International Trade Committee on April 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sure you'll have an opportunity.

That does complete Monsieur Laforest's time, but before we end our discussion there, I wonder whether Mr. Navarro or Ms. Lee would like to comment on Monsieur Laforest's point, which I think was very valid.

[Dr. Walter Navarro]

In fact, the majority of unions in Colombia are against the FTA for the reasons the minister has mentioned. In the past, unfortunately, the majority of unions created were basically in the public sector. The central union that was created last year increased the number of unions in Colombia. It's not very well known here, but it is called the “new unionism” central office. Due to the work of this gentleman, who is also in favour of the FTA, we have managed to grow a bit. The creation of that central union is very recent, but it will be important in the future, I'm sure.

What has been stated ideologically is that the unions in the public sector are unions that are affiliated with a political trend, which is the democratic sphere. They are not in favour of an FTA, so they go with their political party. But that's a position that is more ideological or partisan. Their ideology doesn't go beyond the fact that the party says no, and then they say no too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Yes, I think we get that. There can be ideological differences affecting people's judgment on whatever the matter is. I appreciate that. It happens in all countries.

We're going to move on.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think you should be attacking your Conservative colleagues for the ideological stand they've taken.

I want to correct the record, because Mr. Navarro actually did speak to us on December 3. Page 4 of the transcript states that, “...among all the groups that support the free trade agreement. It's approximately 10% of the unionism in Colombia.” That's on the record of December 3. I won't have time to come back to the issue, but that is the figure cited at that time.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming forward today. I hope you are aware that these hearings have ignited interest across the country. We've had more letters by people requesting to come before this committee than I've seen in the six years I've been here. I think Mr. Cannis will agree with me on that. He's the other senior member on this committee. So we've had widespread interest, with a great number of human rights organizations, labour organizations, and environmental organizations requesting to come before this committee. I'm sure all members will take their responsibilities seriously to have full and comprehensive hearings.

I want to go first to the issue of human rights reports, because it's very relevant, given the scope of the amendment that was put forward by Mr. Brison. We've had other human rights reports over the last few months, and we've had comments from Mr. Uribe and Mr. Santos about them.

I'd like to cite the following, which the BBC also reported, that when the U.S. Department of State published a report last month, not only did Mr. Uribe denounce the report, but he also said the following: “...those entrenched interests that in serving human rights just end up promoting the policies desired by those in collusion with terrorism.” So he denounced the U.S. Department of State report by saying that those working for human rights were promoting the policies desired by those colluding with terrorism.

Mr. Santos, in responding to the same report, said similar things. He said it was based on false information, was manipulated, hypocritical, and exposed the U.S.'s double standards on human rights.

We had a previous report last fall, when another NGO reported on human rights concerns. Mr. Uribe said at the time that the group presenting that report was “always trying to disorientate the country...with reports that do not correspond to the truth.” We also have Mr. Santos saying that Colombia's human rights NGOs were in league with the guerillas.

Systematically and regularly, both Mr. Uribe and Mr. Santos have denounced human rights defenders.

So my question is the following: do you repudiate those comments, those attacks on human rights defenders?

Secondly, how can it be credible that the Colombian government reports on itself when the human rights defenders and advocates who come forward, including the U.S. Department of State, are denounced for having published information about Colombia showing the extent of the human rights violations occurring there?

[Luis-Guillermo Plata]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I don't know the report you're mentioning. I'm sure it's there. I'm sure it's a credible report. Nonetheless, what we're doing here is creating a tool and making sure that tool is linked to the agreement, which is an enforceable tool, which is binding to what we're doing, and in the end, we're opening this up to public scrutiny. We're opening up the discussion to the public to make sure that the comments and the questions on the trade agreement with Canada and the human rights situation, as it says in what we've been drafting....

Keep in mind that it says to assess the impact on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement on human rights in both Colombia and Canada. We want to see how this agreement is helping or hindering human rights developments in Colombia. I'm pretty confident that it will help out, that this agreement will allow for the creation of jobs and opportunities. I'm pretty confident that as we evaluate and assess the impact of the agreement, we'll see that what is actually in place will have a positive effect for both Colombians and Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

But here you have Mr. Uribe and Mr. Santos attacking human rights defenders very virulently, saying they're colluding with terrorism and with the guerrillas, and then we have an amendment that says the Colombia government can report on itself. You can understand the concern that arises, then, among human rights defenders and labour advocates when they see the human rights violations. They're concerned about these comments that have been made.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chairman, on a point order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Brison, please don't interrupt.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

A point of order--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Please allow me to continue. Thank you.

Now, I'd like to move on—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

No, it's a point of order, Mr.—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

No, that's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We'll hear if it's a point of order. It should be a point of order.

Mr. Brison, on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You've done this twice now, Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

It's a point of order because I've had to correct a mistruth that you continue to utter, and re-uttering a mistruth doesn't make it true.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, that's not—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The Government of Canada will provide annual reports to its Parliament on the impact—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sorry, Mr. Brison, it is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

—of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement on human rights. It will be written by the Canadian government and public servants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Julian, carry on.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Now, my second comment is around the election campaign that is currently in process in Colombia. International pre-electoral observers went to Colombia and stated the following:

The Mission identified the following factors that impede free and fair elections in some areas of Colombia that we visited:

1. Many sources report that public monies are being transferred for illicit uses in the elections.

2. Fraud and electoral crimes:

We found that many negative practices persist, such as:

- Vote buying and selling.

- Misuse of identity documents.

- Illegal possession of identity documents, including stolen documents.

- Coercion and intimidation of voters.

- Fraud committed by polling officers....

- Obstruction of electoral observers....

- Control over public transportation to prevent voters from moving freely, as well as transporting voters to voting places that are not their places....

3. Illegal campaign financing

The use of public funds to benefit particular candidates.

This mission is by independent observers who are pointing out substantial impediments to free and fair elections in Colombia. So my question is very simple: why won't the regime allow those free and fair elections to take place in Colombia?

[Luis-Guillermo Plata]

Mr. Julian, that has to be proven. When I look at the elections, a lot of friends of mine who belong to the government parties lost their seat, so we could also claim that those who lost their seat and belonged to the government party lost their seat because somebody bought the votes or obstructed the voters. You can make the case both ways.

What's interesting, though, is that all these things are reported. They are under the supervision of the judiciary, and there's an independent electoral court in Colombia, an electoral council that has to oversee this. Actually, the government has asked the office of the Procurador...I don't know how you translate that, the office of the...?

[A voice]

The attorney general.

[Luis-Guillermo Plata]

No, it's not the attorney general. He's the person who investigates public officials.