Peter Van Loan

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, in this free trade agreement there is a parallel accord on labour. The protection of labour rights, with significant penalties involved, if Colombia does not respect its labour obligations, is a state of the art labour agreement. It is about the highest level of protection one could see in an agreement of this type.

Also a treaty has been entered into by the government, at the request of the Liberals. They asked that there be a reciprocal deposit of reports in the House on an annual basis, reporting on the human rights situation of the respective countries as part of the passage of this agreement. The bill was amended at committee to reflect that. It has been agreed to by the government. We are confident that this goes one step further than has ever been the case to address the concerns in this matter. We do not believe that is necessary. However, we were happy to do it in order to see the bill have an opportunity to be voted on and gain the acceptance of the House.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, Colombia has a dynamic economy, which has recently experienced a great deal of growth. There is a great potential for exports of our products, which would have many benefits for Canadian workers. For example, in the forestry sector, our exports to Colombia are already substantial and we expect to see a little more growth in this sector in future if we have a free trade agreement with Colombia.

We are only asking that members of this Parliament have the opportunity to vote on this bill and indicate whether or not they wish to have a Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the reason why Canada enters into trade agreements is because it offers benefits to Canadians, benefits in terms of increased economic prosperity and job opportunities. In the case of our trade with Colombia, it already totals $1.3 billion. It has been growing significantly. A large portion of that is agricultural products. In fact, wheat, pulses and barley, largely grown in the western provinces, significantly are gaining access to the Colombian market and are very attractive exports.

Similarly paper products are important for our lumber and forestry sector, which has been troubled with recent economic challenges. It stands to benefit greatly as do the workers in the pulp and paper industries. I know the NDP is not concerned about their prospects, but they are offered great potential from this agreement, as are the manufacturers of heavy equipment much of which is exported from Canada to Colombia. We have an opportunity to increase that trade, increase the opportunities for the workers in those areas.

The question in front of us on this motion is a very simple one. Has this been debated sufficiently in this House and is it time to stop the delay and obstruction and allow the members of Parliament to finally have a vote on the bill and decide whether they wish to endorse free trade with Colombia, yes or no?

The NDP members will have an opportunity, should that vote proceed, to object to free trade and oppose it as I know they do at every turn. We simply think members of Parliament should have an opportunity. Since the 36 members of the NDP caucus have already made 41 full speeches on this, we are confident they have had their say. We are confident they have had an opportunity to air all the issues they think are important for a decision to be made. We now look forward to the opportunity to let the rest of the members of the House express their view through a vote on the bill.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, when the New Democratic Party members voted against free trade with the United States, I do not know what their test was. Perhaps they say the test is whether or not they are butchers. We do not consider the U.S. government to match that description. I do not recall the NDP members actually ever supporting that or the North American Free Trade Agreement. In fact, I have trouble recalling any free trade agreement they have supported.

However, there is no one that can credibly argue that this trade agreement will in any way hurt the living conditions of the Colombians. In fact, those who are objecting to it are simply saying, “We don't like Colombia”, not that this trade agreement will be bad for the people of Colombia.

It will improve the living conditions of the people of Colombia not only because of the economic prosperity and job opportunities that will result but because we have in our parallel agreements protections for people through the environmental accord and labour accord.

The labour agreement covers and gives people guaranteed rights: the right of freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, guarantees the abolition of child labour, the elimination of discrimination, and providing protections for occupational safety and health.

These are all protections that are being provided and guaranteed through this agreement with the Colombian government, something that I think we should all recognize as positive progress consistent with the overall positive progress that we have been seeing.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I would use the U.S. Congress as my test of how one would approach trade policy. It may not have ratified its agreement with Colombia but nor has it ratified its agreement with Panama. I do not hear the NDP citing human rights abuses there, nor its agreement with Korea. I think the same applies there.

In fact, that is the same Congress that brought in buy American provisions that cost the jobs of Canadian workers until this government was able to obtain a waiver through the Obama administration from those protectionist measures.

Therefore, I am not sure we want to use that as the test of how we should be making our decisions. In fact, Canada is a country that believes in free trade, that has succeeded through free trade. Two-thirds of our economy is trade based with 4.1 million jobs having been created in this country since we entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement. We now have a doubling of our trade with the United States and increased fivefold with Mexico since we entered into that free trade agreement, and prosperity and jobs have followed.

I understand that the New Democratic Party is ideologically opposed to any kind of free trade. I understand that its members will delay and obstruct. I know that they do not vote in favour of any trade agreements. That is fair, that is its policy.

However, that should not put the NDP members in a position where they deny to the rest of the members of the House of Commons the opportunity to actually vote. That is what they are doing by delaying and obstructing the House through extensive parliamentary tactics. They have had 41 full speeches and they only have 36 members in their caucus. They can hardly complain of a lack of opportunity to address this matter. They have addressed it fully.

What they should allow is an opportunity for the members of the House to vote on the bill and decide whether or not they wish to adopt it.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, our government is of the view that Colombia, particularly in recent years, has made considerable progress under the current administration to address issues of human rights, to take on the challenge of dealing with the narco-terrorists, the criminal gangs, who have caused so much disruption and been the source of the human rights violations that we have seen going on in Colombia for some time.

Considerable progress has been made. This free trade agreement is another example of that progress, which helps move along Colombia and improve the living conditions of all Colombians.

My friend raised the issue of the International Labour Organization's watch list in which it lists countries that have problems respecting workers' rights. After 21 years of being on that list, during president Uribe's administration, Colombia moved off that list because of exactly the improvements and living conditions that we have seen.

The International Labour Organization, the United Nations-based organization, is a respected organization. I did believe that the NDP respected its views but apparently that is not a view shared by the hon. NDP member. We certainly think it is consistent with what we have seen.

We have parallel agreements to deal with the environment and labour in this free trade agreement. The parallel agreement dealing with labour secures the fundamental rights of workers, the freedom of association and the like. These are all things that are protected within the agreement.

They have been debated at length in this House. We are simply asking that this House have an opportunity now, after over 100 full speeches addressing the issue of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, to be given an opportunity to vote and decide on this bill.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of debate about this free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada. For example, the Bloc Québécois has spoken about this issue throughout numerous speeches from 41 members. That represents a lot of debate on this subject and plenty of opportunities for the Bloc Québécois to express its objections to this free trade agreement, which offers a lot of potential to Canada's workers and a lot of potential for economic growth in both Canada and Colombia. We are satisfied that all of the issues that could have possibly been discussed here have been.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been debated abundantly in this House, notwithstanding the fervent efforts of the hon. member and his party to filibuster, delay and obstruct in every way possible.

In fact, the hon. member who just spoke, objecting to the lack of opportunities to speak to this bill in the House, has actually risen in this House to speak 71 times on this matter. Hold it, he spoke again. That is now 72 times he has risen in this House to speak to the subject of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I know he may think that having a chance to speak in this House, personally, 72 times is not enough, but I can say that from this side of the House we have heard quite enough from him to understand the issues and recognize they are not a reason to keep Canada from having the opportunity for the jobs and prosperity that this trade agreement will allow. There is an economic growth potential, and indeed there has been ample time to discuss and debate, including the 72 times he has risen to address it.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the global peace and security fund, GPSF, managed through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s, DFAIT, Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, START, allows START inter alia to support peace processes and mediation efforts, develop transitional justice and reconciliation initiatives, build peace enforcement and peace operations capabilities, promote civilian protection strategies in humanitarian contexts, and reduce the impact of landmines, small arms and light weapons. The global peace and security fund comprises three sub-programs: the global peace and security program, GPSP, the global peace operation program, GPOP, and the Glyn Berry program, GBP.

In fiscal year 2007-08, the Colombia envelope of the global peace and security fund provided funds to the Conflict Analysis Resource Centre, Centro de Recursos para el Análisis de Conflictos--CERAC, an independent Colombian policy think tank. As part of this project, CERAC produced a draft document entitled, “Violencia y violaciones a los Derechos Humanos de los Trabajadores Organizados en Colombia” ”Violence and Violations of Organized Workers’ Human Rights in Colombia”. This document was prepared by CERAC to provide technical input to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for use in its advocacy and reporting on union-targeted violence in Colombia. It is not a Government of Canada report.

DFAIT made a financial contribution to CERAC in part to assist in the production of CERAC’s own preliminary document, for use by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. As the project was in support of a third party entity, it was for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and CERAC to decide how best to utilize and publicize the report; the Government of Canada was not in a position to release the document. The report was presented by CERAC to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as part of a broader project to strengthen capacity among Colombian civil society organizations to gather data and provide analytical reporting on Colombian conflict dynamics. Proactive disclosure information on DFAIT’s contribution to this project is posted and accessible through the DFAIT website.

[Export Development Canada, April 26th, 2010]

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Canada Account Annual Report for 2008-09 prepared by Export Development Canada, as well as Export Development Canada's annual report for 2009.