International Trade Committee on June 4th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We'll come to order for the 33rd meeting this session of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Before we begin with our witnesses, I'll beg your indulgence for a moment. We have a small piece of committee business to deal with. We have quorum and there is a motion.

Mr. Keddy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I won't take too long to discuss this, because we do have witnesses waiting.

Certainly, to our opposition members, it's imperative that we get the EFTA legislation through the House before the House rises. I've discussed this with most of the members, but not all of them. It's certainly a priority for our government.

There are a couple of salient points I want to make. The committee has already issued our report on EFTA. That's the first point. Two, second reading debates gave every member who wanted to speak an opportunity to speak. Three, there's no room for amendments because the treaty has been signed.

We do need your support on this and we would like to move forward on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

[An hon. member]

Call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Those in favour....?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Can I speak to it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair and colleagues.

I see that Mr. Keddy has put forth a motion. He has explained why and the intention behind it, but I would like to bring it to his attention that I've received numerous requests from various stakeholders who want to take this opportunity to speak, during this bill coming before the committee...and the enabling legislation. They do want to speak to it and comment on it. I think that some of these witnesses who didn't have an opportunity to speak before, want to come before the committee and do so.

In light of that, I want to bring it to the committee's attention, with the full intention of trying to honour the timeline. We'll do our best, but I can't make any assurances. I mean, if we need additional meetings, so be it, but that can be discussed.

I don't want to take up too much time, but I do have reservations and concerns about this particular deadline. Requests have been made to me by various MPs and stakeholders who have people who want to speak to this particular enabling legislation that has been put forward to the committee and on which we're going to go clause-by-clause.

In that context, in light of the time.... I mean, if we want to have a debate on this, we can, and I can explain why further. With respect to the witnesses, we can defer this discussion until after the meeting and spend an extra 15 minutes, because we have the votes.

So whatever you guys see fit, I'm more than willing to cooperate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Keddy.

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

Perhaps I'll make a final comment on that.

If the official opposition wants to hold the legislation up, then we'll sit here until we get it through. But I think the issue here is quite simple. This is a signed agreement that the committee has supported up to this point. If we do not take the regulatory process into consideration and get this passed in a timely fashion, then the agreement will not come into force on January 1, as it should. It takes some time to put the regulatory process in place.

So it is important. We've discussed that. We do have witnesses here, and I appreciate that fact, but I'm not hearing the answer I'd like to hear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Again, that's what I wanted to speak to at length, this regulatory timeline that you speak to. My understanding is that the legislation doesn't come into effect until 2009, end of January, so I don't see why a June 11 deadline is so important to meet, especially when the actual legislation doesn't come into effect until 2009. That's my issue.

Aside from the witnesses coming before us to speak on this as well, I do want to get a better understanding of this timeline that you allude to. The fact that we've spoken to this bill, that we've debated it in a timely fashion and we've cooperated in the House with the government on this, should be a sign of good faith. In that context, I have no intention of being difficult, but I do want to be able to represent the concerns raised by stakeholders and some of my colleagues and I want to make sure that those are reflected in the debate that takes place on second reading.

Again, I don't want to prolong this debate, in light of the witnesses, and hence my recommendation that we deal with committee business after we hear the witnesses today.

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

And I agree. Perhaps as a final word on that, since you did ask the question on the regulatory regime, it takes Finance three months to adjust the tariff schedules. It's as simple as that. So that's September, October, November; now you're in December...you're into the first of January. It doesn't give us any lead time, it doesn't give us any wiggle room whatsoever.

It is important that we get this done or it will wait until six months after January 1, which is not acceptable for our country in any free trade negotiations, and that's already been approved by this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I am cognizant of our witnesses, and they have been waiting for over half an hour.

Mr. Julian has raised his hand. Do you want to comment now? Otherwise, we can bring this up again at 5:30.

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

If we are moving to the witnesses and discussing the committee business afterwards, then I will put my name back on the list at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Let's do it that way. Thanks, Mr. Julian.

If you wouldn't mind, Mr. Keddy, we'll just defer your discussion of this until we've heard from the witnesses, and then pick it up again at 5:20.

We will proceed with our witnesses for today.

Today we have, from Peace Brigades International, Gilles-Philippe Pagé, the Colombia Project; from the Canadian Foundation for the Americas, Alexa Barrera and Vladimir Torres, who will speak to the committee; from the United Steelworkers, Roger Falconer, department leader, organizing and strategic campaigns department; and from Enbridge Inc. in Calgary, Leigh Cruess, senior vice-president international, and D'Arcy Levesque, vice-president, public and government affairs.

Welcome to you all. I think you're all familiar with the process. We'll get opening comments from you. Since there are four of you and we're starting 40 minutes late, I'm going to ask you to keep it as tight as possible, and then we'll move directly to questions. We'll try to get through a round of questions in the traditional manner, but we'll have to judge when we've heard from you just how much time we'll have for the committee to ask questions.

First we'll have Gilles-Philippe Pagé from Peace Brigades International.

[Gilles-Philippe Pagé, Colombia Project, Peace Brigades International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to inform you that, in my presentation, I will, for convenience, refer to Peace Brigades International as PBI.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting PBI to present to you today. PBI is an organization that works to protect human rights defenders who are threatened because of their political work on human rights and unpunished crime in the armed conflict in Colombia. We provide physical accompaniment backed by political work, both in Colombia and internationally, to show responsible Colombian authorities that the international community is concerned about the protection of human rights defenders, and to encourage them to take the actions needed to ensure the protection of those activists.

PBI has had a permanent presence in Colombia for 14 years. It provides protective accompaniment directly to 14 organizations and three communities of internally displaced people. PBI does not take a position on the free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada. However, several of the organizations that we accompany have strong opinions and significant concerns about it. We believe that, as international observers, we have a responsibility to come to testify before you today to present our observations and experiences in Colombia.

My name is Gilles-Philippe Pagé, I am a Canadian from the province of Quebec. In April, I returned from spending 18 months providing international accompaniment with PBI in various regions of Colombia.

I would like to begin my presentation by putting into perspective the perception that security and the protection of human rights are getting better in Colombia.

Among the human rights defenders that we accompany in Colombia are men and women who have been working on the issue of extrajudicial, or summary, executions of civilians attributed to the national armed forces. By this, I am referring to military forces, and, in some cases, police forces.

In May 2007, the Colombia-Europe-United States Coordination Group, a coalition of more than 100 organizations, released a report that documented about 955 cases of summary executions of civilians attributed to the country's armed forces. The documented cases occurred between August 2002 and June 2006. This period corresponds to the first term of the Uribe government and the implementation of its national security policy.

The report documents a consistent execution pattern. When soldiers arrive in a community, they accuse civilians of supporting and being part of rebel movements, the guerrilla. Civilians then disappear, and the military simulates a combat action against the guerrilla. The civilians are executed and shown off as members of the guerrilla killed during the action. This method of execution has been documented over and over again, a total of 955 times. It is important to note that the method gives the impression that the number of civilians killed or executed as the result of the conflict is going down. But, in fact, the number is simply added to the number of real guerrillas killed in combat. It is important to understand this.

Of the 955 cases documented in the report, 74 cases, with a total of 110 victims, took place in a region where I worked for almost a year in 2007, called Oriente Antioqueño. This is where I was working to accompany, among others, lawyers documenting cases of human rights abuses, who went into the area to gather statements from the victims' families and to offer legal assistance.

In the months I spent in those communities, I was able to observe the fear that the communities must deal with because of the threats and intimidation designed to prevent people from speaking out. This leads Colombian organizations to state that the number of 955 executions is probably an underestimation. The real figure is likely much higher.

Another way of giving the false impression that human rights are improving in Colombia is the use of alternative means of repression that are less visible. With the organizations that we accompany, we were able, in recent years, to observe an increase in the number of charges of rebelión against human rights defenders. A person supporting, aiding, or sympathizing with the guerrilla is charged with rebelión. These charges have significant consequences for human rights defenders.

These charges have significant consequences for human rights defenders. Although these means of repression are less visible, they are just as effective in paralyzing human rights work and in closing down the political space necessary for human rights defenders to play their important opposition role in a democratic society.

I would also like to tell you about protection. This is a major concern for PBI in Colombia. When referring to protection, human rights defenders distinguish between physical protection and political protection. They also tell us about a double standard, two ways used by the Colombian government to protect them. On the one hand, the government operates programs with physical methods of protection such as surveillance cameras at the entrance to offices, armoured cars and so on. On the other hand, these same government representatives, both civilian and military, use what are called señalamientos in Spanish. These are public statements accusing human rights defenders of supporting the guerrilla. This has been condemned by international human rights organizations, by the United Nations and by the Organization of American States. It exposes the human rights defenders to significant danger in the Colombian conflict. They have to confront illegally armed combatants who are conducting an irregular war against anyone suspected of having links to the guerrilla or of supporting it in any way. The charges are made by government representatives and put the human rights defenders at grave risk. This leads to their belief that the government has no real desire to protect them. I could give examples, but I do not think that I will go into details.

I could talk about what is called parapolitics. You have heard it mentioned a lot in recent weeks. It is a central theme in Colombian politics; as a result, human rights defenders claim that the Colombian government does not have the legitimacy it requires. I could describe for you violations of human rights for economic reasons. We accompany communities who are resisting forcible displacement for economic reasons in the Uraba region of northern Colombia. I will not go into details.

I would like to conclude by telling you about some conversations that I had with human rights defenders whom you probably know, people who have visited Canada in recent months. Liliana Uribe, for example, is a lawyer and human rights activist, working from the city of Medellin. Among other things, she works on extrajudicial, or summary, executions. Because of her work, she is under significant threat. Liliana was very surprised and concerned by the contradiction she sees between the importance that Canada places on values like democracy, human rights and freedom and our interest in supporting the Uribe government by negotiating a free trade agreement.

I could also mention my discussions with Ivan Cepeda, the spokesperson for the National Movement for the Victims of State Crimes, and one of the most threatened activists in Columbia. We have been accompanying him for a number of years. Mr. Cepeda has often told me that, when the Canadian government shows its support of the Colombian government, it is like recognizing the legitimacy of the government and its policies. The policies have failed to protect human rights in Colombia and continue to fail to do so.

These are the comments that I wanted to make to the committee in order to give you an idea of what Colombian human rights defenders think of the situation. I will yield the floor to the other witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Monsieur Pagé, for staying within that time, although I must give my congratulations to the translator. It was a remarkable speed you were travelling at. Thank you for that.

Next is Vladimir Torres, project manager of trade and development with the Canadian Foundation for the Americas.

Mr. Torres.

[Vladimir Torres, Project Manager, Trade and Development, Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

We are aware that many witnesses have been before this committee previous to us, so chances are you've already heard some of the things we're going to say today. However, we believe it's worth reiterating some of the arguments around this issue.

FOCAL has a rather unique take on discussions such as this one, and for three main reasons. First and foremost, we do have a certain expertise in trade and development--and the linkages between those two things--through the research we carry out in-house and the research we outsource to many different sources in Canada and throughout the Americas.

The second thing that gives us some kind of expertise and justifies our presence here is our definite, profound, intimate, in-depth knowledge of the region. Our subject matter is the Americas. We work intensely throughout the region, the hemisphere. Colombia is one of the countries where we focus a lot of our attention.

The third reason our presence today is somehow justified is that FOCAL plays the role of a forum, a convenor of all the different positions, all the different takes that surround a particular issue, including one that has proven to be so divisive as this one. A good example of this last role is that we very recently had a visit with the vice-president of Colombia, Francisco Santos. We had the opportunity of having an event to which we invited all the different sectors that have opinions or are stakeholders in the negotiations of a free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada.

Let me begin by saying something rather obvious: a trade agreement is a trade agreement, period. It is not a panacea that is going to solve, once and for all, all the maladies and problems of the country. It is not the solution for the development problems of the country, for the human rights problems of the country, or for everything that goes wrong in a country. In consequence, a trade agreement can be blamed only for the failures that are attributable to a trade agreement and can be praised only for the benefits that derive strictly from a trade agreement.

I'm going to digress for a second. It's all about lowering barriers to trade. This was relatively easy to do when it was only a matter of tariffs. But that part of the road has been trod already, through multilateral agreements and the WTO. Now we move into an era where trade agreements are more complex, and this has two clear implications. First, it's more difficult to showcase the direct links between the trade agreement itself and the direct, positive impacts it can generate. Second, due to that increased complexity they are a more difficult sell. There are expectations that are not going to be met on the one hand, and there are critiques that have little or nothing to do with trade itself that are set against the potential agreements.

Having said that, one thing a trade agreement can do is open opportunities for many other complementary policies and beneficial impacts within a country--in this case, our developing partner, Colombia--when we take the opportunity of a trade agreement to enable the possibility of these other things happening.

Much has been said about trade agreements tending to lower things to the lowest common denominator. One could argue that's quite the opposite. Through a trade agreement, and in this case through the side agreements in labour and the environment, one can say that certain industries and companies would be there with or without a trade agreement, ones that it would be very difficult to hold accountable for their practices in a different country. Now, in the case of Colombia, we will be in possession of the legal tools to hold them accountable to corporate social responsibility practices, to environmental good practices, to labour good practices. And this, quite to the contrary of lowering things to the lowest common denominator, raises the standard. It's an opportunity that is not...you can't say it's only due to the trade agreement; the trade agreement presents us the opportunity to do that, just as it presents opportunities for improving many other areas that have to do with the rule of law in general, with cutting red tape in some of the bureaucratic processes, with competitiveness and capacity-building--many things that directly benefit our partner country in this case, but that we have to say do not happen automatically.They're not an automatic consequence of a trade agreement. They have to be achieved.

The trade agreement, I repeat, presents us with the unique opportunity to help them achieve these other things—complementary policies that are necessary to do this, many of which Canada has a great deal of expertise in. If we are going to really commit to doing this and really commit to a strategy of the Americas, we can and should contribute with the development and implementation of all these hosts of complementary policies.

In the specific case of Colombia, yes, there have been decades of conflict and there have been atrocities committed by all actors involved in the conflict, but the real victims—the Colombian people caught in the middle, in the crossfire of this thing, those who have been displaced—are the ones who are most likely to benefit once all the right sets of policies are in place, not thanks to the trade agreement but through the opportunities that arise from the trade agreement. When all those things are put in place, these are the people who will benefit the most, particularly when all the steps in the right direction have already been taken by the current Colombian authorities. We can go into what I mean by taking the right steps in the right direction and what the specific policies of the Uribe government are that allow us to make this statement.

The other thing, and this is critical, is that we're talking about some of the most resilient democratic institutions in the whole of South America, so resilient, so based on sound foundations, that these institutions have resisted five decades of conflict. That today is a conflict far removed form any political or ideological confrontation, such as it could have been subject to once upon a time. It's a matter of the institutions of a legitimate government of a legitimate state confronting the threat of armed, organized crime, terrorists, and drug trafficking—the lot.

Last but not least, then, we believe that Canada has the obligation to support the democratic government, and the trade reasons are valid in and of themselves, but our concern for the well-being of Colombians and for human rights in Colombia is definitely the most powerful argument for why we should indeed go ahead with this trade agreement.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Torres.

We'll move on to Roger Falconer of the United Steel Workers. Roger is the department leader in the organizing and strategic campaigns department of the United Steelworkers.

Mr. Falconer.

[Roger Falconer, Department Leader, Organizing and Strategic Campaigns Department, United Steelworkers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for this opportunity to appear before you.

The Steelworkers Union is an international union with members both in the United States and Canada. We have about 800,000 members in North America and over 200,000 of them are in Canada. Our union has members in every sector of the Canadian economy. We are grateful for this opportunity to make submissions on the ongoing negotiations aimed at establishing a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

In 1985 our union started the Steelworkers Humanity Fund. This fund is largely financed through members' dues and it has developed into one of the largest leading NGOs in Canada, with projects devoted to Africa and Latin America. We are intimately familiar with the struggles of workers in the Americas and we are committed to ensuring that the benefits of trade are distributed to all workers in the hemisphere.

Our union is also the leading union in the mining sector in Canada. As such, we have a particular interest in the hemispheric trade agreements with countries such as Colombia that are focused on the resource extraction sector. Our union has been involved in the struggles of the Colombian labour movement for many years. Our union is actively involved in the international campaign to bring an end to the ongoing labour and human rights abuses in Colombia.

We believe entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia raises important issues for Canada. Colombia has the worst human rights and trade union record of any country in the hemisphere. Colombia continues to attract global attention for its appalling record regarding the frequent murder of trade unionists.

The question for Canada is whether entering into a trade agreement with Colombia will contribute to the advancement of democracy, political stability, human rights, and labour rights in Colombia and in the Americas generally. We believe it would be a mistake for the Canadian government to enter into a free trade agreement with Colombia at this time. The signing of such an agreement would provide legitimacy to the Colombian government, a government that has been condemned all around the world.

We also submit that the Canadian government would be sending the wrong message to Canadian corporations who have an interest in investing in Colombia. Investing in Colombia can and does lead to complicity in grave and violent human rights abuses. We think it is important to note some of the worst labour rights violations that routinely occur in Colombia.

Since 1986, over 2,500 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia. During President Uribe's first term in office, over 400 unionists were assassinated. Thirty-eight trade unionists were assassinated in Colombia last year between January 1 and December 1, and in the first four months of this year, 22 trade unionists have been murdered. Seven of them were leaders of their own unions.

These assassinations are carried out by paramilitary forces that obtain logistical support and even troops from Colombia's regular armed forces.

Of equal concern is the fact that those who commit crimes against trade unionists are hardly ever brought to justice. The rate of impunity for these murders remains at over 97%. Also, the International Labour Organization has repeatedly criticized Colombia's failure to adopt laws consistent with ILO core labour standards, which are considered the minimum labour standards for countries.

Progress on labour law reform has been slow, and trade union density is in sharp decline in Colombia. Our union gained firsthand knowledge of these human rights violations in Colombia when we sent our first delegation there in March 2001. Our delegation heard testimony from scores of workers who had suffered all types of abuses from attempting to engage in lawful union activity, including threats of violence, death, forced exile, kidnapping, and torture.

Since that 2001 visit, our union has continued to send delegations to Colombia on a regular basis. Sadly, the horrifying stories we heard back then have been repeated over and over through to the present time. Our union has also taken some other action to eliminate the human rights problems in Colombia.

Drummond Limited is a U.S.-based mining company that operates a large unionized coal mine in La Loma, Colombia. On March 12, 2001, the union president and the vice-president were taken off a Drummond company bus and murdered by a paramilitary group in front of their co-workers. In September 2001, Gustavo Soler agreed to become the new union president. On October 5 he was taken off the bus by the paramilitaries and murdered. On behalf of the families of the murdered Colombian coal miners and their union, the Steelworkers, along with the International Labor Rights Fund, filed a civil case in U.S. court, alleging that Drummond was responsible for the killings of the top union leaders at its La Loma mines. The lawsuit continues today and is presently before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S.

The experience at Drummond mining is only one example of the violence suffered by Colombian trade unions over the last decades. By pursuing this legal action against Drummond, our union has made it a priority to ensure that companies such as Drummond are held accountable for their actions.

Why should there be free trade with Colombia? Colombia is not a significant trading partner for Canada. Less than 1% of Canadian exports are directed to Colombia; 80% of existing Colombian trade imports into Canada are duty-free. To our knowledge there is no great need to remove trade barriers between Canada and Colombia.

We believe the pursuit of the trade agreement is part of a broader trade agenda in the hemisphere. Colombia has also been pursuing a similar agreement with the U.S. We note in the U.S. that the so-called fast-track authorization for the Colombia trade agreement has been denied. Many leading members of the Democratic Party oppose any deal with Colombia.

The question for Canada, then, is why an agreement with Colombia should be pursued at this time. We understand that Canadian corporate interests may have an interest in investing in Colombia, but Canadian investment in Colombia comes with great risks. Colombia’s decades-long internal conflict is not yet resolved. Colombian exploration or development of natural resources inevitably means doing business with paramilitaries, in effect organized crime syndicates. Paramilitaries, and by extension those who do business with them, glean profits from the horrendous crimes they have committed. We submit that the Canadian government must carefully consider whether this free trade agreement is consistent with Canada’s international human rights commitments.

We understand that the proposed trade agreement will also include a so-called side deal that will seek to address labour rights issues. In our experience the hemispheric trade agreements signed by the Canadian government have not generally provided any substantial mechanism to ensure that labour rights are protected. The labour side agreements to NAFTA, the Canada-Costa Rica free trade agreement and the Canada-Chile free trade agreement, have not in our experience provided any enforceable legal mechanisms to pursue labour rights violations. There is no basis to conclude that the insertion of a labour provision into the proposed trade agreement between Canada and Colombia will have any positive effect on the labour rights climate in Colombia.

In summary, the violent repression of trade unions and workers continues. United Steelworkers urges the Government of Canada to suspend negotiations with the current Government of Colombia until such time as a respected international human rights institution has conducted a full human rights audit and can certify that the human rights climate in Colombia is within accepted international norms and requirements.

The ILO condemns the continuing murder of trade unionists. Amnesty International and other important human rights organizations continue to cite the persistent human rights violations in the country. Until these issues are addressed, we submit that Canada should not conclude an agreement with the current Colombian administration.

United Steelworkers also submits that the Government of Canada must engage in meaningful consultations on this issue with trade unions, civil society groups, and the public at large. If negotiations of a Canada-Colombia agreement are to continue, there must be transparency with respect to the negotiation of the agreement. It is unconscionable that these agreements are negotiated in secret, without any significant public consultation.

Canada does not have an enviable record with respect to transparency when it comes to the negotiation of trade agreements. The negotiation and ratification of the agreement must be as open and democratic as possible. Therefore, if a trade agreement is concluded with Colombia, it must be subject to ratification by the House of Commons and the Senate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Falconer.

We'll now hear from Enbridge Inc. I understand that Leigh Cruess, the senior vice-president, international, will speak on behalf of Enbridge.

Mr. Cruess.

[Leigh Cruess, Senior Vice-President, International, Enbridge Inc.]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and committee members. Enbridge welcomes the opportunity to be in front of you this afternoon on this subject.

I'd like to begin my presentation with a brief overview of our company before turning to a specific discussion about environmental impacts and human rights concerns in connection with a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

Enbridge is a Canadian company based in Calgary and is a leader in energy transportation and distribution in North America and internationally. We transport the natural gas and crude oil used to heat homes, power transportation systems, and provide fuel and feedstock for industries. As a transporter of energy, Enbridge operates, in both Canada and the U.S., the world's longest crude oil and liquids transportation system. As a distributor of energy, Enbridge owns and operates Canada's largest natural gas distribution company, providing distribution services in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and New York State. We employ approximately 5,600 people, primarily in Canada. We have employees as well in the U.S. and South America.

We pride ourselves on being a socially responsible company. For us that means doing things right and doing the right thing. All our business decisions and actions have to be considered in light of their short-, medium-, and long-term economic, environmental, and social impacts. This includes decisions we make as to the countries in which we invest. Our decisions are governed by our desire to, first of all, conduct our business in a socially responsible and ethical manner; second, protect the environment and the safety of people; third, provide economic and other benefits to the communities where we operate; fourth, support universal human rights; and fifth, engage, learn from, respect, and support the communities and culture in which we work.

We have walked away from several countries because we did not believe we could live up to our commitments. On the other hand, we've done business in Colombia for about 15 years because it is able to meet these criteria. On the surface that may seem like a surprising statement, but let me elaborate.

We have been doing business in Colombia since 1994, when we made our first investment in Oleoducto Central SA, or Ocensa. That was our first investment outside North America, I might add. We own 24.7% of Ocensa, a consortium that built Colombia’s largest oil pipeline system at an investment of more than U.S. $2.3 billion. The pipeline runs from the Cusiana and Cupiagua oilfields in the central interior of Colombia to the Port of Coveñas on the Caribbean coast. Enbridge provides technical and management services to this pipeline, which has a capacity of 550,000 barrels per day. The other members of the Ocensa consortium, the other owners, are Ecopetrol, the largest company in Colombia and the state-owned oil company of Colombia, BP, and Total.

We knew going into the country that there were considerable risks associated with our investment, given that Colombia is a country with a past history of civil war and ongoing conflicts involving guerrilla and paramilitary groups. We also believed those risks were manageable. Why? First, despite the civil strife, Colombia is a long-established democracy. It has a relatively stable economy, well-developed trade relations with countries around the world, and a population that is predominantly optimistic and engaged in productive activities. The oil business can be, and is, carried on successfully and safely in Colombia.

We are pleased to have had Enbridge and Ocensa representatives participate in the industry round table that members of this committee met with on your visit to Colombia last month. We hope your firsthand experience in the country helps you as you deliberate the proposed free trade agreement between our two countries.

Let me just share briefly our experience there.

In the 15 years that we've been active in Colombia, we have transferred technology, skills, and technical know-how, as well as environmental, health, and safety standards. We are proud of our record in the country in which, along with our partners in Ocensa, we have helped to create economic, social, and environmental value by creating awareness, understanding, and respect for human rights; making corporate social responsibility a priority; and engaging all levels of stakeholders, including local communities, governments, landowners, NGOs, contractors, employees, and others.

Our policy of community relations expresses our commitment in three dimensions: first, to strictly comply with the law and all government regulations; second, to carefully manage our operations to minimize any possible adverse impacts to the public, to our employees, to our contractors, or to the environment; and third, to contribute to improving the socio-economic conditions and political stability in regions where our company is active.

The implementation of this policy requires the dedication of financial, human, and technical resources, as well as a high degree of coordination among municipal and departmental governments, institutions of national law and order, and international non-governmental institutions. The output of this work is called our social investment plan. The social investment plan is designed to empower communities as managers responsible for their own destiny and to generate new opportunities for growth and sustainability through better living conditions.

The program has four main thrusts.

The first thrust is the reduction of poverty through the construction of new homes and the making of improvements to existing homes, the training parents about proper nutrition, and strengthening the nuclear family through customized training programs to teach parents how to protect and care for their children.

The second is institutional strengthening through community courses and workshops designed to increase good governance skills in both elected officials and the citizens they represent.

The third is helpful communication, through the provision of FM radio shows and a monthly newsletter to remote regions along the pipeline's right-of-way—remember that pipelines traverse huge spans of geography—promoting respect for people and cultural diversity; knowledge about basic human rights and obligations; and news and interviews to increase the sense of community among isolated towns and villages

The fourth and last is increasing skills and self-reliance through our agreements and support of the Juntas de Acción Comunal, which are community cooperatives. These self-governed organizations supply manpower for both community projects and civil works in our right-of-way, and are funded by Ocensa. They provide an opportunity for members of the junta to learn about safety on the job, how to manage projects, how to interpret engineering drawings, and many other skills designed to increase their employability. Each year, between 200 and 400 people are employed on our right-of-way through the cooperatives.

Ocensa currently invests 2.2% of its ordinary operating costs in the communities—and that's assuming that we would deduct extraordinary costs associated with security and helicopters, which would not be necessary if the system were operated in Canada.

Let me reference two of the programs that we have supported, just as examples. First, Ocensa's reforestation program is part of its commitment to the environment. Ocensa has an ongoing program to plant trees along the pipeline's right-of-way. To date, about 1,970 hectares of trees have been planted. In sensitive shoreline areas, 122 hectares of red mangrove trees, a rare and endangered species, have been planted with the assistance of local communities. Ocensa has also purchased 167 hectares of high mountain forest, and plans to buy an additional 50 hectares. Ocensa took this action as part of an agreement with Colombia’s environment minister.

In the area of human rights, Ocensa was one of the first companies in Colombia to publicly declare its philosophy and commitment to the respect of human rights in all company activities—and this was in 2002. The human rights policy emphasizes respect for human dignity and no discrimination; support for the rule of law and of public institutions; a rejection of all forms of violence and of any kind of relationship with illegal armed groups; protection of the civil character of all personnel and assets granted by international human rights laws; promotion of security practices that favour and uphold the exercise of all human rights; and the promotion of a culture of respect for human rights among employees and contractors.

Ocensa follows the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights and the UN’s Global Compact—as does Enbridge, I might add. Ocensa adopted a detailed human rights policy and code of conduct in 2004, an action-oriented program that includes: mandatory attendance for all employees in basic human rights training and workshops, held four times a year every year; the use of human rights clauses in all contracts, demanding from contractors concrete assurance practices, with compliance being reviewed directly as well as through independent auditors; and the promotion of specific assurance practices for security contractors that guide their conduct and behaviour in any situation where human rights could possibly be violated.

In 2007 Ocensa led an industry and government project that resulted in the publication of the first-ever handbook of Guidelines on Human Rights for Private Security Companies.

It also provides funds for third-party training by accredited academic institutions for public enforcement personnel on the subject of human rights.

Now, the Ocensa pipeline traverses an extensive part of Colombia’s geography and includes some zones of conflict. Those zones are patrolled regularly by the Colombian army to protect people, infrastructure, and resources. In 2006, 1,400 soldiers, airmen, and marines from 17 military bases stationed near Ocensa's pipeline participated in Ocensa's human rights awareness training programs. Since the implementation of these programs, more than 4,000 military personnel have received extensive training designed to achieve a strict application of international humanitarian law and respectful conduct towards the people in communities close to our facilities.

Last, there is an anonymous, confidential reporting system in place to receive and investigate any allegations related to the human rights policy. Ocensa has also appointed a human rights coordinator, who tracks and audits the company’s human rights practices and monitors employee and contractor compliance with the human rights policy.

Despite our best efforts, but also, more importantly, those of the Colombian people and their democratically elected government, we are all too aware of the ongoing human rights issues in Colombia today. What we are encouraged by, though, is the positive trend we have seen recently. Some indicators of this include the fact although there were 2,882 cases of kidnapping registered in the country in 2002, by 2007 there were 486 cases.

Terrorist actions have declined from 1,645 in 2002 to 387 in 2007. Homicide rates have declined from the 28,837 registered in 2002 to the 17,198 by the end of 2007. In terms of forced displacements, 392,431 persons were classified as forcibly displaced in 2002. By 2007 that number was reduced to 220,439. The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights has recognized the increment of public efforts to alleviate this problem for which the illegal armed groups are being held responsible.

Unions have a strong protection under the law in Colombia, although the illegal armed groups have seriously affected the exercise of the right of association. The government’s advance against those groups has achieved a reduction from 192 union members killed in 2002 to 26 in 2007. The UNHCHR has shown confidence in the Colombian government’s efforts to prevent the killing of union workers through activities such as the improvement of the protection capabilities of persons in danger or under menace. In 2006 the general prosecutor's office created a special unit to investigate this specific type of crime. The unemployment rate has declined from 15.1% in 2002 to 11.1% in 2007.

We know things aren't perfect in Colombia. In fact, they are far from it. We do believe, however, that more engagement and investment in the country by us, by other Canadian companies, and increasing engagement between our two societies and governments can help continue to advance a number of these indicators. The problems in Colombia are not caused by trade and investment, but they may be partially addressed by increased trade and investment.

We believe we've made a positive difference in Colombia. We see the growth of new forests along our pipeline right-of-way. Even more telling, we see the growth of new ideas through our education and awareness programs on human rights and social and environmental issues with our employees and their families, as well as our contractors and the groups we interact with on a daily basis. Because we have a long-term commitment to the country, we will continue with those programs regardless of the outcome of these discussions.

In summary, it's our firm belief that we have contributed positively. We believe Canada stands to benefit from access to new and growing markets, such as the one in Colombia. We believe a greater presence of Canadian companies operating in Colombia will be of benefit to the people of Colombia and of Canada. This is a country that is making improvements, has a wealth of highly skilled and committed workers, proven respect for commercial agreements, and a long-term history of democracy. In short, we believe Colombia is a worthy partner for a free trade agreement with Canada.

We thank the members of the committee for allowing us the opportunity to make our presentation. We'll be glad to take any questions at the appropriate time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Cruess.

We're going to have to move right to questions. I'm going to ask for the cooperation of the committee again, because of our late start; we'll have to limit it to five minutes per question and answer.

We'll start with Mr. Bains, who will ask his question and have it answered within five minutes. We can move on from there.

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Our committee has really been looking at two key aspects of how to deal with this free trade agreement. One is the issue of engagement: do we use this free trade agreement as a means to engage with them, to help address not only issues of economic prosperity for both countries but obviously human rights issues? The other view is that there have to be preconditions. That has been expressed very clearly. Some of you have been very forthcoming about your views on that.

I wanted to get your view on that, Gilles Pagé from Peace Brigades International. You've seen firsthand on the ground the situation in parts where we, unfortunately, were not allowed to travel because of security issues. You've been in the rural parts.

Can you speak to those two schools of thought? Which one, in your opinion, would be applicable in our pursuit of a free trade agreement with Colombia?