Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this extremely important debate. First of all, I would like to congratulate the member from Compton—Stanstead on the birth of her first granddaughter on Sunday. I believe this event should be acknowledged in the House. We have a future sovereignist. Congratulations.
I will now turn to the bill. I believe this is exactly the type of bill that is very problematic for Canadian and Quebec societies and all western societies in terms of relations with a developing society that has significant economic and political difficulties. It also poses a problem with respect to what tack to take in its trade relations and the ensuing political, social, environmental and cultural ramifications.
Unfortunately this government is in denial about something that is extremely important. Of course, the Liberals denied it also when they were in power. These free trade agreements have an impact on trade and the economy as well as having social, environmental and cultural implications.
In our opinion, this agreement contains nothing to guarantee that the people of Colombia will benefit from it. That is also true for Canada and Quebec, but to a lesser extent. Our moral responsibility is to ensure that the agreements Canada negotiates with other countries are to both parties’ advantage. I am thinking of Colombia in this case, but the same thing may arise in relation to Costa Rica, with which we have negotiated a free trade agreement that was strictly to Canada’s advantage. Is it morally acceptable for parliamentarians to endorse this kind of agreement and this kind of thing being done by the Canadian government?
Once again, the Conservatives have taken up the torch from the Liberals.
Take the example of investment protection. This free trade agreement with Colombia gives rights to Canadian multinationals. It will be said that rights are also given to Colombian multinationals, but are there such multinationals, and how many of them do business with Canada? They are being given the same right as a government to go before the courts to challenge provisions adopted by the federal and provincial governments, including Quebec, or by municipalities. Based on this agreement, multinationals can challenge the legality of certain decisions in the name of private property rights, the right to profit and to invest, no holds barred.
This new provision appeared in the North American Free Trade Agreement when it was negotiated with Mexico. It absolutely did not exist in the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. It seems that this provision was introduced to defend against forms of economic nationalism such as have been seen in Mexico. This is like asserting total control over the governments of those countries. I am talking about Mexico, but it was also true for Costa Rica, and now for Colombia.
This is a totally unacceptable agreement and that is why there is such strong resistance in Parliament to adopting it without thoroughly debating it. It is not that we are opposed to protecting investments. For example, in the trade disputes between Bombardier and Embraer, the rules of the World Trade Organization are being undermined. In a case like that, there is an arbitration tribunal where Canada represents Bombardier and Brazil represents Embraer. Embraer or Bombardier do not appear directly before the special tribunals that handle cases relating to NAFTA or this agreement to challenge a decision made democratically and completely legally for the welfare of the public that parliamentarians are supposed to represent. Not to mention Colombia’s tragic track record when it comes to respect for human rights.
It is all very well to tell us there have been improvements, but there is a long way to go before we, as a society, can associate ourselves with impunity with what is going on there. As I said, there are human rights abuses. People are harassed and even outright killed by paramilitary organizations. I can attest to this, because we have a community of Colombian refugees in the riding of Joliette, particularly around Joliette itself, who came here because of the political situation in Colombia. Even today, there are Colombians who come to join their families in the greater Joliette region because their lives have been threatened down there by the paramilitary forces or by FARC. There is a human rights situation that is absolutely incompatible with the rule of law that Canada should be advancing on the international stage.
Workers’ rights, the right to unionize, the right of association, the right to strike, the right to bargain freely, none of those are respected in Colombia. I can attest to this myself, because as Secretary General of the CSN I worked for many years with Colombian trade unionists whose lives had been threatened. There are people who have come to Canada and Quebec to testify about the abuses in the situation that people in the labour movement lived in, and who, once they went back home, were unfortunately again victims of harassment, or worse still, were outright killed. We cannot accept this.
We hear about displaced populations. There again, unfortunately, there are Canadian companies that are not living up to their responsibilities. They are guilty of some instances in which populations, and in particular aboriginal populations, have been displaced.
The government’s answer, like the Liberals’ answer, is that we have parallel agreements about the environment and labour. Those agreements, which have existed since NAFTA was signed, were included in the free trade agreements with Chile and Costa Rica. They are not in any way binding and they have not resulted in any significant improvements in labour rights or environmental rights, or more generally human rights. What is needed is for certain provisions to be incorporated into the free trade agreement or a future free trade agreement with Colombia. The benefits provided for in the agreement have to be linked to respect for the major international conventions of the International Labour Organization and the major environmental agreements, and respect for human rights.
All of this is missing from this treaty. I think this is largely a result of the government’s indifference, the Conservatives’ insensitivity to what human rights mean. When we consider that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister went out and said that if the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Court was correct and the Canadian government had to do everything necessary to repatriate young Omar Khadr, and I note again that he is a child soldier, arrested at the age of 15, who has been living in Guantanamo since that time, he was not sure that the government would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. When we have reached the point that the Conservative government—because in this case, that is what we are talking about—is telling us in advance that it may not abide by a decision of the Supreme Court, we are in trouble.
This is not the only situation where the Conservatives are disregarding the rules. I am thinking, for example, of the current situation the Chief Electoral Officer finds himself in, where the Conservative Party, in response to the interpretation given by the Chief Electoral Officer, who is the arbitrator of the democratic rules when it comes to elections, has decided to bring action against him. The arbitrator is being sued. They do not agree with his decision, so they start legal proceedings. I am also thinking of the partisan appointments and the use of public funds for Conservative propaganda purposes.
I myself have seen in the riding of Rivière-du-Loup—Kamouraska—L'Islet—Montmagny—I said it backwards, but it is the same riding—tactics that it would not have been believed still existed in elections. There have been the phoney announcements by Conservative ministers and the use of resources in dubious fashions. I am thinking of the advertising both on the radio and in homes. And also, on election day, strangely, there was a message going around among Bloc Québécois sympathizers that created definite confusion.
I am not saying it is the Conservatives, but as Sherlock Holmes said, and I will conclude with this: “Who benefits from the crime?” Who benefits from the crime that took place in Rivière-du-Loup on November 9? I will leave the answer to the listener.
