Evidence of meeting #20 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 p.m.
Bloc
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
You're voting in favour of it?
Oh, he has asked for a recorded vote.
9:10 p.m.
An hon. member
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Yes, I very clearly heard you ask for a recorded vote. I realize there are a number of committee members who want to delay and obfuscate and mislead the general public, who are now able to listen to this discussion, but the reality is that we have to respect the chair, and we also have to respect every other member of Parliament at this committee table.
The reality is, Mr. Chairman, that you very clearly asked for a vote. Anyone who had an intervention prior to that should have made that intervention. We can't continually back up all evening and ignore the chair and then ask after the fact to intervene. It would be the same as if we went back and revisited the questions we had already voted on.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Keddy, I agree on that. Actually, Mr. Laforest asked for a recorded vote.
9:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I simply asked for a recorded vote. I don't see why Mr. Keddy is getting on his high horses. I did not ask to speak; I asked for a recorded vote.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Madam Clerk, call the recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'll now move on to NDP-2.
Mr. Julian, do you want to read your amendment into the record, or would you like me to? It would be better if you did, I think.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Well, you speak very well too, Mr. Chair, but it might be easier, just because I'm matching it up.
It is that line 14 on page 3 would be changed to read:
[work]ers' rights, including the right to collective bargaining, strengthen cooperation and build
The issue of the right to collective bargaining, Mr. Chair, is fundamental to this. Even though many of the largest labour associations in Canada, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the national union of provincial government employees, and the umbrella group, the Canadian Labour Congress, were all denied the opportunity to come before this committee, and even though, Mr. Chair, not a single non-governmental, non-regime-linked labour union was able to testify on Bill C-2 before this committee, which many, I think, Mr. Chair, will suggest is an absolute outrage....
In fact, they are quite right in that. it is outrageous that not a single Colombian labour union—
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Chair, I believe that in fact Walter Navarro gave testimony before this committee on Bill C-2 on behalf of 12 private sector unions in Colombia, the private sector unions that are actually impacted by free trade agreements, as opposed to the public sector unions, which only have an ideological relationship with their brethren and comrades to these kinds of agreements.
I just wanted to clarify, because I think the honourable member might remember that.
9:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you. I wasn't here, but I will take your excellent memory for what it is.
Mr. Julian.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's so sad—it boggles the mind—that Mr. Brison at this point would not be aware that the regime-linked unions represent fewer than 10% of the workers who are still unionized in Colombia, subject as they are to significant paramilitary action, killings, threats, on an ongoing basis.
To suggest that the regime-linked unions in some way credibly speak for the entire Colombian labour movement and that this committee was right to deny all Colombian unions that are not regime-affiliated the ability to come to speak before committee, or that it's somehow permissible and acceptable to have the CLC denied, the Public Service Alliance of Canada denied, NUPGE denied, and other labour unions and labour representatives in Canada who wanted to come before the committee—that somehow that's all okay.... I'll have to vehemently disagree, Mr. Chair.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, if Mr. Julian is suggesting that everybody in Colombia who supports these FTAs is regime-linked, then I would draw his attention to the recent round of presidential election votes in Colombia, where the Polo party garnered only 8% or 9%, I think it was.
June 1st, 2010 / 9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
So is he suggesting that 91% of Colombians who support these FTAs are regime-linked?
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Democracy is wrong, I'm telling you right now.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
It is great factual information. Thank you, Mr. Brison.
Mr. Trost, did you have a point of order?
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
I guess the question that I was going to ask is on the point Mr. Julian seems to be making that his clause is needed to protect union workers—maybe I'm wrong and maybe he can answer this—who are opposed to the regime, in his terminology, whatever that means. But my understanding is that there have been union leaders who have been killed because they supported the free trade agreement with Canada. In fact, my understanding is that some union leaders apologized to Minister Blackburn when he was down there that they couldn't have many people meeting with him because they were at a funeral for a union leader who was killed by leftists because he'd supported the free trade agreement.
My point is, is he building in protection just for those opposed to the agreement, or is he building in protection for people who are union leaders who are also supportive of the agreement?
9:20 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Guimond Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Could I comment on what Mr. Trost just said? I don't think that by not unionizing Colombians--
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
9:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm
stunned. That is the only word I can use in a case like this. To suggest, in any shape or form, that it is acceptable for someone to be killed because of a union connection is something we are vehemently opposed to. Everyone's human rights must be respected.
I am not aware of the case mentioned by Mr. Trost, but it would be just as bad in any case, whatever it might be. We will certainly be following up on this, but the reality is that, in this Committee, we didn't hear from people representing the Canadian union movement, and particularly the largest central union bodies, nor did we hear from the umbrella group that represents Canadian unions. And we didn't hear from any Colombian union that is not connected to the current regime.
Personally, I support the fact that the regime-linked union testified, because it is important to hear from all union groups. But to say that we are simply going to wipe off the map all those who are against the aims of the current regime is quite another thing.
I will let representatives of the union movement make their own comments in the coming days. There is no doubt that everyone is going to be disturbed by the decisions that were made today.
Just before I turn things over to Monsieur Guimond, I'm coming back to the fact that the right to collective bargaining is a fundamental right, and we should be putting it in the purpose of the agreement if we believe in labour rights.