International Trade Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

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

I want to reiterate that this seems to be a very important motion and we should respect the orders of the day. With good will, I feel we should be able to deal with this motion in a timely fashion. I suggest that we move on with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That is the general consensus. I don't think we need to get a motion to resolve that. It was just a suggestion.

Let's carry on. The first item on the agenda is a notice of motion from Mr. Julian.

Mr. Julian, would you like to propose the motion?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I move the motion that's before you. And for anyone who is tempted to act as Mr. Scissorhands, the motion comes forward as a comprehensive whole.

I would like to start by saying that this motion has been circulated in civil society among dozens of organizations that are concerned about the situation in Colombia.

There are basically three segments, first that the committee report to the House recommending to the Government of Canada.

As we know, Mr. Chair, we've heard from the Colombian Minister of Trade, Mr. Plata, that the expectations are that this round—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'll just interrupt you. I wonder whether you'd want to dispense with the motion, then, and start the debate. Is that your notion?

I was going to have you read the motion.

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

Certainly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You don't have to, as I think everybody has seen it, but you seem to be getting into debate already.

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

That's appropriate procedure, Mr. Chair. Thank you for reminding me of that. The motion is:

That the committee report to the House recommending to the Government of Canada that current Canada-Colombia bilateral trade negotiations and eventual ratification be halted in light of the ongoing abuse of human rights by Colombia's government; and that Canada develop a framework for a human rights impact assessment for future bilateral trade negotiations with Colombia; and furthermore, that the committee conduct hearings to assess how a human rights and environmental impact assessment framework can be incorporated into future Canada-Colombia bilateral trade negotiations.

That's the motion I move, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to speak to it, with your permission.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Very good; carry on.

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

As I've mentioned, we had trade minister Plata indicate this week that this round may well be the last.

So we have negotiations that are going on this very week, and concerns have been raised this very week. I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chair, that we have seen in past agreements, such as the softwood lumber agreement, that those agreements have been reached late in the week. In the case of the softwood lumber agreement, it was a Saturday evening when the agreement was announced.

I think there are legitimate concerns that this agreement may be finalized this week. That is why the committee's reporting to the House is an important component: it allows this committee to raise concerns directly in the House to inform other members of the House of Commons that we have those concerns. And yes, Mr. Chair, if there is a concurrence motion moved, it gives the opportunity for the House of Commons to actually have a kind of discussion that they have not been involved with to date.

Secondly, the halting of current negotiations in light of the ongoing abuse of human rights by Colombia's government is something around which I can cite a number of reports and recent news items. The first is from November 7, Mr. Chair—this month. “Twenty-six trade unionists...have been killed in Colombia” up to this point this year, and Human Rights News for November 7 indicated that two other trade union leaders had been killed: “The killers have not been caught. Their motives are unknown.” It's important to note that this news item indicated that 98% of these killings of trade unionists, including 26 this year and 2,500 since 1986, have never been solved.

Second, Mr. Chair, we had concern about extrajudicial executions by the Colombian military raised last month by Amnesty International in the United States and by Human Rights Watch.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has also reported that the extrajudicial executions are not isolated events, but rather were occurring “in various units over a large area of the country” and were becoming “increasingly common”. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has demanded far-reaching measures.

The U.S. Congress has put a hold on release of funds to the Colombian military as a result of that. Extrajudicial executions are thought to be in the hundreds annually, and concerns have been raised in the U.S. Congress.

Third, around the issue of current President Uribe, Human Rights Watch has noted that President Uribe has a disturbing record of making aggressive statements against courts and media outlets that are investigating his administration and political cronies. The headline of that human rights report is that the president's interference with ongoing investigations threatens the rule of law.

Very clearly, Mr. Chair, there are widely cited available reports, including one from Amnesty International this year that cites collusion between paramilitaries and state officials; trade unionists, human rights defenders, and other activists are under attack; there are kidnappings and violence against women.

So a wide variety of human rights concerns has been raised. That is why we have the second portion of this motion, which indicates that we should be calling a halt to these trade negotiations and eventual ratification.

What is the solution? If this committee stands with what I believe to be the opinion of most of the Canadian public—concern about these human rights issues that have been raised—it would be for Canada to develop a framework for a human rights impact assessment. We've already had some discussion around this table about the committee conducting hearings around Canada-Colombia. This would provide force for the committee to conduct hearings to assess how a human rights and environmental impact assessment framework could be incorporated into future Canada-Colombia bilateral trade agreements or negotiations.

Mr. Chair, what we're essentially saying is that this gives the opportunity for the committee to report to the House, given the indications by the Colombian trade minister that the end of these negotiations is pending, and that is an important part of the motion; It calls on the government to call a halt to these bilateral trade negotiations, given what is very clear—ongoing human rights violations in Colombia—and it allows us as a committee to work on a human rights impact assessment that is part of any future Canada-Colombia bilateral trade negotiations.

I'll mention in conclusion, Mr. Chair, that we had a round table on corporate responsibility that came out in the spring. All parties supported the actions and recommendations of that round table on social responsibility. For the government that essentially endorsed that round table, this gives it an opportunity to say, as well, that they are not going to wade into the murky waters of an area where there are clearly human rights problems and issues at stake. By taking a step back to evaluate, we can do the work to put a human rights impact assessment in place, and then negotiations could proceed in a more balanced way that is much more appropriate to Canadian traditions.

So for all those reasons, Mr. Chair, I move this motion. And I hope to get support from all members of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian. That was very clear. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Mr. Bains is next on the list.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I agree with the comments made by Mr. Julian. This is an important issue. This issue does speak to the core of the matter, which is human rights violations and concerns in Colombia and the fact that Canada is currently engaged in negotiations for a free trade agreement with Colombia.

However, as a committee, I feel we have a responsibility to make informed recommendations so we show the public that when we examine an issue it is based on solid foundations of information that we have gathered through witnesses.

I'm going to request a friendly amendment to this motion. I feel the first bullet comes to a conclusion, which might be the case, but I think we need to call in at least a key witness.

My staff will pass around the amendment, and I'll read it out, as well. When I say “amendment”, there's no add-on to this. It's a whole new motion on the same issue:

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.

It has been done to come to a position where I think we can get all parties' support. It shows that we're not going to jump to any conclusion, that we want to get witnesses. In light of the fact that this current negotiation is being undertaken, we need to get the key witness, the minister in charge and responsible for international trade, Minister Emerson, to come before the committee and talk about some of the legitimate concerns by many people, civil liberties groups, organizations, and Canadians on this matter.

I would request that this friendly amendment be taken into consideration and that the minister be called to testify before the committee to address some of the concerns that have been highlighted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Allison, then Mr. Cardin, and then Mr. Julian.

Do you have a point of order?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

I have a point of clarification, not order.

Navdeep, is that motion supposed to replace this motion? Is that what you're suggesting?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Bains does have the right to move another motion without advance notice because it's directly related to committee business. He's certainly in order to move this motion. But it is not an amendment. It can't be considered as such. It's a new motion.

Essentially, I would expect that debate would have to continue on the current motion. If that current motion is defeated, or even if it's adopted, then Mr. Bains could move his motion. But it's not an amendment; it's a whole new motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think Mr. Bains phrased it as a friendly amendment. Clearly it's not a friendly amendment unless it's accepted by the mover of the original motion.

I have consulted with the clerk, who tells me that if Mr. Bains wants to make an amendment to your motion, this motion would be in order.

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

I would like to very quickly clarify, Chair, if you don't mind. The choice of words I guess was inaccurate on my part. It's not a friendly amendment. I would like my motion to replace the motion that's being currently debated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes. That's my understanding.

In fact, to do that, Mr. Julian is again correct, we would have to deal with the two motions quite independently and quite separately. We would deal with Mr. Julian's motion and vote on that. Should it fail, we would deal with Mr. Bains' motion.

Mr. Miller.

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

I'm still not clear, Navdeep.

Are you suggesting that when we vote on this motion that Peter's motion is no longer on the table?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Miller, I just tried to explain that.

We would have to deal with Mr. Julian's motion first. Having dealt with that motion, if it fails, then we'll move to Mr. Bains' motion as a separate motion.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

In Mr. Bains' presentation, what we are now calling a motion looked to me like an amendment to clarify the attendance of the Minister of International Trade at possible future hearings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Excuse me, Mr. Cardin.

I just want to make it clear that we are in fact debating Mr. Julian's motion. As it is, Mr. Bains' motion is out of order at this time until we deal with Mr. Julian's motion. If you want to speak at this time, the motion on the floor is Mr. Julian's motion. When we have dealt with Mr. Julian's motion, we will then proceed to Mr. Bains' motion.

Just for clarity—I don't mean to interrupt you—the motion on the floor is in fact Mr. Julian's motion. We have to deal with that first before we get to Mr. Bains' motion.

Carry on.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I was only on my introduction. I am getting to Mr. Julian's motion. Overall, it substantially addresses my concerns. It is almost impossible to imagine that Canada would continue its negotiations in light of the violent acts committed being committed in Colombia.

Perhaps I missed a portion of Mr. Julian's presentation, but one issue was not broached, namely the fact that the US Congress apparently refused to sign an agreement with Colombia in light of information it had received about conditions and violent abuses of human rights.

We must break off our negotiations with Colombia until we hear from some knowledgeable people, from witnesses, who can shed some light on the situation for us. We need to take a step back and find out what is really going on in that country.

The Conservative government has introduced a series of law and order bills and is intent on fighting crime. It so happens that crime is a rather serious problem in Colombia. We are being asked to do business with a country, with paramilitary and other organizations actively involved in criminal activity, on the pretence that they are doing some good things—the document that was distributed to us in fact lists a good number of positive things.

It behooves me that the government is even thinking about negotiating measures to promote economic action or business profitability while turning its back on human rights abuses and environmental problems, such as we have seen with the mining companies operating in Colombia. We need to shed some light on this matter before the government signs any kind of agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Pallister, do you want to comment further on Mr. Julian's order?