International Trade Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Denis Lemelin]

No, everybody understands that the people of Colombia, they want peace. Everybody understands that. Everybody understands there's a different group active. I think for us, the most important thing to be okay is that--human rights for people, so that people are not killed with the impunity that's happening all over that country. One way to deal with that is to have human rights be well respected and to have liberal rights be well respected.

That's the only thing we are saying. You know there will be an election in Colombia at the end of the month. We don't take part in that, because the people of Colombia will decide what they want to do. That's the only thing we're saying.

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

So you are in agreement that the socialists FARC in the jungle with an armed insurrection are displacing people in Colombia.

[Denis Lemelin]

Yes, and you can go in the east part in Venezuela; that's where the paramilitary are. But in other parts of the country, it's the paramilitaries of the other groups who are doing it. So they can be all involved in it. Yes, you are right on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Holder, you have five minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank our guests for their important testimony. I'd also like to acknowledge that Mr. Keddy is quite correct that we already do $1.35 billion in two-way trade. We're really establishing a rules-based system with effective labour environment side agreements.

Mr. Rowlinson, I appreciate your acknowledgment that the labour side agreement is better--or greater and substantive, to quote you. So thank you for that, which we'll now enter into your testimony.

It's rather interesting that since President Uribe came into power in 2001--and again, let's not be lost in this--murders have been reduced by half, kidnappings by 85%, and union leader murders by 86%. These are from independent groups. And labour union numbers have increased dramatically, as has participation within unions.

I agree, in terms of what I sense from all the testimony here today, that we're all trying to do the right thing by Colombia--and, by the way, lest we forget, for Canada as well. I think that's very compelling. You can always look at the glass as being half one way or half another. I tend to be more optimistic and think that free trade agreements allow us the opportunity to have a better dialogue with our neighbours.

When I was looking at the total imports and exports of Israel, I noted that when you combine the two-way trade, it's up over the last five years. When I look at the total trade of Costa Rica and China, we're marginally up in Costa Rica. When I look at Chile, it's rather interesting that five years ago our total exports were $417 million and they're now $644 million.

That's from the Library of Parliament, if anyone wants to challenge those statistics.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

This is my discussion; sorry. You'll have your time again some day.

I was very moved by Mr. Al-Katib's comments--Mr. Potts, please take this back to him--that pulse helps build civil society. I think there's a human obligation we have around this table to support initiatives that do that very thing.

Mr. Westcott, I apologize because I have limited time, but one of our members opposite asked why trade for different countries would decrease. I don't think it would be fair to ask you or Mr. Potts that question, because I think you're focused on your industries only. So I'll ask a question first to Mr. Potts and then to you.

Do you believe your business in pulses, red beans, and the various crops you represent would increase in Colombia with a free trade agreement?

[Carl Potts]

The answer to your question is yes. This agreement would re-establish competitive, duty-free access for beans. We have demonstrated in our industry that we can sell and produce those products. We used to do that and had a very significant market in Colombia for red beans. With competitive access re-established, I'm very confident we could do that. We have very strong growth in lentil and pea production in Canada, and those are both very important markets.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Did I hear from you or your colleague that the tariff on red beans is 60%?

[Carl Potts]

Currently it's 60%, and it's effectively shutting us out of that market.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

That's unbelievable. So all your red bean growers effectively cannot compete in Colombia.

[Carl Potts]

That's true.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Westcott, it was rather interesting when I heard your testimony. You indicated that at 20%, Colombia's current tariffs render most Canadian spirits uncompetitive in the local market. You talked about how Canada has eliminated a number of import tariffs. Without a Canadian marketing budget, what's your sense of how well you might do in Colombia relative to where you are now? Do you have any sense of what it would mean if you didn't have that tariff to deal with?

[Jan Westcott]

We have structural impediments today that prevent us from being successful in Colombia. If this agreement is passed, those structural impediments will be eliminated and we will have security for investment in developing that market in Colombia. So it's black and white.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

So for you it's very obvious.

I'll ask you the same direct question I asked Mr. Potts. Once our free trade agreement is put in place, do you imagine that your business would increase in Colombia? That's the point I want to read into the testimony. I'm not asking you to speak for all Canadian businesses that want to do business in Canada--and the same for you, Mr. Potts. To be fair, you can speak only to your industry specifically, at least as best you know. You have been very articulate about that.

It is rather interesting as well, Mr. Westcott, that although it will be a 12-year process once the United States ultimately signs their deal with Colombia, there will be an accelerated provision in there. What details of that can you tell me? What's that acceleration piece? Can you speak to that?

[CJ Hélie, Executive Vice-President, Spirits Canada / Association of Canadian Distillers]

Basically, we didn't want to be left behind if the U.S. ratified, and they had negotiated a 10-year phase-in. So if, within two years of our ratification, the U.S. ratifies, we then meet the U.S. timeline so that we are not put at a disadvantage.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

All right, thank you.

Again, on the final part of that, I think what is very striking is where you buy your various grains to be able to provide your product. As I recall, while there was none in London, Ontario, which is personally very disappointing, certainly across Ontario--I will also say in Quebec, and I will say in the west as well--it's very dramatic in terms of what you mean to employment for Canada.

Can you comment on that?

[Jan Westcott]

We buy grain pretty much right across Canada. With respect, sir, we buy grain right up to the boundary of the city of London. If you grew grain inside the city of London, we might buy it. So it's a municipal boundary issue.

We buy grain in western Canada. We are the largest purchaser of rye grain in Canada for our products, predominately from Alberta and Saskatchewan. We are significant purchasers of corn in Ontario and we're significant purchasers of corn in Quebec.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I'm sorry I couldn't get to all of you, but thank you for your testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Holder.

Well, I had hoped that we would be able to get to our other business today, but this went a little longer than I thought it would in the first round. Rather than try to start something new, I think we might try, with the consent of the committee, if it's all right with our witnesses, to deal out a second round of this. That would give five minutes more to each of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the Bloc.

So five minutes, Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is on the comment on the current labour agreement in this FTA. Mr. Rowlinson acknowledged that it was stronger than the similar provision in the NAFTA deal. Our public servants before committee said that not only is it the strongest one Canada has included in any FTA, but it's the strongest ever signed between two countries.

Given that we already have a trade relationship with Colombia, does this not represent a step forward in terms of increasing our tools with which we can influence and strengthen labour rights in Colombia? We can argue about how far it takes us, but isn't it unarguable that it does take us further than we are now with no agreement?

[Mark Rowlinson]

Well, let me say yes: that is to say, the labour side agreement with Colombia is essentially the same, with minor variations, as the labour side agreement that we have negotiated and ratified with Peru. So in a sense, they are virtually identical.

As I indicated in my testimony, they do represent progress over what was negotiated as a labour side agreement to NAFTA.

As to whether or not they represent the best labour rights protections in any trade agreement, that would be a matter for debate. I think there's an argument, again, in my view, that the United States has made more progress in incorporating labour rights into their trade agreement, but one could have a long argument and now is not the time for that argument.

With respect to your contention that something is better than nothing, if I can characterize it that way, I guess that depends upon whether or not the existing agreements have led to any real improvements. And I have to say--I cited the Mexico example in my earlier testimony--that the answer to that has been “not”.

I think there is every reason to be concerned that in fact the pernicious effects of this trade agreement on human rights in Colombia will outweigh any potential benefits that may accrue from the labour side agreement, given my analysis of the labour side agreement and the few, if any, likely benefits that it's likely to provide.

So that's really the balance, it seems to me, you have to look at. But I do acknowledge, as I've said, that it contains better substantial rights than those found in the NAFTA labour side agreement.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The ILO report, which was released on February 26, 2010, actually speaks to some of the progress that has been made in terms of labour rights in Colombia. It reads:

...the Committee recognizes all the measures, of a practical and legislative nature, that the Government has been adopting recently to combat violence in general and violence against the trade union movement, and it notes a decrease in the murders of trade unionists between 2008 and 2009, and in violence in general.

It goes further in terms of some specific legislative and governmental action to protect labour unions and labour union leaders.

Do you view the ILO as a credible organization?

[Mark Rowlinson]

I have my issues and disagreements with the ILO, but if I can comment on the specific proposition you're making, there is no question that in some sectors of Colombian society there has been a diminution of violence. I don't dispute that. I know the Colombian government makes that claim, and that is correct.

I would point out, however, that on the issue of displaced persons, there appears to have been little to no progress, and it may be as bad now as it has ever been.

Indeed, you mentioned earlier today the popularity of the Uribe government and his political party. I would attribute a large amount of that popularity to the fact that there has been some diminution in the violence, particularly in urban areas. In the countryside, though, it continues to be an incredibly violent place. In general, Colombia continues to be a very violent place. I don't think any credible person can seriously dispute that.

I think when you're looking at Canadian investment in Colombia, with due respect to the other witnesses here today, the bulk of that investment is likely to be in the extractive industries, in my respectful view. Those extractive industries are going to be active in rural Colombia, where there continues to be an enormous amount of violence, and again I make no comment about the causes or roots of that violence. So that's really what you have to be concerned about.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

But if Canadian extractive industries increase their level of activity in Colombia and there are rules guiding their activities, and they are subject to Canadian laws of the Canadian Parliament, and in this case a very robust labour agreement, and to annual human rights reportage, doesn't that have the capacity to help provide legitimate economic opportunities in those rural communities that can help people wean themselves from the narco economy, which is a violent one and has been displacing Colombians for far too long and is not guided by any labour agreements? We can debate how robust these agreements are, but I don't think there are any labour agreements guiding how the drug lords and demobilized paramilitary who have evolved into drug gangsters, and FARC, which is part of an.... I mean, there are no labour laws guiding their activities. So aren't we better off to help Canadian companies participate in the Colombian economy and to guide their activities based on laws and rules that we set as parliamentarians here in Canada?