International Trade Committee on Nov. 19th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

First, I want to say that I really enjoyed the comments.

You know, I'm a very straightforward, blunt person. I hesitate to identify who is not listening, who is not agreeing, etc.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I apologize.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I would ask my good friend Mr. Holder to identify next time who he is referring to, not just members opposite.

The members opposite include us, as the Liberal team. As he knows very well, we are very much in support of moving Bill C-23 as soon as possible.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I'd like to clarify, then, on that point of order, Mr. Chair.

For those members of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition who are still here, they listened very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

There you go.

We have next on the list Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You have five minutes.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Hello once again, since this isn't our first meeting. We will also be meeting with other organizations a second time.

Mr. Laurin, you testified earlier that the majority of CME members are in favour of the agreement. I'm not sure what kind of consultations you held, but I would like to know the reasons members had for not supporting the agreement.

[Jean-Michel Laurin]

First of all, I want to make it clear that none of our members expressed opposition to the agreement. Some actively support it, either because of their commercial interests in Colombia, or because they view this country as a potential export market for their product. Other companies are not as directly involved because, for a variety of reasons, they do not see the agreement as a short-term or medium-term business opportunity for them.

As I see it, our members are united in their support for the ratification of a free trade agreement that will make our products more competitive in this market.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Then you should have stated in your testimony that support for the agreement among your members was unanimous.

[Jean-Michel Laurin]

Each year, as a matter of fact, we ask the majority of our members to identify the countries with which they would like Canada to sign a free trade agreement and develop closer commercial ties. Of course, they generally name countries in which there is a potential to market their products and services.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like to reassure certain committee members. The Bloc Québécois has, of course, voted in the past in favour of free trade agreements and will certainly do so again in the future. However, as you know, we prefer a multilateral approach over a bilateral approach. We note that there are some inconsistencies. There is not necessarily a common denominator that highlights the positives of free trade.

As I see it, there are two fundamental aspects to free trade. There is the trade aspect, so to speak, the exporting and importing of goods. The process does not really involve much contact with people. It really does not affect those areas in which we would like to see some improvement, namely human rights, social rights and labour laws.

The companies that you represent want to invest and set up operations in Colombia. Some are already doing business with this country. We hear the claim that trade will automatically improve human rights, but are these companies really interested in improving the situation? We've seen what has happened with globalization. Companies have set up operations in other countries to take advantage of conditions that do no exist here at home, namely lower wages and less stringent labour laws. The environment was often a secondary consideration. We know that's true.

That being the case, will your members really want to help improve the human rights situation and the social conditions of Colombians, or even protect the environment, even though the government sometimes shows some favouritism? Do you really think this is what your members want?

[Jean-Michel Laurin]

I would have to answer yes. You say that wages are often lower in these countries. It's true that in some cases, manpower is more widely available. Moreover, that is one of the reasons why certain companies opt to invest in foreign countries. However, it is not the only reason. If, for example, a Canadian firm invests in Colombia and manages to find workers, the reason is that people are looking for economic opportunities. This country is experiencing some fairly serious problems. I think we can help to improve people's lives by expanding their options and by creating new opportunities for them.

People are turning to the black market because of the shortage of opportunities. For that reason, I think the best way of resolving the problem is by forging a closer partnership, by establishing closer business ties and by creating opportunities, not only for Canadian firms, but for Colombian companies as well.

History has shown that investing in a foreign country, offering people economic opportunities and enabling them to develop their skills and maximize their potential is the best route to economic development in the medium and long term. Canada has proven that this approach works. We enjoy our current standard of living because we have benefited from investment opportunities and have worked to develop our skills and improve our ways of doing things.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

You know—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's a little over five minutes. Thanks very much.

It might be helpful to note that we might invest in their gold and copper mines, because they have gold and copper in their mines.

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you very much.

I think we'll all agree that Canada holds human rights high in this country, the rule of law, democracy, and all of the good things that we've come to enjoy. We've had struggles in our country to get there, but nothing like those of Colombia and some other South American countries that have had decades of civil war and huge abuses of human rights.

It seems to me that Mr. Julian and the folks from the Bloc are saying that until Colombia agrees to accept the conditions that we enjoy in Canada in the area of human rights and law, we don't want to deal with them. They don't want to deal with them until they say, yes, we'll sign on to whatever level you want to impose.

I'm suggesting that maybe they are unable to come that far ahead in such a short time because of how far back they may have been in things like human rights, labour, and the rule of law. Maybe they aren't able to. They're suggesting that we cast them aside in the meanwhile, step out of the lineup, and let all of the other countries take our place and take the seats in the trade show to the point that maybe when we want to come back, there won't be any room for us.

The very people they would sign agreements with may not hold anywhere near the values that we do. We may never ever get to try to influence them with our values and our rule of law because we're simply not going to be in the same theatre as they're playing in now, having had all of their trade requirements filled by other countries that may be so far back from us in human rights, the rule of law, and democracy, that we would maybe think that those trading companies are backwards, but they're going to be there in our place.

That's the big fear I have about holding this thing up and standing back while we insist that they embrace this ideal package before we'll even deal with them. Someone else will go in there and get the trade with a package that may not compare in any way to what we could have offered them.

[Jean-Michel Laurin]

That's a very good point.

There are already Canadian businesses doing business with Colombian companies. That trade has been growing in the past five years, as I've demonstrated. The question I have for some of those who have expressed skepticism or opposition to this trade agreement is what else are they proposing to improve the situation?

I think this free trade agreement, as you're saying, may not be perfect. That argument could be made, and some would agree with that. But I think it's definitely better. It provides a much better framework for our trading relationship with Colombia. There are already Canadian companies doing business in Colombia and vice versa. How can we improve that and try to work more closely with Colombians to improve their economy?

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

The trade relations we have with them, even though not on a free trade basis, of course had an influence on the progress they've made over the past number of years, and that's a good thing.

[Jean-Michel Laurin]

It would give a tremendous advantage to Canadian companies doing business in that market, as you've explained.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

If I may, I think you've raised an important point.

Colombia has made a huge amount of progress and it still has a great deal of progress to make. But assuming all goes well there and that they achieve the level of prosperity, safety, human rights, and well-being of their citizens that we enjoy here in Canada, when that day arrives, are they going to look back and see Canadians as people who helped them get there, or as people who kicked them in the teeth?

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

That's a good point.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's a minute early.

We'll go to Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to allocate my time to my good friend Mr. Cannan, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Cannan.