Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak against this agreement. Having spent 35 years as an environmental professional, I feel it is my obligation to speak against it for the specific reason that our trade agreements in this country have regressed over the last 20 years.
Almost 20 years ago, we entered into the North American free trade agreement. Regrettably, at that time, environmental and labour issues were sidebarred. I would have hoped that two decades later, when we have a government that claims a strong commitment to environmental protection, human rights and labour standards, it would finally take the next step and actually put environmental protection and indigenous rights on the same level as investors' rights. Regrettably, the side agreement to the trade agreement with Colombia is a complete backward step from the agreement we at least had on the environment under NAFTA.
I looked with great interest at the side agreement. I think I am like anyone else in the House in considering it a privilege to work for the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which was established according to the side agreement to the NAFTA. I commend the governments at the time for coming forward with a very detailed side agreement, regardless of the fact that it was not binding, with penalties if the parties did not effectively enforce their environmental laws.
We see the opposite. We see complete regression in trade agreement after trade agreement that the current government has negotiated. It is embarrassing. We are supposed to be showing the best face for the environment and the way that development should occur. The government has stood in the House time after time, talking about its commitment to sustainable development, its commitment to address climate change and its commitment to environment. Yet here we have solid evidence in this free trade agreement. There is absolutely no commitment to real action on environment.
There are a lot of words. I looked at the agreement very carefully. At the very minimum, I would presume that we would take the agreement that was negotiated with the United States and Mexico and build on that. We have learned a lot in two decades. We have had many independent reviews of the work of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. What has happened? We have thrown those learnings out and simply looked at this with blinders.
I ask a simple question for the member who spoke before me. What penalties will arise if either of the parties, Canada or Colombia, fail to implement strong environmental standards? There is absolutely no recourse. There are no penalties in the side agreement of the Colombia-Canada agreement. That is absolutely reprehensible.
I can go through every aspect of the agreement and indicate where it has failed most critically. Under the NAFTA side agreement, we form a commission similar to the European commission, a wonderful model that shows the government is genuinely committed to ensuring that we have sustainable development when we enter into trade with another country. There is no council. Under the agreement with Canada, the United States and Mexico, we establish a council of highest-level environment ministers.
Under the North American agreement for free trade, we also establish an independent secretariat, employing professionals from all three countries. We have no council or secretariat. Under the agreement with the United States and Mexico, there was at least an advisory council of representatives of business and the public to those three ministers. We have no such council under this agreement.
We are stepping backward very fast. The side agreement is basically non-existent. It is simply paper. There is nothing to it. There are vague references to corporate social responsibility. If a government manages to pass an environmental law, it should enforce it. However, there is no independent watchdog.
Unlike the North American agreement, where citizens of any of the three countries, Mexico, the United States or Canada, can file a complaint of failure to effectively enforce the law and that complaint will be reviewed by an independent secretariat and reported back to the council, there is no such independent review. It is to be undertaken by somebody within the bureaucracies of one of the two countries.
I fail to see any positive aspect to this agreement. I am looking forward to the government explaining to me what it sees wrong with the North American side agreements.
I know that over time the Government of Canada backed off on commitment to the North American agreement, which I find regrettable. It is a fantastic institution. I had the privilege of being the first head of law enforcement co-operation and as a result helped to form, with the enforcement agencies of Mexico, United States and Canada, the first regional network on effective environmental enforcement, two effective networks: one enforcement of wildlife laws and one for pollution control. There are no such measures under this side agreement.
Most important, the part of the NAFTA side agreement that the Government of Canada brags about time after time is the commitment to transparency and participation in law making. In the North American agreement every new law and policy must undergo advance scrutiny and participation. Under this agreement, there is no such provision.
I could go on and on about the failings of this agreement. I am frankly completely amazed. Given the expertise that we have under the Chilean agreement, under the North American agreement, why have we decided to be so regressive in environmental matters? When we are talking about a country like Colombia, a developing nation, we cannot divide environment from human rights. They are one and the same. Where we have a major development coming in that is displacing a community and in particular an indigenous community, we are talking about violations of human rights. It is absolutely critical that this be a solid, binding agreement and that we hold that country accountable if it does not live up to those obligations, particularly where there are Canadian investors.
I do not think it appropriate that the Government of Canada pass over that responsibility simply to a Canadian investor. Were I a Canadian investor I would not want to have to be fulfilling that complete role. It is the obligation of the parties to the agreement that should be ensuring that the trade is fair, sustainable and it observes our basic human rights and environmental protections, the very conditions and obligations commitments we have signed on to time after time with the United Nations.
The government should withdraw this agreement, go back and revisit it. Let us have the same kind of strong requirements that are in the North American agreement and let us step it up a notch. Let us ensure that we have very clear penalties if the governments of Colombia or Canada do not live up to their environmental obligations.
The environmental provision is very critical, but on the transparency and participation, we absolutely must improve the provisions in this agreement, particularly given what we have heard in the House today and heard previously about what may or may not be going on Colombia. Absolutely we need to have an independent entity that is reviewing what is going on with environment.