Evidence of meeting #34 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was colombia.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC
How do they compare with the agreement with the Americans?
4:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Pork International
Colombian pork producers were strongly opposed to making any concessions at all to Canada. That was the climate in which the negotiations were held. We did not get what the Americans got, but our industry can live with it.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Georgetti and Ms. Katz, I'd like to come back to the issue of the labour cooperation agreement. The actual press release from the government this weekend says:
If obligations are not respected, the offending country may have to pay up to $15 million in any one year into a cooperation fund.
So there's actually a cap, sort of a prepayment on murder, of $15 million.
How many trade unionists have been killed in Colombia?
4:10 p.m.
National Representative for the Americas, International Department, Canadian Labour Congress
It's 2,665 since 1986; 26 since the beginning of 2008.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
So that amounts to about $5,900 for each labour activist who has been killed.
4:10 p.m.
National Representative for the Americas, International Department, Canadian Labour Congress
That's if it were to be applied retroactively, but it will not be retroactive. It will only be from the time of the signing of the agreement.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is horrific, that the Conservatives would put such a low value on human life, that for $5,000 you can somehow pay off deaths that occur, the ongoing slaughter of labour activists.
Do you feel that this is appropriate, that you can prepay $15 million and then basically kill whatever labour activists you want?
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
It's rhetoric, and it doesn't add to the dimensions. Surely our government can bargain better deals than that for us. If they can't, we can come to the table and show them how.
We do know how to negotiate agreements with employers and governments that respect what we need to have. Obviously we didn't put those conditions in this, at least in the side agreement, in terms of the press release we've seen. It seems much more of a gimmick than anything, because $15 million to an economy of this size is not a very significant fine to change behaviour.
Fines are meant to change behaviour, and they have to be significant enough to force that behavioural change, but $15 million to this country or Colombia is not much money in the scheme of things.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, and you don't have to pay a penny more. It's a prepayment.
4:15 p.m.
National Representative for the Americas, International Department, Canadian Labour Congress
Furthermore, they would pay it to themselves. It would basically be an internal transfer on the Colombian books. They would pay the fine into a fund that would then be co-managed by themselves and the Canadian government to carry out cooperative activities--workshops, seminars, and studies--that would work toward improving the situation.
I would remind you that the Colombian trade unionist who spoke to you last Monday was begging for prevention rather than remedy after the fact. Let's save lives instead of paying fines for them after they're murdered.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Just so I understand this, the Colombian government would pay $15 million to itself and wouldn't have to take any action to control the armed paramilitaries that are closely linked to the government. They could essentially get away with murder on a prepayment plan.
I want to come back to the fact that the number of trade unionists being killed has gone up. There are increasing problems with people being forced off the land--often working with companies that have been cited. There are allegations that companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Chiquita, and others have been directly connected to collusion with the military.
On the idea that this government is trying to push through this agreement, does it essentially reward bad behaviour?
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
The agreement is about giving large Canadian-based transnationals the ability to do business in Colombia. It paves the way for them to do that. They're going into a regime where, if anyone seems to get in the way, they physically mow them down. They call them guerillas and attach names to them. But they're going to use the Colombian authority to push any dissent out of the way, whether it's environmental or labour dissension, so Canadian businesses can maximize their profits in a jurisdiction that doesn't respect rules.
As my colleague said, our concern about all these trading agreements on the environmental and labour side is that they'll go to competitive bidding, and the bidding is always downward, not upward.
I notice when it comes to executive salaries and other things, they always bid their salaries up, not down. But when it comes to the salaries of workers or the environment, Canadian corporations or multinationals will go to the jurisdiction that will give them the best deal. On the environment and labour, the best deal is down, not up. That's what's going to happen in Colombia. The workers in Colombia will get less, and as a result of them getting less, the workers in Canada will lose their jobs, just like those 2,500 GM workers just lost their jobs because GM will be able to source their factories not only in Mexico, Vietnam, and China, but in Colombian now too.
That's why our members don't trust these trade agreements. As a result of them, we're going to work harder for less money and be less well-off. That's not what Canada should get out of trading arrangements with other countries.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The business community is divided on this issue, but the labour movement has considered this, and the CLC had a motion on this. My understanding is it passed unanimously.
4:15 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Yes, it passed at our convention two weeks ago, where 2,000 delegates sat there for a week discussing issues like this.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Why is this government pushing ahead with this deal recklessly, despite the human cost?
For Mr. Garver, given the problems with a much tougher deal under NAFTA, and given the fact that there's absolutely no obligation to meet any environmental standards whatsoever in the text of the agreement--if so, I think the Conservatives would have tried to champion it--do you put thumbs down on this deal?
4:20 p.m.
Environmental Consultant, As an Individual
What this trust relationship says, now that I've had a chance to look at it, is that there are mechanisms to make sure that countries enforce their environmental laws and have high levels of environmental protection. But the fact is, those mechanisms are much weaker than what's in the NAFTA deal, and those are already pretty weak.
What can you do if you're concerned about your country or another country not enforcing its environmental laws? At the CEC you can file a complaint and get an independent, objective report, a detailed factual investigation. What can you get under the Peru model, which I assume is the same as the one here? You can file a question with a bureaucrat, with the national coordinator. There is no independent review and no rigorous analysis. I've seen those kinds of answers. I'm sure you all have too. They're not very rigorous.
At the national level, what can you do? Under NAFTA, if Canada thinks Mexico is getting a trade advantage by having a pattern of not enforcing its laws, it can have a binding arbitration process initiated and monitor enforcement sanctions. What can happen under these agreements? You can have consultations, and everybody's supposed to get along.
Compare that to what an investor can do under these agreements. An investor, under NAFTA and under these agreements, can file a complaint against the Canadian government. If a Colombian investor comes and makes an investment in Canada, and they think they've been treated unfairly, they can sue the Canadian government for multi-million-dollar damages. Those have been awarded, by the way; Canadian taxpayers have paid those damages. They get to choose one of the judges in that case and they get to have a full evidentiary hearing. It makes this independent citizen submission process, which is already better than what you have approved, look pretty weak.
It's just not balanced, in my view.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you, Mr. Julian. That's eight and a half minutes.
Mr. Keddy.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, witnesses. You can see by the rhetoric of our opposition members that there's still a little bit of debate to have here.
There are a couple of key questions here.
Mr. Georgetti, with respect to what you've said about this agreement, is there a free trade agreement anywhere that your organization supports?
4:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
No, and they're not trade agreements. Just as my friend Geoff illustrated, they're investment agreements. Investors have all sorts of rights to sue.
There was the example of MMT. We banned MMT in gasoline in Canada. Investors sued and won, I think, $100 million from the Canadian government.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you for that. That really wasn't my question.
4:20 p.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Well, your question was about a trade agreement, and none of them yet have been good trade agreements for us.
4:20 p.m.
A voice
You asked the question, Gerald.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I did, and I got my answer, and I am happy with that because that was the answer I fully expected to get.
I appreciate, Mr. Georgetti, your honesty on that.
This is a complicated issue. We have the State of Colombia, which by anybody's standards 10 years ago was a failed state: they had rampant violence; they had a huge civil war; they had serious environmental concerns; they had serious labour abuses; and corruption was almost endemic. When you look at where they are today, quite frankly, whether anyone likes it or not, they have moved light years from where they were. It's not any one political party in this. It's organizations like the World Bank saying that the State of Colombia has moved in the right direction, that they are a reformed society.
Is it acceptable in any way, shape, or form to have 27 or 37--or whatever the number is--assassinated union leaders? Absolutely not. Of course, it's not acceptable. But is that far preferable to the 600 who were killed in 2002? It's outrageous what was going on compared to the direction this country has moved in.
I want to comment about the pork producers, because what we see is that free trade with binding agreements does bring about institutional change. It does allow jobs and opportunity in countries where jobs and opportunity are desperately needed. And the country that signs that first agreement has the best opportunity to trade with that nation on a consistent, equal partnership basis. Right now, although it may not be important to every member at this table, we do have a crisis in the pork industry and we do need every market we can get.
What do you see for your industry in pork alone? I'm not talking about any other part of the agriculture sector, because this is a good agreement on agriculture. But in the pork sector, what opportunities do you see there?