Well, that's just ludicrous, what Mr. Julian.... I think part of the problem here, Mr. Chair, is that this country was asleep at the switch for a decade on negotiating these agreements, so we don't know how to act when they come up. The fact is that Mr. Julian's assertion, just made, is that unless it's in the public domain, it isn't happening. In other words, a trade negotiation can only occur if the public is at the table, sitting at the table, and knows exactly what is going on in respect of both sides negotiating that deal, and that's never how a free trade agreement has been negotiated, ever. So to make that assertion is just simply specious. I mean, it doesn't bear consideration.
On the other legitimate concerns, though, to which a couple of my colleagues made reference, I would like to offer them some response, because they deserve a response.
The first is that we need to take opinions into consideration. That's very true, certainly true. In fact we had a very, I thought, fulsome discussion at our first meeting about what our priorities were. We identified two things as priorities. Those were Korea and the Colombia-Peru negotiations. As a committee we identified them as priorities and we established that as committee members we felt they were very important and we wanted to deal with them. The question is how do we deal with them intelligently. Surely that should be the question. And to suggest that we're going to now adopt a resolution to halt trade negotiations that have been ongoing for some time is counterproductive. It doesn't help advance the cause of human rights. It helps perhaps to a degree to self-aggrandize some of our members, but it doesn't help us as a country to advance the agenda of human rights, not in any way, shape, or form. It's a mistake.
It would be a fair assertion, as Mr. Cardin has made, that we should halt negotiations if there were no other avenue for discussion, but of course there is, at this committee, where, since we've already identified it as a priority, I expect we're going to be hearing witnesses and pursuing investigation of the issues and the concerns around this trade negotiation in the very near future. So we have every opportunity to hear and address those concerns.
Secondly, if, as the member asserts again, as he did the other day, the trade negotiations have just concluded or will be concluding in the next 24 hours, then the fact remains we have the opportunity of course to debate these issues in the House of Commons, because the House of Commons does have the opportunity to ratify or to not ratify these agreements when they are concluded and when they are brought forward. And ultimately in a minority Parliament, the trump card rests in the hands of Parliament because there is no assurance that the government and the government negotiators, having negotiated a tentative arrangement with Colombia and Peru, would be able to proceed with such an agreement in any case, because the fact remains that Parliament would have the say.
So given that and given all the opportunities we have to deal with this to come to the point of making constructive suggestions and recommendations and to participate in debate both here and in the House of Commons, for us to suggest that we should insert ourselves into a negotiation of a free trade agreement where in fact human rights is on the agenda and human rights are being advanced in an intelligent and thoughtful way, very ambitiously, by Canadian negotiators on behalf of the Canadian people; that we should somehow halt the negotiations and insert ourselves into that process, thereby delaying what has been ongoing for some time, which is stated as a concern, as an agreement, that frankly members of other parties have said publicly should be advanced in the best interest of the Canadian people; that we should halt those negotiations and assert as well in this bullet, which I speak to, specifically that the Government of Colombia is engaged in ongoing human rights abuse, I again implore you that is not only wrongheaded and misguided, it's a real abrogation of our own responsibilities as members of the House of Commons, frankly.
I strongly urge you not to do anything but to support this amendment and delete this bullet from the preamble.
