Peter Van Loan

[International Trade, April 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been quite clear. We have been strong supporters of supply management, and we continue to be. That has not prevented us from successfully entering into free trade agreements with the United States, with Colombia and with other countries and having the benefits of the prosperity that have come from that. Our negotiations with the European Union, right now the largest economy in the world, offer us the opportunity for more prosperity, not just for Canadian workers, but also for Canadian farmers. That is why we are pursuing it.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the nature of every international agreement any country enters into involves the surrendering of a little bit of sovereignty and the agreement to accept certain norms and standards. When we sign on to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights we are, for example, doing that. Every country is.

We in Canada believe that the more we can move countries to accept these kinds of norms and enter into these kinds of agreements, and we have seen this over the course of history, is that the living of conditions have improved and human rights have improved. That is the nature of international agreements, that is what happens from greater trading relations between countries and that is what this agreement would help to further advance.

I am very surprised to hear a member of the Bloc Québécois opposing that kind of international engagement because it is certainly not what I have seen from that party in the past.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

As I say, Mr. Speaker, we are a little bit into the speculative realm because the amendment has not actually been put. We have a clear indication of roughly what it would be from the opposition Liberals and we have indicated our willingness to support it. We are certainly happy to discuss the best way to get those mechanics to happen, but before we can even get there we need to pass the motion before the House today.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that if there are new interesting questions for members opposite to address, we might have heard them doing that during the debate so far, but the debate has, once it started getting into the thirties, been a little bit repetitious. We have been hearing the same themes and we are hearing them in the question and answer period.

The fact is, the opposition parties, with 89 speeches so far on this, have had a full opportunity to debate the issue. The bill still needs to go to committee where it will have a full and ample debate and clause-by-clause study. After that, it will come back here for report stage and third reading debate and then over to the Senate for all those stages all over again.

It is quite clear from the other parties that there is no point at which those two opposition parties will be satisfied. Their agenda is clear and simple. They are taking every step possible to obstruct and delay this debate and prevent the bill's passage. That is why, unfortunately, after 89 speeches at second reading stage, we need to use this measure to allow it to get to the next stage of work.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we have a free trade agreement but we also have aside it two parallel agreements, one on labour and one on the environment. These create obligations on both parties. That means obligations on the Colombian government. One of those agreements is entirely focused on the environment and the protection of the environment.

If this bill does not pass, if this agreement does not come into effect, those obligations of Colombia with regard to the environment do not come into force. That is why I am bewildered at the efforts here by the opposition parties to claim that they want to protect the environment and the rights of workers in Colombia, but then do not give them the benefit of the protections that this agreement proposes to give to them.

This is an opportunity to see benefits, improvements and conditions in Colombia and in Canada, but particularly on the environment side and the labour side in Colombia. These are things that all parties, if they believe in the things they say they do, will support, but instead they do not support it. They take every opportunity they can to speak, and in the case of the member's party, the NDP, we had 38 speeches from 37 members. We have heard a lot. It is time now to move to the next stage.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have paid great attention, with interest, to the work of the committee. Even though this bill has not yet arrived at the committee, the committee has already studied this bill twice. They have already studied the subject matter of this bill twice, so that tells me something.

I have looked at what some of the witnesses there have said in appearing at the committee. This is so long ago, last year, that I was not even minister back then. I read this from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives' executive vice-president, David Stewart-Patterson:

In this environment, I think it's vital for Canadian companies to continue to do everything possible to diversify their export markets. Passing Bill C-23 would reinforce these efforts. Conversely, further delays in passage of this bill would undermine the goal of improving Canada's global trade performance and slow our return to strong economic growth.

Further, he said:

Colombia's tariffs on Canadian goods currently range from 15% to 108%, which obviously represents a huge disadvantage right now for Canadian exporters. Passage of Bill C-23 would erase that disadvantage and help Canadian workers, farmers, and businesses stay ahead of our global competitors.

That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to create jobs and opportunity for Canadians, success for Canadian businesses and farmers. We are working hard to make it happen and those parties are doing everything they can to delay and obstruct the success of our work.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary warfare is the unprecedented delay and obstruction filibuster that Bill C-2 has been receiving at the hands of the New Democratic Party in particular.

Our rules contemplate that each member can speak once. As a result of there being two separate sessions of this Parliament, this bill has been spoken to by 38 members of the New Democratic Party, yet that party only has 37 members in the House. That is the most interesting definition of denying them an opportunity to speak that I have ever heard.

The New Democratic Party has embarked on a process of delay and obstruction at every stage of this bill. Those members do not want to see the bill advance. If they wanted to see the bill advance, if they wanted to make amendments to it, they would have an opportunity to do that at committee.

Let us get this bill through second reading. Let us get it to committee where members can have a opportunity to speak to it and participate and make amendments, as the Liberal Party has indicated it wishes to do. We have indicated an openness to the Liberal Party in doing so. Let us get on with doing some real work and delivering some results for Canadians.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in this agreement we have a parallel accord on the environment, which helps protect the conditions of people in the areas where economic activity will be taking place. We also have a parallel agreement in labour, which includes, among other things, entrenching and protecting the rights to free association, to be a part of a union, to advocate one's case. That creates yet another point of control, of oversight, of respect for those rights.

Colombia has to take them into account because of the fact it has something at stake, and that is its trading relationship with Canada and its agreement with Canada. It is an example of how we are improving the conditions for Colombians should we move ahead with this agreement.

I reject the notion that investments that create jobs for people in Colombia will hurt them. We actually think jobs for people here in Canada are good for Canadians. We think jobs in Colombia for Colombians are good for Colombians.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has a very interesting concept of the idea of limiting debate. The NDP has 37 members in the House. The NDP has delivered 38 speeches in opposition to this. I do not see how, under any conceivable notion, one would see limiting debate to one further day as an unreasonable limitation of their right to speak.

I can understand why the NDP members have difficulty coming to positions in caucus when that is their view of insufficient debate. However, the one thing we do know is that they never have difficulty coming to a position on free trade agreements. They have opposed every single one that has ever come along.

Our job as a government is to allow full debate to occur. That has happened, but it is also to get some work done here, get some results and get the free trade agreement in place so that we can improve the working conditions for Canadians, improve our economy and create jobs and opportunity for Canadians and Colombians.

We want to make progress forward in a world where free trade is indeed the wave of economic growth in the future and not look back to the days of protectionism in the past that the NDP yearns for. Well, guess what; it is a better world today. We trade all around the world. Jobs are created all around the world and everybody has a higher standard of living as a result. That will be the case here in Canada and in Colombia after this agreement.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, April 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, on the proposed amendment from the member for Kings—Hants, that is one of the reasons why we need to get this to committee. That amendment cannot be put until we are at committee and past second reading here. To the extent there are some who look to rely on that for certainty and reassurance, this will happen once we get to that stage.

With respect to the amendment as we have heard it and have had it proposed, it should be clear that this government is quite satisfied with the progress Colombia has been making on human rights. I have not heard any critics credibly say that the free trade agreement we have proposed, the free trade agreement that has been signed with Colombia, would adversely affect human rights. They simply say there are reasons why we would not want to do it, and this is a chance to shine a spotlight on human rights in Colombia. In fact, most agree that it would improve the situation of those living in Colombia.

As far as our government is concerned, the parallel labour accord and the parallel environmental accord are sufficient. However, we do not have an objection and we are quite happy to support the amendment that has been proposed by the Liberal Party and the member for Kings—Hants.

We do not think it is necessary to have it in every free trade agreement. We understand there are special concerns and circumstances that have arisen in this case, which need to be addressed. That is why we have agreed to it in this circumstance.

We believe our general standard practice of the labour accords and the environmental accords have been sufficient to address the concerns with most of the countries we enter into free trade agreements.