Evidence of meeting #17 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was colombian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Director of Organizing, Council of Canadians
And it certainly hasn't in Mexico, after many years of NAFTA. We have seen an increase, a dramatic increase, of violence in the drug trade in northern Mexico.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Your organization, we know, was against NAFTA. We know that. You're also against the Canada-EU FTA. We don't have a Canada-EU FTA, but you're already against it.
4:10 p.m.
Director of Organizing, Council of Canadians
You're speaking about the Council of Canadians, just to be clear.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Yes.
Name a free trade agreement your organization has supported.
4:10 p.m.
Director of Organizing, Council of Canadians
Again, the bulk of this testimony doesn't come from my position at the Council of Canadians. It is as a participant on this delegation. Therefore, I'm not speaking to our position as the Council of Canadians on free trade.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair. It has been 10 minutes already.
Will we have the same period of time?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I was just about to go to you, but you're eating your time.
Monsieur Laforest.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Mrs. Wood and Mrs. Pickard.
It seems to me that Mr. Brison's questions were misleading in the sense that the issue is to know what comes first, the chicken or the egg. It is quite clear that if the government of Colombia were to set up a judicial system able to put an end to the drug trade, people would not be involved in that activity. That is what it should do first, I believe. Before claiming that a free trade agreement will make people want to grow something else than the components of cocaine, it should think about protecting those people. As a first step, cultivating plants for the production of cocaine should be forbidden. Steps should be taken for that. Then, and only then, might it be possible to have a free-trade agreement.
Last year, the Standing Committee on International Trade gave unanimous consent to an independent study that would be carried out before accepting this agreement. Unfortunately, Mr. Brison moved an amendment stating that the assessment would be done by Canada and Colombia one year after the agreement coming into force. This is totally unacceptable to us, to say the least, because it would mean that no pressure could be exerted on the government of Colombia to make it improve the human rights situation. Furthermore, I do not agree with Mr. Brison telling Mrs. Wood that she is prejudiced. I believe that parliamentarians, before deciding if they are for or against such an agreement, should make sure that they have as much information as possible.
Unlike you, I have never been to n Colombia. So, I would ask you to tell us how you assess the pre-electoral situation and the human rights situation. Also, Mrs. Wood and Mrs. Pickard, I do not think you are prejudiced. You have reported to us your observations, which will allow us to make an informed decision. I would like to know if you believe that the proposed amendment would really force the government of Colombia to take steps to eradicate human rights violations in that country.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, CoDevelopment Canada
I was surprised.
I would like to say, first of all, that I have never been treated with such disrespect. I am astonished that my credibility has been put into question by Mr. Brison in such a way.
My position is based on a belief in human rights, a very passionate belief in the need for respect and promotion of human rights, and by my almost 30 years of experience working in this field. I have compiled my presentation from various credible sources and from the many times I've been there, as you've just pointed out, sir.
The amendment that's being proposed...as Mr. Brison so ably put out, I was not fully informed on all the indicators the report would be based on. However, I do not believe it will make a significant or a positive difference in this situation to begin to look at the impact the free trade agreement has had on the human rights situation a year into a free trade agreement, when we know we're walking into a situation where the human rights situation is already absolutely alarming and systemic.
I still believe that if we could do a study previous to...it would give us more information to make a credible and better-informed decision, and perhaps then set out some markers and indicators that might fall into the same amendment we're putting forward now. But we would be better informed walking into it.
4:20 p.m.
Director of Organizing, Council of Canadians
Thank you very much.
To start with the question of whether the amendment will give the Colombian government any ability to impact the human rights condition, one thing I would talk about, which we also lay out in the report to some degree—but there are various other reports, which I'd encourage people to look into—is the process that the Colombian government put in to “demobilize” paramilitary groups.
We've seen, since the law of peace and justice was put into effect in Colombia, a number of people come forward who have described themselves as paramilitary groups and have said that they were going to put down their weapons now and become officially demobilized. Then they either serve some time or they give some testimony talking about the paramilitary groups they were involved in, and then are sent out into society again. There are accounts, there are reports, there is information about the failure of this. That President Uribe stands in Colombia now and says that there are no more paramilitary groups, because he has essentially wiped away the definition of paramilitary groups in Colombia, does not mean there are not any paramilitary groups in Colombia.
Picking up on the pieces that Barbara spoke to, which I would support and back up, which are based on factual reports from international and human rights organizations as well as global institutions that we all accept, the issue around the demobilization of paramilitary groups has not worked in Colombia. You still see the same operations on the ground in the smaller and mid-sized communities that we visited as part of this pre-electoral delegation.
Having walked into a situation in which the government has already tried, of its own volition, to institute a number of rules and regulations to dismantle incredibly corrupt and incredibly violent organizations in Colombia, it seems to me that simply asking them one year from now to write a report on how it's going isn't going to enable them in any further way to impact the situation, just by the virtue of this amendment.
In closing on that, the last thing I would say is that it's similar to any of kind of process that is signed and sealed with consultation after the fact. A colleague recently looking into it asked, isn't this an example of one of the old adages we all know, a case of the fox guarding the chicken coop? We can't possibly expect that there'd be reporting from an institution that itself wants to remain in a deal, as we've seen with the Uribe administration. Whatever the outcome of this upcoming election is will presumably support free trade. As Mr. Brison says, there's overwhelming support.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Colombia and the United States negotiated a free-trade agreement in 2006, two years before Canada. Our agreement has not yet been ratified by the Parliament of Canada and it is the same situation in the United States even though their agreement was negotiated four years ago. We have heard, seen and read that the issue of human rights is what prevents final ratification of that agreement and its implementation.
Considering the potential size and scope of US trade with Colombia, could we not take it for granted that they would be much more able than us to achieve a reduction of human rights violations in Colombia? If they are unable to do so, how could we believe that we would be more successful?
4:20 p.m.
Director of Organizing, Council of Canadians
If I could just quickly clarify—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Ms. Pickard and Ms. Wood. I appreciate your coming forward today. We are still only beginning to hear from the witnesses we need to hear from. It's very important that you're here today.
Ms. Wood, I'd like to apologize for the conduct of my colleague. CoDevelopment Canada has a very strong reputation among MPs of all parties in British Columbia, and I know that Liberal MPs from B.C. will not be happy with the way you were treated today. Thank you for coming forward and speaking to us.
I'd like to come to the issue of elections that you have spoken about—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I was simply informing her that she was, as a witness, promoting something that was false at committee, and I corrected her—
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
If you'll allow me to speak, Mr. Brison, I'd like to question the witnesses.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
--and she then accepted my correction, which is something I wish the honourable member Mr. Julian would start understanding as well.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'd like to continue the questioning. Thank you very much.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I'm sorry, Mr. Julian, but you did interrupt Mr. Brison in the middle of his time. But carry on.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Well, that wasn't a point of order, Mr. Chair, as you well know.