Francine Lalonde

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Act, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 proposes to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

I will explain the position of the Bloc Québécois, which will oppose this bill to implement an agreement with the Republic of Peru.

I will first quote from the statement by the Canadian Labour Congress, Peruvian central labour organizations, the Coordination of Andean central labour organizations and the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas, or TUCA, on the free trade agreement and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and Peru.

I found it interesting, because we have seen the new democratic American Congress force President Bush to review the agreement he had already negotiated with Peru—not by himself, of course, but through others—because Congress wanted that agreement to provide for greater rights, particularly for workers, and a greater social safety net. That was done.

Are these amendments enough for us to support this free trade agreement? No, and I will explain why.

Here is, first, an excerpt from the statement:

Based on their collective experience of free trade and investment agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the Free Trade Agreement between the United States of America and Peru and the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Peru, the above-mentioned organizations [the ones I mentioned a moment ago] state that they profoundly disapprove of this kind of agreements that put the rights of investors before human rights, labour law and the social, economic, cultural and democratic rights of the people. These agreements are designed to be entered into by nations with comparable levels of development—

That is why a free trade agreement served as a basis for the establishment of the European Union. The declaration continues:

—and therefore ignore existing disparities between the economies of nations like Peru and those of nations like the United States of America and Canada, whose development is a hundred times greater than that of nations like Peru.

Clearly, those who made this statement also disagree with the signing of the United States-Peru agreement.

The Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-Peru Agreement on Labour Cooperation were negotiated in record time, and no civil society or labour organizations were consulted, nor were any analyses conducted on the effect they would have on the sectors of production, employment, human and labour rights, and the environment of both countries.

These agreements were negotiated in record time, without any consultations or analyses of the consequences.

Experience has shown that these types of agreements compromise the democratic process by giving more power to companies than to citizens and governments. They make the creation of an unregulated free market easier and more widespread, and encourage the adoption of economic, social and labour policies that make the job situation more precarious. That increases poverty, social exclusion and negative impact on the environment, particularly in Peru. Since we are experiencing a global economic crisis, this is not an appropriate time to be signing this type of agreement.

As indicated in Labour's Platform for the Americas, which was adopted by labour organizations of the entire western hemisphere, in order to be considered acceptable, all international trade agreements must have a primary objective of creating decent jobs and sustainable development. The agreement must protect the fundamental labour standards that can be implemented in the signatory countries.

Experience suggests that it is unlikely that the labour provisions [which I spoke of earlier] in trade agreements, whether they are side deals or the main agreements, will lead to concrete improvements to the situation of workers. Trade agreements like NAFTA are not intended to improve labour standards, and there is no indication that they can become a means to ensure labour rights.

We urge the Parliament of Canada to refuse to ratify the Canada-Peru FTA until there has been a full assessment of the economic and social impacts it will likely have on capital mobility, wages, employment stability, working conditions and the environment in both countries and steps have been taken to make up for any deficiency.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to implementing this free trade agreement not only on these grounds, but also because the Bloc Québécois is against the government's strategy of making piecemeal trade agreements. The Bloc Québécois prefers the multilateral approach. Multilateral is a word that may seem complicated, because it is not used on a daily basis, but Latin scholars will know that it means a strategy that includes all the parties, on different sides.

The current economic crisis clearly shows that a market economy can work properly only if it is regulated and stabilized through an institutional, political and ethical framework. Canada should work within the International Labour Organization to ensure that the rules governing international trade are the same for everyone.

The Bloc Québécois believes that trade can contribute to the prosperity of nations. That does not mean that trade and trade agreements automatically profit everyone. It is important to see whom these trade agreements benefit. However, ordinary people can benefit only if these trade agreements include measures that will ensure sustainable development and that will promote the development of the populations involved.

However, I must point out that the Canada-Peru free trade agreement includes a clause to protect investments that is patterned on NAFTA's chapter 11 and that will allow businesses to sue governments. I will talk about this later, but I want to say that the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which has been in force for a number of years, has promoted development in Canada and the United States. That free trade agreement included an investment clause, but it was nothing like the clause in NAFTA. It was mainly because of that investment clause that the Bloc Québécois campaigned hard against the free trade agreement of the Americas.

In fact, the presence of a chapter to protect investments such as one patterned on chapter 11 might interfere with Peru’s social and economic development rather than helping it to develop, as is hoped.

Peru is a minor trading partner for Quebec. Quebec’s exports to Peru represent only 0.14% of total exports from Quebec. It is therefore a small partner and Quebec does not stand to lose.

It must be added that Canada’s main business activity in Peru is in the mining sector. Unfortunately, Peru’s track record on worker protection in that sector is hardly a glowing one. So the agreement does not contain any real policy to hold Canadian mining companies accountable. We talk about it here and there, and the government commissioned a substantial report on the need to impose constraints on mining companies that are created in Canada and everywhere in the world.

Ratifying this agreement will enable mining companies to expand their activities without being liable to any consequences for their actions when they pollute or when they flout human rights.

In Peru, this agreement will not help the situation of people in need, and it will especially not help the Peruvians most desperate to defend their rights, the indigenous people. There are about 600,000 indigenous people in Peru, in the Amazon region, who are subject to enormous inequality, and yet they are the ones most affected by this agreement between Canada and Peru, from what I understand. The mines and the extraction companies that operate facilities in the tropical forest or in areas where the indigenous people live will destroy their habitat without offering any compensation and without consideration, as is generally the case. The indigenous people, for whom it is already difficult to defend their rights, will find themselves in an even worse situation.

Is that our business? Yes. We cannot tell the Peruvians to look after the indigenous people there. Quite the contrary. We know that various products like oil are extracted there. Other products are extracted from mines by various companies. There are also the forestry companies.

Those companies certainly do not come bearing gifts for the indigenous people; quite the contrary. The agreement, which provides for there to be a significant increase in investments, cannot help but please the government, regardless of its feelings about the people there otherwise. I do not want to meddle in this, but I simply want to point out that Canadians have a responsibility in negotiating this kind of agreement, which will enable extraction companies to displace populations who have no means to defend themselves.

To provide an idea of the situation they are in, I thought I would tell the House about some of the documentation I have seen.

There was a study, for example, on inequalities in infant mortality rates. Infants born near the national capital of Peru have first year survival rates that are more than two times higher than the national average. These are children born near the capital. Children born in the forest or the Sierra region, especially in the south, have rates that are almost two times lower than the national average. These inequalities in the infant mortality rates are the result of social inequality, which itself reflects the different rates of inclusion in the social system. This study was a few years old, but there is nothing to indicate it cannot be used today to understand the plight of the indigenous peoples.

The government and Peru's Indian communities are meeting this week in Lima, the capital, against a backdrop of mounting tensions in the northeast, where a state of emergency was decreed pursuant to indigenous demonstrations against the oil concessions granted to the Franco-British multinational, Perenco.

The president of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle, Mr. Pizango, described this decree as an act of aggression. Pizango and a number of Indian leaders are going to meet with Prime Minister Simon today, but without any apparent hope of making progress. “The government, and not just the government, has always treated us like second-class citizens”, Pizango said. His organization represents 65 different ethnic groups living in 1,350 communities with a total population of 600,000 located in the east Amazon part of Peru.

There have been blockades for a month now of roads, rivers and airports in the north to get the decrees I mentioned rescinded. According to the indigenous communities, the controls over mining, petroleum, forest and water development on their ancestral lands are being weakened. Between three and ten demonstrators were hurt on Sunday. On Monday, the International Federation of Human Rights supported the demands of the indigenous peoples and called for the withdrawal of these decrees as well.

One of the reasons I have been fighting the free trade agreement is that it allows all Canadian investors—who may be fine individuals—to pursue and to step up the exploitation of sub-surface resources in these sensitive regions, which need to be protected, along with the people who live there.

[Foreign Affairs, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada chairs the Refugee Working Group. This forum has been inactive for years. What is keeping Canada from using it to put forward a proposal for a realistic settlement on the matter of refugees, which would serve as a basis for negotiations and could bring the two parties together? Why not?

[Foreign Affairs, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, negotiations for peace have reached an impasse. President Netanyahu, the new Israeli president, is questioning certain aspects of the peace plan. The roadmap provides for an end to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory and recognition of two states, and the UN advocates the return to the 1967 borders.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that recognition of these three points remains essential for long term peace in the Middle East? Is this in fact the Canadian position?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the people I know from these groups are utterly opposed to the agreement, not for what I would call futile reasons but for reasons they can justify.

When social conditions and human rights are like those in Colombia, the logic behind free trade agreements means that they cannot have any other result than to reinforce the power of the government and rich people and ensure that the underground resources benefit foreigners much more than Colombians.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will have to be brief.

I think that it will because of the provision concerning investments. We must not underestimate what that will entail. These investments are not made in cities, but over large areas, in the forests and savannahs where the people live.

Think of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the massive mining investments made in that country and the resulting loss of quality of life for the people. Those who live in a village may not have much to eat, but they can live from agriculture and gathering. It is a living.

However, when a mining company moves in and starts digging, putting up buildings, sending dust flying in the air or using chemicals in processing the minerals extracted, the people's lives are turned upside down. They have no control over that and know nothing about those things. In addition, without unions—

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. Knowledge comes to members as they accumulate age and experience. It is true that, over the years that I have been here, there has been much talk about free trade in the House of Commons.

This topic was discussed when NAFTA was signed, and we pointed out how ridiculous chapter 11 was. It allowed companies to apply directly to international tribunals, thereby depriving states of the opportunity to defend themselves.

I did not get the chance to mention this, but the concept of expropriation under this agreement is such that improved conditions for the citizens could be construed as having a negative impact on the potential for profits and, thus, through great lawyers using fancy words, be considered justification for expropriation. Such is the meaning of this agreement. Therefore, we must be extremely careful.

I come from the labour movement. I know that good negotiations require a good balance of power. This does not mean that the parties are fighting one another, but one party has the opportunity to discuss with the other because the latter cannot impose its will on the former. In this case, the parties are Colombia and Canada. Of course, Canada has the upper hand. All Colombia can “sell” to Canada is mining investments. When we examine the issue from every angle, that is what matters, and unfortunately, these mining investments are what is making life difficult for the people. It could not be any other way.

The Colombian government can say all it wants. While a few benefits here and there may come from this agreement, overall, it will be detrimental to the Colombian people and it will tilt the balance of power toward the government and away from the people.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of Bill C-23. I will start by giving the main reasons why we are opposed to this bill, and then I will explain some of those reasons.

It seems to us that the federal government's main motivation in entering into this free trade agreement is not trade—members will see why we say that—but investment, because the agreement contains a chapter on investment protection. The agreement will therefore make things easier for Canadian investors, especially in the mining sector, and we know that there is considerable interest in investing in Colombia.

That is the main motivation, in our opinion, but judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia would be ill conceived.

All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Such clauses are especially dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best. By protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement could delay social and environmental progress in this country, where the need for progress is great. This is serious, and I would like to hear what my Liberal colleague has to say about it.

In fact, Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and certainly in Latin America. To advance human rights around the world, governments—those willing, that is—use a carrot and stick approach. They support efforts to improve respect for human rights and reserve the right to take away privileges if progress slides back.

With this free trade agreement, Canada would forego any ability to bring pressure to bear. In fact, not only would it give up the possibility of using the carrot and stick approach, but it would be surrendering all power to the Colombian government.

To convince us of its good intentions, the government keeps saying that this agreement would come with a companion agreement on labour and another one on the environment. The fact of the matter is that such agreements are notoriously ineffective. Unless they are part of the free trade agreement, which they are not, investors could destroy with impunity Colombia's rich natural environment, displace populations to facilitate mine development or continue murdering unionists. Companion agreements cannot be used against any of this if they are not part of the free trade agreement.

As for the free trade agreement per se, the Bloc Québécois is against trading off the government's ability to press for human rights to provide Canadian corporations with foreign investment opportunities.

We must ask ourselves what is the purpose of a bilateral free trade agreement with Colombia like the one with Peru. I could quote figures, but for the benefit of those listening, I will simply say that statistics do not show a substantial increase in trade, but only a slight one.

This situation is an exception to the usual signing of a free trade agreement, because they are usually made between special trading partners who trade sufficiently to make it worthwhile to lower trade barriers.

The Colombian market and trade with Colombia are not particularly sizeable. The products Canada primarily sells there, such as western grain, can be sold easily elsewhere, especially during this crisis, and Quebec and Canadian exporters will see only limited benefit at best from the conclusion of this agreement.

Some Canadian businesses might be interested, but we fail to see what attraction there might be for people in Quebec and Canada. In fact, from what we can see, this free trade agreement mostly protects Canadian investors and investments in the mining sector. That is of greater interest to Canadian investors and to the government, which is sensitive to their lobbying.

I have to say here that we do not oppose investment agreements, but we oppose bad investment agreements, and this appears to be one.

Indirect foreign investment is growing exponentially. In order to create a predictable environment and ensure that a foreign investor does not end up losing his assets or being nationalized without compensation—this is the example always cited, as happened with oil in some instances—countries conclude treaties to protect investments. We have nothing against that.

The first Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the FTA, which included a section on investment protection, chapter 16, was the first agreement in the world to include a dispute resolution mechanism, which the two countries could use. I emphasize that it was between Canada and the United States, two countries with major trading activities and able to negotiate for their mutual benefit.

There was a dispute resolution mechanism available to the two countries. The agreement worked well. No discriminatory measures were taken against a foreign investor and no case was submitted to the arbitration tribunal. And yet, during the five years the agreement was in force, the value of Canadian investments rose by 41%. So it was not a bad agreement.

However, when it came to negotiating NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico, these three countries driving the negotiations wanted to change the agreement on investment because of unreasonable concerns about the risks run by investors in Mexico.

Under chapter 11, foreign investors may apply directly to international tribunals, circumventing the filter of public good provided by the governments. This is not insignificant. It means that companies can apply on their own to international tribunals, whereas under the FTA, governments alone could do so. That is a big difference.

The results can be very different depending on whether companies or countries make such applications.

The word expropriation had a specific meaning in chapter 16 and a different one in chapter 11. It is so broad a concept that any legislation that might have the effect of reducing an investor’s profits can be deemed expropriation and result in a lawsuit. Foreign investors are allowed to go before international tribunals. Moreover, they can interpret the law in such a way that, if the government of a particular country passes legislation that reduces the value of their investments in any way at all, they can equate these losses to expropriation and launch a lawsuit. The amount of the suit is not limited to the value of the investment but includes all possible future profits. It is very abusive.

This chapter was denounced by everyone. If legislation to protect the environment reduces a foreign investor’s profits, the government is exposed to fabulous lawsuits. Despite all that, Ottawa signed several bilateral agreements over the years that are copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA. The criticism reached such a pitch, though, that the Liberals eventually stopped signing these kinds of agreements.

I want to digress a bit. I took part in the election in which Jean Chrétien promised to do all he could about the free trade agreement, the FTA. We know what happened then. Not only did he sign it, but he went on to conclude several others and became the great propagandist of free trade agreements. Under the Conservatives, Ottawa is back on the offensive and negotiating numerous agreements of this kind. In the one with Colombia, the Conservative government cedes to multinationals the right to determine the public interest.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore oppose the bill to implement this free trade agreement because of the clauses it contains that are copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA. We want the government to return to the old format for these agreements, which did not give the multinationals a free hand at the expense of the public interest. We are in favour of free trade, but not under any conditions at all.

We do not want conditions that will make people’s lives worse, especially when the people in question have no other recourse, like the Colombians in this case. They have virtually no individual or trade union rights and are at the mercy of investors whose strong, violent mercenaries will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.

A number of other members and I met with some individuals—trade unionists and people from NGOs—who had been designated by the people in villages under siege from multinationals to come and explain the situation to us.

There are human rights abuses. The Conservatives tell us over and over that things are improving and the situation is less catastrophic than before. The truth is that the human rights situation is quite a bit worse than it used to be. Most violations are committed by paramilitary groups and human rights workers are worried about the ties between these groups and the government.

I have a few statistics. In 2008, the crimes committed by these paramilitary groups increased by 41% in comparison with a 14% increase the previous year. There was a 9% increase in the proportion of crimes committed by government security forces. Even though the number of crimes is rising, the perpetrators remain as immune as ever. Only 3% of crimes end in a conviction. It is impossible to say under these conditions that there is any respect for human rights.

As for workers' rights, we realize this is one of the world's worst places for respecting them. Trade unionists are targeted for their activities. I have met a number of them. They told us they cannot not live freely. They are in hiding constantly. They are afraid of being shot point blank. And their fear is not groundless, because, since 1986, 2,690 trade unionists have been assassinated. It could be said that the number of murders has decreased somewhat, but, in 2007, 39 unionists were murdered—nearly one a week—and, in 2008, 48 were murdered. This is not a situation in which union members can be said to be able to exercise their right to exert pressure. As one union vice-president put it, thousands of people have disappeared, and unions continue to be persecuted.

Population displacement in Colombia is often the result of conflicts opposing government security forces, paramilitary groups and guerrillas. However, economic displacement is increasingly frequent. In most cases, the people displaced receive no compensation. Various means are used to force people from a given location: pressure tactics, threats, murders and land flooding. There are also stories of the many people living in small villages, in clearings near the sites of mines rich in various minerals, being forcibly moved off in all sorts of imaginable and unimaginable ways in order to make room for investors. There is nowhere for them to go. The American State Department and Amnesty International say that another 305,000 persons were displaced in 2007. There had been a lot before then. In 2008, over 380,000 persons had to flee their homes. In fact, since 1985, nearly 4.6 million persons have been forced to leave their homes and their land.

The Conservative government can go on saying that the human rights situation has improved, but Colombia is second only to Sudan in the greatest number of internally displaced persons. That is really something. That is an understatement. Would Canada be prepared to sign a free trade agreement with Sudan?

There may of course be side deals, but I have said such agreements are ineffective. I see no way of improving this agreement without it being changed very significantly.

As we do not see any such improvements appearing, we think that the free trade agreement presented here for implementation will in no way help the people of Colombia, Quebec and Canada.

[Afghanistan, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, voted to end the current mission in July 2011. That is the truth.

Therefore, is the government committed to withdrawing Canadian soldiers from all combat zones at that time? Yes or no?

[Afghanistan, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, after the Minister of National Defence stated last week that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan might be extended beyond 2011, Afghan sources indicated that President Obama would require NATO members, including Canada, to provide more ground resources.

Will the government again say no to President Obama and remind him that this House has decided that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011?

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity).

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for this Parliament to find a way to decriminalize medical assistance in dying, which is of such vital importance to those whose suffering can no longer be relieved except by this ultimate compassion.

In recent years, the parliaments of three countries in the European Union, as well as two states in the U.S., have enacted legislation which allows physicians under certain circumstances—the express request of terminally ill patients being one of them—to help certain persons die.

Serious research into the application of this legislation and their very specific criteria clearly shows that the greatest fear expressed in this Parliament some years ago, abuses and the hypothetical slippery slope, has not in any way become reality. A remarkable progression has taken place in public opinion concerning the need for such a law. Increasingly, people believe that they should have the right to choose, when the time comes.

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