International Trade Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

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

Well, I've asked you questions and you're refusing to answer. It's too bad.

Now, next week, we finally have our first human rights advocate coming forward for African Colombians, and that's Mr. Carlos Rosero. We have not heard from human rights advocates on this bill at all. I know that many, many groups across the country are extremely interested and will want to come before this committee, but that will be for next Tuesday.

Since you're not willing to answer those questions, I will just make a final comment that we have the European Community moving away from an agreement with Colombia. We have the United States and the U.S. legislature, the members of Congress--I visited a few weeks ago--refusing to ratify the deal. We have other countries such as Norway moving away.

Every time we have a presentation on Colombia, we get another horror story about some other country that may beat us to the market--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Seven minutes, Mr. Harris.

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

--but I think you would agree that there are other issues, human rights issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for your presentations. As always, they are very concise and factual.

There are a couple of things I'd like to get your opinion on. First of all, even the socialists can agree that we're in the middle of an economic struggle. Not only our nation but other nations around the world are seeking new ways to improve their economies. Trade agreements are right at the top of the list. They're wanting to go into markets they've never been in before, because they're trying to use every tool available to them to recover their economies.

It seems to me that the view of the NDP is inconsistent with the reality of the global economy and the challenges it faces. Their view is that Canada should simply step out of the lineup of free trade because of their ideological reasoning and allow the other countries to go in, gobble up the trade agreements, and get themselves well established. Then some day down the line we would limp back into that lineup and try to recover something we would have had in the first instance. I think we certainly would be missing a huge opportunity.

I'm trying to find some realism in the arguments across the way there. It appears to me that this point of view seeks to simply cut Colombia off, cast them adrift with their problems, and tell them to fend for themselves. Canada will go to countries that fit more with our values.

Somewhere there are countries that had the same struggles, or similar ones. We've engaged them in trade agreements and bilateral agreements of every type, and we've actually been able to help them because of our presence and the very presence of those agreements.

I would think that if the folks across the room are seeking to try to help Colombia with some of those human rights problems and democratic problems they are concerned about, it would be in their best interest to encourage an agreement whereby Canada can establish a solid agreement relationship with that country and be talking to them on an ongoing basis. Surely some of the values we hold dear in this country are going to be passed on through discussions on those agreements. That way we will be assisting them out of their challenges.

I just throw that out, because it seems to me that we have an opportunity not only to help our producers, manufacturers, and suppliers of goods and services, but in this case, Colombia. We would not only be able to help them with their economy through trade, but the very association, which would be bound by an agreement, would be a good opportunity for us to fit the other things in with all our other discussions.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

I certainly agree with your observation. I think Colombia's history in recent years has demonstrated, in fact, that the more that country is able to engage in legitimate trade and investment relationships with other countries, the stronger its economy has grown, and the stronger the rule of law and public safety and security grow.

Are there still serious problems in that country? Absolutely. The question is whether we are going to help or hurt by engaging more fully in legitimate economic relations with that country. I think what we're arguing is that by continuing and intensifying our engagement with Colombia's legitimate economy, we are going to reinforce that country's progress not only in economic terms but also in terms of public safety and security.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

You pointed out the example of Peru, which has come from some very bad times to become a major trading partner.

I'd like to pass on some time to my colleague, Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, you have two minutes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Oh. Two minutes may make my point.

Welcome to our witnesses. I appreciate your coming back to committee.

You can see that this has been a thoroughly divisive discussion for some members of Parliament. I think most of us have tried to look at this in a positive manner and to take the positive points from it. We very much see this as a progressive agreement with a country that's moving in the right direction in a very progressive way in a part of the world where democracy and the rule of law sometimes are challenged.

But they've made great strides. President Uribe, in particular, has made great strides. To me, the coalition he's put together, when you really look at his cabinet, is a coalition from the centre, from the right, and from the left. These Colombians have one thing in common: they want a peaceful country to live in, they want the rule of law to apply, they respect the judiciary, and they want jobs and opportunity for their people. We've heard that time and time again.

To me, there's one overriding factor here that we continue to ignore. The Americans signed an agreement with Colombia. It's held up for strictly political reasons at this time. We have an opportunity here to actually get ahead of our American competitors in a very important part of the world where good things are happening.

In order to do that, we need the support of the opposition parties. I suspect that two of those parties we won't get the support of. I think we do have potential to get support from the official opposition. I respect the position they've taken on Colombia.

But we also need not just your support here at committee; quite frankly, we need your support in lobbying members of the opposition and convincing them of the merits of this agreement.

We do live in a bit of a vacuum sometimes in Ottawa. There are a lot of jobs, there are a lot of opportunities, and there are a lot of companies that would benefit from this agreement.

I think we need both of your associations to carry that torch a little bit.

[Jean-Michel Laurin]

Do you want me to respond?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Well, yes. I know that your job--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Keddy, I know we'd all love to have a response, but you've gone over your time.

We're going to turn now to....

I was going to say Mr. Brison, but Mr. Brison is not here.

Mr. Cannis, do you want lead off while we're waiting?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I don't mind leading off until he comes in.

We got onto trying to compare what we're doing in Afghanistan with what is happening in Colombia. We really didn't have an opportunity to touch on that.

This is irrespective of what we're hearing or what we're reading in the news about torture. That's a separate issue altogether. It's the fact that we made a decision as a country, as a government, to go to this trouble spot, which we knew was a trouble spot, to address human rights violations, labour abuses, etc. We made that decision.

Is it wrong to make the same decision now to go to a trouble spot--if we want to use that expression--where indeed we have a government that has shown a sincere interest in trying to correct it? Meanwhile, the current president in Afghanistan said today in his inauguration that, you know, we're going to straighten it out. Well, he had five years, and we didn't see progress.

We had President Uribe, as I think was mentioned earlier by Mr. Keddy, before our committee before the recess. The man unequivocally stated that they'd had problems, but they'd made these efforts, those efforts, and so on.

We were introduced to a gentleman by the name of Frank Pearl, who was taken on by the Colombian government. His mandate is to work to help reintegrate people who have gone astray, people with the paramilitary, to get them retrained, re-entered back into their homes, their communities, etc., to become productive citizens.

Personally, I've read, I've seen, I've heard--I can't say I've seen, but I've read--and, being a typical Canadian, I like to give the benefit of the doubt. Are we wrong in doing what we're doing in Afghanistan? If we are, why are we doing it in Afghanistan and why are we not doing it in Colombia? At least in Colombia right now, we have an opportunity to market our goods and services. In Afghanistan maybe there's a future market, I don't know. But right now we have a market in Colombia.

Are we wrong in doing that, David?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Not in my view. We are doing the right thing already in the sense that we already have a commercial relationship there, and I think our commercial relationship with Colombia has been contributing to the progress that's being made.

This free trade agreement would simply open a lot more opportunities to reinforce those commercial links in ways that I think Colombia has already shown make for real progress in the well-being of Colombian citizens. If we can help improve the lives of Colombians simply by engaging in legitimate commerce and investment, it seems to me that's a hugely positive thing for us to be doing.

I can't imagine that anyone would want to say let's take Colombians back to where they were in the bad old days. Surely there's recognition that huge progress has been made there. Is it still a trouble spot? Are there are still issues? Of course. But can we not continue to help make progress in that country?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I want to ask one last question--

[David Stewart-Patterson]

And keep in mind economic progress. Economic progress is an important underpinning for the rule of law and for safety and security. It's when people are suffering in poverty that they're more likely to turn to desperate means, and I think that is why it's important for us to do everything we can to reinforce the progress.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You were asked some tough questions by the member from the NDP about this agreement, that agreement, and I'm going to ask you a similar question, but in reverse. Do you know of any free trade agreements that the NDP has ever supported that you can tell this committee about?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

I think I made the observation earlier that Mr. Julian's party opposed even free trade with the United States. I don't think they did that on human rights grounds, but the fact is I don't think they've ever seen a free trade agreement that they like.

On the other hand, I think it is patently obvious that expanded commercial relations with our trading partners have served Canadians well and also have served to strengthen economic and social progress around the world.

If I may, it comes back to this point that free trade with the United States was sort of the first and biggest deal that Canada did, and it created huge benefits. I think one observation that can legitimately be made is that it helped strengthen our commercial relationships with our major trading partner too much. I think one of the challenges we face strategically as a country right now is looking at a United States that is facing some serious medium-term economic challenges.

We are in a situation now where we should be working as Canadians harder than ever to diversify our relationships around the world. I think in that sense the Colombia agreement is not just important because of the commercial benefits that may evolve in that bilateral relationship but symbolically important in terms of Canada's ambitions in the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thanks very much.

I'd like to thank our guest for returning. I think the dialogue you've shared with us is sincere and an important one.

I know we seem to have reflected on one party in particular in terms of members opposite who seem to take a differing view. I wish it were just one; it seems to me that there are others.

My challenge is that what I see here is really an ideologically driven dialogue. There are those who seem to put party platforms ahead of progress. What makes me sad is that, again, this is petty party politics ahead of doing the right thing for Colombians and Canadians. That makes me distressed.

What I see missing from some parties opposite is a recognition that Colombians are trying to do the right thing, that Canadians are trying to do the right thing. I think it's shameful to suggest that somehow Canadians don't care about human rights in other countries. I think that's very sad.

I think of the 1.7 million Canadian workers who are represented by your association, Mr. Stewart-Patterson. I guess I need to ask you, if we were to ask your 1.7 million Canadians workers and their manufacturers how they feel about coming together to try to promote more of their business while we're living through a global recession that is, lest it be forgotten, the worst that anyone around this table has ever experienced--none of us have lived through the kinds of times that we're living through right now, unprecedented—what do you think those workers might say, sir?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

Well, again, I think Canadians respond as human beings who obviously care about the welfare of themselves, their families, and therefore look at what the economic opportunities are that they have, that their enterprise, their employer has; and they care about their jobs.

But I think Canadians also do have shared values that they care about very much. If you look at Canada's record around the world, Canadian enterprises engaging in the developing world, I think of it being, by and large, a huge force for good in improving the lives not just of their own employees, of Canadian workers, but also of those in developing nations who are being brought more fully into an open global economy. It is in trading among ourselves that we actually achieve the greatest benefits for all.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Let me suggest to you, if I may, what I think is shameful, that somehow there are those who either refuse to recognize or don't understand--I think it's ideological, and they refuse to recognize--that this agreement provides real benefits for Canadians and Colombians.

When I say that, I mean workers, farmers, miners. My Cape Breton granddad was a coal miner. I will tell you this: it might shock Mr. Julian, but he was a member of the CCF. I will tell you that proudly, because at that time, the challenges for miners' rights in Cape Breton made it really difficult. He always fought on the side of what was right and he used common sense.

I don't always see that with members opposite, and I don't quite get it. I think we have to come to a point--we have to come to a point--where we say this is right for Colombia, this is right for Canada.

As it was said in a recent meeting, we already do business with this country, so why wouldn't we have a rules-based agreement that ensures we are going to protect the labourers in Colombia, that we protect the interests of Canada as opposed to some kind of what I would call willy-nilly kind of arrangement where there are rules but they are limited rules? I struggle with that.

I want to say one other thing. I noticed something that came across. Transparency International, an NGO, ranks Colombia higher than China, Russia, and India in terms of human rights. I could give you more statistics, many statistics, on how the standard of living in Colombia has improved over the years. Would I tell you it is perfect? Probably not. But I would say to you that without an agreement, what's the alternative?

Would you respond to that in our last few moments, please?

[David Stewart-Patterson]

If I may, I think I have made the point already. Are there serious and ongoing legitimate concerns in Colombia? Yes, as there are in many other countries. What are Canadians doing to improve the situation? In my view, we will be helping to improve that situation for Colombians by continuing their integration into the legitimate global economy.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I just wish that while you were making that response, our members opposite had the chance to listen.

Thank you very much, sir.