International Trade Committee on April 30th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Friesen and Mr. Julian.

With that, we'll conclude this round of witnesses. Unfortunately, we are out of time and we have another group waiting to come in.

I thank you again for your appearance, your preparation, and your answers. I hope we'll see you again soon.

We'll suspend for a minute while we change the name tags.

Okay, we're going to begin. I'll ask all of you to take your seats. While members are getting back to their seats, let me introduce our next round of witnesses, who are familiar to most of us here. I'll start with Mr. Gerry Barr, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation. With him today is Gauri Sreenivasan, senior policy analyst for International Trade. Also presenting today and available for questions is Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International.

I understand, Mr. Barr, that you're going to lead and Gauri is going to follow you with a brief comment.

[Gerry Barr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for International Cooperation]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for the chance to be here today. We think the study being taken on by this committee on the Canada–Colombia trade agreement is unique and certainly very important. From our point of view, it is the first substantive opportunity to shed light on and debate a highly non-transparent and controversial deal. The terms of your study squarely address the need to consider the agreement in the context of environmental and human rights concerns. So it's very important for us, and we value very much the opportunity to be here today.

It's especially important, since I think the Prime Minister has been quite clear that Canada's motivations for pursuing this trade deal are informed by a political sensibility--specifically to back a particular administration in Colombia as a contribution to democracy and human rights in the Americas. Although Colombia is not a major trading partner for Canada, this deal has become emblematic as a “choice point” for defining Canada's role in the Americas, and indeed on the world stage.

In the United States, a similar deal has not been approved, given human rights considerations, and it has become a test case for a Republican versus Democratic orientation to U.S. policy in the region.

The political and economic situation in Colombia is itself complex, as you've been hearing, but the choice facing Canada is a fairly basic moral and ethical one. Should we sign a deal with a country with arguably the worst human rights record in the hemisphere and with a government mired in political scandal for its close links to paramilitary death squads? Our view is no.

This is not a position that is in any way anti-trade. Beyond all the issues of tariffs and schedules, a trade deal remains, at its heart, an international agreement between two governments--a statement of commitment and belief in each other as economic and political partners. So does Canada want to endorse the Uribe government of Colombia as our partner? Signing the deal will accomplish nothing less than that, and there should be no mistake about it.

The Colombian agenda is clear. The Uribe government is desperate for international recognition and approval, and a good housekeeping seal of approval from Canada would do much for their embattled reputation. But consider the situation.

The United Nations has called Colombia the worst humanitarian crisis in the Western hemisphere. It has one of the highest numbers of displaced persons in the world. The targeted killings of civilians by Colombia's security forces have increased dramatically over the past five years, along with cases of social injustices. Illegal executions of civilians by the Colombian military and paramilitary forces have taken at least 955 lives in the past five years.

One in five, or 20%, of all Colombian politicians are either in jail or under investigation for paramilitary links. President Uribe's closest political allies, including the chief of security, personal advisers, and family members, are involved. The investigations into all of this really only began in earnest a little over a year ago, so although it is already dramatic, we may not yet know the measure of this problem.

What is troubling is that in the face of all of this, the Canadian government now insists that Colombia's dark history is behind it and that a trade agreement will boost democratic development. We urge you to listen to the voices of those who are most directly involved. Colombian human rights activists, trade union leaders, and citizens have all mobilized in great numbers against the U.S. trade deal, and as knowledge grows of Canada's deal, so does the protest.

Do not be caught by the mindset that says if you don't support this government, you give power to the terrorists and guerrilla forces. This is the polarization of politics that has crippled the space for public discussion of democracy in Colombia today. Every day, with countless acts of bravery, Colombian trade union leaders, journalists, and indigenous people stand up to speak against the violence that has been unleashed on them from all sides. They are building the basis for a middle ground and for a government that can be held accountable for its crimes and held to its responsibilities to meet citizens' basic rights.

You know, it isn't realistic in this kind of charged and conflictive environment to hope for a clause or a paragraph or a side deal in the text of the trade agreement that will work as a curative for conflict. The answers lie in political will and in citizen mobilization and involvement in Colombia. Colombians themselves today are saying no to the deal, and we should be listening to them.

My colleague, Gauri Sreenivasan, is going to give you further reasons why.

[Gauri Sreenivasan, Senior Policy Analyst, International Trade, Canadian Council for International Cooperation]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Ms. Sreenivasan.

Mr. Neve.

[Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members. Amnesty International certainly welcomes the opportunity to be in front of you this afternoon on this very important issue.

I'd like to begin by sharing with you a global urgent action that Amnesty International issued just a few short hours ago on behalf of 17 human rights defenders and labour activists who have received death threats in Colombia over the past week. Those threatened include members of the Trade Union Congress in northeastern Colombia, Santander Department, who have received a written death threat from the paramilitary group, the New Generation of the Black Eagles in Santander. The threat, dated April 18, warned against holding any marches or demonstrations to mark International Workers Day tomorrow, May 1. It said, “There is a detachment of men available who will fulfill our orders and cleanse all you servants of the guerrilla”.

From those current concerns I'd like to take you back 10 years to a moment when Kimy Pernía Domicó, a Colombian indigenous leader, testified before another House of Commons committee. He detailed the way in which a multinational megaproject that had received $18.2 million U.S. in Canadian investment had destroyed the environment on which his people, the Embera Katio, relied for their survival. He explained how the project violated their right to a healthy environment, flooded their crops, eliminated fish stocks, and brought malnutrition and disease.

Kimy Pernía stressed that Embera Katio communities were never consulted about the project that would devastate their territory, in violation of both the Colombian constitution and international human rights treaties. He also explained how those who spoke out about those violations were threatened and attacked. Leaders had been killed and others had received death threats. He added that his own life was in danger. Sadly, he was not exaggerating.

In 2001, soon after he returned to Colombia from another trip to Canada, during which he attended the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, Kimy Pernía was forced onto a motorcycle by two armed men who put a pistol to his head. He was never seen again. Last year a Colombian paramilitary leader admitted that Kimy was killed by army-backed paramilitary, yet almost seven years after he was abducted in broad daylight in front of witnesses, the Colombian state has failed to bring anyone to justice.

Kimy's murder is an all-too-common example of what happens to those who challenge investment projects that will negatively impact on human rights in Colombia. Our concern is that such a situation could easily be repeated under the proposed Colombia-Canada free trade agreement.

Amnesty International takes no position for or against free trade per se, or any other particular approach or trading policy. We recognize that trade and investment in themselves are neither inherently good nor bad for human rights, but that human rights needs specific, determined attention to ensure that trade and investment policies do not impair human rights protection.

In the Colombian context there is serious reason to be concerned that such careful, concerted attention and safeguards are entirely lacking and that human rights will inevitably be further imperiled as trade and investment is opened up in these circumstances. We outlined that concern in an open letter to Prime Minister Harper last July, and again in December in a letter to the International Trade Minister Emerson.

This is not just about the past. This is not just about Kimy Pernía's tragedy of 10 years ago. These are realities that continue today. I've told you of today's urgent action. Let me give you just two other recent examples.

Earlier this month, on April 10, an e-mail death threat signed by the Aguilas Negras paramilitary group was received at the offices of the agro-mining federation in Bolívar Department. The same threat was also sent to the offices of other non-governmental organizations and to three Catholic priests, all working in this area rich in minerals. The death threat stated, “You will be killed one by one. Start getting your loved ones ready so they can bury you.”

On March 22, a member of the National Union of Coal Industry Workers, Adolfo González Montes, was tortured and killed. At the same time, other leaders of the union received telephone death threats and reported that their homes were under surveillance by unknown individuals. The killing and threats coincided with preparations by the union to initiate negotiations on working conditions with BHP Billiton, AngloAmerican, and Xstrata, the companies that own the Cerrejón coal mining operation in La Guajira department.

These specific incidents arise in a wider human rights context, which is directly relevant to this proposed agreement. Grave human rights abuses are committed against indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities defending their land rights in areas of interest for resource extraction or agricultural potential. There are ongoing threats and attacks against trade union leaders. Violations against community leaders and small-scale miners in areas of mineral wealth are of great concern. Since 1985, more than three million Colombians have been forced to flee their homes. More than 60% of those displaced have been evicted from lands situated in areas of mineral, agricultural, or other economic interest. These high levels of displacement continue, with 305,000 new cases last year alone, particularly affecting Afro-descendant and indigenous communities.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC, and the National Liberation Army, the ELN, continue to commit human rights abuses and to violate international humanitarian law, including the deliberate killing of civilians and hostage-taking. There has been a disturbing increase in extrajudicial executions carried out by state security forces. The victims include trade unionists, campesino leaders, members of indigenous communities, and other social activists. Most of these killings have been referred to the military justice system, despite a 1997 constitutional court ruling stating that human rights cases implicating the security forces should be handled by the ordinary justice system. Notably, human rights defenders who have been raising objections about the situation have been publicly accused by President Uribe of working with guerrilla organizations.

Finally, as Gerry Barr has referred to, there is mounting evidence of very disturbing links between members of President Uribe's political circle and illegal paramilitary organizations. Paramilitary commanders claim they control 35% of the Colombian congress. More than 60 congressmen from President Uribe's coalition are now under investigation by the Supreme Court. Last week, the president's second cousin and close political ally, former Senator Mario Uribe, was arrested. He stands accused of participating in meetings with paramilitary groups in which land grabs were orchestrated. President Uribe, in response to all this, has proposed mechanisms to set free or reduce the prison terms of politicians who may be convicted of colluding with paramilitaries and has also made public attacks against the Supreme Court and individual judges who are conducting these investigations, thus threatening judicial independence.

Before this committee and elsewhere, the Colombian government insists that Colombia's human rights situation has substantially improved. I believe you've heard reassuring statements in that regard from Canada's ambassador in Colombia and other government officials. Amnesty International is extremely concerned that such statements repeatedly only point to the limited improvements there have been in a few areas, such as overall conflict-related killings and kidnappings, and that the wider, very worrying human rights situation I have outlined is disregarded.

Take, for example, the issue of violence against trade unionists, an enormous issue of concern in the context of free trade negotiations. The Colombian government talks about a reduction of violence. The number of killings was lower in 2007 than in 2006, but the number of failed assassination attempts of trade unionists doubled and there was no reduction in the number of death threats. Indeed, there was an increase by some 22% in the number of forced displacements of trade unionists. Meanwhile, more currently, in the first three months of this year there was an 89% increase in the number of killings, in comparison with the first three months of 2007.

The point here is that there has been no substantive or sustained improvement in the human rights situation faced by trade unionists, nor will there be until decisive action is taken to end impunity, which remains at more than 90%.

The Colombian government also talks about strengthening its protection program for vulnerable sectors, including trade unionists. Of course, efforts to provide physical protection to trade unionists are laudable, and they may be of help, but the failure to take substantive action to end the impunity that prevails in these cases means the efficacy of these programs will at best be limited.

The Colombian government also insists that paramilitaries no longer operate in the country. This view has been contradicted by reports from the United Nations, the U.S. State Department, and the Organization of American States. There is indisputable evidence that many traditional paramilitary groups continue to operate in many regions and that the number of killings committed by them remains high. There is also clear evidence of continued collusion between these groups and the security forces.

The bottom line, sadly, is that Colombia's human rights situation has not substantially improved--in many aspects it has worsened--and that by any measure it remains an absolute crisis. In such dire and worrying circumstances, Amnesty International has called on the government to go no further with the possibility of a free trade agreement with Colombia, unless and until an independent, impartial, and exhaustive human rights impact assessment is carried out. A human rights impact assessment must be conducted by a competent body. It must be subject to levels of independent scrutiny and validation, and there are many other safeguards that would have to be put in place to make it a good process. The negative impacts identified by any such assessment would then need to be addressed before any consideration is given to negotiations going ahead.

We have also put in front of the government a range of human rights recommendations, which we would make with respect to any proposed trade deal. This includes the necessity of guaranteeing effective and genuine participation in negotiations by a broad representation of society; ensuring that the main text includes explicit reference to the full spectrum of international human rights norms; and that the main text ensures that the agreement will be interpreted and implemented consistent with those obligations, including that any dispute arbitration mechanisms will explicitly include human rights obligations.

Ten years ago, Colombian indigenous leader, Kimy Pernía Domicó, whose story I began with, told Canadian MPs that they did not want others to suffer as they had. I would like to stress to members of this committee that there is so much that needs to be done to address human rights concerns in Colombia before it would ever be possible to responsibly go ahead with a free trade deal of this sort. Unless and until that happens, I think Kimy Pernía Domicó's words remain to haunt us. Others will continue to suffer as he and his people have, and that's something this nation would certainly never want to stand for.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Neve.

I want to check something with you. I'm sure you'd want it corrected. You did reference, when you were speaking of the previous witness, that it has been suggested that general violence and kidnappings and such were down. You referred to Canada's ambassador in Colombia; I think you were referring to Colombia's ambassador in Canada.

[Alex Neve]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I wanted to correct that for the record.

Thank you very much. And thank you, all of you, for wonderful presentations. I do appreciate it.

We're going to have to go quickly, and I'm going to have to be very firm about sticking to the time.

We're going to start with Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thanks for the presentation. I'm a relatively new committee member, and I'm trying to understand the issues around this free trade agreement.

Mr. Barr, you seemed to be saying that this is not an agreement based on the merits of improvement in trade. It addresses a negligible amount of trade relative to what Canada conducts with some other countries and is therefore more of a political deal. Your view is that our recommendation should be based on whether we think a free trade agreement can improve the conditions we're concerned about. If so, we should approach it positively. But if it's a only gesture towards a country whose record does not merit our support, then we should recommend against it. That's generally what I heard.

You also seemed to suggest that increased trade would worsen the human rights situation. I think that's an important thing for us to understand. We've been advised by others that the scrutiny and transparency that a free trade agreement occasions would be a positive thing. For example, there would probably be a compliance review and reporting on human rights and environmental side agreements. Could you give me a bit more information about why you believe that trade will worsen the human rights situation, given that there will be more of a public stage on which this whole thing will be taking place?

Mr. Neve, you are claiming that the level of violence in human rights abuses, which is a tragedy we're all concerned about, hasn't improved over the last while. There's sort of a selection of statistics here that we're going to have to try to understand in our decision-making. You're suggesting a human resources impact assessment, with recommendations to be addressed. You also mentioned that negotiations must include a broad representation of society. In a way, you're asserting that your conditions for going ahead with an FTA would require the bar to be set higher for Colombia than we set it for our own country. We in Canada don't have broad representation from society in the way I am imagining you're calling for. I'd like you to answer why you believe we should require a different bar for Canada and our trade partners.

[Gerry Barr]

We'd agree with the position that Amnesty has just described. But there's nothing intrinsically negative about trade growth. It may well carry a lot of benefits for countries that are able to experience it. But there is also no empirical evidence for the notion that democracy and human rights get a boost because of a trade agreement. It is for that reason that there should be a human rights assessment. You have here a particularly conflictive set environment and one that carries a tremendously high price. Our position is that we need to test the intuitive argument that democracy and human rights are going to get a boost from this agreement, that it's generally good to engage. This needs to be tested very carefully in circumstances where civil conflict is on the marquee, is the leitmotif of the region with which we are hoping to have a deal.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Do you have a test to propose? Is there a specific test that you would be suggesting? Is it testable?

[Gerry Barr]

I think it is testable. Certainly, if we can rely on it as a reason for entering into an agreement, it had better be testable. We're using it as a reason for buttressing, getting alongside, and cross-branding with a government that has become known as the most egregious human rights violator in the region.

[Gauri Sreenivasan]

If I may have a quick follow-up, this is right, this point that when you stay at the level of principles--it will help trade, it won't help trade--you have to look at the specifics. What I was trying to suggest in my presentation was that when you look at the specific areas of commerce in the conflict economy of Colombia, there actually are significant reasons for concern. Economic growth in Colombia has been rooted in the fairly violent takeover of land and resources from people. These are well-documented scenarios wherein small campesinos, small artisanal miners, are literally forced from their land through threat, violence, and intimidation to make room for large-scale agricultural plantations, for example, or large-scale mining. So the basis on which commerce would grow in Colombia would be very difficult to disentangle from commerce not based on human rights violations, on minerals that have not come out of the ground based on the violent takeover of land and the death and killing of trade unionists who were trying to organize in that area. Mr. Neve just gave a specific example of workers in a mine area who received threats this week.

So we have the principle level. There's a concern that you can't accept that it would automatically be favourable. In fact, a more substantive concern is that in the conflict economy of Colombia, there is significant evidence, given the violent way commerce is undertaken, profit is extracted, and exports are generated, that Canadian investment in trade would be complicit in that violence. We have a huge obligation to do due diligence to ensure no harm. To accelerate industries that are based on the expropriation of land illegally, to accelerate mineral extraction that is based on intimidating artisanal miners, makes Canada complicit in the human rights problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sreenivasan.

I'm sorry, Mr. Neve, we're going to have to stick pretty close to the seven minutes, and we're just about at eight minutes, so I'm going to go to Monsieur Cardin.

We'll keep it to seven minutes for questions and answers, and then we'll move around.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Thank you for joining us.

We have been hearing different things since talk first began of negotiating a possible free trade agreement with Colombia. Clearly, exporters and importers have a valid interest in such an agreement.

Although there was talk regularly of human rights, I still had my doubts. Since the committee began hearing from government representatives or negotiators, the situation has improved. Since President Uribe's government assumed office in 2002, the situation has improved significantly. According to my figures, the number of homicides, massacres and kidnappings has decreased dramatically. Now you're telling us that this is not exactly true and that the situation hasn't changed. We are getting contradictory information.

How reliable is the information that is being conveyed to us? How can it be passed on to the negotiators and the officials concerned about improving the human rights situation? You maintain that one option would be to conduct a full review of the human rights situation. Who do you suggest should be conducting this review and who should be participating in this exercise? Canada could be involved before the ratification of the agreement. Could this be done reasonably soon? Do you intend to recommend something to this effect?

[Alex Neve]

Let me begin with the question about numbers and statistics, which I agree with you has.... And not just in the context of the hearings you're holding, but with respect to a whole variety of international-level discussions and debates about Colombia's human rights situation. There is this back and forth, this tussle about statistics.

What I would urge upon you is.... By any measure, the statistics do nonetheless point to a grim human rights reality in Colombia. Even if one measure has gotten a little bit better this year and gone down again the next year, if others are at a relatively stable level, and if others are still perhaps getting a bit worse, by any measure, whatever numbers you are using, the aggregate picture still points to a very grim human rights reality, even if certain issues are starting to see some progress.

I think that has to be what is of concern to you, that as an overall picture, this is still a human rights crisis by any measure, one of the worst in the world, one of the most entrenched in the world. And it is one where we simply are not seeing the sort of concerted, obvious action that is necessary to address the underlying systemic problems of those abuses. For instance, recommendations made by reputable UN human rights bodies going back many years remain unimplemented--recommendations that would really get at the heart of the paramilitary reality, for instance, which is such a major part of the human rights situation in the country.

You raised the question that if a human rights impact assessment did go ahead, could it or should it perhaps be Canada that does so. Amnesty would say it's Canada's responsibility. We would say that with respect to any proposed free trade deal, regardless of the severity or relative lack of severity of the human rights record of the country concerned, that should become an automatic part of the process at the outset before negotiations even begin to advance.

We have put this in front of the government, going back at least a year now, and have raised it in more general settings frequently when wider issues of free trade--not this particular deal--are being discussed. And we continue to lament the fact that there is no take-up of that, no willingness to move ahead with the idea of starting to institutionalize that and put it in place.

All sorts of very commendable models are being developed by institutions around the world as to what a good human rights impact assessment would be, whom it would be carried out by, how it would be done, how you ensure broad consultation, and what you would do with the results of the assessment, because it's one thing to do the assessment, but unless that feeds into and thus guides how the free trade deal develops, it's meaningless. So that's absolutely out there.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Is there anything further you would like to add?

[Gauri Sreenivasan]

I'm watching my time master.

Ultimately, you will be facing a big dilemma as a result of many contradictory statements. Committee members will need to know what interests stakeholders have. It is worth noting that the Colombian government has mounted a major campaign to improve its image on the international stage. According to a research paper prepared by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the Colombian government apparently paid millions to three US-based firms to lobby on its behalf. There is a great deal of information about how statistics are presented.

It is also important to consider what independent human rights organizations are saying, groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations. I am not saying that we must discount the information presented to us by government representatives, only that we need to ask ourselves where their interests lie.

I don't think it will be difficult to figure out how to conduct a human rights impact assessment. There are certain institutes in Canada that specialize in such matters. Amnesty International and Rights and Democracy are two such organizations. The latter is based in Montreal and has done several reviews of mining investments. The United Nations also has resources that it can assign to this task. It will take more than just a few days or weeks to do an assessment. The participation of Colombia's civil society will be crucial in order to hear the people's side of the story. Models for conducting assessments can be used for this purpose.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Am I already out of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're going to have to move on. We're simply eating into the time of successive speakers, so you'll have to talk to Mr. Julian about that.

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate your passion and the hard work you've done, not only in Canada but around the world, in helping people with different demands and world challenges. I'm sure you're appreciated.

Mr. Barr, we had a chance to meet in our office and have a good chat about different needs around the world...and our government's announcement today about a 28% increase in food aid, which is definitely needed as well for 800-million-plus people around the world who are going without a full meal. We're trying to do our part there. Canada, I think, is a good example today. We're all sitting around this table trying to make sure we're being recognized for doing our part. It's no different from going to Colombia. I appreciate you bringing these facts forward.

As my colleague, Mr. Cardin, alluded to, we've had a variety of witnesses come to the table just prior to your presence, including some folks strongly advocating for bilateral agreements, while the World Trade Organization's talks move along at a snail's pace. We need to, as a country, continue to move forward and work on trade agreements, while other countries have as well. That's why we're exploring this free trade agreement. Definitely, this is what we're doing, looking at the pros and cons and making sure it's free and fair trade, as we talked about before.

Whether it's violence against trade unionists or non-trade unionists--I'm not an advocate of violence against anybody. We want to make sure that we do find out--and I appreciate your comments--about the people who are there who have certain agendas behind their presence, and try to get at the real heart of the matter.

We had people appear at our committee who said the overall theme is that there's a 30% increase in the exports in the economy of Colombia, and we've seen a general decrease in violence by 40%. Murders are down by 50%. Kidnappings are down by 90%. Forty-five thousand paramilitaries and guerrillas have been demobilized. The fact is, it's not perfect in Colombia, but it's headed in the right direction.

We had one witness, Dean Beyea, who came to our last meeting, and he said:

Certainly they're not getting there overnight. There is considerable work to do. No one would argue that. But certainly it appears to be on the right path, and certainly the foreign direct investment into the Colombian market is indicative that they are on the right path. It's a good opportunity for Canada, and Canadian industry has an interest in investment in that country. It's not to say it's perfect, and there are certainly security concerns, but the proof is all positive.

So you say we need to progress before engaging in a free trade agreement, and I think we've seen some significant progress.

Again, Mr. Barr, you mentioned that you'd like to see empirical evidence of free trade. In Canada, as we've expanded as a country, we've seen growth and democracy and respect for human rights in our own country, and it's nothing more than...I'd like to be able to see other countries prosper.

So my question is, what would you like to see as far as further empirical evidence is concerned before a free trade agreement is signed with Colombia?

[Gerry Barr]

Well, Mr. Cannan, it's a mess. That's the problem with Colombia. One can say a lot about bilateralism versus multilateralism, about the value of trade agreements, about the enhancement of commercial connections. And all of those things are worth paying attention to, but Colombia is a long, long way from perfect. Colombia shows all sorts of signals, and recent ones--fresh signals, if I can put it that way--of systemic challenges on the human rights side. This system of paramilitaries is grievous and embedded. It has been there for a long time and looks likely to be there for a long time yet.

So one can say, certainly, as you have done, that there are some improvements in the ambient background of Colombia's circumstances. That may well be the case, and I wouldn't argue it. But what is there that makes a free trade deal with Colombia, uniquely, important now? As Joyce Murray was saying, this is a deal that inherently takes on trade, because it's a trade agreement, but it is not about trade; it's about buttressing a particular government in Latin America.

The question, I think, that has to be asked is why is it valuable to choose this government--for buttressing and support and as a partner for accompaniment now--as opposed to others in the region? That is the question we bring in light of the very challenging, conflictive environment we're faced with. Why do we get alongside this government in these circumstances, famously challenged and with a great deal of reputational burden associated with that relationship?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

My colleague Mr. Keddy has a supplemental.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You have one minute.

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

I'll clear my throat and have a drink of water, and my time will be up.