International Trade Committee on May 6th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

It's all gentlemen today. We're going to begin this 15th meeting of this session of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

A couple of regular members are absent today. We have important business to do. I think we're going to have a minor adjustment to the agenda, so let me clarify that before we start. I don't think we're going to have time today to get to the Canada-U.S. trade relations report on procurement.

A couple of motions were suggested to the committee that may be coming forward today. I'm told there was not sufficient 48-hour notice from when they were filed last Tuesday, so we'll have to deal with those Tuesday next. I think there's general agreement about these matters with all parties, so I'm just clarifying that for the record.

Today we're simply going to hear witnesses. We have a very impressive lineup. I understand there are also some pressing matters for some members around five o'clock, so this may necessitate an earlier adjournment. That will still give us over an hour with these witnesses. If that's agreeable to everyone, let's begin.

Today as witnesses we'll welcome back Alex Neve, from Amnesty International. It's always a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for coming.

We have Robert Blackburn, a senior vice-president of SNC Lavalin International, and a former colleague in the PCO a few years ago. Mr. Blackburn, it's nice to see you again.

And we have Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

We have an interesting day ahead.

We're going to ask each of our guests to commence with a ten-minute or less opening statement, following which we will go to questions in the normal fashion.

Mr. Moist, if you're prepared to begin, I'll ask you to start.

[Paul Moist, National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We're pleased to be here.

In 2008, about a month after this committee was in Colombia, I had the privilege of visiting Colombia for nine days with three other public sector trade union leaders, going throughout the country and meeting with a variety of folks.

We began our work with Colombian trade unions and NGOs in 2000 under the banner of Public Services International. It's a 22-million-member public services global union. Since 2003 we have funded the work of the Association for Social Research and Action in Cali. They do human rights training for workers and citizens in Colombia.

When I revisited my tour of two years ago, it brought back a lot of memories of the people I had met in Colombia and the grave concerns that we have with Canada lending its name at this juncture in Colombia's history to a trade deal with that country. I recalled meeting some of the four million people who have been displaced from their lands—Afro-Colombians and indigenous Colombians--who are living in squalor on the outskirts of Medellin and Cali.

Of interest to me as a trade unionist, and a barometer of the state of the nation of Colombia, is the fact that out of a workforce of 18 million—very similar to that in Canada—fewer than 200,000 workers are covered by collective agreements as we know them in Canada; that is, by enforceable contracts, notwithstanding Colombia having signed the same ILO covenants that Canada and all ten provinces have signed.

Moreover, in the eight days I spent there, the poverty was evident and in our face. There are also three million children currently outside the formal or informal education system in Colombia.

Why are any of these statistics relevant to parliamentarians here in Canada? Won't the trade deal make things better so that these statistics can be improved? I argue that at this juncture in the history of Colombia, the opposite is true.

In terms of displaced persons, the recent reports of the UN and Amnesty International have raised serious concerns about escalating violence against indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities. Over four million people have been displaced from their homes, for a variety of reasons. In particular, just last week, on April 29, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, ONIC, testified at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in Washington that 80% of indigenous territories have been conceded for the implementation of economic projects, without respect for indigenous rights or without consultation.

There have been threats against human rights defenders. The United States Office on Colombia, USOC, reported last month that threats have become common practice in Colombia. The Colombian NGO “We are Defenders” documented 125 cases of threats against human rights defenders in the last year, and 32 of those persons have since been assassinated.

On rates of unionization, I have a couple more statistics. We met with Dr. Fabio Valencia Cossio, the minister responsible for labour, whose formal title is Minister of Interior and Justice. We asked him how Colombia could sign the ILO treaty in respect of free collective bargaining rights—the same treaty signed by our country in the early 1970s and by all ten provinces and the territories—yet have fewer than 200,000 workers with enforceable collective agreements, in which, for example, you could challenge your rate of pay, a right that all Canadian workers with collective agreements have. He had no answer to that.

We asked him why all the Colombian trade union leaders had their own independent security guards and could not travel in the same van with Canadians. Why were the threats to trade union leaders still so evident, with 2,729 trade union leaders being assassinated since 1986 for what trade unionists regularly do in other countries--that is, to gather, protest, and petition parliamentarians?

I have one comment on the NGO that we fund, which does human rights training in Colombia, NOMADESC. We've asked this committee to hear from the director of NOMADESC, Berenice Ceylata. We'll ensure her presence here. Her most recent work began on April 8, when eight artisanal miners in the department of Cauca were murdered.

NOMADESC has been warning the Government of Colombia for years about the increased violence against workers, trade unionists, human rights defenders. Over the last several months, representatives from international human rights organizations and others have petitioned the Colombian government to take action, including investigating multinational corporations active in the region of Cauca. The connection between the government and paramilitaries and narco-traffickers has been documented and paints a very disturbing picture of a failed state.

We are asking that this committee hear from the International Pre-Electoral Observation Mission, who undertook a mission to Colombia from February 3 to February 15. They've asked to appear before this committee, and I'll give you a couple of observations from their findings.

The most recent evidence is shown in the report of the International Pre-Electoral Observation Mission to Colombia. This committee may be aware that numbers of Congress and Senate representatives have been charged with criminal offences. When I was in Colombia in 2008, one third of the Congress--102 members--were either incarcerated or had been charged, 90% of them from the governing coalition.

What were they charged with? They were charged with criminal offences related to drug trafficking and paramilitaries. The Pre-Electoral Observation Mission from this past February reported that 35 candidates elected recently to the 102-person Congress are linked to former Congress members identified by the courts as linked to paramilitary groups. They go into great detail in their report from that February mission. We had two members of CUPE on that mission in February.

Their final report has four highlights: one, the involvement of illegal armed groups in the elections; two, electoral fraud and corruption; three, illegal campaign financing; and four, the manipulation of social programs designed to assist the poorest of the poor. Recipients of such programs have been told to vote for certain candidates; otherwise the state-funded programs would be cut, and their benefits with them.

From our research and my first-hand observations, our country's determination to move so quickly on this trade agreement is either naive or blatantly disregards mountains of evidence of a failed and corrupt state, complicit in repression against those who speak out. As stated in our report that I sent to all members of Parliament in the fall of 2008, we met with the Office of the Public Defender, which has been publicly financed since the new constitution in Colombia of 1991. He expressed his frustration that his reports to the Colombian authorities on violations of human rights go undealt with.

Finally, Mr. Chair, as reported by John Ruggie, United Nations special representative of the Secretary General on business and human rights, to the UN Human Rights Council, the worst corporate-related human rights abuses occur in conflict-affected areas, and even reputable firms may be implicated in abuses.

Mr. Ruggie, under the banner of the UN, has convened a representative group of states, which includes Canada, to brainstorm how to prevent and mitigate such abuses. I believe it would be important for this committee to hear precisely what suggestions are being made by that UN representative.

Finally, the contemplated amendment to the agreement, apparently from the Liberal Party, proposing to have each country report on the human rights situation in their own country would seem to me to be not where the committee stood in 2008. It falls far short of a human rights impact assessment before any trade deal with Colombia is implemented.

This was the position of this committee coming out of your hearings in the spring and early summer of 2008. It is imperative, in CUPE's view, that Canada take every possible step to ensure that human and labour rights for Colombians are respected, that land clearances are ended, and that the killings stop. We're committed to working to this end, and we ask this committee and parliamentarians to join with us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll answer any questions that come up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Moist.

I thank you also for adhering to our imposed ten-minute time limit. You did very well. I appreciate it. I often get cranky with people who don't, so I'm going to be praising people who do.

We'll move now to Robert Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn is the senior vice-president of SNC-Lavalin International.

Mr. Blackburn.

[Robert Blackburn, Senior Vice-President, SNC-Lavalin International, SNC-Lavalin Inc.]

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to observe your admonition. I'm duly warned.

SNC-Lavalin, as many people know, is one of the world's largest engineering companies. We work in 100 countries right now, and probably 125 in the last five years. Last year we did $6.1 billion worth of business. We have 22,000 employees worldwide, and last year $305 million of our business—5% of our revenues—was in Latin America. Just out of interest, only 4% of our business is in the United States. So I think we're probably one of the most diversified and international Canadian companies around, other than probably some IT firms that seem to do most of their business outside the country.

In Latin America we have operating bases already in Peru and in Chile, mainly in the mining business, and in Brazil, where we've been working hard to establish a credible footprint in the mining and power sectors and where we have about 1,600 employees right now. We have worked in Colombia since 1971. We did a number of smaller projects in the power, chemicals, petroleum, and agricultural and industrial sectors, and finally opened a full-time office there in 1994—more of a representative office than an operating office—and worked fairly actively there until 1999, when we found the situation wasn't safe enough for us to work there any more.

So we left Colombia and didn't do anything there between 1999 and 2007, but in 2007 we felt that the situation had improved enough from the point of view of our safety and the business to be done there that we re-established ourselves in Colombia. Since then, through organic growth, we have built a workforce of 160 people there. We have two projects there right now. They're not huge projects. One is in the oil and gas area and the other in the mining sector. We are also interested in other sectors of work in Colombia beyond oil and gas and mining, sectors such as power and other sorts of infrastructure, including highways, water, and what have you, and we are prepared to provide engineering services or engineering procurement and construction services in those sectors.

As a matter of fact, we are now looking at Colombia as our centre for construction in Latin America. It would work with our other offices around Latin America on major construction projects. We think there is a strong enough local workforce there. I would mention in passing that as we travel around the world we don't take a lot of Canadians with us. We stress the use of local people, local businesses, and local labour to do our projects, not because we're humanitarians—although maybe we are—but because it makes good business sense and gives people a better sense of ownership in what we're doing.

There are some good examples of that in Madagascar right now, where we're building one of the world's biggest nickel mines for Sherritt International. We're a 5% owner in that mine, but we're implementing what we call the local resource development initiative, which we have implemented in South Africa, Mozambique, and Algeria right now, to employ local workers. In South Africa and Mozambique, we trained 9,000 construction workers who had never worked on an industrial site before. When I visited the second phase of the Mozal refinery and smelter in Mozambique, they had just poured metal six months ahead of time and tens of millions of dollars under budget. So working with a local workforce of 9,000 and local businesses, we had a very successful project, which the World Bank is now using as an example of resource development in the developing world.

I make that digression here to respond a little to Mr. Moist's comments about unemployment. As we build our construction business there, we'll use more and more local workers and we'll train them. We've had great success at working that way.

A final point is that we find free trade agreements very helpful. It's very important to have Canadian government leadership in establishing high-level contacts and interest in emerging markets and business frameworks. Free trade agreements, double-taxation agreements, investment protection agreements, what have you, these things facilitate business and attract two-way business between our countries.

One of the things I would like to see more of in free trade agreements, or associated with countries that are growing markets for Canada, is ways to facilitate business travel back and forth. Right now, the business visa situation for any country that requires a visa to come to Canada makes us completely uncompetitive with most of our OECD competitors in the United States or Europe or wherever. So it seems to me that when we're doing free trade agreements, we should be looking at exchanges of people as well. I'm not talking about people to come and work in factories, but business people coming to negotiate contracts or to visit Canadian projects and expertise.

We welcome the free trade agreement with Colombia. We hope it proceeds quickly, and we hope it will have a very positive effect on business between Canada and Colombia, and on Colombia, which we feel has made significant strides in recent years.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Blackburn.

The committee, of course, has visited Colombia as well. We heard lots of witnesses. For the most part, they were grateful to the Canadian companies that are participating there and the corporate social responsibility shown by those companies. Lavalin, Enbridge, and Nexen were companies they particularly noted. So you can take that back from our visit to Colombia as one of the things that we Canadians were proud to hear. We weren't compounding the problems down there. Our companies were in some ways trying to contribute to local employment and care of the people there, as you've just said.

With that, I want to move to our final witness today and to welcome back to the committee Alex Neve, who is the secretary general of Amnesty International in Canada.

[Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too will do my best to stay within ten minutes and not make you cranky.

I particularly welcome the opportunity to be here, which I must note is my third appearance over the past two years with respect to this particular issue, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It is clearly something we are very concerned about.

At the outset, as I have emphasized in all appearances before the committee, I very much want to stress that Amnesty International takes no position either for or against free trade deals with any country, including this particular deal. We simply and consistently insist that any trade deal, be it free trade or restricted trade, be structured to avoid contributing to human rights violations and to do everything possible to strengthen the protection of human rights. From that perspective, we offer our comments with respect to Bill C-2.

Colombia remains a country mired in four decades of devastating armed conflict with serious human rights abuses committed by all parties, state security forces, paramilitaries, and guerrilla forces. That violence and those abuses devastate the lives of millions of Colombians, especially members of vulnerable communities living in rural areas. This is shockingly exemplified by the fact that as many as 286,000 people were forced to flee their homes in 2009 alone. That brings the total number of people forcibly uprooted since 1985 to more than four million, and that number is one of the highest in the world. I'm sure you've heard that before.

Much of that forced displacement arises because of a desire to take over land of strategic interest, which is of interest for a variety of reasons but often including economic interest.

Today I would like to zero in on two pressing situations of particular relevance to the issue of trading with Colombia, and that is the plight of indigenous peoples and of Afro-Colombians. In February of this year Amnesty International released a new report about the deteriorating situation of indigenous people in Colombia. Copies of that report have previously been provided to all members of the committee. Among other things in the report, we noted that the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples describes the situation in the country as “grave, critical, and profoundly worrying”, and he has called for a visit to Colombia by the UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide.

There are many dimensions to this crisis. One is the intensification of threats and violence aimed at forcing indigenous peoples off land valued for its agricultural potential, oil, or minerals. That's very relevant, given that the Canadian government has promoted the introduction of Bill C-2 by naming Colombia as a “strategic destination” for Canadian direct investment in mining and oil exploration, among other sectors. Colombia's national indigenous organization warns that the survival of 32 indigenous groups is at grave risk as a result of large-scale economic projects as well as the armed conflict and lack of state support. In 2009 alone at least 114 indigenous women, men, and children were killed. Many others were attacked and threatened, and thousands were driven from their land.

Once indigenous inhabitants have fled in fear of their lives, their lands are sometimes opened up for large-scale economic development. When indigenous leaders and communities try to defend their land rights and their right to free, prior, and informed consent about economic developments that affect them, they commonly encounter significant opposition and violence, especially if their lands are found to be rich in natural resources. To make matters worse, high-ranking government officials continue to make statements linking indigenous leaders and the communities they represent with guerrilla groups, which exposes them to the very real risk of attack. This has encouraged a climate in which grave abuses against indigenous peoples are tolerated, encouraged, or even facilitated.

The Colombian Constitution recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to manage the political and administrative affairs of their traditional lands, yet in practice these rights are not respected. In January of 2009, for instance, Colombia's Constitutional Court issued ruling 004, which found the state's response to the many problems faced by indigenous peoples in Colombia to be inadequate. The court gave the government six months to devise and implement a plan to guarantee the rights of displaced and endangered indigenous peoples. More than one year after that ruling, there is little evidence of any progress towards that goal.

Instead, Amnesty International continues to receive numerous reports of attacks, threats, and violence. An indigenous leader representing Embera communities, who was opposed to the development of international mining interests that will impact on the Jiguamiando river basin, has received paramilitary death threats, for instance. The threats follow another recent Constitutional Court ruling that mining interests had failed to consult the local population adequately and that a proper consultation should take place.

All of this has led the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, in his most recent report, to conclude that government policies and programs have failed to effectively protect indigenous peoples and to safeguard their human rights.

The second relevant yet largely invisible situation I wanted to highlight is the threats and violence against Afro-Colombian communities, many of whom also live in areas of economic interest in terms of resource extraction or agro-business.

In February of this year, following a ten-day visit to Colombia, the UN independent expert on minority issues expressed concern about mega-projects or large-scale operations involving major corporations that are promoted as providing economic gain to the whole community but have had the effect of encroaching on Afro-Colombian land rights. The independent expert recognized that, as with indigenous peoples, Colombia has impressive legislation aimed at recognizing the rights of Afro-Colombians, but she reported that many of these laws are rarely implemented or enforced. She said, “In the face of such economic interests and mega-projects, it appears that the rights of communities are 'inconvenient rights' and that the laws put in place to protect them are equally inconvenient.”

To give you just one example, on January 13 of this year, a leader of the Afro-descendant communities of the Curvaradó river basin was ordered out of the vehicle in which he was travelling by a paramilitary, a short distance from a police base. He was shot and killed. He had played an active part in denouncing the illegal appropriation of lands in the area by African palm companies. Before and after the killing paramilitaries have maintained an open presence, despite the area being heavily militarized.

It is the violence against communities living in areas of economic interest who are defending their right to be consulted about economic development projects that makes an independent human rights impact assessment prior to implementation of Bill C-2 so imperative.

In 2008 this committee called for just such an assessment prior to implementation of the trade agreement, yet so far none has been commissioned. We realize that the Colombian and Canadian governments have given their support to a proposed amendment calling for yearly reviews of the human rights impacts of the agreement in both Canada and Colombia, to be carried out by the governments of both Canada and Colombia. This is not the same thing, however, as an independent human rights impact assessment carried out before the deal comes into force.

And I must stress that there are ample reasons to doubt the credibility of the Colombian government to accurately report on human rights conditions in the country. For example, the Colombian government denies that there continues to be an armed conflict in Colombia, yet both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights continue to define the situation in Colombia as one of internal armed conflict.

The government also insists that the worst excesses of the conflict have now been overcome. There has been an improvement in some conflict-related human rights indicators, like a decrease in the numbers of civilians killed or taken hostage. People in some cities will tell you that they feel safer. But this is only part of the picture, a picture in which close to 300,000 people were displaced last year alone.

It is vital that Canada not give a legislated platform to the Colombian government's selective approach to assessing human rights, which highlights a handful of positive indicators while leaving aside grave ongoing concerns.

I read with interest, for instance, what Minister Plata had to say to this committee last week in reassuring you about the human rights situation. I note that he did not once mention indigenous peoples. From Amnesty International's perspective, that is a stunning omission when addressing human rights concerns relevant to the Colombian trade context.

The Colombian government claims that paramilitary groups have all demobilized, yet the paramilitary continues to operate in many parts of the country, sometimes in collusion with sectors of the security forces.

Human rights defenders too are experiencing a worrying increase in death threats. These are attributed mostly to paramilitary groups, but also to state agencies. Successive Colombian governments insist that significant progress has been made in bringing human rights abusers to justice. I will note that the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers said at the end of a ten-day visit just this last December that

...a climate of fear and insecurity appears to reign over the judicial system because of attacks and threats against judges, prosecutors and lawyers...This also affects victims and witnesses who often prefer not to denounce abuses or to testify before the courts...This situation leads to impunity...

What do we need? We need a human rights impact assessment that takes place before implementation. We've been calling for this for three years now. It could be complete by now. This would either provide reassuring evidence that there is no cause for concern or it would identify expected impacts on human rights, much as an environmental impact assessment can identify expected impacts. This in turn would afford an opportunity to take action to prevent human rights violations. This is a win-win situation, and it obviously requires a credible, independent process at arm's length from both governments.

There also need to be legislated assurances that recommendations of the assessment will be addressed and not simply noted and filed.

In closing, I would also urge you to hear directly from Colombian organizations that represent and accompany indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant communities. We've provided a list of such organizations. We think it's vital that you hear from the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, ONIC, but there are three others that we've suggested as well. It is crucial that your hearings permit all affected parties to have a voice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Thank you to all the witnesses. We're looking forward to an interesting round of questions.

I see the Liberals have sent out the big guns today. The Honourable Wayne Easter and the Honourable Shawn Murphy are here. My goodness.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You've got half the island.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, it's half the island.

We will start questioning with Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, and I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.

We realize that in Colombia there have been four decades of armed conflict, as was mentioned before. The civil war was quite brutal, and I believe there was some indication from Mr. Neve that there's been some improvement, at least within the last ten years. Maybe you can clarify the situation ten or fifteen years ago compared to what it is today. That is one question I'd like to ask.

The second question is in relation to the indigenous people and the terrible situation they face in Colombia. Is it not also true that a negative report about the rights of indigenous people could be written on just about every country in the Americas, including Canada and the U.S.? Historically and even now, Canada has an appalling history in dealing with the indigenous population, so can one not say that we could actually have a negative report about almost every country in the Americas in relation to indigenous peoples and indigenous rights?

[Alex Neve]

I'll take the latter question and agree with you. Absolutely, there are concerns about the protection of the rights of indigenous people throughout the Americas, in our own country, and in fact right around the world. It remains one of the globe's most pressing human rights challenges. And I'm not going to get into ranking and comparing the situation of indigenous peoples in Colombia versus Guatemala, versus Peru.

I think the bottom line, though, is we're focused on the situation in Colombia. The situation for indigenous peoples in Colombia is gravely worrying and has been deteriorating recently. UN experts have identified that. A report that we put out earlier this year identified that. All of those reports have indicated that among the many factors contributing to that worsening situation for indigenous peoples, there are issues related to an economic context: access to land for mining and other natural resources, etc. It's not the only factor by any means; there are a multitude of factors, but it certainly is a significant contributing factor.

That's why we think it's something that should be of real concern to Canadian politicians in deliberating as to whether or not and under what conditions we should be entering into this trade deal. It certainly underscores why we think it's so important that there be an independent impact assessment of the human rights situation before the deal enters into force. The sorts of reforms and changes that are necessary in Colombia to address those concerns are evident. They're out there. An impact assessment can zero right in on those and identify which should be of concern before we go forward with this deal.

With respect to your first question, about improvements over the last ten years, I think I indicated there are some conflict-related indicators that have improved, for instance, the numbers of civilians who have been killed or abducted. The numbers tend to fluctuate from year to year. There are other numbers, though, that have not improved, and continue to be a very real concern. It's a very real concern for us, for instance, that the numbers of displaced Colombians continues to grow, close to 300,000 again last year.

I think the bottom line is, there's no statistical way to say the situation is 10%, 5%, 15% better or worse in Colombia this year than it was last year. Those sorts of measurements have long eluded human rights experts. I think the bottom line is that the human rights situation in Colombia remains a very grave concern in a whole variety of facets, including many that are relevant to trade and investment and economic matters, and that needs to be assessed and addressed before we go forward with this deal.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

How does one go about assessing it, given the fact, as you said, that exact numbers elude human rights organizations?

[Alex Neve]

But assessment isn't about numbers; it's not—

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

No, I realize that, but I would imagine it's going to be one indicator--an important indicator, I would think.

[Alex Neve]

Let's take the situation of indigenous peoples, for instance. As I indicated, many factors contribute to the serious human rights violations that indigenous people are experiencing, but many experts have highlighted that issues around trade, investment, natural resources, and mining are part of the picture. There are also many, including the constitutional court in Colombia, who have highlighted what needs to happen to address that side of the equation. So there's something to zero right in on. It's not about measuring the numbers of how many have or have not disappeared, and comparing that to how many have or have not been threatened. It's zeroing in on what reform is necessary in order to ensure that continuing and increased levels of trade between Canada and Colombia won't stand to make this worse.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Outside of the framework of the trade agreement, let's say there's no trade agreement between Colombia and Canada;let's say it doesn't even take place, it's not signed or ratified, and so forth. What type of engagement would you like to see from Canada in terms of business, trade, and government involvement? What would you still want to see, in order to have the Canadian engagement in Colombia?

[Alex Neve]

We have not said that there should not be a deal. Don't mistake me. We have said let's study its impact before we go ahead with operationalizing the deal, so that we can put in place the reforms and safeguards.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I'm giving a hypothetical question in the event that there is no deal. What would you still want, in terms of involvement?

[Alex Neve]

We're not calling for Canadian companies to stop their trade and investment with Colombia. Long before this trade deal was on the table, we engaged with Canadian companies who either were already operating in Colombia or were considering doing so, and talked to them about the ways that can and should be done in a human rights responsible manner. And we agree, as the comment was made by the chair earlier, that there are Canadian companies who have modelled that. Obviously that would need to be encouraged and increased.

So it's not that we're calling for there not to be a trading relationship between the two countries.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay, that's important to note, and also the fact that it's not bad for businesses to be involved in terms of Colombia, which is what I think you said. But in addition to that, in terms of government involvement and government engagement, what type of involvement would you like to still see from the Canadian government in Colombia?

[Alex Neve]

Between the Canadian government and the Colombian government? Well, we have again for many years had a long history of putting recommendations in front of the Canadian government as to the kinds of assistance—through international cooperation funds, for instance—to strengthen and bolster the work of human rights defenders in the country, and strong recommendations that the Canadian government needs to be pressing with Colombians at all levels around the kinds of legal reforms, the steps that are necessary to ensure that UN recommendations with respect to human rights are taken up. That should absolutely continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Silva.

This is a seven-minute round.

We'll go next to Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome once again before the committee to deal with the same topic.

My first question is for Mr. Moist. On March 24 of last year, during the debate on Bill C-2, the Hon. Scott Brison moved an amendment relating to, among other things, “...a general summary of all actions taken under the authority of this Act, and an analysis of the impact of these actions on human rights in Canada and Colombia”.

What do you think of that amendment?

[Paul Moist]

We don't think that's anywhere near sufficient. Two years ago June, this committee was in a different space. It was asking for an independent human rights assessment in advance of a deal being signed.

Your question relates to one of the previous questions. Canada serves on and sits at the ILO, and it makes a useful contribution there, in my view. So does Colombia. The ILO has set up a special office in Colombia, which is not a normal situation, to deal with labour rights violations in Colombia.

The previous questioner said that in the absence of a deal, how can we communicate? How do we do business with Colombia?

As Canada does with other countries around the world at the ILO, Canada should be asking all countries that are signatory to ILO conventions, which is a laborious process--in our case ten provinces, two territories, and the federal government ratified.... In Canada we've given life to those ILO covenants by way of legislation. Here in Parliament we have legislation giving rights to federally regulated employees should they choose to unionize. That doesn't exist in Colombia.

I didn't expect the Minister of Labour in Colombia could answer the technical question. He had seven officials with him--four assistant deputy ministers--and my question was a simple one. They privatized the post office in Colombia. They have the right to do that. It's not my business to comment on that; I have my own views on it. The workers are privatized. One hundred percent of them want to sign a union card to form a union. You take that card to a government office and you unionize. Explain that process to me in Colombia. It's privatized. There are 3,000 workers who no longer have a union. A private company is delivering the mail. All 3,000 want to join the union.

There were seven employees of the Government of Colombia in the presence of their minister--staff in this room would jump to a ministerial request for information. How does one join a union in Colombia? Why is it down to 123,000 workers who are covered by a collective agreement out of 18 million? They've signed the cards. The minister got mad at the Canadian delegation because we couldn't accept that there was no answer to the question.

In Canada, there's an answer. In 189 countries in the world, there's an answer to that simple question of wanting to join a union.

So I don't know. I agreed with Mr. Mulroney 25 years ago when he led the Parliament of Canada and said we will not sign any deals with the state of South Africa, for well-documented reasons.

If you need any more statistics, please hear the delegation from the International Pre-Electoral Observation Mission of Colombia, who said that in the past three years133 Congress members were investigated because of ties to paramilitaries.

There's nothing wrong with being investigated.

It goes on: Of these, 71 have been called in for questioning; 50 are currently being detained--no bail; 42 have waived their rights as a member of Congress; 18 are in the process of being tried; 13 have pled guilty to charges related to their activities with paramilitaries; seven have been convicted.

These are the elected representatives of Colombia. You're going to sign a deal in our name? This Parliament, two weeks ago, had a former cabinet minister and a former parliamentarian being held to account. So be it. There are standards if you want to serve in the Parliament of Canada--ethical standards.

When I was there in 2008, one-third of the Congress was in jail. That's my answer to your question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Moist.

I want to put the same question to Mr. Neve about the amendment moved by the Liberals.

What do you think of that amendment?