International Trade Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Julian.

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

I'd like to pay the parliamentary secretary a compliment. He speaks very smoothly, and it's not until afterwards that you think, hold on, what he just said contradicts what the government has actually done.

On the human rights issue, it's the government itself that put out the key areas they were negotiating. It's not something the journalists made up. This is what the government has been spinning. What they've been spinning is that human rights aren't on the list. What is on the list is origin of rules, telecommunications, and public purchases. So for them to say it is, it's just not part of what we're publicly rolling out, even though many Canadians have expressed concerns about it.... It just doesn't make sense.

Mr. Chair, as you know, we're still waiting on FTAA, which is supposedly something that was going to be brought promptly back to the House and to this committee. There are real contradictions between what the government has actually done and what the parliamentary secretary is telling us. I think members of the committee need to be very clear on that.

I do want to come back to the human rights issues. I could read into the record page after page after page of testimony. I assume, Mr. Chair, that every member of the committee has prepared adequately for this committee hearing. As a result, they've read the human rights reports from Human Rights Watch, from Amnesty International, from the bishops who have come to Canada to speak on this issue, and from the labour movement, which has raised real concerns. I would expect that members of this committee have read those reports. If they have read those reports, there is no doubt that there is a substantial problem in Colombia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. André.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

My comments are along the same lines as those of my colleague Mr. Cardin. Obviously we have some serious reservations. Is the government involved in these human rights violations? One thing is clear, namely that it is not doing anything at this time to restore order in Colombia.

Our government is saying that it wants to have economic relations with another regime when it does not really know how that country is being governed and or when it appears that our own values and environmental standards are not being respected. All of the impact studies that have been done show that the current situation is Colombia is not particularly good. Any free trade negotiations must be viewed from that perspective.

If I had a business relationship with a company and did not know if the CEO of the company treated his employees well, I am sure that I would question this relationship. I would not want to do business with a company that could make things difficult for me. It makes sense for Canada to suspend its bilateral negotiations with Colombia until we get a clearer picture of the actual situation in that country and until the human rights issue is brought to the forefront.

In a business relationship, it is critical to know the party with whom we are doing business. I fail to understand why some people are hesitant about stepping in. Canadians who will be investing in Colombia must be protected as well. The government is negotiating a bilateral agreement without knowing all of the problems that could potentially arise. The important thing here is to get a clearer overall picture of the situation.

We cannot accept anything less than this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I sit here and listen with great interest. I don't think anybody in this room isn't concerned about human rights. It's a consensus. If you look at our country, our country is a trade-based nation. We've had great success with free trade agreements. One party specifically in the room doesn't support free trade agreements. If we want to truly make a difference in helping human rights in countries, how can we help if we're not at the table looking at the economic growth developing in other countries and giving opportunities to other individuals in these developing nations? And I believe we have a responsibility as a government and as parliamentarians, if we really care about the social welfare of other people, to stay on the sidelines and let these guys fight it out.

Our government has agreed with the Government of Colombia, has committed to extend the mandate of the UN Commission on Human Rights office in Colombia to the duration of the president's term. We recognize there is a problem with human rights. We want to work with the Colombian government to come up with an agreement. I said it's free and fair trade, and if we're not involved in the negotiations, how can you give any hope to these people for the respect and human rights and dignity they deserve. I don't get Mr. Julian's perspective at all. It's totally illogical from my perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Can Mr. Pallister and the other members of the Conservative Party prove to us that in its negotiations with Colombia, Canada has broached the issue of human rights and is scoring some points?

If you can formally prove to us that it has, then we will tell you to go ahead with the negotiations and to improve the situation. However, before the agreement is actually signed, conditions to be met will need to be listed. It will be quite another matter, however, if you cannot prove to us that in the negotiations currently under way, both human rights and environmental concerns have been equally addressed, with the aim being, clearly, to improve the situation in a trade context. We are prepared to adopt a conciliatory attitude about some things.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Pallister.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I don't think there's any disputing there are human rights violations in Colombia. That's not the issue. The issue is the allegation that the government is responsible and that is what's contained in this bullet. As I said earlier, that's what I'm alluding to as a dangerous assertion to make. We're making an allegation here of human rights abuses by Colombia's government specifically in a preamble where we are also proposing we cease negotiating with that government.

I understand Mr. Julian's intention in respect of the motion. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I have no further speakers on the amendment, and without further speakers, we will call the question on Mr. Pallister's amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The amendment fails, and we resume debate on the original motion by Mr. Julian, who has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to propose the following amendment: that we add to the motion a third bullet:

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.

I'd like to speak to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

So you're proposing to add an amendment to your motion?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bains was quite correct. He moved a brilliant motion as a friendly amendment, and I just want to make sure procedurally now it was on the floor, because it certainly does add to the motion we have before us.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

May I speak on a point of order, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Bains did not declare it a friendly amendment; it was explained that it was a separate motion altogether. So I just want that on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

It already was on the record. I just want to make that very clear. It was not a friendly amendment. My choice of words at the beginning was not appropriate, and I made that clear before, so I want to go on the record that this is a separate motion that I had presented at the beginning of the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you. I think we dealt with that. What we're dealing with is something new—just coincidentally the same wording—and this is—

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

It's such a terrific motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Pallister, do you have a comment on the same point of order?

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I just want to be clear that motions out of order from anyone else are okay if the introducer of the motion is the one who makes the amendment at the meeting. It's the same motion Mr. Bains made. I just want to be clear on that. Is the motion that was out of order earlier now in order because it's Mr. Julian making it? Is that...?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

You can't do that.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I just want to put it on the record.