Bradley Trost

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as would be expected with my colleague's background as a United Church minister, he is quite interested in the human rights question. In my time both on my trips to Colombia and in talking to people here, I have had the privilege of talking with many organizations, government relations personnel, human rights personnel, et cetera.

I am a member of the committee involved in studying this agreement. At committee, what sort of messages and witnesses would give the member comfort that the human rights situation is being monitored and that the development by Canadian companies there is progressive, solid and is building the country? What sort of people would he be looking for at committee to help reassure him regarding his human rights concerns?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, currently, the American political situation is dominated by protectionists in its Congress. That is hardly unique. The Canadian government has no interest in imitating the American government in its massive deficit protectionist mentality that currently seems to be down there. We fought with the United States on issues about the buy American issue, not all elements. Some down there engaged us on it. This is actually a reason why we should get ahead of the United States instead of following. Canadian companies can get an advantage before a U.S.-Colombia trade deal goes through, which would provide us with substantive economic leverage.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gets to the point why there is a filibuster on this bill. No credit wants to be given to the current Colombian administration. Let us be fairly clear. Independent polling of the race clearly states that supporters of the current president and his policies not only take first place but, in most polls, also take second place.

Is the system down there perfect? No, it is not. However, that is the same as stating that it would not be wise to negotiate trade agreements with Canada because of the sponsorship scandal and the previous effect it had on political parties in this House.

To draw such a strong link between certain problems that are limited in the country to the complete opposition to all trade treaties to the country is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the precise examples that I gave in my speech were on increasing the quality of life for the poor people of Colombia. As far as will wealth inevitably create more human rights, I do not automatically equate the one with the other. World War II Germany was a wealthy country which did not respect human rights for that era.

However, in regard to the question if Colombia itself is trying to improve by doing its best, I would think there are other answers to that question and those answers are “yes”. Having spoken with lawyers who work in the human rights department and have been under pressure in the Colombian government, and having discussed the matter and looked at the rates of crime and violence, both involving the war, assassinations and so forth going down, the government is doing its best to try to get a grip on the situation. I think that can be demonstrated at committee, through statistics and discussion of certain programs.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure today to discuss the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

It is not often that one can get excited or energetic about certain treaties. By and large they are viewed as rather dry and ordinary things, but I have a personal stake and a personal interest in this treaty. Unlike most members of the House, I have family that is in Colombia and not just Canadians who have immigrated there as expatriates to take a high paying job. They are 100% born and bred Colombians. So for me, Colombia is a special country, a country not as special as my homeland, Canada, but a country that has great potential, a great future. It is a beautiful country.

For those who are watching I encourage them to visit. The stereotypes of a failed state that is incredibly dangerous and a narco-state with guerrillas running there are stereotypes of the past.

I have visited Bogota and Cali, and the regions around it. It is a beautiful country. One of the country's slogans reads, “Colombia is Passion” and it is quite accurate. It is a place where I encourage, particularly come winter, Canadians to consider.

I had planned to speak almost exclusively on the issue of agriculture and Canadian exports to Colombia. I am predominantly here to represent the people of Saskatoon--Humboldt and they will benefit greatly from this treaty because of the nature of commodities that are grown in my riding.

However, watching earlier today on television and listening to some of the debate and statements made by some of the members, it is apparent that they do not have a firm grasp of the actual facts on the ground in Colombia. I feel that I must take a few minutes before I get into the main body of my speech to rebut some of the arguments.

First, while the arguments against this agreement are clever politics, members holding themselves up as defenders of human rights against money-grabbing business interests, the core of their arguments on human rights is disingenuous and not factual.

The critics of this treaty have deliberately chosen to ignore the effects this treaty will have upon the Colombian people. In fact, the argument that human rights will be damaged by this is wrong. It is the complete reverse.

If one thinks what is one of the most fundamental human rights for mankind, it is the right to food. Therefore, let us look at what this treaty will do for food in Colombia. It will lower the cost for staple foods: peas, lentils, oats and wheat. These are things that ordinary Colombians eat every day and are a particularly high percentage of the budget of low income Colombians.

Canadian exports to Colombia will not displace local production. The grains that we will export to Colombia will not affect the local commodities. They will displace commodities imported from places such as Chile, the EU and the United States.

The other thing that would be interesting for our viewers to note is that Colombia has a very large social problem. Some of the industries that will benefit from the treaty actual deal with these social problems. The Colombian textile and apparel industry will gain more access to Canadian markets under this treaty. That is important to Colombia for social reasons. Many of the workers in the textile and apparel industry are what are called heads of households, single mothers whose husbands have either died or run off and are not supporting their children. These women, who are raising their families, work in disproportionate numbers in this industry.

It may interest the House to know that some Colombian businesses have gone directly and given priority to these women to help them because of the social need in this country.

That is one very basic human rights issue, the need for a good job and the need for employment for lower income Colombians. That is what this agreement is seeking to do, to help Colombians. Would it solve all the problems? No, but it is a good benefit, a human rights benefit to the people of Colombia, giving people the ability to make a living. Is there a more fundamental human right than that?

The other major point that has been brought forth by critics today is that the Colombian government, for some reason, does not seem to care about human rights and does not care about union rights. I found this most interesting having listened to the debate.

Members keep citing the number of union leaders killed without noting that some of those union leaders were killed by leftist guerrillas, some were killed due to other causes, and that there is a considerable amount of violence in the whole country.

I have still yet to hear either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP cite the number of evangelical pastors killed in Colombia, a group that is not normally known to be left-wing but has suffered disproportionate violence there as well. If their case was sincerely about human rights, they would cite those as well.

They point at the question of targeting the unions. It should be noted that local union leaders support this free trade agreement with Colombia, even as their national presidents and associations oppose it. It comes down to the question: do we support local union leaders or the nationals.

Other things should be noted as well. The Colombian government has its own judicial and human rights and legal system, and these are working. Colombian businesses are one of the highest investors of any country in the world in social development programs for its people. This is verifiable by independent statistics.

Having dealt with a few of those issues, let me talk about the positives that this agreement has for Canada.

Our government has aggressive free trade agreements that are providing tools Canadians need to compete and succeed around the world. We have negotiated with other countries, such as Jordan, Panama and EFTA. This agreement is one of the tangible examples of how the government is working to maintain and expand markets for our agriculture exports.

This free trade agreement will strengthen our existing trade relationship with Colombia and provide Canadian agriculture, and agri-food exporters and producers with improved access to this important market.

Canadian exports of agri-food products are worth $247 million. Colombia is the second largest market for Canadian agriculture exports to South America. The purpose of this treaty is to increase our market share.

At the moment, however, Colombia maintains tariffs averaging 17% on agriculture products, rising from 10% to as high as 108% for some pork products, 80% for some beef and 60% for certain beans.

Thanks to this free trade agreement, Canadian producers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on exports to Colombia. In fact, 86% of agriculture tariffs will be eliminated immediately once the agreement is in force, including for Canadian exports of wheat, barley, lentil and peas. These are real tangible benefits for producers in my province of Saskatchewan.

To the benefit of our food processors and consumers, Canada will immediately eliminate tariffs on nearly all agriculture imports from Colombia. This is important to help fight the drug problem in Colombia because these are the sort of crops that are replacing the coca production in the areas that produce cocaine. This is important for security and human rights in Colombia.

The passage of this free trade agreement is essential if we are going to compete effectively within Colombia's market. Other countries recognize that there are opportunities in Colombia. Colombia has concluded similar agreements with the U.S. and the E.U. These are major agriculture competitors with Canada who we must beat into the Colombian market.

Colombia is a vibrant and dynamic market for Canadian exporters and has been an important partner in international trade. Getting into Colombia in a timely manner helps our farmers to be competitive.

Opening expanding markets around the world creates opportunities for our producers to drive the Canadian economy. Now more than ever we need to do everything we can to open doors for our producers, our workers and our farmers, not close them

In Colombia, like everywhere else, we have continued these efforts with the free trade agreement and with recent announcements of the reopening of the Colombian market for Canadian cattle and beef. Colombia was the first country in South America to reopen its market to Canadian cattle since 2003. This is great news for our beef and cattle industry.

Our government will continue to work for Canadians to ensure that they have full access to important markets across the Americas and across the globe.

This free trade agreement includes obligations addressing technical barriers to trade to facilitate the conduct of trade, and ensure that regulatory processes do not become unnecessary obstacles.

In summary, this agreement is good for Canada and it is good for Colombia. All members need to vote for it.

[Project Hero, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Project Hero, which was started in 2009 by retired General Rick Hillier and honorary Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Reid, is a unique program which provides undergraduate scholarships to the children of fallen Canadian armed forces service men and women.

Sadly, a ragtag group of radical leftist professors at the University of Regina are opposed to Project Hero, including the leader of the pack whose research interests include Marxism and the Latin American left. The attitude of these so-called academics is shameful.

Project Hero is giving a helping hand to the children of men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. Yet a bunch of comfortable academics sitting thousands of kilometres away at a university far from the fields of Afghanistan have the nerve to oppose this program.

These so-called academics should stop letting their extreme left-wing views in opposition to the conflict in Afghanistan get in the way. They should join Canadians in getting behind Project Hero.

[Privilege, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege with regard to a picture taken at committee by Tisha Ashton, who I believe is employed by the member for Kings—Hants, my good colleague on the international trade committee.

She placed that picture along with a statement on Facebook. The picture shows me with my eyes closed, not an uncommon result when snapping a photo. My staff have drawers of these photos with me in my office.

Her comments below the picture were, “sleeping at committee...again”.

First of all, taking pictures during a committee proceeding is against the rules. Second, she has used this photo to misrepresent what I was doing. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I did not fall asleep during the committee proceedings. In fact, the transcripts of the committee show me taking a five minute round as the second government questioner at committee.

This photo and her comments have tarnished my reputation in the eyes of my constituents.

On page 288 of O'Brien and Bosc it states:

Before the advent of broadcasting of House of Commons' proceedings, photographs of the House during a sitting were taken with the permission of the House. In the late 1970s, once the House had dealt with the question of broadcasting, the matter of still photography arose. There were no provisions for print media to take pictures of the House at work, except by special arrangement, whereas the electronic media now had access to images of every sitting of the House. On a trial basis, and now standard practice, a photographer was allowed behind the curtains on each side of the House during Question Period. The photographers are employed by a news service agency which supplies other news organizations under a pooling arrangement. When in the chamber, they operate in accordance with the principles governing the use of television cameras, described in chapter 24, “The Parliamentary Record”. Only these photographers, and the official photographers employed by the House of Commons, are authorized to take photographs of the Chamber while the House is in session; even Members—

—I repeat, even members—

—are forbidden from taking photographs.

Standing Order 116 provides that:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Thus the rule for taking photos in the House would also apply to committee, and since Tisha Ashton is not the official photographer, she has breached the rules of this House.

These rules, Mr. Speaker, are intended to protect members and the proceedings of committees.

On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada there is a reference to reflection on members. It states:

The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect to utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterance which do not meet the standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House is a breach of privileges of Parliament...” and “libels or reflections upon members individually—"

Mr. Speaker, a picture does say a thousand words and a misleading description below the picture says volumes.

I would also reference for you, Mr. Speaker, a Speaker's ruling from October 29, 1980, on page 4213 of Hansard. The Speaker said that:

in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about...members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit.

The actions of Ms. Ashton, Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, or I should say, on the Facebook of it, are untrue, improper and definitely import a ring of deceit.

I realize the last two rulings I referred to were brought down before we had such things as Facebook, cameras, cellphones and Blackberries. However, as you know, Mr. Speaker, contempt is intentionally flexible to address changes in technology that can breach our privileges.

On page 83 of O'Brien and Bosc, this very issue is addressed. It states:

Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to “privileges”, cannot be enumerated or categorized. Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: “...while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred”.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider my arguments and find that the actions of Ms. Ashton constitute contempt and a breach of my privileges.

[Business of Supply, March 17th, 2010]

He was not down there. Was he in the Caribbean?

[Business of Supply, March 17th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting to hear my hon. colleague express his outrage. I do have a few questions for him.

Why did his leader took more than a week to come back from his Caribbean vacation to express outrage on the issue, if this was of such crucial importance to democracy? It seems that a week in the Caribbean relative to democracy might be somewhat important.

The second question is this. If I remember correctly, both the member and I were in the House in the fall of 2007 when Parliament was prorogued, one of the 105 times in parliamentary history. I do not remember any outrage from any of the political parties about the prorogation then. Why is the member upset this time, whereas the previous time, he thought it was acceptable?

[Science and Technology, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2010, phase two of Canada's economic action plan, our government is investing over $1 billion into science and technology initiatives in order to create jobs, strengthen the economy and improve the quality of life of Canadians.

Could the Minister of State for Science and Technology update the House on how these new initiatives have been received by Canadian universities?