Bill C-2 (Historical)

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and signed at Lima, Peru on November 21, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It states that Bill C-2 in clause 7 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 3 with:

(h) promote sustainable development including sustainable human development.

[Matthew Kronby]

Maybe we could do that as we get to those clauses. I wouldn't want to overlook anything here. So maybe rather than going through all of Bill C-2 now and discussing what it does or doesn't do, it would be easier to address that when we get to a clause.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Could you identify for us the later clauses in the bill that deal with breaches of the agreement, just so we know? I ask because you certainly have a good knowledge of the legislation, and that's why we bring you forward. We appreciate that.

I just ask so that we can flag these clauses later on. I have my own feelings on this, but it would be helpful to have you provide us with the clauses of Bill C-2 that deal with breaches.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I don't think I need to spell out the process for you; I know you have a lot of experience.

What this committee hasn't done, of course, because we didn't have full committee hearings into Bill C-2.... There are a whole bunch of organizations that have asked to come before the committee that have not, and I'm sure those organizations will be voicing their concerns in the coming days now that it's out in public. Organizations like the Canadian Labour Congress, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and many other organizations, are not coming forward. They are being denied their right to speak on Bill C-2.

I think as you know, Mr. Chair, the normal process in a healthy democracy is that we go to the clause, see if there are any questions for the guests here tonight, have debate on it...and then we would go to clause 2.

Mr. Chair, for the record, I will be asking for a recorded vote on every amendment and every clause.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

And it is the same thing for Mr. Guimond; you could have said debate would be suspended while you looked into these matters. Questions of privilege are not often raised, Mr. Chairman. In my case, this is the second time in six years that I have raised a point of privilege. As for Mr. Laforest or Mr. Guimond, I am not aware whether they have raised a question of privilege previously or not.

Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond are signalling to me that they have not. This is not an insignificant matter; this is not something that can be brushed aside in that manner. It is a question of enormous importance, and if Mr. Allison and Mr. Keddy raise points of privilege, it will be equally important to consider them, because these are substantial issues. For all these reasons—and you were in the room when Mr. Laforest and myself asked to be given the Clerk's opinion—and after all the questions that have been raised, I think you have things to consider now. This truly is a question of privilege.

Mr. Chairman, I am therefore asking that you rule on these three questions of privilege. If you refuse, in addition to the fact that you arrived late, we will find ourselves in a situation where everything that follows is not legitimate. Having said that, we will try to start the clause-by-clause consideration, but that does not change the fact that what happened today is not legitimate and that this will not stop here. It is obvious that it cannot stop here. For that reason, and because of the issues that have been raised, the entire process surrounding Bill C-2 is now tainted and, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the public takes a great interest in this. There have been a lot of public meetings about this and it was standing room only; so, there is no doubt that the public will also want to have its say on these matters. We are calling on you, Mr. Chairman, just as Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond have done. This is truly a question of privilege and I hope that you will take it seriously.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You were here. I saw that you were here a little earlier, when we asked that the Clerk be consulted and the Chair of the Committee refused. That is precisely the issue I am addressing in my point of privilege. Because the Clerk and the services of the Clerk belong to all Committee members, the Chair cannot unilaterally decide that members will not request the Clerk's opinion.

Requests were made several times, but you don't seem to take these questions of privilege seriously. As you know, Mr. Chairman, you normally are required to consider them, to gather the facts and to dig a little deeper. That is normally your responsibility, when a question of privilege is raised.

Now if you do not follow proper procedure with respect to questions of privilege, the entire process loses its legitimacy. This process allows us to report if we want Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia, the Agreement on the Environment Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia, to reach the report stage. It's the third step in a lengthy process that some would say is a nuisance.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is precisely when a bill is controversial that it is even more important to respect the right of minorities and allow members sitting at this table to consult the Clerk, who is very clearly available for that purpose according to O'Brien and Bosc. That is also stated, albeit with less clarity, in the regulations.

All of these things must be done in the proper order and according to the process, as you well know, Mr. Chairman.

We have made all these points. That means that there will be an effect on everything that happens for the rest of the evening. The former Chair said that we have a few hours for the clause-by-clause consideration, but the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that you have not considered the matters raised by Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond. This is not just going to end here; that is obvious. In their case and in my own, you could have said that you would look at the facts, take the time to do so, and possibly ask the Committee to suspend debate in order to get to the bottom of this.

If you systematically ignore the questions of privilege that have been raised today, we will be forced to report this to the Speaker. As we said earlier, Mr. Chairman, and as all the precedents clearly demonstrate, the Speaker of the House has the right to refuse a report that is not consistent with the rules.

Ordinarily, Mr. Chairman, you could have said, when Mr. Laforest finished speaking, that you would look at this—not that you weren't here and would not accept these points of privilege. That is not your role, Mr. Chairman.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Don't worry; I will not be long.

My colleague spent quite a few minutes discussing a member of Parliament's right to freedom of speech. We have been talking about democracy for several hours now, with respect to parliamentary rules, and I have to say that I am disappointed with the way we were treated in the first hour of this Committee meeting.

I raised my hand several times. The Chairman heard me but never recognized me. I have been sitting on this Committee for a year and a half now. I have never abused my right to speak. I have always shown great respect for the Chairman performing those duties.

That is why I want to take this opportunity to say that I am very disappointed at what occurred. It is no different from Bill C-2 which we are examining today. It concerns a free trade agreement between Columbia and Canada which does not have unanimous support and is highly controversial. It is very much like what we are witnessing today. It is unfortunate, because I believe we are part of a great democracy; today, however, we were not given a great example of Canadian democracy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We are resuming our meeting.

Just prior to our suspending, Monsieur Laforest had the floor on a question of privilege. I might say that we've heard very much of it.

I think we get the gist of it, Monsieur Laforest. I'm prepared to allow you to speak as long as you want, but as it's becoming a bit redundant and you're just getting into additional precedents, I really wonder whether or not there's any validity to it. I'm prepared to rule on the question of privilege at any time.

Just to keep the committee up to date, we have passed two motions at this point. The motion that we're dealing with now is the committee stage of Bill C-2. We are on clause 2. Before we hear further points of order or questions. I just wanted to let the committee know that this is where we are on the matter.

Pursuant to the motion that we passed earlier in the day at 4:01, limiting the debate to six hours, we will conclude the debate at 10:01, at which time we will move to votes on the amendments as submitted, one at a time. Those amendments and the votes on the clauses are not debatable pursuant to the motion passed by the committee.

With that, I think we're ready to continue. We will hear the end of the most recent question of privilege and, at some point, hopefully we can return to the business of the committee.

I might say that if we find that the points of order and/or questions of privilege have been heard or are redundant, or if it appears that the points in question are simply irreconcilable, I think that in the interests of the committee and the members of the committee, and the privileges of other members, we'll have to rule that we move on.

It doesn't seem that there is any middle ground being suggested here. On this committee, we have heard more witnesses than on any other matter put before the House or a committee, and I think most of the committee members have determined their views on the matter. I haven't noticed from any of the interjections made so far that there's any change in that sense, so in the interests of the committee and those officials who we have gathered here to answer questions, and of getting on with it, we will get on with it at some point....

But we certainly wouldn't want to impose on the privileges of any member to speak, so if you want to take the time of committee with your personal views at some point you're at liberty to do that. But when we've heard them all, or they become redundant, or it's simply a matter of irreconcilable matters, we will rule that way and carry on with the meeting.

I would also like to say that at this point I'm going to pass the chair to Mr. Miller. Mr. Cannis, our vice-chair, is not here yet, so until he gets here I'm going to ask for the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of precedence of Monday, April 19, 2010, are Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, clause-by-clause consideration.

The Economy

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the international trade committee and part of this government, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Motion No. 518 regarding expanding Canada's free trade agenda.

This government is committed to improving Canada's competitiveness and creating the economy of tomorrow as outlined in Canada's economic action plan and the Speech from the Throne. To do this Canada must open up as many foreign markets as possible for our producers, exporters and investors. I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of hon. members to some of the government's initiatives for expanding our network of trade agreements.

This government is committed to building on Canada's existing regional and bilateral free trade agreements. It is committed to increasing access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, committed to helping Canadians compete with the best in the global economy and committed to an aggressive free trade agenda to support our goals.

Of course the World Trade Organization, otherwise known as the WTO, remains the foundation of our approach and Canada continues to be an active supporter of the Doha round of negotiations. A strong multilateral trading system has a critical role to play in the global economic recovery. We are working hard to achieve the best possible outcome from the round, and Canadian agricultural producers, manufacturers and service providers stand to benefit from the expanded access to global markets that an ambitious outcome would provide.

Canada is ready to do its part, but success in the round will depend upon the meaningful engagement and contributions of all members. With the uncertainty surrounding such a broad and ambitious process, we cannot rely exclusively on these negotiations to deliver the new opportunities that our traders need in order to grow and prosper. For that reason we also recognize the importance of bilateral and regional agreements.

Canada already has free trade agreements in force with the United States and Mexico through NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994, as well as agreements with Israel in 1997, Chile in 1997 and Costa Rica in 2002. Last year we implemented a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association with the countries of Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland on July 1, and with Peru on August 1.

The agreement with the European Free Trade Association is Canada's first free trade agreement with European countries. Thanks to this deal, Canadian companies are better positioned to expand commercial ties with the countries of the European Free Trade Association in particular and other European countries more broadly.

The Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement establishes a competitive advantage over exporters of our main competitors, such as the United States, that do not benefit from such an agreement. It places Canadian goods on an equal footing with goods from the European Union, Korea, Mexico and Chile, which already benefit from trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association.

The Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement, which came into force along with agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, contains considerable benefits for Canada. Canadian producers immediately benefited from the elimination of tariffs on 95% of current Canadian exports to Peru, with most remaining tariffs to be eliminated over a five to ten year period. Products that received immediate duty-free access to Peru include wheat, barley, lentils, peas and selected boneless beef cuts, a variety of paper products, and machinery and equipment. Canadian businesses also received improved market access in other sectors of the Peruvian economy, such as mining, energy and professional services, as well as banking, insurance and securities.

This government is continuing to pursue ambitious trade agreements with others as well. On November 21, 2008, Canada and Colombia signed a free trade agreement along with parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. The implementing legislation, Bill C-2, passed second reading and is now being studied by the Standing Committee on International Trade.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will help to expand bilateral trade and investment with Colombia. Having the opportunity to personally visit Colombia with the trade committee, I believe it is important to engage the Colombians rather than isolate them, like some of the opposition parties would like to do.

We also want to deliver concrete progress on Canada's commitment of engagement in the Americas. The free trade agreement will provide greater market access for Canadian exporters of products such as wheat, pulses, barley, paper products and heavy equipment. It will also help the increasing number of Canadian investors and exporters that are entering the Colombian market by providing unprecedented levels of stability, predictability and protection for Canadian investors.

Less than a week later, on March 24, this government tabled implementing legislation for the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement and the related agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. This agreement would give Canadian businesses improved access in Jordan and a platform for expanding commercial ties in the broader Middle East.

Once this agreement comes into force, tariffs on over 99% of recent Canadian exports to Jordan will be eliminated.

Key Canadian sectors that will benefit from the immediate duty-free access include forestry--which is a great benefit for British Columbia where I am from, Quebec and Ontario and our softwood lumber agreements are providing great support for that as well-- manufacturing, and agriculture and agrifood.

The government's free trade agenda does not stop there. On May 14 of this year the Minister of International Trade and his Panamanian counterpart signed the Canada-Panama free trade agreement here in Ottawa. Parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment were also signed at the same time. All three agreements have been tabled in the House for 21 sitting days for review and debate. The free trade agreement will improve market access for goods and services and will provide a stable and predictable environment for investments in Panama.

This government is also working on numerous other fronts to provide Canadian businesses with better access to foreign markets.

Negotiations toward a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union were launched in Prague at the May 2009 Canada-European summit. This is by far Canada's most significant trade negotiation since the NAFTA with possibly up to $12 billion of new economic opportunities.

The successful negotiation of a high quality ambitious agreement with the European Union is a key priority for the government. Canada and the European Union have held three successful rounds of negotiations with four more scheduled to take place by spring 2011. The parties will continue to work toward an ambitious comprehensive agreement that will open markets and resist protectionist pressures in these challenging economic times.

Most recently, on May 18 in Kiev, Canada and Ukraine launched free trade negotiations. Canada already has strong cultural ties with Ukraine and our commercial ties have grown stronger over the last decade. Canadian companies are steadily building a deep business presence in areas like aerospace, communication technologies and agriculture.

A free trade agreement with Ukraine could further open markets for Canadian exports ranging from agriculture and seafood products to machinery and pharmaceuticals, and improve market access for services and help to address non-tariff barriers.

Negotiations with the Caribbean community are also progressing, and the second round of negotiations between Canadian and Caribbean officials took place a few weeks ago. Canadian officials also held a negotiating round in March 2010 with their counterparts from Central America as part of the ongoing negotiations between Canada and the four Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

This government remains dedicated to advancing our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners including South Korea and the Dominican Republic, as well as seeking ambitious opportunities elsewhere. We are also engaged in a joint study with India to explore the parameters of a possible comprehensive economic partnership. We are involved in technical discussions with Japan aimed at improving and deepening our economic relations, including the possibility of a free trade agreement, a key interest for Canadian stakeholders.

We also remain engaged with the members of the trans-Pacific partnership and are watching those negotiations with interest.

Finally, trade opportunities with China and our Asian partners continue to expand. Canada's Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway was in China last week and our Minister of International Trade is in China this week building new markets.

What does an active trade agenda really mean for Canada? To put it in straightforward terms, by bringing down barriers to trade and investment the government will help Canadian businesses compete in an increasingly competitive world while also stimulating the Canadian economy. This is where free trade plays an important role. It reduces tariffs for Canadian producers and expands opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers.

In these difficult economic times we cannot hide behind trade barriers. Protectionism is not the answer; partnerships are. We want to innovate, to move up the global value chain and to compete globally. These measures will continue to fuel our recovery from the global recession, forge a competitive advantage, support growth and prosperity and help create jobs in the economy of tomorrow.

Through this record of success we are making Canada's economy stronger, more vibrant, more innovative and more competitive. That is why Canadians can count on this government to lead efforts in securing access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses and to take every opportunity to oppose protectionism and defend free and open trade on the world stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're a few minutes behind. We're going to open the meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade, meeting number 18 of this session.

We are continuing our discussion of Bill C-2, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

As has been our practice for almost two years now, we're hearing witnesses on this subject. Today we will continue that practice and process with four witnesses from a long distance away.

I'm going to introduce the witnesses, we'll have a brief comment from them—hopefully opening statements that will assuredly be under ten minutes each—and then we'll proceed to questions. Let me start by introducing our witnesses.

With us here in Ottawa we have Steven Shrybman, who is a partner with Sack, Goldblatt and Mitchell, who has appeared before the committee before. Welcome back, Mr. Shrybman.

We have from Coventry, England, from the University of Warwick, James Harrison, who's an associate professor at the Warwick School of Law. Welcome, Professor Harrison.

Visiting us from Vancouver via video conference, as an individual, is Dawn Paley, a journalist. Welcome, Ms. Paley.

As well, via video conference from New York, we have Nazih Richani, who is also a professor. I'm sorry that I don't know where you're instructing these days, so before you begin your allotted ten minutes for statements, perhaps you could do a brief further introduction.

Again, the format is that I'm going to ask each of you for an opening statement, followed by questions. I hope we can keep these opening presentations under ten minutes so that we have ample time for the committee to ask questions.

I have an indication here that our guest with us in Ottawa would like to speak last, so I'm going to start with Mr. Harrison, from Coventry, England, who is coming to us via video conference.

Professor Harrison.

[Andrew Casey, Vice-President, Public Affairs and International Trade, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

And thank you to the committee for this opportunity to contribute to your deliberations and study of Bill C-2.

I just want to give you a quick sense of who we represent. We're the Forest Products Association, the national voice of Canada's forest products industry in Canada, with integrated lumber, pulp, paper, and other products forming the mix.

By way of introduction to the industry from an economic standpoint, we represent about 12% of Canada's manufacturing GDP. We directly employ 240,000 Canadians and, indirectly, another 366,000 Canadians across the country. Given the rural nature of the industry, we of course are a huge economic foundation of about 200 Canadian communities from coast to coast.

An instrumental component of our economic strength and long-term viability is our ability to sell into markets outside of Canada. Indeed, about $24 billion worth of our product goes to markets outside of the country. That's well over 50% of the products we make. That makes us the fourth largest Canadian exporter and the most successful forest products exporter in the world.

The lion's share of our product, as most people would know, goes down to the U.S. market--about 70% of our products. Another large part goes to Asia, to China, India, and other Asian countries. About 16% of what we produce goes there. Another 6% goes to Europe. The remainder goes to other countries around the world, including those in South America. For that reason, we find that our opportunity here to contribute to these deliberations is an important opportunity in that it obviously presents a chance for us to grow that success.

Members of this committee and other parliamentarians are of course very familiar with the economic challenges this industry has faced over the past couple of years. We've seen a number of mill closures and job losses and, of course, the communities are gravely affected by this. Many of you have communities in your ridings that have been directly affected by the challenges that this industry has gone through over the past couple of years.

There are some bright lights on the horizon. There are some signs that the industry is picking up. We've seen a growth in demand for lumber. Prices have gone up accordingly. We've also seen a growth in pulp demand, with prices going up there also.

It's too early to tell right now whether this is a short uptick or a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the industry continues to plan for when markets do rebound. We expect them to rebound and we have put in place a four-point strategy that will help or position the industry to be ready for when markets do come back.

First and foremost, it's incumbent upon the industry itself to invest and improve its productivity. We've done so, even throughout this economic downturn.

A second component is to continue to improve our environmental performance and our forest management practices. We've done so. We want to be able to leverage those improvements and practices in a marketplace that is increasingly using environmental criteria as a criteria for buying.

For that reason, if I might just open up a side bracket, we're pleased with the inclusion in this agreement of a separate agreement on environmental priorities, where it has identified both forestry management and sustainable resource management as priorities for cooperation between the two countries.

A third portion of our strategy going forward is looking to maximize the resource, to get as much out of the fibre, out of the tree, as we possibly can. A major portion of this is integrating the new emerging bio-economy, bio-products, and bio-energy into the existing product lines--again, to get as much value out of the tree as we possibly can and minimize the waste.

The fourth--and I put it fourth because it gives us a proper segue--is to grow and expand our markets. Seventy per cent dependence on the U.S. market is a bit too heavy. We see what can happen when you get tied up into a softwood lumber war. We'd like to diversify those markets and expand them elsewhere.

Bill C-2, this agreement, serves as a good example of how those markets can be expanded and of the potential there, so let me give you a sense as to what the potential is. The potential is mostly on the pulp, paper, and paperboard side of things--very little lumber. It looks to us like it's not exactly a culture that builds with lumber, unfortunately; maybe there's some work that can be done there, but let's say that's not part of what we can talk about today.

Overall, Colombia imports about $740 million annually of forest products. I think what's interesting about this is that we're seeing a 13% annual growth in that number. That's a significant marketplace that is growing annually.

There are three core areas where we see opportunity here.

One is in the newsprint business. They import about $60 million annually in newsprint. We represent $41 million worth of that, so that's the lion's share of it. Right now that is tariff free. The advantage this trade agreement will give us is that it will put in place the zero tariff for the foreseeable future, which gives us some security and a long-term security in terms of our marketplace.

The second area is the pulp area. Colombia brings in about $125 million worth of pulp annually. Again, we're seeing about a 17% growth per annum in that import number, so that's a growing market for us.

We're not at play in that marketplace, arguably because we're facing about a 5% to 10% tariff on that, whereas our competitors from Brazil and Chile, who enjoy not only geographical proximity but obviously have no tariff, have much greater access to that marketplace. Getting our tariff down to zero will at least put us on the same footing or level playing field with our core competitors from Chile and Brazil.

The third and probably most important area is the uncoated paper and paperboard product lines. Colombia imports about $450 million of this annually. Again, it's growing. We ship only about $12 million worth of that product into that marketplace. The other big players there are Germany, the U.S., and Brazil.

Germany and the U.S., like us, are faced with about a 10% tariff on their products going into the marketplace. This agreement would bring ours down to zero, obviously giving us a huge leg up on our immediate competition out of the U.S. and opening up a potential market of $450 million in this product line. It will also let us undercut Brazil, which is another one of our major competitors.

We see those three market areas as presenting enormous potential: $740 million in potential. While it may not seem like a big number if you put it on a national scope, the reality is that a lot of the products we are sending down there are coming from certain regions of the country.

Most of the newsprint side, for example, comes from Quebec and Nova Scotia. So you can see that when you're shipping $41 million from one specific region, you're talking about keeping a couple of mills open for a longer time.

Any time we have a chance to open up new markets or expand markets we welcome that. For that reason, we're very supportive of Bill C-2 and what it aims to do. We encourage you to support the bill likewise.

Again, thank you very much for the committee's time.

I will be pleased to answer your questions in French, if you wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for your patience. It now looks like we have a quorum and we're ready to proceed with meeting number 16 in this session of Parliament of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today we are pursuing our discussion of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

We have witnesses today who will each give opening statements, which will be followed by questions. I think we'll be able to do two full rounds of questioning today if the witnesses keep their statements at 10 minutes or less. We'll keep an eye on the questioners, to keep their questions short, and hope that the answers are equally short but to the point.

We're going to begin. I'd like to introduce our guests.

First of all, just so we can all confirm that we have communication working properly, I'm going to introduce Mr. Mauricio Ferro.

Mr. Ferro, can you hear me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have concluded the second round. As we stated at the outset, I think there are members who have obligations, so we're going to terminate this meeting now.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming, and as much as we enjoyed it, I hope we won't have to see you again on this issue.

We're going to continue with witnesses on this matter on Tuesday. It looks as if we're going to have to defer consideration of the U.S. procurement business until after the break and perhaps after we have concluded Bill C-2.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you. Obviously it would be hypocritical to vote for Bill C-300 and vote for Bill C-2 without the protections in place. One has to be consistent.

I'll turn things over to Mr. Moist. I appreciate your comments that “The connection between the government and paramilitaries and narco-traffickers has been documented and it paints a very disturbing picture of a failed state that is increasingly controlled by criminals”, and later on about the “involvement of illegal armed groups...including paramilitaries and drug traffickers, who benefit from campaign financing as well as determining outcomes”.

This has been an issue all along: President Uribe's links to the Medellín cartel, President Uribe's links to the drug cartels, and the fact that his regime has open corruption that is being investigated, as well as it can be, by what's left of the independent Colombian judiciary.

One has to ask how Canadians on the street react when they see a government that has a supposedly tough-on-crime agenda actually cozying up to a government that has obviously such clear links with criminal gangs.

I'm wondering, then, given your testimony, whether you are concerned about that aspect as well as the aspect around the forced dissolving of the labour movement. Do you think Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about this regime and its human rights violations?

And my final question: in a word, how would you describe the Liberal amendment? We've had previous testimony saying that it lacks credibility and that damage from this non-credible process could be high. Would you agree with that statement?