International Trade Committee on June 9th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Order. Welcome to all.

The subject of today's meeting is the study of the ongoing free trade negotiations between Canada and Colombia—for those of us who are still negotiating—with a focus on environmental impacts and human rights concerns.

Our witnesses today, from the Canadian Labour Congress, are Ken Georgetti and Sheila Katz; from Canada Pork International, Edouard Asnong, president, and Jacques Pomerleau, executive director; and, courtesy of Ms. Murray, environmental consultant Geoff Garver, to discuss the environmental aspects of the agreement.

We're going to begin, as usual, with opening remarks from each of the three delegations appearing today. We've asked them to limit their remarks to seven minutes. That way we have an opportunity to return to our usual order of questioning. All members should have an opportunity to ask a question.

I'm going to ask the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Ken Georgetti, to give opening remarks.

[Ken Georgetti, President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to your study on the environmental and human rights impacts of the proposed--now concluded, I guess--Colombia trade deal.

Our congress is the voice of 3.2 million working women and men across this country. The Colombia file has been our most long-standing one, because what's been happening in Colombia offends Canadians. It offends us because we care deeply about rights, about the rule of law, and about justice, fairness, human rights, and worker rights.

Our congress has written the Canadian government repeatedly over the past year urging the suspension of these negotiations with Colombia until a full assessment of the humanitarian and human and labour rights crises are fully evaluated. We were disappointed, therefore, to see Saturday's stealth announcement that Canada has chosen to ignore caution and proper concern before proceeding with this very controversial deal. We note with some pluck that it was announced on a Saturday, when basically no one is paying attention.

Colombia has had serious difficulties convincing the U.S. Congress that it deserves to have a trade deal with the United States. Because of that, to bolster their chances with Canada, one would think they would have been careful to show some political will towards solving the worst human rights and workers' rights abuses, which are endemic in that country. Instead of using their resources to tackle the real problems, the Uribe government has spent millions of dollars on public relations and lobbying campaigns in both of our countries to tell the world that the situation in Colombia is improving.

We would suggest that they are lying. Little has changed. Indeed, we fear that things are likely to get worse, because the mere fact of negotiating a trade deal becomes a validation of the Colombian government's actions and attitudes towards workers, and it will strengthen the expectation and the practice of impunity.

Furthermore, if this deal goes ahead, it will have a devastating impact on small and medium-sized businesses, which generate the highest number of jobs in that country. That, we suggest, would lead to more unemployment, poverty, and the root causes of this crisis.

The climate of terror among union activists restricts the workers' abilities to form trade unions, to negotiate salaries, and to improve the miserable working conditions that now exist. It provides corporations with a pool of very cheap, fearful labour, which in turn, I guess, will generate higher profits for someone. The Colombian government claims that the situation regarding the murder of trade unionists is improving, shown by the fact, they say, that only 39 trade unionists were murdered in 2007.

So the body count for 2007 is down to 39. Yes, I guess that's true. I don't know. But 97% of those who committed these murders in the past have not been charged, a conviction rate that provides absolutely no incentive or repercussions for actually taking someone's life. Indeed, while we're on the body count, please note that there have been 26 murdered trade unionists so far this year, 2008. That is an increase of 70% over the same period last year. So much for improvements in murder rates. We didn't know murders were tolerable, even at one.

This morning, from Geneva, we spoke with our own representatives and with Carlos Rodrigues, the president of CUT, Colombia's largest confederation, at the annual ILO conference there. Both reported that an important special session on Colombia was held last week to examine the full range of problems facing trade unions in Colombia. A case of labour rights violations in Colombia continues to be, probably, the ILO's most difficult and long-standing file. The government claims to be making progress, but the unions there claim that it's unacceptably insufficient to remedy the real, serious situation.

Before closing, though, I want to say a few words about the so-called labour side deal. Our government brags about the so-called improvements in the labour cooperation agreements they recently concluded with Colombia, because they convinced both parties to respect ILO core labour standards and because there are provisions for a party to pay a fine of up to $15 million a year for labour rights violations. In our view, this is just a little more than empty rhetoric to distract from the real issues. Canada and Colombia, as members of the International Labour Organization, are already obliged by law and by treaty to uphold and respect core labour standards, as stated in the preamble to the ILO constitution as well as in the 1998 declaration on fundamental rights and principles at work.

Without getting into it too much, I just want to ask, seriously, three questions. First, where is the public support in this country for this deal? I don't see it. I don't hear it in the streets. What's the rush?

Second, what's in it for Canadian workers or Canadians or Colombian workers?

Finally, how can Canada's government, re-elected on an anti-corruption and accountability agenda, stomach the current conditions in Colombia? If this government we're dealing with in Colombia doesn't respect human life, do you really expect them to respect trade agreements, simple words on paper? I don't see how that equates. Just asking these questions means this deal must be absolutely rejected and rethought.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Georgetti.

We'll proceed to Mr. Edouard Asnong of Canada Pork International.

[Edouard Asnong, President, Canada Pork International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable committee members, Canada Pork International is the export marketing development agency of the Canadian pork industry. It is a joint initiative of the Canadian Pork Council and of the Canadian Meat Council. Its membership includes the national and provincial associations of hog producers, as well as federal federally registered pork packing establishments and trading companies.

We are thankful for being given the opportunity to express our views on the current free trade agreement negotiations between Canada and Colombia.

Traditionally, Canada has been the largest pork supplier to the Caribbean, to Central America and to Colombia. Over the years, we were able to get Colombia to recognize our plant inspection and export certification procedures. In practice, all Canadian federally-registered establishments can export to Colombia.

Recently, our trade position has been seriously eroded by a series of free trade agreements concluded with the USA to the point that the Americans have now become the largest foreign pork suppliers in Central America and in Colombia.

In 2006, Canadian pork exports to Colombia reached a peak of 3,245 tonnes, worth $3.4 million. Although total Colombian pork imports are increasing, our exports to that country declined in 2007 to 2,520 tonnes, worth $3.0 million

Economic conditions in Colombia are improving quickly; so is the demand for pork products. Unfortunately, unless Canada enters into a free trade agreement with Colombia, our industry is very likely to be out of that market soon. Colombia's WTO tariff bindings on pork range from 70% to 108%. Colombia's applied tariff rates range from 20% to 30% on some products. The U.S.-Colombia FTA provides for tariff phase-outs on most key pork products within five years. This will provide a tremendous advantage to our U.S. competitors.

The Canadian pork industry has let it be known to the Canadian negotiators that we need an agreement that would be as close as possible to what the Americans got, in order to remain competitive in Colombia. As most of you are aware, our industry is currently in a difficult situation, and we cannot afford to lose any markets of significance, such as Colombia. Therefore, our industry is fully supportive of the current negotiations and strongly wishes that a favourable FTA could be successfully negotiated with Colombia in the very short term. It is our understanding that the committee is studying the current negotiations with a focus on how environmental impacts and human rights concerns are addressed in trade agreements.

We looked at the U.S.-Colombia FTA and we noticed that it includes a strong commitment towards internationally recognized labour rights and environmental protection. In our view, it should be easy to negotiate the same commitments in a Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Asnong.

Finally, we'll hear from Geoff Garver, who is an environmental consultant.

[Geoff Garver, Environmental Consultant, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, members of the committee and Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure and an honour to have the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

I'm here principally to make some brief remarks, focusing on my experience as a senior official at the NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation from 2000 to 2007. I'm less familiar with the particulars relating to the Colombia-Canada negotiations because there's just not that much information publicly available on those negotiations. I wish there were more.

The idea behind the NAFTA environmental side agreement, or any other side agreement, is that to have an even playing field for trade, you need to have an even environmental playing field, so that countries will not use weak environmental laws or weak enforcement to attract the economic benefits of trade. Without a level playing field, you have a race to the bottom.

The CEC, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, was a bold step back in the early 1990s. It was really the first time—at least in North America—that governments decided to open the trade and environmental arena to closer cooperation and expanded opportunities for public participation. The biggest innovation in that set of agreements was the supposed teeth of the environmental side agreement, a citizen submission complaint process and a government-to-government dispute resolution process.

I have submitted to the committee a detailed article that I have just had published in the The Environmental Forum in the United States, with my views on how those mechanisms are not working.

I want to tell you, though, a quick story that I think is symptomatic of what's happened in the NAFTA experience, and you should be aware of this as you consider additional trade agreements and additional environmental side agreements.

We had a case at the CEC filed by a man named Angel Lara García. He filed that complaint in 2003. He was the neighbour of a small shoe parts manufacturer, and all he knew—because he was illiterate, blind, and almost deaf—was that the smells from that factory were making him and his family sick. He got tired of the lack of action from Mexican authorities in controlling the problem, and he finally found out that he could come to this North American commission to try to get a review of the lack of enforcement.

We filed a submission in 2003, and we completed a final factual record, our detailed report of the investigation, last November. Normally the governments are supposed to allow publication—because the agreement calls for a vote to allow publication of those reports—within two months. It took until May 30, 2008. It took six months in this case, and when the CEC went to contact Mr. Lara García, they found that he had died in April while waiting for the final factual record. That's the story of what's happening at the CEC right now: delays, lack of serious attention to environmental issues, and, unfortunately, a lack of commitment on these very important issues.

Unfortunately, that's not an isolated case. The last four factual records, three of which happened within the last two years, have taken an average of six months to vote for publication. It's supposed to take two.

I have very serious concerns about the CEC, and I think it's very important that the committee take time to understand what's happening in this agreement, the oldest experiment in this environmental and trade arena, before going too far, too fast with other agreements.

Has the CEC been effective in protecting the environment? A review of the CEC's almost 15 years will show an enormous amount of information on the North American environment--and I would be happy to refer committee members to some of the CEC's significant reports--but measured against its potential, my view is that the CEC has fallen far short and that it is primarily the fault of the three governments who oversee it.

There's an inadequate budget, which has held steady at $9 million since 1995; there's been no increase, so it's obviously been a real decrease. There's been a lack of imagination and creativity for an agreement that allows cooperation on an unlimited number of North American environmental issues and at a time when those environmental challenges are increasing. There is nothing in the agreement or in the program at the CEC paying attention to North America's outsized ecological footprint. The most innovative aspects of the CEC, as I explained in my article that was made available to the committee, have been minimized or reduced to dead letters.

There have been some positive developments in the CEC. The CEC has helped Mexico eliminate the use of DDT on an accelerated basis, and it has produced a lot of interesting reports, which again I could refer you to. But there have also been problem spots. For example, the CEC did a report showing how trade corridors at the borders cause significant air pollution.

I want to emphasize how I think future side agreements could be improved. First of all, reaching out to the public and stakeholders and giving everybody room at the table is key. This is what was different about the NAFTA package, and this is what I'm afraid has been moved away from in recent free trade agreements involving the United States and Canada. The CEC has had limited success, even with its ambitious program.

The Joint Public Advisory Committee, which was created as a main body of the agreement, has not succeeded in reaching a significant portion of the North American public. The countries have done everything they can think of to weaken the public's citizen submission process. If the Proulx agreement is the model, which I assume it is, the weak commitment that the parties should not weaken environmental laws or enforcement to attract economic benefits of trade is a disappointment. There are no mechanisms in the environmental cooperation agreement for the Proulx agreement for an effective engagement of civil society.

Let's go back to my example of Mr. Lara García. At least at the CEC he could file a complaint and get an objective independent review. Under the Proulx agreement, he can only submit a question to a bureaucrat.

My recommendations for future trade agreements are as follows. They should set up independent commissions or mechanisms that can provide honest, objective information on the trade and environment link; we need honest brokers of information, not more political spin that is only focused on promoting trade. We need programs to monitor and address environmental impacts of trade, which need adequate funding and follow-through. A much stronger effort needs to be made to bring in the provinces, since they have shared jurisdiction on environmental matters and are primarily responsible for much of the resource development that is involved in trade. There need to be much more meaningful mechanisms to engage civil society to provide meaningful forums for discussion, debate, and involvement.

Finally, I urge you to make a more serious study of the NAFTA experience and open up the debate on what is working in the NAFTA experience and what needs improvement, both on environment and on labour.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Garver.

We'll begin our first round of questions with Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you very much.

I just want clarification on how many rounds we will have for questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think we're going to be fine today. We could probably go through with the first round of....

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

I just wanted to make sure my colleagues get an opportunity to ask questions as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think we'll have lots of time today, if we stick to seven minutes for questions and answers. Let's stick to the schedule, seven minutes for questions and answers.

Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

The comment was made earlier on in the remarks by the CLC with respect to the fact that an announcement was made to complete the negotiations for the free trade agreement with Colombia on a Saturday when nobody would notice. But people did notice. The issue was raised in the House again today. It's a serious concern.

This committee travelled to Colombia, as many of you know, to Bogota, and met with government representatives. We've been studying this particular free trade agreement with Colombia for quite some time now, for a few months, meeting with a whole range of witnesses and spending Canadian taxpayers' money on this, addressing the mandate we developed on human rights and the environment that was accepted by all committee members.

As ordinary taxpaying Canadians, what is your view of the fact that before the recommendations were completed by this committee, before the report was completed, the government completed negotiations? I want the CLC's thoughts on that, please.

[Ken Georgetti]

I guess it's a matter of respect for the process. I would expect this committee's report would be important and a guide to the negotiators and the representatives of the Canadian government. I would have hoped they would have taken into consideration the concerns that all the presenters made to the committee in the recommendations the committee made. It seems to not be the case. It seems to call into question once again Canadians' reliance on the government being willing to listen to their views before they make decisions.

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

In your opinion, why was the agreement rushed, in the sense of being signed so quickly, in light of the fact that we were looking at the agreement in committee? What's the rush? You asked this question in your opening remarks as well, so I'd like you to address it: why the rush, why now, why Colombia?

[Sheila Katz, National Representative for the Americas, International Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

We've been saying all along that these negotiations are more about political objectives in support of U.S. strategies than they are about Canadian affairs. Since Mr. Harper's visit to Colombia last summer, he's made every effort to try to convince the U.S. Congress to pass their agreement, which would have repercussions on Canadian producers.

We were trying to figure out exactly what the goals and objectives of this government are in pushing forward so quickly. We suspect it's to show the Democrats, for example, that Canada has the gumption to proceed, in order to encourage them to in turn pass their agreement in the United States.

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

The press release that was issued by the government about the negotiations clearly outlined some of the side agreements. You alluded in your remarks to those with respect to the environment and labour standards and ILO standards, noting that they're already part of the treaty we have signed. There was one on the environment also. I'd like you to speak to it as well.

Can you share your thoughts on the press release that was sent out by the government on the side agreements on labour and on the environment, please, Mr. Garver?

[Geoff Garver]

I'm afraid I haven't seen the press release on the environment. I assume it was based on the Peru environmental cooperation agreement, which I did look at.

My view in general is that this is a step back from the ambitious mechanisms that were included in the NAFTA package to promote public participation and to engage civil society in these issues.

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

The point is well made. My understanding is that it is a similar template to that for Peru, but I'll get you the press release, and hopefully you can provide us with written commentary on it. It would be greatly appreciated.

Again, to add to that question, can you comment on what provisions you would like to see in the agreement to address the issues of human rights and labour? If a free trade agreement were to be tailored to your concerns, what provisions would you like to see, especially in the side agreements?

[Ken Georgetti]

I'm not sure there's much they can put in that would satisfy. First of all, the way we read the labour rights side agreement, it seems that if someone is caught murdering a trade union activist, they get a fine of up to $15 million. That doesn't warm our hearts.

The basic thing we'd like to see is a commitment from any government we're going to deal with that they respect human rights and human life. If they can't make that commitment in a preamble to a trade agreement, I don't know why we would sign an agreement with them or with anyone who doesn't have that respect. This government doesn't seem to respect any dissension or tolerate any—

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

Sorry, just very quickly, if it were in the preamble, do you think it would be sufficient?

[Ken Georgetti]

No.

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

So what kind of language or what kinds of assurances would you need from the government to satisfy your concern, if there were a free trade agreement with Colombia?

[Ken Georgetti]

Given our experience and the feedback we've been getting from workers on the ground, I don't think you can make a deal with this government that would have any respect from us. We don't think this government has any respect for the rule of law in their own country, and as we keep stressing, if they don't have any respect for the rule of law in their own country, how can they have any respect for a trade agreement?

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

You mentioned that you feel the government hasn't shown any respect for the rule of law, so your argument would be that there need to be certain preconditions before we sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. What kinds of preconditions would you deem to be necessary or appropriate, given the environment in Colombia?

[Ken Georgetti]

I think it would be that we have a democratic government that respects the rights of its own citizens. Are we going to make a deal with Zimbabwe next? Who else are we going to make a trading agreement with?