International Trade Committee on April 22nd, 2010

[Carol Nelder-Corvari]

Yes, that's right. In that case, we look at Canadian traditional exports to Colombia, we look at growth, and we say that at a minimum--

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Let me follow up.

The explanation that I got down there was that the crops that went to zero were by and large crops that would be competing against Chile, the United States, and the EU. The crops on which they maintained a high tariff were crops from what we would call almost subsistence farmers, people with one or two acres. In that way the trade agreement did not disadvantage the poor farmers, but at the same time it would help to lower food costs for the broader consuming public, particularly the poor. Bakeries all across the country, of course, would watch their flour costs go down.

Would what I'm saying here be consistent with what you gathered in your more technical language, in terms of what the Colombians were doing and what their reasoning was to protect their poor while at the same time lowering food costs for their overall population?

[Carol Nelder-Corvari]

There is always preferential treatment given in any trade negotiations we have with a developing country, so we would be looking for them to phase out tariffs over a longer period of time than Canada would. Our tariffs were phased out either immediately or over three to seven years, whereas Colombia would phase theirs out over a five- to ten-year period. Those concerns are always balanced in arriving at the principles of the negotiations at the outset.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Monsieur Guimond.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day to the witnesses.

My question is for Mrs. Bugailiskis. On page one of your statement, you note that conditions have greatly improved. You refer to the country's performance in important areas such as the general security situation and violence toward unionists and community leaders.

I've been listening to you say for a while now that there is not a lot of data available and that this data is also somewhat unreliable. Yet, you do make a number of statements, one of which is that conditions have vastly improved.

How can you really say that conditions in Colombia have improved if you consider the data that you have to be somewhat unreliable?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

Thank you for your question. Let me clarify something for you.

What I want to be careful about is comparing my data with other data. I'm very certain and confident in my data because I know where I've collected it and I know it comes from reputable sources, from UN organizations and from our embassy. What I'm very careful about is when I start to compare other people's data, sources of which I'm not aware of. That's what I'm just making clear.

I'm very confident the Colombian government takes very good data, but we don't just rely on Colombian sources. We rely very much on international organizations like the UN and as well through NGOs and through our embassy, so I have utmost confidence. I don't want to get into actual percentages and points, but I can tell you that overall, the trend line is very positive. And as I've said, there are occasional fluctuations, there are incidences that happen, which we follow up immediately, but the overall trend line—and the UN organizations will support us in that view—is very positive.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Despite the fact that conditions are improving, it is also fair to say that there are still a number of problems.

My NDP colleague often talks about the fact that he receives many e-mails from NGOs that are quite worried about the free trade agreement. I also receive many such e-mails. I have a stack of mail in my office sent by certain NGOs that are very concerned about conditions in Colombia. Most of these NGOs point out that in 2008, the committee unanimously recommended that an independent review of human rights in Colombia be conducted.

Why the reluctance to hold this independent review that would give parliamentarians an opportunity to make an enlightened assessment, based on concrete, independent findings, of conditions in Colombia?

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

Do you not think that the UN is an independent body?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

A impact assessment study has already been prepared and witnesses seated at this very table have recommended a number of models to us. Several consultants or interested parties could report back on the tangible impacts. You can rest assured that I am not calling the United Nations into question.

Let me clarify my question. What would you say if a group of independent experts were to conduct an impact assessment study of the proposed free trade legislation currently under review by the committee? The impact of every single component of the agreement could be measured. Why the reluctance to go ahead with an assessment of this nature?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think that question is asking for an opinion that it's not up to the department to provide. You were asking for policy, for political opinions. That's not something you want to ask of the department officials. You could ask that of the minister, I'm sure.

I'm not going to ask you to respond to that question.

That does wrap up your time, Mr. Guimond.

We're going to close with Mr. Holder, for five minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our guests for coming today. It's nice to have you back to give us updates on what is going on in our relationship, our negotiations with Colombia. And I'm really delighted it's back here in committee so that it can be dealt with appropriately and we go forward.

Mr. Plunkett, you made some reference in your testimony that we had great news. You indicated that just a couple of weeks ago—not even, on April 9—Colombia had reopened its market to Canadian cattle. You acknowledge the work of ministers Van Loan and Ritz in doing this, and we appreciate that thoughtful comment.

Members around this table will understand the importance of exporting cattle around the world, and now that this has reopened, do you have any sense of what the potential is for that, and the timing, what it's going to take to truly get our exports going to Colombia? What would that process be? They obviously can't turn it over on short notice, but can you give us some sense of that, please?

[David Plunkett]

The best I can do with what I have available is that the Canadian Beef Export Federation estimates that the Colombian market could be worth around $6 million, so they will be pleased to see this market opening. Now, this is an estimate, obviously.

The other important thing is that, as you know, we have had challenges globally in trying to deal with this BSE issue and trying to get our markets open. Each time we get a positive result by way of a country opening its market again, we can use that in lobbying other markets to indicate that Canadian products are safe and that country X should be opening its market as Colombia has.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I'd like to quote Colombian Foreign Affairs Minister Jaime Bermúdez Merizalde, who said last year that “every inch that we open up to legitimate trade, for legitimate investment, for legitimate tourism, etc., is an inch that we Colombia take away from narco-trafficking and terrorist activities, which is a key issue for Colombia, for the region and for the entire continent”.

We have these discussions, sir, about human rights, and there isn't anyone around this table who doesn't care about that as a significant issue. Why do you believe that strengthening the economy of Colombia through free trade will improve human rights?

[David Plunkett]

I would share the view that Alex has put forward a couple of times before the committee, which is that economic growth through liberalized rules-based trade and investment can contribute to alleviating poverty and create new wealth and employment opportunities for, in this case, Colombian citizens. We think that is a valuable tool, both from an economic perspective and in terms of governance and the broader issues that Alex has referred to before.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I'd like to add to that, if I can. Last year we heard testimony from Professor Daniel Mejia. He's a respected professor and researcher from the faculty of economics at Los Andes University in Bogotá. He talked about increased protection of unionists, among other things. He provided some very good statistics-based measures from 2002 to 2009 about dramatic decreases in killings, dramatic decreases in kidnappings, and dramatic decreases in serious violence. I would like to give the government of President Uribe credit for that.

Here's my practical question. President Uribe's term is coming to a close, and he is not seeking re-election. What is the sense of U.S. trade officials in terms of the ability of this agreement to carry on legitimately and to do what it was intended to do? This may well be opinion. Would a change of government impact those strong intentions? As we go forward with this free trade deal and put it into play, obviously political considerations in Colombia would be of some concern to us.

[Alexandra Bugailiskis]

Perhaps I can respond to that, sir.

President Uribe has a very high degree of popularity. Now, that's the individual, but even more important has been the policy. The Colombian people have made great strides in the recent past, as Mr. Trost said earlier. To be able to walk freely and to drive outside the capital into the countryside are huge improvements. They do not want to lose those, and within the election period you see in all parties a bipartisan agreement to continue along with that policy. Moving forward, there would be a high degree of agreement to respect and build upon that legacy.

Ultimately it really is with the people of Colombia, and I think that in the coming election their voices will show that they want to continue with this very positive change.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Have I one last question, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You have a short one.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Plunkett, you mentioned that total trade between both countries in 2009 was in excess of $1 billion, specifically $1.3 billion. What is rather interesting is that from 2005 to 2009, Canada's exports grew. There have been some fluctuations, but exports to Colombia have grown by about 35%, and that can only be good for Canadian farmers and businesses.

What I see in terms of agricultural products is the removal of a 16.6% average tariff on beef, pork, wheat, barley, and pulses. That's partly what Mr. Trost has talked about, and I would think that provinces all across the country have the farmers who are impacted by that. On industrial goods an average reduction of 12% will affect mining, newspapers, machinery, and equipment. That is all good news for Canadian exports.

Although we have increased our exports to Colombia in the last five years by some 35%, have you done any projections as to growth in Canadian exports to Colombia once we have completed the free trade deal? I will acknowledge that some of those tariffs are gradual, although many of them are immediately eliminated.

[Carol Nelder-Corvari]

Just on that, I don't have any projections. There has been steady growth, as you're saying, in our exports to Colombia. We know that if the Colombian economy is going to continue to grow at the pace it has been growing over the last several years, pre-recession, then they will have to make major investments in infrastructure. This is part of what's of major interest to Canadian companies, and to the Colombian government as well. They'll be looking for competitive services and goods to help build that infrastructure, which is vital to their prosperity.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

And you think we might have some procurement opportunities, which is always good.

[Carol Nelder-Corvari]

Absolutely. That's part of this agreement.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Thanks to our witnesses. We kept you a little longer than usual. I appreciate your responses and the excellent briefing that you provided at the outset.

With that, I'm going to have to move on to committee business.

I'll say adieu. Thank you for coming.

[Proceedings continue in camera]