Debates of Sept. 14th, 2009

Question No. 399

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

With regards to the infrastructure programs within Budget 2009 and the Building Canada plan: (a) do the Treasury Board guidelines differ in any way between the new infrastructure programs within the Economic Action plan and the Building Canada programs from Budget 2007; and (b) what analysis has been undertaken to evaluate the effects of infrastructure programs on increased costs of construction?

(Return tabled)

Starred Questions

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you please call Starred Question no. 363. I ask that the question and answer be printed in Hansard as if read.

*Question No. 363

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

With respect to Canada’s obligation to prevent genocide: (a) does the government consider the obligation to prevent genocide, pursuant to Article 1 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to be binding under international law and, if not, on what basis is the government absolved of its obligation under international law; (b) does the government recognize incitement to genocide as a warning sign of genocide; (c) does the government consider the government of Iran to have engaged in incitement to genocide and, if so, what measures has the government taken to respond to the incitement to genocide in Iran, and to curb that incitement to genocide; (d) if the answer to (c) is negative, on what basis does the government dispute the evidence or conclusions presented in the Danger of a Genocidal, Rights-Violating and Nuclear Iran: The Responsibility to Prevent Petition, available online at http://www.irwincotler.parl.gc.ca/documents/081209_petition.pdf (the “Petition”); (e) does the government consider itself to be in standing violation of its “normative and compelling” obligation to “employ all means reasonably available [...] so as to prevent genocide so far as possible” pursuant to the Genocide Convention, as characterized by the International Court of Justice (case no. 91, 26 February 2007) and, if not, on what basis does the government consider its obligation to have been satisfied; (f) does the government consider Iran to have violated the prohibition under the Genocide Convention on direct and public incitement to genocide and, if so, (i) what measures has the government taken to hold Iran accountable for its breach of the Genocide Convention, (ii) has the government or a delegation thereof at the United Nations ever made a public statement calling out Iran for its breach of the Genocide Convention and, if so, by whom was the statement made, to what audience, on what date and at what location; and (g) if the government does not consider Iran to have violated the prohibition under the Genocide Convention on direct and public incitement to genocide, on what basis does the government dispute the evidence or conclusions presented in the Petition?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), yes.

In response to (b), yes.

In response to (c) and (d), Canada and like-minded states will continue to monitor statements emanating from the government of Iran, including its president.

Canada has consistently taken Iran to task for its unacceptable behaviour in international affairs and for the appalling abuses of human rights that the regime carries out against its own people and has publicly condemned President Ahmadinejad’s egregious and offensive comments. For the sixth consecutive year in 2008, Canada led the international community in drafting and passing a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly calling upon Iran to respect its international human rights obligations.

In response to (e) Canada delivers on its obligations to both prevent and punish genocide by criminalizing the crime of genocide under its domestic law and thus enabling its domestic prosecution in Canadian courts where there is evidence to support such action. Canada is also a supporter of the International Criminal Court, which both deters and punishes perpetrators of genocide; as well, Canada supported the appointment of a Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide with the mandate to make appropriate recommendations for prevention to the United Nations Security Council through the UN Secretary-General.

Canada delivered a statement on the Responsibility to Protect, R2P, on July 24th at the UN General Assembly Open Debate, which demonstrated our support for the principle and emphasized our continued work in enhancing conflict prevention, preventive advocacy, and early warning mechanisms.

At the international level, Canada has supported the development of the new international norm of the Responsibility to Protect. The concept of the Responsibility to Protect, as endorsed by the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document and reaffirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1674(2006) on the protection of civilians in armed conflict acknowledges both the responsibility of each individual state as well as the international community to protect civilian populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. According to the summit outcome document, this responsibility of a state towards its own population includes “the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means”.

In response to (f), see response to questions (c) and (d).

In response to (g), see response to questions (c) and (d).

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When question period started, the hon. member for Kings—Hants had just concluded his remarks, so we will move on to the 10-minute question and comment period.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sense from the member for Kings—Hants almost a fervent conversion over there to supporting a narco-regime, one of the worst and most corrupt governments in the world.

There is one thing that comes to my mind. I come from Hamilton, which is one of the centres of labour activism in Canada where people know and understand their rights. When I was in various coffee shops, people would ask me how in the world Canada could get into bed with Colombia.

Bishop Juan Alberto Cardona from the Methodist Church of Colombia visited us this year and he was very concerned about the fact that this agreement seemed to mask or at least offer a substitute for real labour reform in that country. Within the terms of this free trade agreement, the labour rights that are being touted in this room as progressive are actually side agreements. One thing I learned a long time ago is that letters of intent are not worth the paper they are written on, especially with a government like this.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is in the interest of Canadians and in the interest of Colombians that we partner with them to provide Colombians with real opportunities outside of the narco-economy.

While I understand the intent of the hon. member in terms of citing the real danger of the narco-economy, I do not understand the logic of preventing the people of Colombia from having legitimate economic opportunities. The fact is if we really want to help reduce the size of the narco-economy, we ought to engage in legitimate economic engagement.

The hon. member's arguments against free trade are consistent with that of his party on every free trade agreement. They are largely ideological. In fact, the member for Toronto Centre and I met with union representatives in Colombia, representing textile workers, professionals and engineers, and other union organizations that support the free trade agreement.

The fact is there is a significant level of support among workers and among labour unions in Colombia representing private sector employees, people who want to have opportunities outside of the narco-economy.

If he is, as he has stated, opposed to the narco-economy in Colombia, then he ought to support measures that provide legitimate economic opportunities to the people of Colombia and economically engage them as opposed to ideologically abandoning them.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer given by the member for Kings—Hants. We have heard a lot of this in the debate.

Also, during the member's speech, he made several references to those benefits to Colombia and to the people of Colombia, particularly those who had previously been employed in the narco-economy.

Does the member feel as strongly about what is good in this for Canada?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this agreement does provide significant investor protection for Canadian companies doing business in Colombia. We already have a fairly significant level of trade and investment between our countries, without the additional benefits of a rules-based approach in governance to labour and the environment that is afforded by this treaty, the most robust provisions on labour and the environment of any trade agreement we have signed.

Again, the member for Toronto Centre and I met with Canadian companies doing business in Colombia. Canadian companies are recognized in Colombia as being strong and responsible practitioners of corporate social responsibility and have received recognition and awards for environmental and human rights practices. In fact, they represent great ambassadors for our values in Colombia. Even before this trade agreement, we have seen in recent weeks Brookfield Asset Management announce a $500 million fund to invest in Colombia. We have seen recently SNC-Lavalin open an office in Bogota.

Canadian companies are investing. We just want to ensure there is a rules-based system to strengthen labour and environmental provisions, which can only improve the situation for the people of Colombia.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the labour issue seems to be the most controversial part of this.

In his speech on May 25, the minister indicated to the House that we had signed a labour accord with Colombia that insisted on both countries following the International Labour Organization rules, regulations and obligations related to trade and labour, which Canada already does.

It would appear there needs to be a bridging of the need to address labour difficulties in order to further justify the sound arguments that bilateral trade for Canada is always a good thing, but this labour issue really has to be addressed.

Could the member give some assurances that there is a plan on how we can strengthen the arguments, vis-à-vis labour regulations?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right that labour rights and environmental protection both have to be a strong part of any trade agreement that Canada signs. This agreement does have the most robust measures we have ever agreed to in of our trade agreements. In its annual report, the ILO has recognized that Colombia has made progress.

Obviously a country like Colombia, that has emerged from 40 years of internal strife and civil war largely fuelled by the narco-economy, has a long way to go. Our presence in Colombia has been overwhelmingly positive for the workers and for the people of Colombia, so a rules-based system around our presence and strengthening and fortifying our presence in labour areas has the potential to improve. However, this is quite a robust agreement on labour rights. When we compare this with some of the other ones Colombia signed, it is actually more robust.

With regard to the issue of whether a side agreement is less robust than a full chapter treatment, I have talked with some trade lawyers who believe that either can work and that they are equally strong and enforceable, but it depends on the chapter or the side agreement. However, either can work and can be enforceable. Many trade lawyers feel this approach is a reasonable one and sufficiently robust.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party certainly is not listening to human rights organizations. It certainly is not listening to civil society groups. It certainly is not listening to labour representatives. We have seen case after case of the escalating, the rising rate of killings of human rights advocates and trade union members. Those are indisputable facts, and the Liberals just seem to want to go along, once again, I guess for the 80th time, with the Conservatives.

However, the question that is of real concern is that there is simply nothing in this agreement that would protect those labour activists and those human rights advocates.

According to the comptroller general of Colombia, it is estimated that drug traffickers and paramilitaries now “own” about half of the agricultural land in Colombia. Quite simply, they are pushing off indigenous peoples, African Colombians, from their land and forcing them to be displaced people, four million of them.

How can the Liberals reconcile a trade agreement that would not protect those people and, in fact, would enforce and enhance corporation rights at the expense of individual human rights that only the NDP seems to be advocating?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto Centre and I met with the UN High Commission on Human Rights representative, Christian Salazar, in Colombia. The UNHCHR is working closely with the minister of defence and with other ministers, ensuring that there is a co-operative and legitimate approach to the issues of rights and labour rights, the issues of impugnity, demobilization of paramilitary groups. All these issues are important to the people of Colombia, and the UN is actively involved in that. In fact, Mr. Salazar indicated to us that there had been significant progress by—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The first five hours of debate on this bill have expired. We will move on now to the next round, where speeches will be 10 minutes and questions and comments will be 5 minutes.

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House with my colleagues. It is especially an honour to speak again on this important Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that has been in the House for many months. We want to ensure that we have a good fulsome discussion and debate and have the facts presented as it is an important agreement for Canada and Colombia as we move forward in the global commerce village.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants who had a chance to travel to Colombia this summer. The trade committee went last May, but he was not on the committee at that time. He and his colleague from Toronto Centre had a chance to see first-hand the fantastic city of Bogota and the opportunities for Canada and Colombia as we move forward with this agreement.

As we continue to expand markets worldwide, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the Minister of International Trade, the member from Okanagan—Coquihalla, who is also my adjacent neighbour. I know how busy he is and how far around the globe he has travelled to open markets for Canadian businesses. He has been away from home for many days trying to look after our community. Ministers have a difficult task ensuring their constituents are looked after as well as facing the demands of our country. I thank the minister for his continued time and dedication to our community and our country.

We continue to open doors and create new opportunities to strengthen Canada's economy in the face of the current economic downturn. We all know these are challenging times. We have heard from our constituents the fact that for so many years Canada has been reliant on the United States for our free trade. It is a great neighbour to the south and we want to continue to foster that relationship.

If individuals put 80% or 85% of their investments in one portfolio and the market crashes, they soon realize that it is good to diversify. This is one thing that Canada has not done. The previous international trade minister, Mr. Emerson, and now the Minister of International Trade, the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, continues to expand part of the Conservative government's global commerce strategy.

Colombia is already a significant trading partner with Canada. We saw that first-hand when our committee was there last May. We had a chance to meet with individuals and several companies from Colombia as well as Canadian companies doing business there, bringing the corporate social responsibility model forward.

Colombia is an important destination for exporters and producers. Over the last five years, Canadian exports have doubled, reaching over $704 million in 2008.

The Colombian market is an exciting one, with approximately 47 million people who are very educated, skilled and an innovative workforce. They want to expand and share their skills and their products and services with us and we want to do the same, and there is no better way than to move this free trade agreement forward.

By eliminating tariffs on a range of products, Canadian exporters and producers will benefit and become more competitive against those in other nations that are also trading with Colombia.

A free trade agreement would mean the removal of barriers that limit Canadian participation in growing markets and the elimination of tariffs on Canadian exports to help make Canadian goods more competitive in a range of sectors including mining, agriculture and agri-food products.

It would mean a level playing field for Canadian businesses vis-à-vis their competitors that are benefiting from preferential market access terms. Basically we are levelling the playing field.

It would enhance market access for Canadian service providers in areas such as financial, professional, engineering, environmental, mining, oil and gas and construction services, just to name a few.

It would also secure and have a predictable environment for investors. That stability is important to ensure that people have the confidence to invest in foreign countries.

It would also lower prices and improve choice for consumers. We all like to have a greater variety of selection and more choice, which generally means a more competitive market and better prices for Canadian consumers as well.

The bottom line is results for Canadians: a new partnership; new customers; new investors; new links in supply and product chains; and new choices for consumers. In short, Canada would benefit from this agreement.

Sometimes it is difficult to take in the whole picture of how an agreement like this would benefit individual regions or provinces, so this afternoon I will focus my remarks on the benefits of this agreement to specific regions and provinces across the country.

As I mentioned, Canada is already an established and growing market for Canadian exporters in many different sectors, including wheat, pulses, machinery, mining equipment and paper products. Once this new agreement is in place, we expect even more businesses and communities across the country to benefit. The agreement will also help us to sharpen our competitive edge relative to competitors like the EU and the U.S. which have similar negotiations in progress with Colombia.

Our Conservative government knows that Canadian business can compete with the best in the world and we have shown that with other agreements we spoke about earlier today. The minister has been to China and India recently. The Minister of Finance was there as well this summer to expand our Asian market, including Jordan. We are looking at new opportunities throughout the globe to continue to open doors. In today's tough economic times this agreement gives us market access and the level playing field to do it.

Let us start with the benefits of this agreement to Atlantic Canada. Last year, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador exported about $129 million worth of exports to Colombia, directly benefiting such core sectors as oil, paper, paperboard and fertilizers. These sectors will benefit enormously from freer trade with Colombia.

What about machinery and industrial goods? It is no secret that Canadian manufacturers, especially in Canada's industrial heartland in Ontario and Quebec, are facing tough times these days. They need all the opportunities they can get to ride out this economic storm. That means opening doors in markets like Colombia. This is especially beneficial for dump trucks which is one of the biggest machines exported from Canada.

With this agreement, Colombian tariffs on most machinery and industrial goods would be eliminated. This is especially significant for Canadian manufacturers of mining equipment centred in Ontario and Quebec. This agreement is very important for the Province of Quebec. After all, 17% of Canada's exports to Colombia were from Quebec, almost a full fifth. Quebeckers employed in sectors like the paper and paperboard industry, copper and machinery, will benefit significantly from free trade with Colombia.

The prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will also benefit greatly from this agreement. The immediate removal of Colombian tariffs from such cornerstone crops as wheat and pulses will make these products from the Canadian Prairies even more competitive in the global market, and the Colombian market will add that much more opportunity for these businesses to expand.

Prairie producers are a cornerstone of our economy. They will see clear benefits from free trade with Colombia. I should also point out that Alberta enjoys a significant investment presence in the Colombian market thanks to companies like Enbridge, Talisman, Petrobank and Nexen. We had the opportunity to meet with some of those business leaders as our trade committee travelled around Colombia.

As oil and gas projects continue developing in the Andes we fully expect this presence to deepen. Our free trade agreement with Colombia will help secure Canadian investments in the region by providing greater predictability and protection for investors. These investment provisions will directly benefit those Alberta firms which are investing in Colombia.

Madam Speaker, like yourself coming from British Columbia, I have the honour of representing the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country in the Okanagan. Our province also stands to greatly benefit from this agreement, especially British Columbia's mechanical, machinery and paper industries. In fact, many B.C. companies have told us they are looking to expand trade with Colombia, including Greystar Resources and IMW Industries of Chilliwack. With these kinds of benefits across Canada, it is no wonder that Canadian businesses, investors and producers alike have been calling for closer commercial ties with Colombia for some time now. The time to act is now.

Colombia has an ambitious and aggressive free trade agreement that includes some key competitors for Canada, competitors like the United States and the European Union. Time is of the essence. Our Conservative government knows that we need to take steps sooner rather than later to ensure that Canadian exporters, investors and producers, and regions and provinces across the country are not put at a disadvantage relative to our competitors. They can compete with the best in the world. Let us give them the opportunity to do so, to ride out the current economic storm, and emerge on the other side stronger and more competitive than before.

In closing, that is why I ask all hon. members in the House to support the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, a free and fair trade agreement that gives hope and opportunity for individuals and businesses in Canada and Columbia, and help us take that next step in building a more globally competitive Canada for the future.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country for his speech and his commitment to free and fair trade agreements. The member mentioned that this is going to help British Columbia. We have raised the issues of human rights and labour laws in Colombia that are negatively affecting the viewpoint of the people in British Columbia.

Can the member tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that those issues are taken care of so that people in British Columbia are not upset when this agreement goes through?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from British Columbia for his passion to expand opportunities for our British Columbia businesses across the globe.

As was alluded to earlier by previous speakers, there are two side agreements, both for labour and the environment, to ensure those concerns are addressed. The additional one with regard to human rights in particular is making its efforts to strengthen the economy.

We believe that engagement rather than isolation is the best way to address this aspect. I would use the analogy from the ambassadors who presented to our committee, as well as the president of the country. I think it is the first time a president of a country has addressed a committee. The analogy was that if we see somebody drowning, do we contemplate and say, “Well, we do not think we should look after that person”, or do we rush out. Human nature is that we want to help each other. A rising tide lifts all boats and that is our desire.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. The member believes in competitiveness. The government believes in competitiveness. The International Energy Agency has told countries worldwide that the path out of this global recession is the new green economy and investment in the new green economy.

If the government, as a member of the International Energy Agency, truly embraces a path to come out of this recession, truly embraces the new path of competitiveness, truly believes in proper development and exchange with other nations of the world, why has the government chosen to formulate and agree to an agreement that sidebars human rights and sustainable development?

Surely, we have learned through the past two decades that it is necessary to incorporate that within trade. Surely, they are not being side-barred.

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

Madam Speaker, the fact is that, as has been alluded to previously, human rights is a concern of all of us in this room. Nobody has the franchise on caring and compassion. Each individual has a responsibility to do the best we can to help others.

We were there firsthand with one of the member's hon. colleagues. We visited two school rooms that are funded through CIDA. The fact is it is a helping hand rather than just stepping aside.

Connie Watson, a CBC reporter, presented the fact that we are giving opportunities. The fact is that economic opportunities go hand in hand with human rights and sustainability.

One B.C. business that was there, a forest company from Vancouver Island, was teaching sustainability and corporate social responsibility with human rights and employment standards, so that we can raise the bar and lead by example.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, could the member follow up on those human rights abuses he was talking about, and the steps Colombia has taken to deal with them?