International Trade Committee on April 29th, 2010

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Go ahead, Mr. Guimond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You are already two minutes over your time.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, the Liberals had about 10 minutes. We had to wait almost three or four minutes for the translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, you've just burned up another one.

There you go: you get one minute now.

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

Ms. Sreenivasan, earlier, you alluded to the Liberal amendment a little.

What is your thinking about the amendment, precisely?

[Gauri Sreenivasan]

I explained that it is very interesting that, at this stage of the debate, there is now a proposal for an impact study. But, as it is currently understood, it has no credibility. The study will not be done before the agreement. So there is no way of preventing badmouthing. There is also some question about its independence, because it will be written by people from Foreign Affairs, who are already close to the agreement as such.

Nor is it clear that it will be possible to respond to any recommendations the study may make. If we get a report that lists all the negative impacts, if we read it and put it on the shelf, there is no sense in it. As Mr. Brison explained, even the brief that was prepared seems already to include some recommendations and concerns. But the government has no commitment to act on them. So we need a report. It has been suggested that he do his own report using independent analysis, with emphasis on the recommendations. We do not want a report that does a literature review and that is it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have always found that you are very fair and I hope that you will continue to be. But it must be said that Mr. Laforest had much less time than Mr. Brison.

I would like to come back to your comments.

Mr. Brison referenced the report and said that essentially this analysis of the text should be considered as the human rights evaluation.

I'll just read the conclusion: The terms of the deal raise serious human rights concerns for vulnerable populations in the context of Colombia's conflict economy. The agreement makes a bad situation worse.

So if this is our human rights evaluation, it's very clear that this committee should be recommending that we not proceed with this bill. I don't think that's what he intended to say.

I would like to come back to the issue of the amendment.

You mentioned, Ms. Sreenivasan, that the amendment lacks credibility. We've had a very clear illustration of this, both from the Canadian government's presentation last Thursday and the Colombian government's presentation on Tuesday, at committee. They said exactly the same things.

What is even more important is what they neglected to say. In both cases—these are mirror-image presentations to this committee, on human rights—they didn't talk about the abuse of Afro-Colombians or aboriginal peoples, or about the military arm of the Colombian government, or the paramilitary link to the government. They didn't talk about violent theft of land or sexual torture. They didn't talk about the false positives. They didn't talk about the links with the regime and drug cartels, both historically and also in the present day. They didn't talk about corruption. They did not talk about the DAS scandal. In fact, both governments lauded the Colombian government for providing protection to these labour leaders, when everyone who is up-to-date with human rights in Colombia knows that the DAS scandal actually shows the hollowness of that so-called protection.

I want to ask both of you, and Ms. Morales as well, about the DAS scandal and what that means in terms of the so-called protections.

Also, Ms. Morales, we heard a lot of testimony about the abuse of aboriginal peoples and Afro-Colombians before we went to Colombia. That's why this committee decided unanimously to stop this implementation until a full and independent human rights assessment was done. I've not heard concerns about the abuse of gays and lesbians, so could you come back to that issue? You're the first person who mentioned it. Could you talk more directly about the paramilitaries and the military being linked to the Colombian government and any abuse that may be occurring of gay and lesbian Colombians?

[Yessika Hoyos Morales]

In terms of the DAS scandal, in fact it has been proved how the security agents used the protection program, the trade unionists and human rights defenders program, to gather intelligence against them and to provide information on all the movements of these people. In other words, they're not really being protected as they should be protected, as the program called for; it is, as a matter of fact, to carry out surveillance on these people, and that provides them with the tools they need to threaten them.

Talking about gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, in fact we see that the UN high commissioner, who reported on March 4 this year, has this great concern because of the increased threats against and actual murders of these people—lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual persons.

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

Is this by paramilitaries affiliated with the government or the Colombian military, or both?

[Yessika Hoyos Morales]

At this time, most of the crimes against these communities are perpetrated by the paramilitaries that work in the municipalities throughout the country, because they have actually expressed their dislike, their rejection of these people to be able to exercise their own feelings, their own personalities.

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

Do you have additional evidence that you could present to us?

[Yessika Hoyos Morales]

Of course. I can actually provide you with reports.

We as a human rights organization have represented these victims. We don't only represent trade unionists and human rights defenders, but we have also represented these communities, so we have been able to prove their persecution. We have been able to prove that one of the cities in which they're most persecuted and where crimes have increased is Medellín.

This shows that the paramilitaries are not being dismantled, and they're acting in the same areas where they used to. In addition to that, we have their leaders, such as Cuchillo, who operate in these areas, and we've been able to document this.

[Gauri Sreenivasan]

As maybe just a quick reaction, I agree; the DAS scandal underwrites the central point that the Colombian state has not only no credibility to report on human rights violations, but the notion that it would openly consult and work with human rights groups to put together the report is put to shame by the fact that it has clearly, over the last years, been targeting these groups, providing information to paramilitaries so that they can in fact be assassinated.

It isn't possible, in the context of the factual evidence being released by these investigations, by the statements from the Supreme Court in Colombia, to then in fact agree that the Colombian government would have the credibility and capacity to write its own report on the impacts of the trade agreement.

If these kinds of issues were also missing from the reports from the Canadian government officials, that is also quite worrisome.

The importance of a human rights impact assessment is that there's such a political cloud around how everybody speaks. The report by CCIC has been available for a year by legal experts. We weren't called. We weren't asked to contribute to or discuss the creation of a human rights impact assessment. It makes more sense, if people aren't prepared to act on these recommendations, that an independent group be set up, but one in which the government has committed to respond to the reaction.

So I repeat, it would be really important in the amendment that it be clear that it not only be a prior assessment, but that it be independently carried out and that there be a commitment to act on the results and recommendations. All those three things are missing right now.

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

We've had very strong criticism from both President Uribe and Vice-President Santos, criticizing human rights organizations for promoting policies and colluding with terrorism and colluding with the guerrillas. In that kind of context, when you have the leading officials in the Colombian regime aggressively attacking independent human rights observers, how can you then possibly have the Colombian government reporting on itself?

The argument would be, well, no, it's the Canadian government that takes that report and does something with it. But what we saw last Thursday was that very clearly the Canadian government just rubber-stamps what it gets from the Colombian government. The terminology and the praise for the Colombian government was exactly the same on Thursday as it was on Tuesday. You might as well have had the same script.

Does that worry you, then, that what we are actually embarking on is a rubber stamp on human rights? We're actually, in a very real sense, condoning the human rights abuses that everyone around this table purports to be opposed to.

[Gauri Sreenivasan]

Yes, I think it's extremely worrisome. The issue is not just that there's a major opportunity lost to set a precedent—because the notion that the Colombian government and Canadian government would agree to an impact assessment is possibly precedent-setting and really important—but done improperly it could be in fact more dangerous, because it could provide a platform for a kind of continued whitewashing of the facts from the Colombian government, and that's what we'd want to avoid. We need a process that is credible, if it's going to be worth its salt. That's what I think we need to work towards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Good. That's a little over nine minutes, so I think we'll call it a day.

Thank you.

Before we continue, Ms. Morales, we have you on our agenda as an individual. You just mentioned “our organization”, and I wondered what organization you were referring to.

Are you representing an organization here, or are you here as an individual?

[Yessika Hoyos Morales]

I'm appearing as the daughter of a trade unionist who was murdered in Colombia and as a member of an organization for human rights, the José Alvear human rights association. We represent victims of human rights violations. We have produced reports and we have taken our cases to the inter-American court of justice, which has condemned these cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you. That's very helpful.

We're going to have to wrap it up; we're over time.

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I'm splitting my time with Mr. Holder. I will have two quick questions, but Mr. Holder has a statement he'd like to make on behalf of the Conservatives.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I would like to make a brief statement, and my colleague Mr. Keddy will ask some questions.

From my point of view and that of all members here, I would like to express my condolences to Ms. Morales for the tragic loss of your father. My thoughts are with him.

Now my colleague will take our remaining time.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With your indulgence, I'll share the remainder of my time with Mr. Allison.

Ms. Morales, I listened very closely to your testimony. I have one question, and that question is quite simple: do you not see any improvement in the situation in Colombia?

The reason I ask this is that we have met with President Uribe himself, all of the cabinet at one time or another, a number of NGOs who have been to Colombia, and almost to a person, including President Uribe, they will say that the situation has improved but it is not perfect. They will all say that many of the paramilitaries have been disbanded but some of them have re-armed. There's never been an attempt by any official from the Colombian government to gloss over or whitewash, if you will, the situation in Colombia as it affects personal safety and security.

So would you not say that personal safety and security has improved—yes, or no, if you could, or otherwise very briefly?

[Yessika Hoyos Morales]

Well, from my point of view, I have to say that for us, the defenders of human rights, and for us, the trade unionists, in the context of democratic security we have not felt safe. After the DAS scandal, we feel completely insecure. We've received threats, and children have also received threats and were also photographed.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Sreenivasan, I'm listening to your testimony as well, and your disagreement with the trade agreement. However, what I don't understand is this. You that this will reflect upon Canada's international reputation. But we're in a line-up to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. We're not out there by ourselves. Colombia has already signed with the EFTA countries--Switzerland and Iceland and Norway and Liechtenstein. The EU fully expects to sign with Colombia; they have said that on numerous occasions. The Americans are revisiting their agreement. A number of South American countries and Mexico have signed or are in the process of doing it.

So how can this hurt the Colombian-Canadian relationship? How can it do anything but improve it?

Please answer quickly, because I know Mr. Allison wants to wrap up.

[Gauri Sreenivasan]

It's true that Liechtenstein, that some of those countries, did go ahead, and it was a great shame. But Norway clearly expressed its own reservation and didn't pass it. Switzerland did. The EU's is signed--it's sort of like where the U.S. is--but it has not gone through ratification. A number of human rights concerns have been raised. There is expected to be at least a year of debate and discussion.

There's a lot of information on the Washington agreement. Our information from Congress is that Obama continues to make important diplomatic overtures to say, “Let's keep talking, but....” There's always a “but”. They have not proceeded to sign. You recently received a letter from Mike Michaud to underscore that.

So Canada actually may be in line with Liechtenstein, but not with Norway, the U.S., or much of Europe.