghanistan. Given the many questions about it, one wonders about that huge financial commitment. We want to ensure that when we ask men and women of the Canadian armed forces to undertake this kind of work, they are well equipped to do that. There is no excuse to send them to battle without giving them the appropriate resources. However, we need to be very clear about the cost.

[Williams Syndrome Awareness Week Act, October 5th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-453, An Act respecting Williams Syndrome Awareness Week.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a private member's bill to establish Williams Syndrome awareness week in Canada. I thank to the member for Winnipeg North for seconding the bill.

I am pleased to support the work of the Canadian Association for Williams Syndrome, which supports people with the syndrome and their families, friends and neighbours. Williams Syndrome is a rare, incurable, non-hereditary genetic disorder. Like Down Syndrome, it is caused by a chromosomal abnormality and there is a wide variation in ability from person to person.

Individuals with Williams Syndrome have a unique pattern of emotional, physical and mental strengths and weaknesses. Various forms of hyperactivity and a hypersensitivity to noise are two of the key psychological factors related to Williams Syndrome, and children with the syndrome all have distinctive facial characteristics.

For parents, teachers and support people, increasing awareness of the syndrome can be key to understanding an individual with Williams and helping them achieve their full potential. The incidence is approximately 1 in 20,000, but as the medical profession and public become more aware, more cases are being diagnosed.

Marking Williams Syndrome awareness week in August each year will lead to a better understanding of the needs of those who live with it, ensuring happier lives and relief and support for parents and caregivers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Motion No. 354 moved by the member for Scarborough Southwest and now amended by the Conservative member for Yorkton—Melville. I am glad this happening. There is a lot of co-operation happening in the House this evening on this important motion.

This speaks well of the ability of members to co-operate and get important work done in this place. We do not hear about that very often these days about Parliament and I am pleased we have had the opportunity to co-operate together to get this issue on the agenda and to make progress toward a universal declaration on animal welfare and Canada's participation in that process.

When the member for Scarborough Southwest began her remarks, she noted that I had on the order paper a very similar motion to her original motion and had agreed to withdraw it so she could use her place in private members' business to see this issue debated. I very happily did that.

It is great that we are able to see this issue debated and I am glad she was able to bring it forward, with the co-operation of her colleagues.

Then this evening the government put forward a proposal that would make the motion something that it would be able to support. We have all heard the proposal, looked at it and agreed this should go forward.

I am glad we have a working motion, an amended motion, to consider here, which seems to have received co-operation from many corners of the House.

I first heard about the universal declaration on animal welfare when I met with representatives from the World Society for the Protection of Animals several years ago. I had not heard about this important initiative prior to that meeting. I was glad to meet with the folks from WSPA and hear about it.

WSPA is one of the world's largest alliances of animal welfare organizations and it continues to grow. Right now it is around 850 member societies in over 150 countries, which is a very significant group of animal welfare organizations.

WSPA and its key partners are acting as the secretariat for the group of steering committee governments championing the initiative in their respective regions of the world. Therefore, WSPA is very involved in the promotion of the universal declaration on animal welfare.

It has many key partners: the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Humane Society International, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming. It also has support from over 300 of WSPA's member societies.

Therefore, a significant group of organizations deal with animal welfare issues around the world that are supporting this initiative and support the activity of WSPA.

The UDAW, as we heard already this evening, is an agreement among nations to recognize that animals are sentient and can suffer, and to respect their welfare and to end animal cruelty. These are all important goals that merit being debated in this place and in other parliaments and assemblies around the world and in other organizations that deal with animal welfare around the world.

The UDAW is proposed to be a non-binding set of basic principles that would encourage all nations to put in place improved animal welfare laws and standards, a set of guidelines and recommendations that we can judge our own efforts in our country and in countries around the world.

It is suggested by the organizers that the final destination for the UDAW is the General Assembly of the United Nations. We have heard this evening that the government takes some issue with that. Our government has taken the position that the United Nations might not be the appropriate venue for this resolution.

That is something we can debate and it merits consideration. The government has made the point that it believes the United Nations should be about human relationships and human activities. I think the people who support the universal declaration on animal welfare will say that the interdependence between animals and humans is so intimate that this is something of direct concern to humanity and should be debated at the world body of this planet.

Therefore, I think this is an argument about which we will hear more. There is nothing in the amended resolution that does not preclude us winning that argument and seeing that the United Nations would be deemed even by our own government as relevant international organization or forum. I look forward to that continuing discussion.

Sentience is defined as the capacity to have feelings and to experience suffering and pleasure. It implies a level of conscious awareness. The recognition of sentience in animals is a crucial bottom line in dealing with animal welfare issues.

Animal welfare discussions are also guided by five freedoms that are stated in the draft of the universal declaration on animal welfare. Those five freedoms are described as freedom from hunger; freedom from thirst and malnutrition; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

I think we can all appreciate why those are all very crucial to the well-being of an animal. Their basic care, their basic needs, the freedom from pain, injury and disease, and the freedom to express their normal pattern of behaviour are all things that make sense. They are very basic freedoms that I think are easy to appreciate.

Going back to the whole issue of the interdependence of animals and human beings, the humane use of animals benefits people. We know this from our experience here in Canada and around the world. People rely on animals for their livelihoods, jobs and food security. We know that responsible animal management provides a positive impact on land use, climate change, pollution, water supplies, habitat conservation and biodiversity.

Our relationship with animals has a direct effect on our environment, and that opens up a whole other argument about the appropriate forum for the discussion of the universal declaration on animal welfare. I would contend that when we think about that appropriate forum, it puts the UN back in the picture.

Proper animal care reduces the risk of diseases transmittable to humans, improves productivity and helps farmers provide food for their communities. That direct link between animals and humans is further extended by those issues of disease transmission, the productivity of our farms, food production, and the need for food security in our communities.

Already a number of countries have supported the development of this initiative and the list of those countries is growing all the time. Back in March, the European Union formally announced its support for the UDAW through the council conclusion endorsed by all 27 EU agriculture members. In 2007, the World Organisation for Animal Health, which represents the chief veterinarians of 69 countries including Canada, voted unanimously in favour of developing a universal declaration on animal welfare.

There is support in many countries and organizations among professionals who deal with animals. I think that it makes sense for us to be discussing this here in the House of Commons in Canada and to be lending our support to the development of this important new international declaration.

We know that here in Canada we have had issues regarding the improvement of our legislation on cruelty to animals. We have debated it. We have tried a number of times to come up with new legislation and to update legislation that dates from two centuries ago. It is very old legislation. Some attempt was made and some of the penalties were updated, but the overall legislation still needs our attention.

We hope that we might find a way to do that here in Parliament and do it effectively. I believe that discussing and achieving a universal declaration on animal welfare will stimulate that further discussion here in Canada and give us cause to judge our attempts by this international declaration. I think that it will put our own efforts in a broader context and also challenge us to do more in the area of preventing animal cruelty and in speaking up for animal welfare in this country.

I am pleased to have had this discussion. I am glad that there seems to be a spirit of cooperation to see that this will move forward in the best possible way. I want to thank the member for Scarborough Southwest again for introducing this and making sure that it got on our agenda here in the House of Commons.

[Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, October 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Scarborough Southwest for introducing this motion this afternoon. It is a topic that I have an interest in as well.

I wonder if she could say a little bit more about how this might influence the debate in Canada around animal welfare. We know the UDAW would not be a binding resolution, should it be adopted, but how might this raise the level of debate in Canada around animal welfare issues? What might it bring to that discussion that would be helpful for us when we finally get around to modernizing our animal cruelty laws here in Canada? We know that needs to be done. We have been disappointed by the efforts to do that in the past.

How could this international discussion influence our discussion here in Canada?

[Department of Peace Act, September 30th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-447, An Act to establish the Department of Peace.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a private member's bill today that calls for the establishment of a department of peace as a full federal government department.

I would like to thank the member for Scarborough—Agincourt for seconding the bill.

The bill is based on the model developed by the Canadian department of peace initiative. This bill would establish a full, comprehensive department of peace as part of the infrastructure of the Canadian government, with its own minister, department and resources, and put peace at the centre of government rather than on the corner of a desk of another minister or other public servants.

There would be a voice dedicated to the promotion of peace at the cabinet table.

The department's mandate would be to promote a culture of peace and the non-violent resolution of conflict in Canada and around the world and to build institutions for long-term research policy and action for sustainable peace.

The bill would also establish a Canadian civilian peace service to further professionalize peace work by Canadians.

A similar youth peace service is also contemplated by the bill.

As the co-chairs of the Canadian department of peace initiative, Bill Bhaneja and Saul Arbess have noted that this bill is about the need to bring peace through peaceful means.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, who will we be dealing with when we sign the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement? The government of Colombian President Uribe has been accused by international rights organizations of a long list of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extrajudicial killings by the army, links to paramilitary and right-wing death squads and using security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, the opposition parties, government politicians and journalists. In fact, many government members, including ministers and members of Uribe's own family, have been forced to resign or been arrested.

It is also worth noting the statistics on violence directed against trade unionists. They show that 2,690 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008 the number was up 18% over the previous year, so the situation is not getting any better. So far this year, 27 trade unionists have been murdered. Over the last 10 years, 60% of all the trade unionists murdered around the world have been murdered in Colombia. It is a horrific record.

Nearly four million people in Colombia are internally displaced persons, with 60% of them coming from areas of economic importance, regions where mining and agriculture are the key activities of that area. Private companies and their government and paramilitary supporters have forced these people from their homes. There is a huge conspiracy against the working people of Colombia, especially in the areas of great economic development.

The links between multinational corporate activity in Colombia and paramilitary terror have been well documented. Multinational corporations pay off paramilitaries to allow them access to resources and land. In fact, 43 companies have been accused of having ties with paramilitary groups and the forced displacement of communities and assassinations of trade unionists.

Clearly, this is not a record that anyone in the House could be proud of, yet we are negotiating a deal with the people who allow this to happen in their own country.

What is the attitude of other countries toward Colombia? It is important to note that the United Kingdom has ended military aid to Colombia because of the systemic crimes committed against the Colombian people. In the United States, which on the opposite side of the House there often seems to be some indication to take a cue from there, the American Congress put on hold a U.S. Colombia free trade agreement last year. President Obama has said that he will not pursue the agreement because of the human rights abuses in Colombia. It is very significant that we look to two important allies of our countries and their stance around Colombia.

In 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that no agreement be signed with Colombia until the human rights situation there showed improvement. I would think that is at a minimum. It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken to determine the real impact of this trade agreement. The committee recommended that this be “an impartial human rights assessment carried out by a competent body which is subject to independent levels of scrutiny and validation”. This recommendation and the committee's report have been ignored by the government.

Over 50 prominent Canadians have signed a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, urging the Liberal Party to ensure that the concerns around human rights in Colombia are addressed before this agreement is endorsed and finalized. They also point out the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade in this regard. It is clear that human rights need to be taken into consideration.

There is nothing in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that will improve the situation in Colombia. There is nothing in the agreement that will lead to the end of violence against trade unionists. There is nothing that will improve the lives of ordinary Colombians. There is nothing that will agree adherence to environmental standards. This is not an agreement about fair trade.

The Canadian Labour Congress has opposed this agreement. It said:

We oppose the creation of any situation where Canadian investors, exporters, and importers stand to benefit from the lack of freedom experienced by the most vulnerable populations in Colombia....

The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement was not written to protect labour and human rights. It is more than a “trade” agreement. It is a trade and investment agreement underpinned by tacit Canadian support for a security agenda that defends the extractive industries, the drug cartels, and the internal security forces of Colombia.

We have to say “no” to this agreement.