Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.
There has been a considerable amount of debate in the House, with arguments from all sides and, in fairness, reasonable arguments from those in support and also from those opposed. Debate has certainly been held in this place and that debate is on the record.
The official opposition believes that the time has come to move this debate and this discussion to committee so citizens can have their say and express their opinions and concerns directly. Those who have concerns, whether they are over human rights or trade issues, and those who strongly favour the trade agreement, as those in the farm sector do, would be able to express directly what they see as opportunities.
Let me be very clear. Bill C-23 should be moved to committee and it should hold hearings across the country and hear from people. The committee should do one of two things in terms of the Colombia argument: first, either travel to Colombia and hear from people directly on what they see as opportunities and what they see as concerns; or, at the very least, invite some Colombian people to come here as witnesses so they can express either concerns or what they see as opportunities in a vivid way. This trade agreement affects both of our economies and should be examined closely at committee level.
There are concerns about human rights in Colombia. The best way to understand the extent and impact of those concerns would be for committee to visit Colombia or invite Colombian witnesses to appear in this country.
There are two approaches that one could take on the conflict of human rights versus trade.
The first approach would be as we have done in China, and various governments have taken this approach. We could foster trade and encourage human rights as a result of the trading relationship. The other approach would be to oppose trade altogether until the human rights concerns have been addressed. Those are the kinds of parameters of the debate on the human rights argument.
Let me emphasize the fact that the best way for Parliament to find the balance and establish a direction and come to a conclusion is to aggressively now pursue hearings in the country and possibly in Colombia or bring Colombian witnesses here.
I can assure the House that farmers will want to be heard. They have sent letters to most of us in the House directly, suggesting how important the Colombian market is for their exports so they can achieve some economic opportunities in our country.
With committee hearings, the people of Canada, the people of Colombia and industries in both countries could be given a direct voice and direct input.
On the Colombian side, I will admit that I am very concerned, after hearing that the president has indicated he may change the constitution so he can stay in office beyond the two term time limit. That is worrisome. Has the Prime Minister raised this issue with the president? Has he said to the president that to violate the constitution in order to extend his term could have an impact in this country as to whether we would pass the Colombia free trade agreement in the House?
I will admit I have serious concerns about agreements once they are signed and the government's ability, or courage or lack thereof, to stand up for Canadians who have established rights under those agreements. The best example is that the Conservative government certainly has failed to stand up for Canadian trade rights under the trade agreement with the United States.
The U.S. is our closest trading partner. Everybody knows how the Conservative government sold out on softwood lumber, but let me explain the latest dispute. The government has failed Canada's livestock industry, beef and hog and other livestock producers, with the trade agreement that is in place with the United States. I have said in the House many times that Canada is losing the hog industry in part due to the United States' protectionist policy and the Conservative government's failure to utilize the authorities under trade law to protect Canadian producers' interests. Here are the facts.
Dr. Milton Boyd, in an editorial in the Calgary Sun, said this about the situation of country of origin labelling in the United States. He opened the article by saying:
Struggling US livestock producers--hit hard by the recent economic downturn and the drop in demand for meat in the United States--have spurred recent trade protectionism measures—
We know what the Americans are doing is illegal. We know the Conservative government should be standing up for Canadian producers. But what are the consequences of the government not challenging the United States and standing up for Canadian producers? Here is what Dr. Boyd had to say:
[Country of origin labelling] COOL has resulted in a tightened, protectionist border. Canadian hog exports to the U.S. for market pigs have dropped...60% [from last year]...
...this loss is around...$163 million over a full year... Also, slaughter-cattle exports are down 20% and feeder-cattle exports are down by 50%.
That is an extremely serious issue. We are losing an industry. The government has the authority under trade law to stand up and fight for Canadian producers, but the minister sits on his hands. When the Prime Minister had the opportunity to apply more pressure when he was in the United States, what did he do? He got in his Challenger jet and flew home at a cost of about $60,000 to have a coffee at Tim Hortons.