Madam Speaker, we rise at second reading to debate among all parliamentarians a bill that deals with free trade. At second reading, parliamentarians are charged with the responsibility of debating the principle of the bill that has been put before them.
I believe all members in the House could support describing the principle of the bill before the House as one that engages fundamental principles of sound trade policy. That is what underpins this bill. When we look at the issue of sound trade policy, we ask ourselves what that means. What do Canadians want to be the underpinnings of Canadian trade policy? I would submit for all parliamentarians the three principles of sound trade policy are sound economic principles, sound environmental principles and sound social and ethical principles.
I would submit that all three of those principles have to be satisfied in any particular trade proposition put before the House if we truly are going to pursue a path of sound trade policy. I do not mean one of the three principles. I mean that all three of those principles must be satisfied. Let us consider each.
Let us consider the principle of sound economic benefits. If a trade bill put before the House does not reveal that it would be beneficial for the citizens of Canada and the citizens of the country that is the target of the trade deal, then that criterion is not satisfied and the bill ought to be rejected. If that bill before the House does not contain aspects to promote and sustain environmental practices that we all know are necessary for the world to adopt, but instead leads to environmental degradation, then that criterion is not satisfied either. Finally, if that bill raises serious social and ethical questions about violations of human rights and basic social rights, or if it contains measures that may exacerbate social inequality in either country, then that criterion is not satisfied either.
Why should we have those three criteria about sound trade policy applied in the House? Because trade is an instrument of policy. With our trade policy, we can influence. We can encourage nations. We can discourage and dissuade nations through the result of decisions made in this chamber. I do not say that our trade policy is determinative. We will not fix every problem in the world through our trade policy. However, our trade policy is a reflection of what Canada can do on the world stage as we take a position that might help make the world a better place in certain corners, or a worse place.
We can reward countries that are demonstrating positive behaviour. We can discourage those nations that are violating human rights, damaging the environment and exacerbating inequality. That is because, in my respectful submission, trade is not amoral.
Would Canadians want us to trade with South Africa if the system of apartheid were still in place? Would Canadians want us to trade with Rwanda if the genocidal regime were still in power? Would Canadians want us to trade with fascist Germany, if that type of regime was on earth today? They would say no. They would not want to engage, reward or give succour to those countries if those countries were pursuing policies that are dangerous, damaging and cause death.
Trade on the international stage ought to be, should be and must be a reflection of Canadian values. Canadians want our country to be a positive force on the world stage.
The New Democrats have always made those principles the cornerstone of our own policy on trade. The NDP would push for progressive, fair trade agreements that fulfill the following requirements: the agreement must promote human rights; it must be a win-win on jobs and raise the quality of jobs in both nations; it must raise Canadian standards of living and standards of living with the recipient country; it must respect and enhance environmental stewardship; and it must preserve Canada's ability to legislate and protect our sovereign areas vital to our own interests.
I studied the bill quite carefully in the last session and this session and I can tell the House that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as it is presently written, is contrary to all of the principles I have just enunciated, it clearly fails the human rights test and has only a marginal positive economic impact on Canada to boot.
Let us look at Colombia. It is one of the world's worst human rights violators. It is a renowned narco-state. A Canadian who does not know anything about South American politics will easily tell us that they recognize that Colombia is a major source of harmful drugs coming into our country.
It is a country with out of control paramilitary death squads and a country of gross inequality. Those are not just my conclusions. Those are the conclusions of a wide and disparate group of very respected international bodies. I will quote from a few. Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation have expressed deep concern that the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia has been signed without regard for the widespread and serious human rights violations that continue to be the daily reality in Colombia. They say that there is an ongoing and extensive link between state security forces and paramilitary death squads which continue to operate despite government claims to have successfully demobilized them.
There is an ongoing failure to bring the perpetrators of human rights violations to justice despite several high profile prosecutions. Justice remains the exception and impunity the norm, giving the green light to those who continue to abuse human rights.
This is not just last year's reality or the reality of the year before. It is carrying on this year as well. Most recently, these same groups have concluded that there continues to be the use of excessive force by state security against the mobilization of indigenous people expressing opposition to free trade agreements and other policies that they believe negatively impact their rights. There continue to be threats and attacks against land rights activists, particularly in areas of economic interest impacted by this agreement.
In 2008 alone, there were threats and attacks on trade unionists that increased by 16% and more than 40 people were killed last year alone in Colombia.
There has been an increase in extrajudicial executions by state security forces of civilians and there have been repeated public statements by President Uribe and other senior officials demonizing trade unions such as striking sugar workers, indigenous organizations and other groups that are speaking out about violations of human rights. Such statements have led to threats and violence, including killings.
Following critical reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in October, President Uribe publicly accused Amnesty International of fanaticism and dogmatism and the Americas Director of Human Rights Watch of being a “supporter and an accomplice of FARC guerrillas.
President Uribe also has demonized members of his own supreme court who were investigating links between politicians and the ruling coalition and paramilitaries.
The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights issued a press release in March calling on Colombian state authorities to guarantee the protection of human rights defenders and leaders of grassroots social organizations. It also urged Colombia's office of the attorney general to promptly begin an investigation into these events.
According to the Canadian Labour Congress, there are more labour activists and labour leaders murdered in Colombia than in all other countries on the planet put together. Colombia has 4 million internal refugees. This is a snapshot and a picture of the country with which we propose by the bill to engage in closer economic ties.
I want to talk a bit about equity. I did some research on the domestic situation in Colombia and two stark figures jumped out at me. The first is that 49.2% of Colombians live below the poverty line. Second, in terms of splitting up the population and their share of the wealth of Colombia and household income, the lowest 10% of people in Colombia have less than 1% of the nation's wealth, and the highest 10% of the Colombian population controls or owns 45% of that country's wealth. We are talking about a country where there is gross disparity between the wealthy and the poor and yet we want to reward that country by engaging and giving it the benefits of increased economic relations with Canada.
I find it interesting that when the government prorogued Parliament, it claimed that it did it, supposedly, to recalibrate the agenda, to consult with Canadians and to focus on the economy. When the House came back in early March, what was the first piece of legislation that it put before this House on any substantive issue? It could have been on any topic but it chose to introduce Bill C-2 on Canada-Colombia trade, a controversial and divisive piece of legislation and a rehash, by the way, of old legislation that was introduced in the last session.
I reiterate that the government could have introduced legislation on any topic it wanted. It said that it had consulted with Canadians. If so, it could have introduced a bill on jobs. Jobs are a priority for my constituents. We have a need for a national industrial strategy. We have a need for a green energy, green economic strategy. We need to create jobs in this country to help the working-class and middle-class take care of their families. We need to protect the environment and position our country to prosper in the global economy. Did the government bring in a bill on that? No.
It could have brought in a bill on housing. We have a need for a national housing strategy. My colleague from Vancouver East has put forward an excellent bill on this very subject that the government could simply adopt. The federal government could re-enter the affordable housing business. It could help create seniors' housing, housing for the disabled, co-ops, affordable rental stock and affordable market housing. It could have brought in a bill that would have housed millions of Canadians, which is also a priority in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Did it do that? No. It brought in a bill to increase economic relations with a murderous regime in South America.
Did it bring in a bill on child care? A national child care program is long overdue. My colleague from Trinity—Spadina has done excellent work in this regard. Many ideas have been proposed that the government could have adopted that would help working families, women and parents across this land. They would have helped to put Canadians back to work, because when we have quality, affordable child care spots, parents are free to go back to work. No, that was not a priority for the government.
The government could have brought in a bill on pensions. In the last session, the House adopted our motion unanimously in this House. We need to improve pensions for Canadians, strengthen the Canada pension plan, increase GIS and OAS, and lift seniors out of poverty. One year of the government's spending on corporate tax cuts would be more than enough to lift every senior currently living in poverty out of that condition. What did the government do? The Minister of Finance just announced that we will engage in consultations on pensions.
We get action on engaging in economic activity with countries that are killing their citizens, but we get consultations on lifting pensioners out of poverty. We do not need consultation in this country. This House has unanimously adopted a New Democrat plan that we put forward and that is what we expect a responsible government to do.
When the government prorogued Parliament and it went out to consult with Canadians and recalibrate, did it consult with Canadians about the advisability of signing trade deals with human rights abusers? Did it go to Canadians and ask them if they wanted to have a trade deal with Colombia? Did it ask Canadians how they felt about 40 trade unionists being killed last year? Did it ask Canadians if they wanted to get a little closer with those people? I do not think it did.
I want to stop for a minute to illustrate how we feel on this side of the House about this matter: Ken Georgetti, Buzz Hargrove, Robert Bouvier, Ken Lewenza, Sid Ryan, Paul Moist, Leo Gerard, Judy Darcy, Hassan Yusuf, Leah Casselman, Tom Dufresne, Jim Sinclair, Debra McPherson, Ed Frenette, Phil Benson, Darryl Walker, Wayne Fraser, Bob White, Wayne Peppard, Barbara Byers, Marie Clarke Walker, Denis Lemelin, Lorene Oikawa, Don MacLeod, Steve Hunt, Reid Johnson, Gary Kroeker, Irene Lanzinger, Andy Ross, Barry O'Neill, Amber Hockin, Kay Sinclair Kevin, Phil Venoit, Kevin Rebeck, Don McGill, Susan Spratt, Jim Pearson, Ivan Limpright and Cindy Oliver. Let us pretend those people were murdered last year in this country by paramilitary groups. That is what happened in Colombia last year alone.
I worked for a trade union for 16 years and represented workers when they had grievances in their workplace. I sat at bargaining tables with their employers, in the private sector and the public sector. We sat cooperatively around the table and talked about each other's interests. If I had been in Colombia last year, there is a chance I would have been killed. Is that the kind of country we want to sign a free trade agreement with? How would Canadians feel if those people I just named had been murdered by roving paramilitary right-wing groups in this country and some other country in the world wanted to foster closer relations with us? How would we feel about that country and how it regards our civil rights, our human rights?
My constituents in Vancouver Kingsway know about trade and the importance of relations with other countries. Vancouver Kingsway is a multicultural riding. Citizens in my riding come from dozens of countries around the world. Many of them are involved in import and export businesses of all types. I have thousands of small businesses in my riding working with other businesses overseas. My constituents favour building strong cultural, diplomatic, economic relationships with other countries because they recognize the benefits of economic cooperation. They know that we need to share our ideas and technologies, that we need to foster economic growth in developing countries and in our own communities, that we all want and have an interest in alleviating poverty, and that we want to build a global community. They know that trade can and should be mutually beneficial, but trade, they also know, must be done right and it must be fair.
Trade deals must benefit citizens and trade must never trump human rights. My constituents, and I believe all Canadians, do not favour giving trade priority over human rights. Canadians do not favour dealing with countries that are regressive as opposed to progressive.
The bill before us is a bad intentioned bill and it is one that would not be consistent with those values I just spoke of. Many countries in this world are showing improvements in human rights and many countries would see a real benefit to its citizen from increased economic ties to Canada. The government should be seeking out those countries. We should be fostering closer relations with countries that build the kind of country and the kind of world that Canadians want to see in our own country and our own world.
I would encourage all parliamentarians to put aside their partisan interests, look at the facts and join with all Canadians in building a trade policy that is consistent with the principle of peace, prosperity and respect for human rights.