Madam Speaker, we would rather not be resuming this debate on Colombia. I think the only good thing that came out of the prorogation is that this bill died on the order paper. If memory serves me correctly, this bill at the time was Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.
The Bloc Québécois is still somewhat surprised—and so are many Canadians and Quebeckers—to see the Conservative government's determination to negotiate a free trade agreement with Colombia, a country with which we have relatively little trade. There are other countries, other communities, the European Union for example, where Canada would do equally well to negotiate a free trade agreement or a partnership agreement, as it is doing with the European Union.
Knowing what little interest the government showed for years in opening negotiations between Canada and the European Union, we are surprised to see how determined this very same government is to implement this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.
The first reason why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this free trade agreement is the clauses on investment protection. It is rather surprising that, in the case of the free trade agreement we just concluded with the European Free Trade Association, which the Bloc Québécois supported, we were able to get a clause on investment protection for Canada and the member countries of the association. That clause comes from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and is traditionally found in this type of trade agreement. It ensures that in the event of a dispute between investors, whether from Canada or one of the member countries of the association, the countries negotiate the settlement and make their representations to the relevant tribunals. It is not the companies that do so directly.
I remind you that we are not opposed to opening borders—we have supported a number of free trade agreements in the House beginning with the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA—but to these clauses. They make it so that it is not the governments that are making representations, but the companies themselves, which can go directly before the special tribunals to contest the decision of a government to establish industrial or social policies or make other choices intended to improve the welfare of its citizens.
I also note in passing that only recently, pursuant to the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, it was not the American company that took the Government of Canada before the London tribunal. It was the government of the United States, which contested a decision taken by the Government of Quebec, in this case, and it was the Government of Canada's lawyers who represented the interests of the Canadian companies before the tribunal.
NAFTA was the first free trade agreement signed by developed and industrialized countries, Canada and the United States, and a developing country, Mexico. There is some paternalistic distrust on the part of the industrialized countries, because they fear that the governments of developing countries will adopt policies that could have negative consequences, in Mexico, on Canadian or American companies and investments. NAFTA provided, for the first time, these new kinds of investment protections. Under NAFTA's chapter 11 a company may go directly before a special tribunal to challenge a government's economic, social or other policies.
We cannot accept that, especially in the case of countries such as Colombia or Costa Rica. We also opposed a free trade agreement with Costa Rica.
There is no balance of power between these countries and an industrialized country such as ours. Governments like that of Canada or the multinationals are continually imposing rules on them.
For this reason alone, the free trade agreement with Colombia is unacceptable in our opinion. The Bloc works very hard to ensure there are no abuses in the case of NAFTA's chapter 11. Up to now, we have been able to prevent them, but the threat will remain that an American company will contest a decision of the Government of Canada. It would be surprising to have a Mexican company do so.
UPS already started proceedings against Canada Post because it felt it was facing unfair competition from the Purolator branch of Canada Post. Fortunately, that hit a dead end. Multinationals want to use this sort of clause for purposes contrary to the common good.
There is already good reason to oppose the free trade agreement but there are even better reasons: human rights and trade union rights in Colombia. The government can prevaricate all it wants but the reality remains. There are constant violations in Colombia of human rights, union rights and the rights of citizens, especially aboriginals.
I will provide a few figures. The U.S. State Department and Amnesty International say that another 305,000 people were displaced in 2007. In 2008, more than 380,000 people had to flee their homes or workplaces because of the violence.
According to the Human Rights Council, there was a 25% increase in the number of population displacements in 2008. The same organization says that 2008 was the worst year since 2002 for population displacements. Since 1985, nearly 4.6 million people have been forced to leave their homes or their land. The number of displaced people is estimated to be more than 3% of the entire population. Every day, 49 new families arrive in Bogota.
Aboriginals are especially targeted. They account for about 4% of the population but about 8% of the displaced persons. Colombia is actually the second worst country, after Sudan, for the number of people who have been displaced as a result of threats, reprisals and violence.
Would the Canadian government consider negotiating a free trade agreement with Sudan? It would be extremely risky politically and harmful to our international image. So it is very unlikely. The same kind of situation exists in Colombia.
Canada already only goes through the motions of denouncing the situation in Colombia. The danger of a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is that we would simply abdicate our international responsibilities and, even worse, subcontract immigration cases to the Colombian authorities.
I would like to take this opportunity to speak about a family that lives in my riding and reflects the situation in Colombia. A citizen and his wife had to leave Colombia because they were threatened both by FARC and the government. After quite a saga, they managed to come to Canada, where they both got refugee status.
Thirteen other members of their family are still in Colombia and witnessed the massacre of the Turbay Cote family by a former Colombian parliamentarian, Luis Fernando Almario Rojas. The family that witnessed the former parliamentarian’s massacre of another parliamentarian’s family is currently under the protection of the Colombian police.
Anyone familiar with the situation in Colombia knows that the existence of paramilitary forces and the protection of the Colombian police or of a specialized police force meant to protect witnesses involved in such cases can provide little in the way of guarantees. That kind of protection is cause for much concern because, as we all know, corruption is not unlikely, and law enforcement personnel can easily be bought.
The members of these two families, my constituent's family and his wife's, have been threatened. They went to the Canadian embassy in Bogota to ask for refugee status, but their claim was denied.
Like so many others, they went to Bogota because they wanted to get away from the people who were threatening to persecute them. They were from Caquetá. The Canadian government says right on its website that, because of political instability in certain regions, including their region, Canadians and Quebeckers are advised against travelling there. Something just does not make sense here.
I am going to read the warning because we should all be aware of the Government of Canada's own assessment of the situation in these parts of Colombia.
The presence of armed drug traffickers, guerrilla and paramilitary organizations, including the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the ELN (National Liberation Army), poses a major risk to travellers. These groups continue to perpetrate attacks, extortion, kidnappings, car bombings, and damage to infrastructure in these areas. Landmines are used by guerrilla groups, especially in rural areas.
You are also advised against all travel to the departments of Cauca, Caquetá [the department that the citizen I mentioned, my constituent, is from], Guaviare, Valle del Cauca (excluding Calí) and Antioquia (excluding Medellín), to the southern parts of Meta department and to the city of Buenaventura, due to the presence of similar armed groups.
That is right on the government's website. How can the government warn citizens of Canada and Quebec not to visit these regions because they are full of paramilitaries, guerrillas and criminals, yet be so insensitive to what these two families are going through?
The worst part of the story, and the part that brings us back to the free trade agreement, is that the excuse given by the government's representative, the immigration officer in Bogota, was that since they are protected by the Colombian police, they have nothing to worry about. However, we know that many people in the paramilitary forces cine from the police and have direct contact with most members of the Colombian Congress.
It could be said that the government has contracted out the security these people need—through an immigration officer—instead of shouldering its international responsibilities and allowing these 13 people to rejoin their brother, son, and uncle in Quebec, in Canada, in beautiful Joliette. They would undoubtedly be safer under the watchful eye of the member for Joliette. None of the Colombian refugees here in our region are afraid. But that is not what happened. Instead, Canada's responsibilities were sub-contracted to an immigration officer and, ultimately, to the Colombian authorities.
And that is what is happening without a free trade agreement. Imagine what the situation would be like if there were a free trade agreement. This tendency to avoid seeing a realistic picture of Colombia would be even worse and even more Colombians who are in danger in their country would be rejected under false pretences.
This is not a unique case, but it is a case I will follow through on. I cannot accept an agreement that is strictly for trade reasons, for investment reasons and for protecting Canadian investors, particularly a few unsavoury Canadian mining companies. I am not in any way suggesting that is the case with the whole industry, but we must be aware of what is going on in many countries. This situation is not acceptable right now, and it could get worse with a free trade agreement that will, in a way, legitimize the Colombian authorities.
The government's reply is that there are two parallel agreements being discussed here: one on labour rights and human rights, and the other on the environment. That is interesting, because it means that what the government is currently negotiating with Colombia has nothing to do with human rights and is strictly commercial.
Having two parallel agreements that provide nothing—we can be sure of that—but that affect areas that have nothing to do with trade or even protecting investment shows that the Canadian government knows this agreement has a much broader scope than a simple trade agreement.
I remind the House that these parallel agreements first appeared in the negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement. That was rather interesting. I was not part of the negotiations, but I was part of the North American Forum on Integration, a coalition that was following these negotiations very closely. At the time, we had a Conservative government. Its leader, Brian Mulroney, was a Progressive Conservative, but the approach was the same. We were told that NAFTA would not affect the environment or rights, and that it was strictly a commercial agreement.
Unfortunately for the Canadian and Mexican governments, Bill Clinton's election in 1993 and inauguration in 1994 completely changed things. Bill Clinton was elected by claiming that the North American Free Trade Agreement would be enhanced by agreements on the environment, union rights and labour rights. Paradoxically, it was the American government that forced the Canadian government to negotiate these agreements. I remember that the government scrambled to bring us to Ottawa to give them an idea of what an agreement on labour or the environment was. In fact, I believe Montreal is the headquarters of the environmental secretariat.
We made recommendations that were not implemented because these agreements have no teeth and are not binding in the least. We have the proof—we have been living with NAFTA and its side agreements since 1994—that these produce absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the many reports by the two secretariats indicate that there has been no progress, and that the situation has even deteriorated sometimes in Canada, the United States or Mexico. Once again, we should not see this as a paternalistic attitude. Canada and the United States have taken steps backwards in many areas in recent years. I am thinking of union accreditation in the United States and even in much of Canada.
We need agreements that are an integral part of the trade agreement. I would go so far as to say that they must be a condition for obtaining the privileges set out in the free trade agreements or partnership agreements, as they are now called by Europeans. Compliance with international conventions on the environment and the major conventions of the International Labour Organization must be included.
That is the direction being taken. The Conservative government of Canada does not understand this. In the United States, President Obama is talking about a second generation of free trade agreements that will include these aspects. That is one reason why the ratification of the free trade agreement is currently blocked in the U.S. Congress.
Compliance with major international conventions can take many forms. It is not a question of imposing a model on developing countries.
In closing, I will give the example of union accreditation. In industrialized countries, democratic countries, there are countless means of accreditation. The practice differs completely from France to Canada to the United States.
However, in each country, some pressure is put to uphold the right to unionize. It is not always effective, but it does at least exist.
For example, in terms of union rights, it is important to respect the right of association. I do not believe that a free trade agreement will move Colombia in that direction.
