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.