Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on March 21st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much, MP Sweet.

For the second question, I will go to MP Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Morales, you mentioned early in your statement that you needed to be consulted. Can you give examples of maybe other central American countries where there has been a lot of consultation and where it's been effective?

[Aleisar Arana Morales]

Our neighbouring country is El Salvador, and there were five consultations carried out there.

In Guatemala, we've held eight consultations. As I said, we have the municipal bylaws here, and then there's also the ILO convention 169, which establishes our right to consultation. It is a fundamental right that we demand and that we are carrying out according to our rights and according to the free determination of our peoples.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Have the governments in Central America considered or passed laws that better regulate the extractive sector?

[Aleisar Arana Morales]

Until now the issue of a mining law.... Well, yes, there is a mining law, but it goes against our interests. The law was drafted in congress, and some of the members of parliament are not members from the people. They should be since they're elected. We're the ones who vote them in, but they are co-opted by the companies, so that they draft laws that are not in the interests of the people.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

So again, it goes back to consultation. The communication is not there. The people on the ground, the communities that are affected, are not hearing the voices. Their voices are not being heard by the higher levels of government.

[Aleisar Arana Morales]

Of the eight consultations that have been carried out in municipalities, in the area that I represent, six of them went all the way to the constitutional court. That court said that the consultations are binding. This is something that helps us, because the constitutional court has recognized the people's right to consultation.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I have in my notes here that El Salvador has the largest deposits of gold, but has not allowed foreign companies to establish mines to exploit this gold.

Mr. Belloso, could you elaborate on that?

[Bernardo Belloso]

Yes, that's right. In our country we consider, and the population in general has expressed the idea, that mining is not viable because of its impact on natural resources. As I said earlier, El Salvador is in a very precarious environmental situation. This forces us to generate policies and laws to conserve the few natural resources that we have left. Yes, it's true that gold is good for economic development, but who will that development profit and benefit? Will it be the people, the countries, or multinational companies?

In El Salvador, of every $100 the companies earn through their mining exploitation, they only leave two-thirds. Then when they leave, everything they leave behind is destroyed and polluted. Who then will help resolve the environmental problems that we are left with? Well, it's the government and the population.

If you take the San Sebastián mine, the mining company left the water completely contaminated. The population has to pay for it, including $10 a day for a barrel of water. So what's better? I think it's better to leave the gold in the ground rather than extracting it and causing greater social problems.

The day a company says that it will exploit this gold and that there will be no destruction of the forests, that it will not destroy our land, and that it will not contaminate the water, then we'll think about it, but we've not seen any instance like that yet. Even Canadian companies have done it.

I know that if in El Salvador the situation were better, we would be here presenting a totally different story, but there is a problem in El Salvador, and we want there to be a law to completely prevent mining.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have a minute.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Very good. A minute.

Maybe we'll circle back, but if not I just wanted to make the general point that as far as regulatory aspects are concerned with respect to trade issues, that issue falls under the purview of the international trade committee and not this committee. However, recognizing that there are human rights issues at play, we can and should look at those.

Hearing the testimony today, I don't get the sense that any mining would be acceptable, which presents one perspective. In the summertime we—you were there too, Mr. Chair—visited Guatemala and Colombia as part of our work in the foreign affairs committee. We spoke to many people on the ground, individuals who favour a perspective that you put forward. But there are many at the same time who are quite open to mining, under certain conditions whereby companies engaging in that type of work provide for development, including schools, hospitals, and roads. We saw evidence of that. We saw evidence of companies acting appropriately.

I've probably taken 45 seconds now, but if we do circle back, I would like to ask a question on co-operative agriculture, since the view appears to be that you're opposed to mining entirely. There was a comment in your testimony indicating that you're open to co-operative agriculture. I know this federal government has contributed a great deal of financial resources in support of co-operative agriculture in Latin America.

I would love to hear your views on that. In Guatemala, I remember going and speaking to a number of farmers working on coffee plantations who are quite excited about the model of co-operative farming and its promise for Guatemala. The same is true in Colombia, from what we saw.

I'll leave it there. If we circle back, I'd love to hear your view. I think the testimony is skewed in one direction because, from from my experience, there are others who have put forward a different perspective, who are more open to mining, who are on the ground working for democracy and economic rights, generally speaking.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you.

We'll now move to MP Hardcastle.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish we were using this opportunity here to get the perspective of those people. We know that there is a study coming up. This is a very important committee. It deals with international human rights, but we don't have a large budget. When there are opportunities when people like you visit, Mr. Morales and Mr. Belloso, and for the benefit of the rest of the committee, we do take advantage of having people come to talk to us.

You can see by the tone of the questions from my colleagues here today, we do have a lot to explore. There is a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation about the voluntary system that we now have. As you probably know, and as many of us here know, this is why Canada is an attractive base country for mining.

I would like to ask you some questions now so that I will be able to refer to your answers when we have a fulsome discussion about what our role is in international human rights and in engaging the extractive industries based in Canada.

What I would like to ask each of you—you can decide who's going to answer first—is about this idea the criminalization of community leaders who speak up about issues, such as why we are against mining, as one of my colleagues brought up. If someone starts a movement in a community to bring up the reasons why you are against mining, they're criminalized. I'm not just making that as a statement. I would like you to answer and to back that up to give our committee understanding about what happens.

Whether it's under President Otto Pérez or another leader, there has been an administrative history now in which we have progressed to this criminalization of community leaders speaking out peacefully.

So please, explain more.

[Aleisar Arana Morales]

Government officials want to keep our people in complete darkness and ignorance. What community leaders do is bring information to our communities about what is happening. That is how our people are becoming empowered and demanding their rights. When the people demand their rights, then we can get somewhere because this is their means to advance, to have the people become empowered and demand what they are entitled to.

In Guatemala what interests us, and that is how we will move forward, is education and health care. But what has happened? The member was saying that schools and roads have been created by mining companies. This is true, but I would ask those mining companies if it's up to them to set up schools. Isn't it up to the government to do that? The government is responsible for education but hasn't invested in it, and that is what we demand as well.

In Guatemala, if people get sick, for anyone who does not have the economic resources to get health care, their only option is to die. If you go to the hospital, there is no medication there for you. Community leaders demand those rights among others, and that is why we are persecuted. That's why many of us have been eliminated because the government does not want our people to progress through education.

That is what I have to say.

Thank you very much.

[Bernardo Belloso]

In our countries, in developing countries, criminalization has become more and more of an issue in recent years. There are a number of factors that contribute to that, but with regard to criminality in Central America and El Salvador, companies have come in and used the problem of the high crime rate in our countries to cover their tracks when they threaten leaders.

When it comes to resisting—not so much resisting, but defending the people's rights—before the mining companies arrived, we didn't have a high crime rate the way we do now; we didn't have the level of insecurity that we have now. If you know about what's happening to the people in Cabañas, I think you would be frightened. I would ask you to visit El Salvador to hear not only the position of communities, but also that of the government, which is also against mining companies. The law against mining companies has not yet been passed, but it sees the issue in the same way.

With regard to corporate social responsibility, with all due respect I can say that I do not know of any company that is socially responsible in El Salvador, particularly in the mining sector. Aleisar was saying that they are creating projects. The companies are trying to create small social projects, but what kinds of projects? They can perhaps outfit a baseball team, something like that, but that's not sustainable in the long term. The companies talk about green mining. They talk about responsible mining. They talk about mining for development. They also talk about using mining as a way of eradicating poverty, but what happens is when the mining projects are over and the companies leave, the situation is far more complicated with regard to health care, with regard to education, and the poverty is even more acute.

Have mining companies been socially responsible? The answer is no. I can tell you very sincerely that I do not want that situation for the future generations in my country, so something has to be done.

We have to demand that mining companies be truly responsible, and if the communities tell those companies that they don't want mining, then there should be no projects. Seventy-eight per cent of the population in El Salvador have spoken out and stated that there should be no mining. There have been five consultations in El Salvador nationally, and 99% of the people who participated in that national survey said no. But the companies continue to go ahead and explore.

I have to say, with all due respect, that those companies are not being socially responsible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you, Mr. Belloso.

We have about four and a half minutes left. We will go back to Mr. Fragiskatos. You were mid-thought.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Before I touch on the issue of co-operative agriculture, I'll say that a lot of what I've heard today relates to a deficit of democracy in Guatemala and El Salvador. That issue in and of itself should be looked at and studied. I'm supportive of efforts at democratization anywhere. I've been on the ground in Guatemala, and yes, that country is experiencing a great number of issues. Certainly, democratic advocates have a right to appear in Canada and make their case, but I'm not so sure that issue can be looked at intertwined with the issue of mining. Those are two separate issues.

My view is that you might get much further in your efforts for democracy and human rights by focusing on dealing with the democratic deficit rather than by mingling it with issues related to the extractive sector. That's a separate point.

Can you touch on the co-operative model of agriculture? That approach to development holds a great deal of promise, and as I said, this federal government has contributed a great deal of financial resources that to local organizations, NGOs, that are working with peasant farmers in places such as Guatemala. The chair and I saw it on the ground. It has tremendous promise for the future of the country.

[Aleisar Arana Morales]

I think it is an alternative. My people are farmers, and co-operative farming can be a way forward for Guatemala. We need a great deal of support, because although we say we are farmers, we don't have the technology to progress. Equipment is very scarce, for example, for more progressive and advanced agriculture.

Another issue I wanted to raise was that agriculture through monoculture has affected Guatemala. When it comes to sugar cane, I think Guatemala is potentially a big producer of sugar, but what's happening is that the rivers are being diverted to irrigate the sugar cane plantations, and those who live off fishing and livestock don't have the water they need. That's one problem.

There is another monoculture, the African palm, which is affecting a sector of our country. Yes, it is creating jobs, but how much is being paid to those who work in that sector? Hardly anything.... People's need to make money is being exploited. If I need to feed my children and I am being paid 25 quetzals, I will take it, even though it's not enough to live on.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I know the chair wants to make a point. All I will say is that I asked about co-operative agriculture because I am trying to find some common ground and end on a positive note. I think mining does have a potentially positive impact. I wanted to put something forward that I think we can agree on, and that is the benefits of agriculture, specifically co-operative agriculture.

Thank you very much for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

I have a quick point further to that of MP Fragiskatos. We visited a couple of agricultural co-ops. One of them was a project specifically aimed at empowering women farmers in the watermelon growth sector. We went out and visited the field. It was a group of women in rural Guatemala who had been working with local farmers, funded by money from Canada, to empower and train them in growing and selling watermelon.

One of our other visits was to the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, a very highly respected commission in Guatemala and has brought about a regime change. I believe it brought down one president.

You talked about corruption amongst government officials. It's not something I raised because it wasn't part of our discussion. Is this something that the commission on impunity in Guatemala is actively looking at? Are they studying this issue? I know they are quite effective, but I know they are not actively engaged in all parts, and probably not as much in rural Guatemala.

[Aleisar Arana Morales]

Yes, the commission on impunity is doing good work, but it is not going to the high elites who are violating the rights of our people. I was talking about monoculture and monopolies. There is co-optation of the media as well, because we are not given coverage in the media and the information doesn't get out. Only the information that the leaders think people need to hear is transmitted and broadcast through the media, and that gets in the way of people really finding out what's going on.

Our voice is often not heard. I remember that during our consultation we held a press conference, and we invited all of the local media representatives. I can tell you that only one representative of the local media covered the consultation and was there to inform the population. The rest simply didn't show up, because they ignore us or they think it is not relevant. We think they are actually on the payroll of some elites who don't recognize what we have to express.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

We're out of time, but to both witnesses, I sincerely thank you for your testimony today. I also want to thank the individuals from Common Frontiers Canada for contacting our subcommittee and for arranging to have you here today.

Finally, I want to thank MP Hardcastle for her continued work in this area and for advocating and bringing to our attention the fact that you would be in town.

Thanks to all of you for your participation. With that, I'm going to adjourn.