International Trade Committee on May 6th, 2010

[Alex Neve]

As I indicated briefly in my comments, we welcome the fact that the amendment has, at the very least, put human rights on the table. This wasn't the case before. But we're very concerned about the fact that it does not propose what we would consider to be an independent process, which is absolutely essential here. We're also concerned about the fact that it is only envisioning reviews that will happen on a periodic basis after the deal is already in place.

We think it's absolutely essential that there be an impact assessment carried out before the deal enters into force. As I said, we've been calling for that for three years. If that had been taken seriously at an earlier stage, we could have been through the exercise and be in the process of analyzing and implementing the recommendations. It's unfortunate that we still remain at this point of arguing as to whether it's something that is or is not advisable.

The independence is absolutely vital as well. Certainly we have very grave concern about any process that legitimizes human rights reporting from the Colombian government. They are notorious and very expert at whitewashing their human rights record. We and other organizations have spent a lot of time and effort correcting and responding to very serious inaccuracies in terms of what is reported publicly by that government. It is very selective, full of inaccuracies. A process such as this, which would legitimize the human rights reporting that comes from the Colombian government, is very problematic. And even on the Canadian side, the fact that the proposal does not require Canada's own review and assessment process to be carried out by a body independent of government is also of very grave concern to us.

We know that when trade and human rights get linked, it's too easy for the trade issues and other political concerns to start to interfere with a full and frank assessment of the human rights situation. That's with respect to our dealings with any country. So we would want to be assured that any kind of review carried out by the Canadian government is done in a very independent way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses. I believe you've all underscored the importance of having full and comprehensive hearings and hearing from the aboriginal community, hearing from labour movements, hearing from human rights groups. We have yet, as a committee, to hear from the Colombian labour movement, except from the government-sponsored unions, which by their own admission represent less than 10% of what's left of unionized workers in Colombia. I think you've all stressed for the record, and hopefully all members of this committee have heard you loud and clear, that there shouldn't be any closure or cutting off of witnesses. We should have full and comprehensive hearings.

I wanted to ask Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Neve a question around social responsibility. There's no doubt that SNC-Lavalin has a very good reputation, and many Canadian companies operate in a socially responsible manner, but there are Canadian companies that do not. That's part of the debate around Bill C-300, sponsored by my Liberal colleagues, that you have companies that have caused and have been part of human rights violations and environmental violations in places like Central America, South America, and Africa.

You're certainly aware of these violations. Do you not think that it besmirches Canada's reputation overall when companies operate that way? And does it not, in your case, Mr. Blackburn, give you pause when you have report after report after report saying that this agreement could well contribute to Canadian companies being even more complicit in the kinds of human rights violations we're seeing in Colombia?

Now, that wouldn't be SNC-Lavalin, but I'm saying there are bad apples, and Canada has a responsibility, and the Canadian Parliament has a responsibility, to ensure that Canada's reputation is not besmirched abroad.

[Robert Blackburn]

Of course, what you say is true. Companies operate in various ways. Some of them don't have, perhaps, standards that you and I would like them to have. It doesn't seem to me that's a reason for a company like SNC-Lavalin or other companies not to go and use their good socially responsible ways of proceeding, proper consultation processes, extensive use of local people. Our view is that that improves the situation and sets a standard for other people to live up to.

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

But with respect, my question was—

[Robert Blackburn]

Well, reputationally for Canada, if somebody misbehaves, I don't think people blame the whole country for it; I think they look at the company involved. I don't know—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt you; it's just that I have limited time.

Here we have a situation wherein every single report that has talked about this agreement provokes concern around a deterioration of the human rights situation in Colombia. As Mr. Neve has said very eloquently, there has been no independent evaluation of what the impacts are. On the one hand you have human rights organization saying this could be a really serious problem, and on the other hand you have some Canadian companies that operate irresponsibly.

If that doesn't concern you, that's fine, but you can understand that many members around this table are concerned by it.

[Robert Blackburn]

When you say “some Canadian companies”, I don't know who they are or what they are. I guess our view is that more trade and more engagement of Canadian companies and Canadian values—good Canadian values—are more likely to ameliorate the situation than deteriorate it. That's all—

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

Thank you. I'll ask Mr. Neve the same question.

[Alex Neve]

Well, I think it's important to link this issue with the issue of corporate social responsibility. In our view, the best way forward here would be not only to ensure that the prior independent human rights impact assessment is both carried out and addressed, but also that the Canadian Parliament adopt—Bill C-300 being a perfect example, since it's before Parliament right now—a corporate social responsibility framework finally, to govern the actions of Canadian companies when they go abroad. The fact that at this point neither is in place—neither the human rights impact assessment nor a binding framework of some kind on the corporate social responsibility side—is of grave concern.

Yes, there are great corporate citizens who represent Canada well, including in Colombia, but there are many who do not. The concern that both the lack of CSR standards and the lack of a human rights impact assessment will exacerbate that is a real concern.

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

Thank you. Obviously it would be hypocritical to vote for Bill C-300 and vote for Bill C-2 without the protections in place. One has to be consistent.

I'll turn things over to Mr. Moist. I appreciate your comments that “The connection between the government and paramilitaries and narco-traffickers has been documented and it paints a very disturbing picture of a failed state that is increasingly controlled by criminals”, and later on about the “involvement of illegal armed groups...including paramilitaries and drug traffickers, who benefit from campaign financing as well as determining outcomes”.

This has been an issue all along: President Uribe's links to the Medellín cartel, President Uribe's links to the drug cartels, and the fact that his regime has open corruption that is being investigated, as well as it can be, by what's left of the independent Colombian judiciary.

One has to ask how Canadians on the street react when they see a government that has a supposedly tough-on-crime agenda actually cozying up to a government that has obviously such clear links with criminal gangs.

I'm wondering, then, given your testimony, whether you are concerned about that aspect as well as the aspect around the forced dissolving of the labour movement. Do you think Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about this regime and its human rights violations?

And my final question: in a word, how would you describe the Liberal amendment? We've had previous testimony saying that it lacks credibility and that damage from this non-credible process could be high. Would you agree with that statement?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You have half a minute.

[Paul Moist]

On the last question, I think the Liberal amendment is a retreat from what was a consensus among all opposition parties not two years ago.

On your first question, I think the committee should hear from the International Pre-Electoral Observation Mission that went to Colombia. The stats I cite for you are taken from the judiciary in Colombia. People who hold elected office are facing charges. Those charges are not for jaywalking.

I think you should take the time to hear from witnesses about what those elected officials who have been convicted were convicted of. You should ask the questions.

I also implore you to.... I think Bill C-300 should be adopted. I just read a report last night, MiningWatch Canada's “Land and Conflict: Resource Extraction...and Colombia”. Bill C-300 is a good bill. Why can't we set up a framework? I was astonished at the amount of attention being paid to Canada in Colombia, because Canada is paying too much attention to Colombia and the rest of the world isn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

We're going to move to Mr. Keddy and Mr. Trost.

You have seven minutes. We're being reasonably close today; that one went a little over.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, certainly in the Conservative Party we welcome the Liberal Party's amendment. We're still studying that amendment, and the jury's still out on it, but we certainly welcome the intent behind it to try to find some common ground here. That common ground is helpful not just to Canadian jobs but certainly to Colombian jobs and opportunity in Colombia.

The very statement that a member of Parliament can make allegations against the president of another country at committee, Mr. Chair, I really take exception to. There is absolutely no proven allegation against President Uribe or any group in Colombia. Putting that on the record and trying to say it's fact.... We're slipping out of our responsibility as members of Parliament.

I have one quick question to Mr. Moist. I'd appreciate a very quick answer, because I'm splitting my time.

We had a group of agricultural producers at the last committee meeting. We had a group representing pulses and lentils who have probably the most potential to gain business in Colombia. Right now they are trying to sell red beans to Colombians at 50% duty. At the end of the day, the reality is that we're shutting Colombians off from cheaper, more nutritious, more available food by not trading with them and by forcing our producers to trade under a tariff system.

So give me a very quick answer: what is wrong with providing cheaper, more nutritious food to Colombians?

[Paul Moist]

Through the chair, I'll give you a very quick answer. The labour movement in Canada is pro-trade. We want more trade with more nations around the world. But in the case of indigenous and Afro-Colombians who live in these rural areas, we practise standards in Canada such that we would not displace anyone from their land, which they—

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

I'm not talking about displacement; I'm talking about trying to feed people who are living in poverty.

[Paul Moist]

And I'm talking about the report. I didn't write this report, but it's Land and Conflict -- Resource Extraction, Human Rights, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Canadian Companies in Colombia. There's a responsibility when doing business in another nation to be respectful.

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

Absolutely, and I appreciate your answer, but you're not answering my question. My question is, we can provide cheaper food, more nutritious food, to Colombians and we're attempting to do that. That's part of what this agreement is about.

So I'll move on to my next question, to Mr. Blackburn. I very much appreciate your coming here today. I very much appreciate your understanding of rules-based trading. I take your point on business visas. It's actually a very good point that we need to look at.

I also take your point that the personal safety of Colombians has improved, and improved enough that we can send Canadians down there now to do business. It's something we weren't doing a decade ago.

My question is this. No Colombian minister, from the president all the way down, has ever said that things are perfect in Colombia. None of them has ever said that. I really take exception to comments made by our other two witnesses and from the NDP party that perhaps Canadian companies are somehow not following good corporate social responsibility rules in Colombia, and SNC-Lavalin is one of the Canadian companies in Colombia.

I don't know of any Canadian company that is not following good corporate social responsibility rules in Colombia. Do you?

[Robert Blackburn]

No, I don't. I guess it's always difficult to deal with a broad-brush accusation of bad behaviour. I think that by and large Canadian companies are appreciated and are among the best-performing internationally. I'm not inside all these companies, but if there are particular cases....

One of the things that impresses me about what Mr. Moist was saying is that you appear to have a fairly active legal system in Colombia, if you're investigating members of Parliament and throwing them in jail. That must indicate some level of rule of law, I would think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Absolutely. Thank you.

Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Following up on a point Mr. Keddy made when he was talking about how lower food prices will help the Colombian population improve their diet, etc., I'm very curious about this. One of the things we just haven't heard is that this is going to hurt Colombians economically. One of the reasons I'll be voting for it is that I think it means better jobs for Colombians.

In the opinion of you three gentlemen here, will this trade deal—aside from human rights questions, which two of you have been concentrating on—help or will it hurt the average Colombian? We haven't heard anyone contesting that it will help Canada. It seems to be pretty clear for pulse growers, pork, etc.

It's a very simple question: economically, will this deal help Colombia, in your opinions, or do you care about that issue?

[Paul Moist]

Very briefly, I think the deal runs the risk of legitimizing a less-than-perfect framework of human and labour rights in Colombia.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Okay, but that wasn't the question I asked. I asked: does this deal, in your opinion, help the economy in Colombia? If it helps the economy, it helps workers, because it gives them jobs.

[Paul Moist]

I don't distinguish between workers' labour rights and economic—