Thank you, Gerry, and thank you, members of the committee, again, for this opportunity.
I just want to briefly address one more key area, which is the frequently asserted contention by officials, including in committee before you in recent weeks, that increasing the flows of Canadian trade and investment to Colombia will itself have a positive effect on human rights because it will stimulate growth in the legal economy and it will draw people out of the drug trade and other illegal activities. It's important to unpack this assertion, because it's an important issue. I think to do so, it's instructive to look at one of the largest modes for Canadian commerce in Colombia: investment in the oil, gas, and mining sectors. There are a lot of other sectors we could look at to look at the confluence of trade and rights, but let's just look there.
The committee, I think, should ideally look in some depth at this issue during the course of its study and travels. As members may be aware, Canada is the largest by far of all international mining investors in the region. The committee should also be aware that there has been wide-ranging evidence gathered and academic analysis done to show that there are predictable dangers for human rights and the environment that flow from Canadian corporate investments in active conflict zones like Colombia. Canadian academics have highlighted that any company operating in a conflict zone automatically becomes party to the conflict, even with the best of intentions. They are, for example, paying taxes and royalties to one party in that conflict.
Neutral commercial presence is not possible. Beyond that issue, in Colombia, Canadian oil and mining companies are active in some of the most conflict-ridden zones of the country, even beyond the issue of royalties. These zones are characterized by high levels of military and paramilitary control. The overlap between the two is sobering. Colombian regions that are rich in minerals and oils have been marked by violence. They are the source of 87% of forced displacements, 82% of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and 83% of assassinations of trade union leaders in the country.
Rather than assert the positive outcomes for development and rights from Canadian companies, officials, we believe, need to be undertaking due diligence to ensure that our Canadian investments in fact do not cause or contribute to human rights violations or environmental destruction.
I would like to give you a few examples to illustrate that closer attention needs to be paid to this matter.
The Canadian mining company Greystar decided to resume its operations in Colombia after President Uribe instituted changes to make the country's environment safer. From a logistical perspective, the company supported the establishment of a security base in the region. Among other things, troops are stationed at the base to ensure the mine's viability.
Another example is Enbridge, a Canadian company and a major partner in the OCENSA pipeline consortium, the largest of its kind in Colombia. OCENSA is extensively involved in cases of human rights violations.
Canada cannot rely on host governments to govern the actions of Canadian companies abroad. As analyst Madelaine Drohan has said, “Common sense tells you that governance goes out the window in a conflict zone.”
Rather than take this conflict context into account and ensure binding measures for corporate accountability, in the proposed Colombian free trade agreement Canada wants to replicate a NAFTA-style chapter 11 on investment. These kinds of rules grant corporations rights to investment protection that are unparalleled in other global trade rules, with no corresponding obligations.
Recently, government officials have reassured this committee that voluntary measures will be added to the trade deal and that these are sufficient to ensure corporate social responsibility for Canadian companies operating in Colombia. CCIC strongly disagrees. Voluntary measures have never proven to be effective guarantees for human rights or environmental protection.
We ask you to consider how it can be reasonable for companies to insist on binding legal protections for their investment rights but only on voluntary obligations for their responsibilities not to exacerbate human rights violations. Greater security and accountability is required of mining investments in Colombia, quite apart from the trade agreement.
In summary, these are the conclusions from CCIC.
Canada should not be signing a trade deal with the Colombian government at this time, given the latter's role in grave human rights violations and the context of impunity in the country. No trade deal should go forward with Colombia without a full human rights impact assessment. But this doesn't mean we should do nothing. Canada must continue to play an active role as advocate for human rights in Colombia, including urging President Uribe to sever all ties between the state and paramilitaries, and to work to end impunity.
Finally, outside the context of the trade agreement, Canada needs to take steps to ensure mandatory accountability for Canadian corporate investment in Colombia, particularly in the mining sector. These steps should include the adoption of recommendations that are well known now and have been set out in the final report of the national round tables on the extractive sector.
If any of the committee members want more information, we'd be happy to address them in discussion.
Thank you.