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.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Pork International
Are you talking about Colombia?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Pork International
We expect that we could at least double our sales within the next two to three years. There's also the fact that it will be buying more and more higher-value products. So we will be exporting. Instead of a commodity trade, it would be more of a value added than for jobs that are here in Canada.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that I take exception to the comment that somehow $15 million is the fine for somebody murdering a union leader. That is not at all what that $15 million is there for. The $15 million in the labour agreement is a fine for someone who breaks the rules. It's not a fine for someone.... There is no value to a human life. To mislead that is absolutely unacceptable at this committee.
The way the agreement is supposed to work is that the $15 million, or $5 million, or $2,000, or whatever the fine ends up being, goes into a capacity-building fund, to actually do a better job at settling labour disputes, and to educate Colombians, when and if and where they need to be educated, in trade agreements and trade regulations.
There are other things in that trade agreement that I didn't hear anybody talk about. We're talking about Central and South America and third world countries here. And there are many applications--you can't have child labour; you're allowed to have a unionized workforce. No one is saying Colombia is perfect, but I'm hearing that Colombia is far, far from that. It's an exaggeration.
We were down there. We have 1,000 Canadian companies working in Colombia. The first to benefit from this trade deal will be manufacturing. The next group to benefit will be the Colombians, not Canadians; it will be Colombians who benefit. This is an opportunity to continue with a state that is headed in the right direction and to pull them out of that quagmire of civil war and retribution that they're in.
I really take some serious exceptions to see it as anything else. We've seen it time and time again. When you bring in free trade, you build an economy. You supply people with jobs. You give them hope and opportunity. You build respect for human rights, democratic institutions, and the rule of law.
I've heard several speeches from the other side, and I think it's time we evened out the speech-making, quite frankly.
I think the intent here is to strengthen human rights, the rule of law, the respect for democracy, and respect for the judicial process. There's no other intent that I'm aware of.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you. That's a good finish. Well done.
We're going to move on, and we're going to hear from Ms. Murray.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you.
I have three questions for Mr. Garver.
Thank you for your presentation.
I was reading the press release. In there the government claims that this agreement will ensure that progress on environmental protection goes hand in hand with economic progress. I'm going to take that as a statement of principle the government has with respect to this Colombia free trade agreement, that we actually make more progress on environmental protection.
We heard from you, very clearly, that the NAFTA mechanisms are not working very well, and that there has been a reduction in government commitment, funding, timeliness, and public involvement under the NAFTA agreement. We also heard that the Peru situation has even less effectiveness, with no independent mechanism whatsoever. Clearly it's an unlevel playing field.
I would like you to tell me a bit about the environment assessment process. We know that Canadian investors are involved in mines and pipelines, which can be great from the perspective of jobs. But having been an environment minister, I know that if you don't have a very effective EA process to make sure you understand and mitigate environmental impacts, those very activities can be quite damaging.
That's my first question. Tell us a bit about the EA process under NAFTA and how you think it might be improved or worsened under something parallel to the Peru FTA.
4:30 p.m.
Environmental Consultant, As an Individual
I agree that environmental impact assessments, which have become more and more a hallmark of environmental laws in many countries of the world in the last 30 years, are extremely important. They are important for informing decision-makers early on as to what the environmental stakes are, leading towards the most environmentally sound decisions.
The way these agreements work out is that each country commits to having high levels of protection and to doing these kinds of assessments. Again, my concern is that these provisions are only as sound as the mechanisms that are in place to enforce them.
If there are problems with how something like an environmental assessment process is working in Colombia, for example, that they're really not doing a good job, I just don't find the kinds of provisions I'm seeing in these more recent agreements would really ensure that they are going to be enforceable.
We know you can put those kinds of provisions in there, meaningful provisions that are going to provide meaningful remedies, because we see that with the investor dispute resolution process. It is possible to put in more meaningful, independent....
It's really a question of accountability. How accountable are these countries going to be to their environmental assessment processes?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Thank you.
I have a second question.
If we appear to be eroding our protection of the environment--between NAFTA, the agreement with Peru, and potentially this one--could you comment on whether you think environmental challenges collectively are diminishing from where we perceived them to be when NAFTA was signed? Could you also comment on the cumulative environmental impacts of expanding free trade without doing something different from what we're doing in the Peru agreement to protect the environment?
June 9th, 2008 / 4:30 p.m.
Environmental Consultant, As an Individual
My view on that is that as a global community, and this includes the North American community, we have fallen far short of what's needed to look at environmental impacts in the aggregate.
I mentioned this made-in-Canada tool--ecological footprinting--that's grown up in the last 10 years. This is trying to look at the number of resources that our finite earth gives us to produce what we need to produce and to absorb the waste that we put back into the environment.
We all know that's finite, but what we may not have known is that we crossed a threshold about 20 years ago, based on the best science in terms of ecological footprint and in terms of the overall burden that our economy puts onto the environment. I'm disappointed that the opportunities for more globalized and more liberalized trade are not being used to take a closer look at these aggregate impacts and ecological footprints.
We in the wealthy north have huge environmental and ecological footprints. There should be more, I think, in these agreements that pushes towards that kind of honest, rigorous science.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Pomerleau.
What is the total value of Canada's pork exports to all countries?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Pork International
Annually, Canadian exports total about a million tonnes, valued at about $2.8 billion.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Pork International
We export 3 thousand tonnes, valued at approximately $3 million.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Pork International
Yes, but our industry has also developed because of small markets. With 60 or so small markets like that, it adds up to a considerable amount. Canada exports to more than 130 countries.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Now that I have those figures, I have another question. As you say, having a lot of small clients adds up. I know, I was once an accountant. But it does let us look at things differently when we are looking to come to terms with one potential client.
Do you put the political and social contexts and labour rights into the mix? On the one hand, there is a particular context, on the other there are annual sales of $3 million. Are you prepared to delve into a context that not everyone agrees with and where certain social questions arise? Is that a factor for you, or do you just want to increase your bottom line?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Canada Pork International
It is a factor to a certain extent. We are people, after all. But we are not aware of all the problems when we are negotiating with a particular country. We rely on Canadian negotiators to come to a balanced agreement that the country will be satisfied with.
4:35 p.m.
President, Canada Pork International
I understand and I am very sensitive to all those things. You cannot but be sensitive. But if we only wanted to sign free trade agreements with countries that we approved of 100%, we would never sign any. Where is the proper balance? In business, where is the line? It is not easy to draw.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
That is why I asked how significant $3 million out of $2.8 billion are for your industry. In a situation like that, you can afford to consider other factors.
4:35 p.m.
President, Canada Pork International
If you draw a line and decide not to negotiate with Colombia, is it still acceptable to do business with the United States, who have signed an agreement?