International Trade Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[Prof. Daniel Mejía]

They are looking at the evidence and they are looking at the advances that have been reached. I agree completely with the statement. I think they are looking at the areas and they see the advances we've made, or that the Colombian government has made, or that all Colombians have made, in trying to solve the large amount of problems we have. But we are trying to solve them.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I have one quick question for you, Mr. Rosero. I believe that around 25% or 30% of the population in Colombia is of African descent.

[Carlos Rosero]

Officially, based on census data in 2005, it's only 10.5% of the population, or about 4.5 million people. These are official figures. Extra-officially, our data tells us that it's close to 20% or 25% of the total Colombian population, but these are extra-official figures.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

How would a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia affect this sector of the population?

[Carlos Rosero]

Well, evidence shows us several things. First, this and other agreements have affected us initially in that there have never been prior consultations and the requirement of free and informed consent. That hasn't been respected, and that actually tells us that terrible things could happen in the future.

Secondly, I think the best way to be very clear about the effects of the agreement requires that we implement a recommendation to carry out an impact study on human rights, which is a recommendation that you yourselves...during the Canadian process, this has been discussed and accepted by several of the players involved in this debate. I think the only way in which we will know what the effects will be, positive or negative, would be in this way. We could have actually done this during discussions. We didn't participate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're back to Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make a comment to the effect that I try to deal with these issues very seriously and also with some sense of respect for all the witnesses, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

I know that this issue has been taking quite a bit of time because of the fact that some of us are very much concerned about issues of human rights in Colombia and whether the trade would have a positive or a negative impact. Those are the things we are evaluating here in this committee. One of the things I have asked for, in fact, for the next meeting, is to have here the secretary general of Amnesty International, Alex Neve.

But I want to state for the record, Mr. Chair, that I have to say that I was, as Mr. Harris mentioned, extremely appalled by Mr. Julian's behaviour. I think that no matter how we feel about witnesses and so forth, you can't attack somebody in a very negative fashion that way and not allow that person to respond. To me, that is undemocratic, and I'm not sure why he's smiling. It's an undemocratic and somewhat very cowardly act to do that. If you attack somebody, or if you have questions about the credibility of the report, allow that individual to speak and defend himself. Not doing so is undemocratic, cowardly, and un-Canadian.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Do you have any more questions, Mr. Silva?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right.

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question on your study, Mr. Mejía. Graph III breaks down into two other graphs, graphs A and B. Graph 3 shows the general homicide rate and the unionists' homicide rate going gradually up, with some spikes, from 1995 to 2009. Then graph A, shows a decrease in homicides between 2001 and 2009. Then the total homicides show a decrease. I just don't understand why these two graphs are actually going down and this graph, although it has some spikes, goes gradually up.

[Prof. Daniel Mejía]

Sorry, which one goes gradually up?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Graph III.

[Prof. Daniel Mejía]

One source of criticism is yes, the homicide rate of union members has gone down, but in general, the homicide rate in Colombia has gone down. What's the big advance reached if the total homicides are going down? What graph III wants to point out is that the homicide rate, not only the total number but the rate for unionists, has gone down faster than the homicide rate for the total population. That's the point of graph III.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Okay, that was the part I wasn't understanding.

You made a comment earlier about the illegal drug crop and the fact that if you had an alternative, a legal crop, there would be no point in trying to get farmers off the narco-market, off the narco-economy, without protection, that it would be wasting money. Would you explain that a little more?

[Prof. Daniel Mejía]

Yes, there is a change in the focus of Plan Colombia. Between 2000 and 2006, Plan Colombia was mainly focused on the eradication campaigns of illicit crops. In 2007, 2008, and this year, both the Colombian government and the U.S. government have realized that they have to complement this with alternative development programs.

The point I made is that if you focus alternative development programs incorrectly, that is, by just bringing technical support to the farmers, it doesn't work if you don't provide the means to transport these legal goods into the markets. This has been a mistake that has been made. I think the Colombian government, although I've been very critical of the policies implemented under Plan Colombia, has been very open to me about discussing the possible ways of making anti-drug policies more effective.

I've been pushing very hard for alternative development programs as a way for convincing poor farmers to shift away from illegal crops cultivation to legal crops, but it has to be done correctly, not just by providing technical support and leaving them alone. You have to really support them institutionally, give them educational opportunities, health opportunities, and it's very important to have the legal crops brought to the market so that they actually can survive.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

What I'm getting at here is that we have a situation in Colombia. Some 20 years ago we had a nation in dire straits. There has been some evolution over time and we understand that things have actually improved.

I'd like an answer from both witnesses.

We understand that this situation is not going to be solved overnight. When I look at Colombia, I see that there has been gradual improvement in some areas and remarkable improvement in others.

I agree with your comments that the unions should see this as good news instead of bad news. Your report should be good news for the unions in Colombia. But if we take what I'm saying at face value, if we observe that there has been gradual improvement and that Colombia is headed in the right direction, what harm could a free trade agreement do? It's a free trade agreement that includes labour agreements, an environmental agreement, and rules-based trading for the first time.

Mr. Rosero, we already have trade. It is not as if trade is going to start tomorrow. We are already trading with Colombian companies, and we already have Canadian companies working in Colombia. How can establishing clear rules that everyone understands hurt that economy? How can that be a bad thing for Colombia?

[Carlos Rosero]

We haven't conducted studies. I can talk to you about my experience in a specific area such as Norte del Cauca. If you ask me whether there's been improvement, there haven't been any improvements in the area in which we are.

I started working with them in 1996 on the process of prior consultations and the requirement for informed consent. The first consultations were carried out without any problems. Now there are all sorts of difficulties.

Never in the past, while prior consultations were being carried out, had the leaders been threatened. They actually argued that they have to be consulted. They need to know the impact and the benefits. Never before when these questions were raised had we been threatened.

To apply community rights in these areas is much more difficult. I believe what we're saying is that it's not that trade itself will begin today or tomorrow with the approval of this agreement. But as long as our communities weren't involved in the process, then we won't have sufficient guarantees that impacts will be managed appropriately.

In 2001, when the mining code was amended with the support of the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, they did not foresee the impact this could have. Proof of this is the fact that mining deeds have been issued without prior consultations. When we make claims that this is a right afforded to our communities, the paramilitaries threaten us.

Regarding prior consultations, we don't have problems only with the paramilitaries or the Colombian government. We also have to deal with the guerrillas. In several parts of the country, they do not allow prior consultations. So when we claim these rights, we are completely alone. We face danger from all sides. We have no protection from the state, and the other side threatens us.

Companies, for all their agreements on corporate social responsibility, don't do anything about it. They take advantage of all sorts of legal technicalities so that our rights to consultation and to know about positive and negative impacts go for nothing.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Your five minutes are over. I'm sorry you didn't get an answer to your question, but I can't do anything about it.

Go ahead, Monsieur Guimond.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day, gentlemen.

I am a unionist. I was active in the union in Quebec's agricultural sector for some twenty years. Regardless of the results of your study, Professor Mejía, I still don't think I would be safe if I were a union worker in Colombia. I have to say that I am surprised by your study's findings. Many other groups that have provided parliamentarians with information have not come to the same conclusions. I listened to Mr. Harris and Mr. Silva respond to Mr. Julian's comments, but I would still like to ask you a few questions about your study.

In Quebec, it is quite acceptable to criticize a researcher. It's part of our culture. Therefore, I'd like you to tell me about the NGOs that you consulted. Who are they and who do they represent? Do they play an important role in Colombia?

[Prof. Daniel Mejía]

Yes, I think they are. The most important thing, I think, is that other groups present different information. I think we should agree on how we present the data. I'm not saying that I have the last word on this. I'm just saying that if we're going to try to look at the evolution over time of something--call it unemployment, call it inflation, call it growth, call it violence against union members, call it violence against the police, call it whatever--we should agree on how we look at information and how much we manipulate it.

I don't want to say that academic economists have the truth in their hands, but this is the way we handle information, taking yearly figures and looking at the evolution over time of those yearly figures or monthly figures or trimester figures or something clearly defined.

Let me refer to a piece of information that I said they always bring, the total number of killings of union members under the Uribe administration. Why is it only under the Uribe administration? If they want to increase the number, why don't they add figures going back to 1986? If what they want is to bring up a huge number, then they should add everything they can, right? I think we should be very clear and very serious about how we handle information, especially if this information is going to be used to block an economic reform that is very important for Colombia.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

For the purposes of your study, which NGOs did you meet with? Who do they represent? What percentage of union members represent the NGOs that provided you with the data on which you based your findings? That's what I would like to know.

[Prof. Daniel Mejía]

Do you mean where did I get the data?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Yes.