Evidence of meeting #4 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'd like to amend the motion by saying the Minister of International Trade be called to testify this Thursday, November 29, before the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have an amendment on the floor. If anyone would like to debate it we can put your name on the list.
Mr. Miller, do you want to speak to that?
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Yes.
The minister has indicated that he will come, and Mr. Pallister said earlier today that it looks like he may be able to come some time next week. If you put that into a motion and the minister can't come, what the hell will that accomplish? I think the request can go in for him to be here on Thursday, but what if he can't? I don't know what his schedule is. Let's not play games with it.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have an amendment on the floor at this time. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
With no further debate on the amendment, I'm going to call the question on Mr. Julian's amendment that the minister be asked to attend Thursday, two days hence.
(Amendment negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We're now resuming debate on Mr. Bains' motion as submitted.
Do you want to propose another amendment, Mr. Cardin?
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
The amendment would consist of adding the following, at the start of the motion: That no ratification of the bilateral agreement between Canada and Colombia be signed until [...]
And the motion would go on to read:
That the Minister of International Trade be called to testify before the Committee on how human rights concerns are being addressed in current bilateral trade negotiations with particular reference to the Canada-Colombia bilateral negotiations.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have another amendment to Mr. Bains' motion. I think it's going to be a minute until we get that one written out.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
I have overlooked a few minor details. Instead of beginning with the words “That no”, the amendment would read as follows: “That the Committee recommends that no ratification [...]” This is a more polite way of putting things.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Do we have that in writing?
It's quite rambling, so if you don't mind we'll take a minute to sort out exactly what the intent of the amendment is. We're getting some clarification on the amendment.
I think the clerk has the sense of the possible amendment. I'll ask him to read it out.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Chad Mariage
My translation of this could be refined, but the intention of what I heard from Mr. Cardin is that the committee recommend that no ratification agreement between Canada and Colombia be signed until.... Then we continue with the motion as moved by Mr. Bains.
Is there an ending as well?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We simply have to go in camera, that's all, and we could probably get it done in ten minutes.
I'm going to ask the clerk to read this out and read it slowly. I think we'll have him read it as presented by Mr. Cardin, in French. So if everyone could read this, I'd like to proceed on debate of the amendment immediately.
I would ask the clerk to read out Mr. Cardin's motion.
Mr. Cardin, I would ask you to listen carefully to see if this is the correct intent of what you wanted to say.
The Clerk
Mr. Chairman, the motion would read as follows:
That the Committee recommends that no ratification of the bilateral trade agreement between Canada and Colombia be signed until the Minister of International Trade is called to testify before the Committee on how human rights concerns are being addressed in current bilateral trade negotiations with particular reference to the Canada-Colombia bilateral negotiations, and that, if the Minister is unable to demonstrate that human rights are being protected, the government end negotiations with Colombia.
The Clerk
All right, I'll try to read it in English:
That the committee recommend that no ratification agreement between Canada and Colombia be signed without the Minister of International Trade and appropriate witnesses being called forthwith to testify before the committee on how environmental impact and human rights concerns are being addressed in current bilateral trade negotiations, with particular reference to the Canada-Colombia bilateral negotiations, and that if the minister is incapable of demonstrating that he is protecting human rights that negotiations be put to an end with Colombia.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Okay, I think we now have the motion.
Is there any debate?
We have a list: Mr. Pallister, Mr. Miller, Mr. Julian.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, I think I need to boost my colleagues' trust in the government's negotiators where human rights are concerned.
Yes, the negotiators are pushing for provisions on labour rights and human rights. This is entirely in keeping with the agenda of this government, and I could give you many examples to show that, but I will give you just a couple.
Through CIDA, between 2005 and 2007, Canada gave $23 million to Colombia to assist and respond to the needs of vulnerable people and their population, including internally displaced people.
There are numerous examples. Through DFAIT in that same period, there was $3.6 million and there has been a further $5 million this year to support justice, human rights, and stabilization initiatives. There are numerous other examples I could give the member to provide him, I hope, with some confidence that this is entirely in keeping with the government's agenda, not only in the negotiations but in many other aspects of its programming and spending, as I believe he's aware.
So I would have to speak against his amendment because of that. I think it's unnecessary, and for the other reasons I have stated in the past, I don't believe it is appropriate for us to adopt this. I believe he presents it in good faith, but I would speak against it for those reasons.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief.
Obviously I don't believe we have any authority to give the direction that's in this amendment. For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Bloc and the NDP are so totally against trade talks. I simply cannot support this amendment, which is trying to imply that this committee can end them, as well as saying some other stuff. I will support the original motion proposed by Mr. Bains, but I cannot support this.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a good deal of sense. It is exactly what the Conservatives have been saying since the start of the meeting, namely that the government is addressing all human rights concerns in its negotiations. We are not in the process of finalizing the trade agreement.
Nothing in this amendment contradicts what the Conservatives have been saying since 3:30 this afternoon. Consequently, since the amendment of my colleague Mr. Cardin is in line with the Conservative's position, I think it is entirely in order, and even desirable.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
As far as the Bloc Québécois amendment goes, I think it takes into account that consensus that has been achieved since the committee first began looking at Mr. Julian's motion.
Moreover, Mr. Pallister mentioned that he had no problem with it whatsoever since the government is already addressing these concerns in the negotiating process. Indeed, I understood Mr. Pallister to say that the government is currently working to ensure that human rights are respected within the framework of this agreement. So then, the motion calls for the minister, theHon. David Emerson, to testify before the committee to demonstrate to us that the government is committed to action on the human rights front, as Mr. Pallister implied. Therefore, I see no reason why this motion would not receive the unanimous endorsement of the committee.
If the minister can demonstrate to us, as Mr. Pallister and yourself sincerely believe he can, that human rights concerns are being addressed, then this motion would simply provide him with an opportunity to come here and testify, and to prove beyond a doubt that he is working hard on this front. If the minister can prove that he is, then the negotiations will continue. If he cannot prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, then we will ask him to halt the negotiations until a different approach can be taken.
I do not see why this motion would not be adopted unanimously.
