International Trade Committee on June 4th, 2008

[Gilles-Philippe Pagé]

As I said, I think human rights defenders in Colombia believe it is a very dangerous business to take an unconditional approach to free trade with the country; that's obvious.

Now, organizations over there have tons of recommendations around different issues. All of them know very well what they're talking about, around the extrajudicial execution, for example. They have been talking about the necessity to go from the penal justice system to the ordinary justice system, the different cases of extrajudicial executions, because they believe there is not enough separation of power between the executive and the judiciary penal system for those cases to be investigated and judged without impunity. That's only one example.

I think one fundamental condition to making sure human rights are respected in Colombia is to make sure that human rights defenders are protected. To show that, well, the government would first have to stop making those signals, señalamientos, I was talking about, those accusations that expose the defenders to very important risks.

The second thing is to recognize publicly the legitimacy of the work of those human rights defenders. That's a very key issue in terms of protection, in terms of human rights, because without defenders we don't have a solid plan for improving the human rights situation over there.

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

Thank you.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague, so I'll be very quick with my next question: what's the rush? That's the question that many have asked. In the context of Canada trying to strategically pursue free trade agreements with, say, a united Europe--the EU, of course--China, or India, why Colombia? It's less than 1% of our trade. Can you speak to that?

Alexa Barrera or Mr. Torres, from your perspective, what's the rush? In the context of our trade, it's less than 1%. Why Colombia, why now, and why in the next few months?

[Vladimir Torres]

There are two ways to answer that. One is strictly speaking about trade. It's an opportunity. It's there. It's a very visible policy. It sends the right signal about our re-engagement with the Americas, and it opens the door to further negotiations with similar like-minded countries in the hemisphere. That is a justification, as I said, strictly from the trade point of view.

The second goes beyond that, and it is the need to show our commitment to our way of understanding the world. By this I mean being absolutely unapologetic about the support for democracy and for a democratic government that is facing several threats, not only domestically but also internationally.

It's a way of saying very clearly that we are committed to the hemisphere and that we are committed to the defence of democracy, human rights, economic prosperity, the possibility of enhancing that economic prosperity, and indeed security.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay. That was a one-minute question and answer.

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

Yes, that was pretty fast.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Do we have a second round?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We do if we get through the first round.

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

Joyce, you continue, absolutely. You can have my time.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Okay.

I have a question for both sides, the “anti” and the “pro”, in terms of the free trade agreement.

To the anti-agreement or conditional advocates, are the human rights abuses, per se, the reason why you would say not to go ahead, or is it the possibility or the claim that the government is either complicit in or covering up the human rights abuses?

In other words, if the government's involvement were not an issue, and if those human rights abuses were outside the government's control, and they were trying, would it still be a no? Is it the abuses, or is it the government's role in them that is the concern?

I would like an answer from both of you.

[Roger Falconer]

I can say, from the United Steelworkers point of view, that in a country where trade unionists are being murdered and people tend to know who's committing these atrocities, and nobody is held accountable for them, it clearly falls on the shoulders of the government to do something about it.

I don't think there's a simple answer. If we felt comfortable knowing that there was a system in place that protected trade unionists and that respected trade unionists--and not only trade unionists but other people in the country who are being killed because of their political beliefs--then we wouldn't have the same objection to the trade deal that's being talked about right now. We wouldn't have the same problem.

But the Government of Colombia is complicit in not doing something about those right-wing paramilitary groups that are out there. They're running with complete impunity from the government. They're not being held accountable for killing people, and it's totally unacceptable in a so-called democratic society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Cardin, you have five minutes, please.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A number of people have told us that the government is complicit, not only because it does nothing, but because some members of Parliament are corrupt and have links with the paramilitary. Against that background, it is naive to claim that a free trade agreement is going to help in the development of rights. Furthermore, 20 experts at the international conference called “Humaniser le commerce” assured us that no free trade agreement had yet succeeded in changing behaviour in a number of countries or in moving human rights forward.

If it is true that the government is complicit—and we have to think that it is—can we legitimately commit to a relationship like that and support it? Some companies, of course, already invest in Colombia on an individual basis. Mr. Cruess' company almost seems like a community association. To hear him talk, he is there just as much to look after the welfare of the people as to make money. But you still enjoy a degree of protection for your assets.

Should we put an end to the free trade negotiations with Colombia or should we sign an agreement? If we sign an agreement, should we sign unconditionally? What conditions would there be and what impact would they have? For example, companies want their investments in Colombia to be protected. That could be done with a kind of chapter 11, under which they would even have the right to sue the government if they did not make money as a result of its actions. Could the opposite be true? Could the government sue Canadian companies overseas, if, in whatever way, they did not uphold human rights or workers' rights?

Mr. Torres, Mr. Cruess, Mr. Falconer, M. Pagé, can we sign an unconditional free trade agreement with Colombia? If not, what conditions could we attach, and how would they be applied?

[Vladimir Torres]

There are several sides to your question, and I'll try to address them within the time constraints.

When we say that a trade agreement is strictly about trade, it will not do anything for the situation of human rights. But beyond the scope of a trade agreement there is much that can be done, and it is definitely a very clear political signal that the government is moving in the right direction. Much has been said about the paramilitaries and their proximity to the government.

What has the government of President Uribe done? It has for the first time begun to end impunity. These people are being tried. People who are uncomfortably close to him or people in his party, or who supported him and have links to the paramilitary, have been extradited to the U.S. Believe me, extraditing someone to the U.S. is not exactly like sending them on a holiday.

What has been done is a clear movement in the direction of transparency, the independence of the judiciary, and ending impunity. All these things are not directly linked to trade and will not be improved by a trade agreement. We never said that and do not claim that. But they are definitely a signal in the right direction.

I would like to repeat one thing we said before. We are unapologetic about the support for democracy, human rights, prosperity, and security in the context of democratic institutions. The Colombian democratic institutions are there and moving in the direction of improving.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Pagé.

[Gilles-Philippe Pagé]

Colombian activists often draw a comparison with impunity. When crimes go unpunished, it opens the door to them being committed again. With a free trade agreement, they see support for government policies, meaning that the door is open to the policies being repeated. In the case of Colombia, the criticism is that the policies that have been put in place have not succeeded in preventing people's basic rights from being violated. That is what concerns the activists. That is the message that they are sending to us. A free trade agreement provides legitimacy to the government, and when that door is opened, policies are repeated just as crimes are repeated when they go unpunished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have some questions for the four groups.

Starting with Mr. Pagé. You mentioned that the government had changed its approach and you said that there are is a contradiction. Physical protection and public denunciation are never far apart, but you did not give examples.

Could you give us two examples of situations where people supposedly under protection were subject to public denunciation of that kind?

Secondly, Mr. Falconer, we've heard from businesses that have raised serious concerns about a Canada-Colombia trade agreement--for instance, the sugar industry just a few days ago--and I'm wondering how the labour movement in Canada feels about this. Has there been discussion at the level of the Canadian Labour Congress around this agreement? I'd also like your reaction to the provisions of the agreement that essentially allow for a fine to be imposed if there are continued killings of labour activists or human rights activists; if you kill a labour activist, you pay a fine. How do you respond to that?

Thirdly, Mr. Torres, I'd like to know how much money the Canadian Foundation for the Americas gets from the Canadian government. Do you receive any money from para-public organizations as well? Do you get any money from the American government, or American foundations, and do you get money from the corporate sector?

And finally, Mr. Cruess, I have three quick questions. What countries has Enbridge walked away from on the sole basis of human rights violations? Secondly, you raised the issue around cooperatives--we've certainly heard a lot of testimony that cooperatives were used to undermine the labour movement--so I'd like to know what number of your workers are under a binding collective agreement in Colombia. And finally, you mentioned the unemployment rate. We heard testimony that the Colombian government simply with the stroke of a pen changed the definition of employment. If you work eight days a year, you're fully employed. I want to know your reaction to the Colombian government simply changing the statistics so they can appear a little bit better.

Mr. Pagé.

[Gilles-Philippe Pagé]

You are asking for examples of the denunciations, the señalamientos, that can affect the safety of the activists. Here is one example: a threatening e-mail was sent to several organizations in Colombia, social organizations, some of which we have been personally accompanying for a number of years. The e-mail, which arrived on March 11, 2008, threatened “death to the leaders of the march for peace, the guerrilleros, and their accomplices”. This March 11 e-mail was signed by the Black Eagles, who describe themselves as the new generation of paramilitary forces. According to the message, the threat was justified because the organizations helped to plan the demonstration that had taken place five days earlier, on March 6, in a number of regions in Colombia and around the world. The march was intended to pay tribute to victims of state and paramilitary crimes. The threats came against a background of señalamientos, public accusations. In the weeks before the march, a presidential advisor, José Obdulio Gaviria, had, on a number of occasions, accused those organizing the march of doing so in the name of the FARC, thereby associating the organizers with the rebel group and exposing them. In the weeks following the demonstration, several of the organizers were murdered in various parts of the country. Some of them were union leaders.

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

Merci.

Monsieur Falconer.

[Roger Falconer]

First of all, I think this committee knows the position of the Canadian Labour Congress when it comes to this trade deal. There's no difference between our position and their position.

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

Was it adopted unanimously?

[Roger Falconer]

Yes, by the CLC; as a matter of fact, we debated it last week at the CLC convention, which happens every three years. The resolution was passed in support of trying to lobby the Canadian government not to enter into this agreement for the reasons that we've enunciated.

With regard to killing someone and being fined for it, it's a simple question of how much a human life is worth. Is it worth a $10,000 fine, or a $100,000 fine, or a $1 million fine? I don't think we can put a price on human life, and as such, I think that the standards, the norm...to answer one of the previous questions, in a roundabout way, is you asked what kind of provisions would we put in a trade deal. Quite simply, the international human rights norms and being accredited by a legitimate human rights agency that is respected and renowned throughout the world would be a good first step. If they were allowed to go and do a proper audit in Colombia and make a full report, and if the Colombian government measured up, then maybe it would be time to continue the negotiations.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Allison.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

I'd like to thank our guests for being here.

It's too bad you guys don't care as much about crime in this country as you do in other countries.

At any rate, I digress--