House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was issues.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Davenport (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act May 25th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for her question.

In my remarks, I simply pointed out that certain things were occurring in Colombia, especially failures to respect human rights. It is terrible, it is true.

I am not opposed to the position of the Bloc and the NDP, which are critical of the terrible situations in this country in which human rights are not respected. However, some things have improved in this country over the years. It cannot be said that the situation is worsening year after year.

I know Colombia well. I do not know whether my colleague has visited Colombia, but I know it well. I have been there a number of times. In addition, I have Colombian friends familiar with the situation in their country. It has changed completely in recent years, particularly in some cities. I mentioned Medellin, for example. Ten years ago, it was nearly impossible to walk down the street. Today, people can go out, and there is a level of security that did not previously exist.

So, we can see certain changes, although the problems with the paramilitary continue. It is true. The situation is a very difficult one for the government. I would not like to be a member of the Colombian government right now, because the situation there is terrible. There are factions in the country—

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act May 25th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-23 today, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, we join with other nations and their leaders as they ponder the issue of free trade in general and free trade with Colombia specifically. With the current turmoil we find in the global economic system and within major economies across the world, including our own, there is a natural inclination to pause with respect to trade agreements like the one we debate today.

While there is a temptation to close the doors and shutter down during the economic storm, for countries like Canada trade is at the very core of our prosperity. We are a trading nation and we rely on the success of our trade relationships for economic growth and continued prosperity.

In times like these it is tempting to show reluctance for open trade and in its place to seek protectionist policies. However, we only need to look to the 1930s and the passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff act in the United States that was protectionist in nature and that clearly contributed to the further collapse of the world economic system.

My point is simply that trade for a country like ours is essential and must be encouraged.

Free trade relationships can be of significant advantage for Canada and for emerging economies with which we sign agreements as they continue their development process.

The question at hand today is not only the beneficial effects of free trade relationships but the ancillary issues that we must consider when entering into such agreements.

Colombia is certainly a nation that has struggled almost since its inception as the Republic of Colombia in 1886, We note that what is now modern day Panama seceded from Colombia in 1903. From the point of arrival of Spanish explorers in 1499 through to independence of 1819 and the departure of Gran Colombia, as it was known then by the current nations of Venezuela and Ecuador, Colombia has known periods of considerable instability.

In more modern times, we also reflect sadly upon the tumultuous 40-year civil conflict that has claimed between 70,000 and 100,000 lives. Through it all, Colombia has struggled to grow economically, socially and politically.

Despite internal conflicts that affect Colombia, for a period of almost 30 years, beginning in 1970, the country's gross domestic products grew at an average rate of 4% per year. A recessionary period in 1999 consumed the nation for several years but into the new century growth was steady and in 2007 it was 8.2% of GDP.

The International Monetary Fund reported Colombia's GDP at $202 billion U.S. dollars in 2007. This was the fourth largest economy in South America. It must be conceded, however, that while these numbers are impressive, much of the wealth has remained concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the country's population and this must be addressed in the future.

While a seemingly chronic issue for developing nations, it is something we must keep in mind as we debate Bill C-23 and the potential benefits that we hope will accrue to the general population of Colombia.

Colombia's economy has strong areas of growth and interesting aspects to it. For example, the massive United States market is supplied with 70% of its imported flowers from the nation of Colombia alone. In 2007, the American publication Business Week magazine named Colombia the “most extreme emerging economy on earth”.

Colombia's modern history was significantly altered with the election of the current president in August 2002. President Alvaro Uribe Velez has certainly changed the political landscape of Colombia. His administration has been marked by reform, significant progress on the internal conflict that has ravaged Colombia and a more practical approach to the economic challenges that have faced his country.

It is important to note that the presidency is set to change in 2010 when President Uribe reaches the constitutional limits and, therefore, cannot seek re-election. However, if a referendum recently approved by the Colombian Senate proceeds, he will have the opportunity to seek a third term. Most people will, of course, hope that reform and continuing economic growth will continue regardless of this political reality.

This abbreviated picture of Colombia's political and economic status is important as we consider Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement that is before this House today. While economics and politics are enormous, when considering the approval of the free trade agreement with any nation so, too, are issues of social justice and civility.

Significant concerns have been expressed by various groups and individuals as the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is being debated not only in this House but across Canada. Just yesterday in The Toronto Star, the editorial board of the newspaper bluntly stated, in reference to Bill C-23, that “the bill deserves closer scrutiny”.

While we in Canada debate this free trade agreement, we are joined in such deliberations by the United States officials, most notably in the senate where ratification of the treaty signed by the previous administration in 2006 proceeds quite slowly.

The new president, Barack Obama, has enunciated his support of the United States-Colombia free trade agreement. However, there are concerns within the senate with respect to the situation in Colombia that could result in considerable delay in the passage of this treaty in the United States. President Obama's trade representative, Ron Kirk, is currently working with senators to “find a way forward”.

With our largest trading partner, the United States, looking closely at its treaty, we can all be assured that what we do here in Canada will at least have some impact upon the American lawmakers. It is unlikely that should the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement pass here, the United States advocates of their treaty would not point out the possibility of putting their business at a disadvantage to their Canadian counterparts if the United States senate delayed too long.

With that in mind, we must look closely at the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, both from the perspective of our own country and the potential benefits to the average Colombian who might stand to benefit from improved trade relations.

In terms of Canada's economic interests, we export goods valued at approximately $703 million per year. Colombia exports approximately $643 million worth of goods to Canada. In context, Canada's 2008 gross domestic product was nearly $1.5 trillion. Canadian companies have approximately $750 million invested in Colombia.

The reality is simply that while Colombia is creating an emerging nation in South America and one of importance, current trade between Canada and Colombia remains relatively small. However, a ratified free trade agreement with Canada is significant both in terms of potential investment and trade but also more indirectly in terms of the statement it makes both domestically here in Canada and internationally with nations across the world considering similar arrangements.

In that context, what are some of the concerns that are being expressed by groups and individuals here in Canada and in other parts of the world? Human rights concerns are at the forefront of the statements being made by the various groups.

By way of example, today the lower house in Switzerland has received a letter signed by 33 non-governmental organizations asking that their country delay ratification of a European Union-Colombia free trade arrangement until their concerns are addressed with respect to human rights in Colombia. The letter speaks of what they call “serious and systematic” human rights violations.

Only a few days ago, the Reverend David Giuliano, the Moderator of the United Church of Canada, wrote that he “believed our trade needs to be restricted by ethical, environmental and moral considerations”.

One source of the concerns with respect to Bill C-23 originated with the labour movement both in Canada and in other nations. Indeed, the national director of the United Steelworkers in Canada has announced it will host Colombia lawyer Yessika Hoyos Morales in Ottawa this week, as it enunciates its position with respect to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Ms. Hoyos Morales is the daughter of the trade unionist who was murdered in Colombia eight years ago.

Many international human rights groups continue to express their concern about the arbitrary action with respect to labour leaders and labour movement activities in Colombia. Labour leaders across Canada and around the world report that over 2,700 labour leaders have been killed in Colombia over the past 10 years.

The issue of human rights is also a concern outside the labour movement in Colombia. The civil war and the conduct of paramilitary organizations is of grave concern to many observers throughout the world. For much of the most troubling period of the civil war in Colombia the loss of innocent lives at the hands of paramilitary organizations was characteristic of a seriously troubled nation.

A further area of concern centres on the ongoing problem of the illegal narcotics trade that has so troubled Colombia and the nations in which these drugs create incomprehensible social problems, including the criminal activities associated with the importation of illegal drugs.

It is reported that the Colombian drug cartels continue to supply virtually all the cocaine that is used illegally in the United States and is the most significant supplier to other nations in the world.

The effects of this problem is of course not only to be found in the United States, but also in Canada and within Colombia itself.

This ongoing problem must be addressed is there is to be any long-term stability for Colombia and if the country is to take its place in the world as a truly emerging economy, particularly within the context of the South American region.

These issues clearly need to be addressed and which we, as legislators, must take into consideration balanced, of course, by the significant progress that has been made over the last number of years, particularly by President Uribe's administration.

Many will argue quite legitimately that by engaging nations like Colombia in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements we are likely to encourage them to participate more fully within the world community. In so doing we can help them with many of the concerns that are raised both on a national and international level.

It is important and absolutely essential that as we debate Bill C-23, we weigh these issues against what is widely recognized as profound and significant progress that has taken place in Colombia over the past few years.

President Uribe is generally recognized to have a high level of support among Colombians as a result of his success in creating greater stability in the country and as a result a more vibrant and progressive economy.

The many successes of recent years against the FARC rebels has spread hope among Colombians that even greater stability can be achieved and therefore economic progress that would normally follows.

While much of the success that has been achieved in this area by the Colombian government fails to garner international headlines, we periodically witness profound success in this conflict.

In 2008 we witnessed the spectacular freeing of the former presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, after having been held captive by rebels for almost six and a half years.

Kidnappings, a chronic problem in Colombia, have decreased in recent years, under President Uribe's leadership, to a 20 year low. Similarly the actions of paramilitary groups on the right have long been a terrible part of Colombia's modern history.

The Colombian government in recent years, through negotiations and enforcement action, has succeeded in reducing the action of these right-wing groups.

While there continues to be challenges that are certainly significant and the recently discovered involvement by some political figures is troubling, we must encourage the government to ensure that these individuals are being held to account. It is important that progress, however difficult, is indeed taking place.

In the area of criminal and civil strife, it is reported that homicides in Colombia have been reduced by 49% since 2002. Kidnappings, as noted before, are down by a percentage in the range of 85%.

We should also be concerned with respect to the displacement of people affected by the conflict within Colombia. It has been reported that over the course of the conflict, over three million Colombians have been displaced. These numbers are of course disturbing in a country with a population currently in the range of 45 million people. However, it is also important to note that from 2002 to the present, it has been reported that displacements of people have been significantly reduced.

Since 2002, the Colombian government has worked to improve health care for its citizens and infrastructure, particularly roads projects which are essential to improved domestic and international trade.

In terms if the illicit narcotics trade, progress has been made in the area as well. It has been reported that the amount of planting of illegal narcotics has in fact been reduced by 18% this past year after several years of increases.

My objective today has been to present both the legitimate concerns of many groups and individuals and also the points that have been put forward to support free trade and thus greater progress for Colombia.

As legislators, we are obliged to consider all aspects of the realities facing Colombia, its difficulties and successes as we move forward. We will always want to encourage Colombia to create an environment that helps all Colombians to achieve their fullest potential, live in safety and security and participate more fully in their country's political, economic and social life.

I encourage members to consider in a fair and balanced way all the issues associated with the debate on free trade with Colombia as we consider this issue both in the House and across the country.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act May 25th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my hon. colleague's speech. I agree with several of the points she raised. I think, however, that it is important to highlight a few things about that speech.

The situation in Colombia can be said to be mixed. It is true that there are massive population displacements as well as human rights violations. That is terrible. Colombia is not the only country in that part of the world where this happens, though; there are many. It is also important to point out that, in some segments of the population and some parts of the country, the situation has improved.

I clearly recall the situation in Medellin, for instance. There was a time when no one could go out on its streets. Today, the city is undergoing a great deal of development. It has changed dramatically over the past 10 years.

Our colleague said that this agreement cannot do any good for the people of Colombia. But will it make things worse? I am not sure that it will—

Petitions May 25th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition from a number of constituents from my riding and across the country who are very much concerned about the humanitarian crisis and loss of countless lives in Sri Lanka. The petitioners call on the government to urge the Sri Lankan government in any way possible to allow for the free flow of food and medicine and the provision of shelter and other fundamentals to the citizens in need.

The world is watching as this crisis continues. Canadians want the violence to come to an end and the government to do its part to make sure that humanitarian assistance is provided to these people.

Petitions May 25th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. One of them is from Canadians concerned about the regulations around the transport of animals.

The petitioners are calling for the Canadian Health of Animals Act to be brought up to date and revised to reflect international findings that call for a reduction in transport time and adequate enforcement regulations in the interests of animal welfare and the health and safety of Canadian food products.

Canadians recognize that there is a responsibility not only to treat our animals humanely but also to understand that there is a direct link to the security of our own food supply when we concern ourselves with animal welfare.

Business of Supply April 27th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I tried to make my speech non-partisan, but I will not do the same thing in my answer. The reality is that we have an important relationship with the U.S. All of us have spoken to that fact. We have to do everything we can.

I was pleased to speak to this important motion presented by my hon. colleague from Ajax—Pickering. This is a serious debate that we are having here in the House. We are talking about the future of our country. The economic situation facing us is quite dire at this very moment. If we do not get serious about this initiative and get the government to become more proactive, we are going to have some serious problems economically.

We are here to do everything possible for our constituents and to make sure that we have a better relationship. It is so important and so vital to the economic interest of this country.

Business of Supply April 27th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my colleague. We are asking for the government to take a much more proactive stand. We are grateful for the comments that the ambassador has made, but we are very disturbed by the remarks of the secretary of homeland security.

The government has to do everything it can to contact everybody it knows in the Obama administration to make sure that these types of statements do not have legs. When these myths and misinformation get started, they tend to generate other discussions about the Canada-U.S. relationship which are totally not based on facts.

We need to make sure that the government does everything it can. The minister has to be serious about this issue. This is an important matter that could have serious and significant impacts on both our economies.

Business of Supply April 27th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion brought before the House by my colleague, the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering, on the Canada-U.S. border.

Much of what we are debating today may sound familiar because, quite frankly, it is. The issue of our relationship with the United States is an integral part of our history and it is essential that we continue to have these important debates.

Historians will recall that early American presidents, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, held a very specific view with respect to Canada, then of course British North America. To these American leaders, it was only a matter of time before their northern neighbour would be absorbed into the United States. Indeed in his time, Jefferson spoke of “the acquisition of Canada this year”. We know, of course, that this scenario did not materialize, but what did develop was a unique and deeply interdependent relationship operating at the level of finance and mutual security.

The impact of American culture has also been profound, as it has been on much of the world. There have been many leaders over the years who have spoken somewhat poetically of the Canadian-American relationship. It is indeed true that by virtue of geography, we have by necessity become partners on the vast North American continent.

However, like any relationship, whether between two people or hundreds of millions of people, work is required to make it work. One of the best observations I have read was by former president Harry S. Truman, who said:

Canadian-American relations for many years did not develop spontaneously. The example of accord provided by our two countries did not come about merely through the happy circumstance of geography. It is compounded of one part proximity and nine parts good will and common sense.

With this in mind, it is clear that the key to continued success, and indeed improved relationships, lies in a recognition of our importance to each other and also a greater understanding at all levels.

It is certainly unhelpful to hear comments like those made recently by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. In stating that these individuals travelled through Canada to the United States, she put forward a myth that is completely inaccurate but which, for many Americans, is nonetheless what they believe. Clearly, when the secretary responsible for border policy makes such statements, there is certainly reason for concern. Indeed, even the Republican presidential candidate in the last election had made similar comments.

I mention this not to incite anger or to harp upon the issue, but because it is important that such misconceptions not be allowed to go unchallenged. If they are not corrected, such beliefs will affect border policy as it develops. I give credit to the Canadian ambassador in Washington, Michael Wilson, for his clear and direct efforts to correct this misconception.

The reality of our cross-border relationship in economic terms is really quite staggering. Each day there is over $1.53 billion in trade. Our annual trading relationship totals $560 billion. Almost 300,000 people cross the Canadian-American border every day. Anyone who has driven to the United States can attest to the seemingly endless lines of transport trucks that cross the frontier on both sides. These numbers are not just statistics. They are a portrait of the depth of our relationship and the reality of our mutual dependence.

While there are many who express concerns about our interdependence, the reality is also that more often than not, the Canadian-American experience has been one that is mutually beneficial. However, as noted before by President Truman, relationships like this one require a great deal of work. It is not enough to simply say that we are neighbours. We must also ensure that we remain the best of friends.

Our proximity to the United States has provided us the opportunity to have unique and unparalleled access to the world's largest economic power. Similarly, the United States has benefited from having a friend along the world's longest undefended border.

Following the conclusion of the first world war and the Paris peace talks, the United States began its emergence as a superpower both economically and militarily. We here in Canada have benefited since then from our mutual relationship, but we must also be aware of our need to work diligently on our relationship with the United States.

Over the years there have been and continue to be many issues that we have had to work on; the United States tariffs during the 1930s Depression, the turbulent period during the Nixon presidency when relationships were quite cold, the free trade agreement and the softwood lumber issues, disputes over Arctic sovereignty matters and cultural policy are but a few of the major concerns.

Now we face a rather serious one relating to the border and specifically how border security policy will impact cross-border trade. In times of economic uncertainty it seems that many American political leaders move toward notions of protectionism. An example is the buy American program recently proposed which was more about restricting access to the American market than about encouraging Americans to buy domestically produced goods.

In response to this we need to point out the facts with respect to our unique and interdependent relationship.

Canada has been the leading export destination for 35 of the United States and was in the top three for 46 states. At the same time a study commissioned several years ago indicated that upward of 5.3 million American jobs depended on Canadian-American trade. These numbers include approximately 600,000 jobs in California, 189,000 in Florida and almost 350,000 in New York. These are significant numbers of jobs. It is essential that these facts be considered when United States policy makers review the implications of revising border policy.

In the difficult realities of a struggling economy, it is often easier to look to apparently simple solutions like trade restrictions and tighter borders. The realities as shown by history are that these simply do not work. Indeed, the tariffs of the 1930s are generally recognized to have deepened and prolonged the Great Depression, delaying recovery for years.

Canada does have its friends in the United States who recognize the importance of our relationship. Many of the representatives who are elected from border states have been quite vocal in the need to keep our borders porous enough to support our great trading relationship.

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter from the Buffalo area has spoken out about her concerns over the June 1 deadline for all land travellers to have a passport. While 50% of Canadians hold a passport, only 28% of Americans do. We, like Americans, must recognize the impact of such policies on the tourism sector alone in both countries.

The government and indeed all of us in the House must work diligently to protect our relationship with the United States. Geography has made us neighbours but only our best efforts will ensure that our unique relationship continues to serve both our nations and our people well.

Quite simply, neither Canada nor the United States can afford policies that put our trading relationship at risk. This also applies to all other aspects of the Canadian-American experience.

Although we are in difficult economic times, geography, history and hard work by well-intentioned leaders has made North America the most successful trading relationship the world has ever seen. We must not allow narrow and short-sighted policies on either side of the border to threaten what has been for the most part a success story of historic proportions.

I encourage the government to ensure that Canada's voice is heard in Washington and that we are diligent in promoting the importance of the Canadian-American relationship.

History has laid at our doorstep another of those pivotal moments when we are called to demonstrate leadership in the face of adversity and vision in the storm of uncertainty.

Holocaust Memorial Day April 21st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, a sombre day when we reflect on one of the most tragic periods of human history.

Yet, just yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the Durban Review Conference to incite hatred and genocide and undermine the cause of human rights. The Iranian president's complicity in crimes against humanity reminds us of our profound obligation to speak out against hatred and his call for the end of Israel.

We must join together, today and every day, to remember the millions who lost their lives as innocent victims of hate at the hands of the most despicable regime the world has ever seen.

Let us challenge inhumanity and confront injustice when it tries to rear its head. Let us say with conviction, “Never again; never again!”

Business of Supply April 21st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for his eloquent speech. I was very interested in what he had to say, particularly on an issue that concerns all of us as legislators, those who are responsible and charged with making responsible laws and good governance for our country.

I was very much intrigued in what he had to say in terms of our role in making public law and the responsible nature in which the government is supposed to uphold the law. It basically is telling Canadians that it is okay to ignore the law. It is trying to find a partisan wedge issue between urban and rural communities, but the divide does not really exist.

As my colleague mentioned, he is from a rural riding and I am from an urban riding, yet there is no divide. We understand the importance of legitimate gun owners, but at the same time the registry, which is used 9,000 times a day by police officials, is very much essential. It is irresponsible for the government to suspend the law and tell officials of the justice system to ignore it or put it aside. This is not the way we do things in our country.

Could my hon. colleague comment further on—