International Trade Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Murad Al-Katib]

Sir, I want to repeat my comment. My comment was that as corporately and ethically responsible businesses, we care very much about these types of things. Our position is very clear: economic engagement allows dialogue; isolationist views will not allow us to effect any change.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Just before I turn to Mr. Lemelin, I would just like to wrap up with you by saying that, although you care very much about those types of things, you did not mention them in your presentation. I find that a little unbalanced.

Mr. Lemelin, I liked your presentation very much, like Mr. Rowlinson's, even though the chair told you that you had exceeded your time. In my view, it is important for us to hear from all sides and to take the time necessary to understand things completely.

Since the hearings on this matter began, witnesses have taken a wide variety of positions. Last week, we even had a trade unionist from Colombia come here to tell us that it is all sweetness and light for union members in Colombia. But after hearing your presentation, Mr. Lemelin, we realize that free collective bargaining, as you said, does not exist. So they came up with a trade unionist who was hand in glove with the government, and was here with the Colombian minister of international trade to boot.

I am going to end my comments by asking you one final question. Do you think that Mr. Brison's position could be effective? He wants a report on the human rights situation a year after the treaty goes into effect.

[Denis Lemelin]

Knowing Colombia, I would say no.

It is the principle. When you get your hands caught in the works, your arm and body are the next to go. It is not logical to put an agreement in place that says that you will clarify what it means after a year.

My opinion is that you should go with what the committee decided in 2008: an independent inquiry should start independent work. That is our position and I think that it is the best way to avoid getting into unfortunate situations.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That was the committee's unanimous view too.

[Denis Lemelin]

At the time, yes, it was the committee's unanimous view.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We are certainly wondering about the reasons that have driven the Liberals and the Conservatives to change their minds on such a fundamental question. It really is something to wonder about.

Thank you very much.

Monique, do you want to continue?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Is there any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, that is enough.

I do not think that we should be putting the cart before the horse. I have been to Colombia several times, Mr. Lemelin, and I have seen how things are down there. There is a lot of work to do. The disappearances are real. If you talk to Colombian people, they will tell you themselves. I do not think we should be doing business just in order to do business. I am fine with free trade, the Bloc Québécois has demonstrated that it is very open to that, but there are rules to be followed.

Mr. Lemelin and Mr. Rowlinson, I would like to hear what you have to say about that. Do you think that a good agreement, properly negotiated in advance, and reflecting the same standards we abide by, would be much more to Canada's advantage than a poor agreement like the one we are studying at the moment? It really is badly done. It was done in haste, full steam ahead, in order to get something in place before the United States, from what these Canadian businesspeople tell us. I think that is a very bad thing and I would like to hear your opinion about it.

[Denis Lemelin]

For us, it is not a race. For us, trade has fundamental principles. The trade must be between equals. This is the basis of all trade, between individuals and between two countries. Trade is not just about what is profitable, not just about business, but about the impacts on people, on work and on ways of life.

We feel that trade must be based on principles. Clearly, if those principles are not there, things always get difficult because one side is going to profit at the expense of the other. We often talk about an imbalance in this situation today. In that context, if the parties sit down as equals to reach an agreement on the trade and what each party will get out of it, I feel that people will be in favour of the agreement. The discussions between Canada and Colombia could be very interesting. Colombia is very rich in agriculture, mining, and it is very rich socially. The Hispanic culture and the Aboriginal culture are very strong. For us, that is trade between equals.

[Mark Rowlinson]

I have two quick observations.

It would absolutely be possible to negotiate a trade agreement with real, enforceable labour rights and real sanctions. For example, the United States has been looking at negotiating trade agreements with actual human rights benchmarks incorporated into the text of the agreements. They have been negotiating trade agreements that have labour rights in the body of the agreement, not as a side agreement. They are looking at negotiating agreements that have real labour rights benchmarks with real penalties. That is the kind of approach, in our respectful submission, that Canada ought to be taking.

On the question of whether we should be moving ahead quickly with the trade agreement, my view is that we should wait to see exactly what takes place in the United States. It's not at all clear to me that the U.S. Congress is going to pass free trade with Colombia. The Democratic Party has historically been opposed to free trade with Colombia, so I do not see the rush for this government at present to move ahead as quickly as it seemingly wishes to do on free trade with Colombia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to apologize to the witnesses for the rudeness of some of our colleagues around the table.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think that was uncalled for, given that I chaired a committee when the President of Colombia was here, and the rudeness extraordinaire--I'm usually a very polite guy, but don't test me--from my good friend Peter Julian....

I'm actually disappointed that he's making that comment, and he should withdraw it.

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

I don't think that's a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I don't think that's point of order.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Shame on you, then.

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

I apologize again on behalf of the rudeness of some of our colleagues around the table.

I want to mention that last week we had a minister from Colombia who spoke for over 20 minutes. I didn't agree with much of what he said, but it was important that he had the opportunity to speak before this committee. The information that all of you brought forward today is very important for this committee.

We have just started hearing from human rights organizations and labour organizations.

In fact, Mr. Lemelin and Mr. Rowlinson, you were the third and fourth presentations we've heard from that.

So it is extremely important, as we go though full and comprehensive hearings, that we hear from people, listen to them, and understand the points of view expressed. That's our role as members of the committee.

We had a representative from the CCIC here a few days ago who spoke to the issue of the Liberal amendment. She said that the proposal lacks credibility, and the damage from a non-credible process is high.

Mr. Lemelin and Mr. Rowlinson, how would you describe the Liberal amendment? To my mind, it's basically a self-reporting mechanism by the Colombian government to itself.

[Denis Lemelin]

In some ways, we didn't see the full thing around the issue. That's one of the points; we really wanted to see it.

For us, yes, the issue around wanting to develop a trade agreement with someone is that the commercial part is one side. At some point, when we see that the commercial part is not working because it's not equal change on parties, we just say okay...because everybody in the world knows what's happening in Colombia--the issues of unions, the issues of human rights, the issues of labour rights, etc.

In some ways, people are now arriving and saying, okay, we have to adapt; we put something in it. Putting something in it at the last moment, for us, is not the transparent way to look at the issue. Secondly, it's not really a fair debate around this kind of issue. You have to be looking at this issue from the beginning.

So I think we have to reject it and in some ways try another way to develop the agreement.

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

Thank you, Mr. Lemelin.

Mr. Rowlinson, in a couple of words, how would you describe the amendment?

[Mark Rowlinson]

I already described it as window dressing in my submissions, and I won't repeat myself.

I think you need to look at what is enforceable. Are there any benchmarks built into what Mr. Brison is proposing? What are the consequences in the event it should emerge that human rights are not being respected in Colombia? None of that is in this proposal.

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

Thank you.

We heard from DFAIT just the other day, before the Colombian government gave its presentation. They said exactly the same thing--I mean, word for word, it was basically DFAIT presenting the Colombian government's presentation.

There was a whole range of things completely excluded, such as the fact that violent forced displacements in Colombia are at record levels and they are higher than anywhere else on earth. They also excluded the scandal around the Colombian secret police.

This is information that has just come out. A journalist, who had her 10-year-old daughter threatened by the Colombian secret police, was quoted as saying, “They called saying they would leave her fingers all over my house, that they would rape her. Sometimes I received 70 threats in one day.” She was considered a threat because she was investigating the murder of a renowned Colombian journalist. She later found out that the threats came from the DAS, the Colombian secret police.

This was evidence that was presented. The DFAIT presentation did not in any way touch on the secret police scandal. We have independent electoral observers saying that fraud and coercion and widespread fear among the Colombian population are all part of the factors that impede free and fair elections in Colombia. Again, that wasn't in the DFAIT presentation at all. Yet, when the DFAIT presentation mirrors what the Colombian government says, we are supposed to accept the idea that an amendment where the Colombian government reports on itself, and the Canadian government rubber stamps it, as being somewhat significant in some way.

Do you think this process is credible in any way? I'd like a very brief answer, because I have questions on our industry proposals.

[Denis Lemelin]

It's not credible. When you talk to the people on the street in Colombia, they're talking about what the DAS is doing, what the Black Eagles are doing. That's what we hear on the street when we talk with people. I think DFAIT has put a cover on everything.

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

Mr. Rowlinson.

[Mark Rowlinson]

Well, insofar as I'm not sure I'm.... It's unclear to me exactly the extent of Mr. Brison's proposal, but from what I've seen so far, it has no credibility, and I would have no confidence....

I was in Colombia for some time last year. I met with a large number of government officials, including the president and the defence minister. I have no real confidence that the Colombian government will be able to report on itself or to provide objective facts regarding the situation in Colombia.