International Trade Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Barbara Wood]

I don't know either of those people personally, but I would assume from their positions that they have a high degree of credibility.

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

I would ask you to take a look at the Hansard from Mr. Lavertu's appearance before this committee and what he said about the amendment.

Former deputy minister of DFAIT, Peter Harder, has called the amendment a

significant innovation in free trade agreements in that it provides both the Colombian and Canadian legislatures the opportunity to annually review and assess the human rights implications of the agreement. I expect that future parliaments will build on this precedent when they consider proposed free trade agreements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Brison, you're going to have to stop there. I'm sorry that we don't have the time for a response.

We're going to Mr. Holder, then Mr. Keddy, and with luck we'll get a last round in.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank our guests today for their comments. It's helpful as we go through our deliberations, because since we had the opportunity to become involved in the Canada-Colombia free trade deal, we've had roughly 120 interventions, give or take a couple. We've had dozens and dozens of interventions from individuals and organizations who frankly do not support this free trade agreement for any number of reasons.

I think the testimony we've heard on both sides has been wide-ranging and comprehensive. I'm not certain how much more testimony adds to the argument, but I would say to you that, like today, people have very strong views, and we as a committee have heard all of those views. I think it allows us to come closer to our own perspective on this, so thank you for your contribution.

What has been really compelling to me is that the testimony I've heard, particularly from officials from Colombia who have come here, is that they acknowledge that this is not a perfect place. I think that acknowledgement is not just refreshing, but I found their testimony to be sincere and helpful as we reviewed certain things.

I heard comment from one of my colleagues opposite who talked about one of the countries we deal with in NAFTA, that they have a rules-based system--and not really rules, but.... Frankly, I'd prefer something that has a foundation in rules, because when there are arguments, disputes, or concerns, we always have something we can fall back on.

Mr. Laforest, you were commenting on Mr. Brison's testimony earlier, and you asked, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? My concern is that if we don't do this deal, there will be no chicken and there will be no egg. There will be no beef, there will be no wheat, there will be no grain. That's a deep concern I have.

As I've looked over the testimony we've had, with some 120 interventions, I've looked at the organizations that have supported this free trade deal. I want to mention some of them, because I think it serves a point.

I'd ask you to find the theme in this, please: the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Grain Growers of Canada, Canada Pork International, the Canadian Swine Health Board, the Canadian Wheat Board, Pulse Canada, the Canadian Canola Growers, and Alliance Grain Traders. The theme with all these organizations is food.

One of the most compelling testimonies I heard was a couple of weeks ago when a gentleman from Regina, Mr. Al-Katib, talked about red beans. He said we can't get red beans into Brazil; there's a 60% tariff.

I wanted to understand why that's such a big deal, so I studied up on red beans. I found out that a cup of red beans provides some 225 calories. It provides high protein, high dietary fibre, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and zinc. It's so significant that we can't get that product, which is nutritious for the poorest of the poor, into Colombia because of the high tariff system.

But the organizations I've just mentioned, all these food-based organizations in Canada...you cannot tell me around this table--I don't mean this to our guests--that these people do not care about their industry, that they do not care about Canada, that they do not care about their international obligations. I think there is nothing more compelling, if you ever come back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, than feeding our people. That's our obligation around the world.

I'll turn my time over to Mr. Keddy, if there's a moment left.

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

Do I have a bit of time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, please, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The debate today is complex, and I think we're all in agreement on that. I think we're all in agreement that there are no easy answers, but I have to tell you that where I don't agree with your opposition to this trade agreement is in your painting of the Uribe government—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

There's a point of order.

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

There is no point of order here. I'm trying to make a point—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The witnesses are here to respond to questions, and I'm a little disturbed by the filibustering of the Conservatives.

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

No, there's no filibustering. I said it was a statement, but I will put a question at the end of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We'll take that off your time.

Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.

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

The difficult I'm having here, and please bear with me, is that when we speak of Colombians who are supporting this agreement, when we speak of the government members themselves, including President Uribe and his cabinet, I get the feeling from you folks that you're painting them all with a very broad brush, that they're all members of some type of right-wing extremist government who are bearing down inordinately on the poor in Colombia. When you look at that cabinet, and I've met them, they represent every facet of the political spectrum—every facet. There are former socialists; there's a former editor of a socialist newspaper who was kidnapped by the FARC or the paramilitaries, I'm not sure which one right now. There are groups that have been kidnapped by the FARC, kidnapped by the paramilitary, and people who have been incarcerated for a year and a half, or two years, or three years at a time. The president's father was assassinated in front of him.

These people have been injured during this period of violence in Colombia. They come from all political backgrounds and have one thing in common: they want to see a better Colombia. They want to see a Colombia that deserves and is ready to take its place in the world.

The only way we can help them do that is to put clear rules in place to assist them to provide jobs and opportunity for their people, and I truly and quite honestly believe that. If we don't do that, then I think we're not doing our job as Canadian members of Parliament and we're not doing our job for our own citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

I'm sorry, we don't have time for any further response.

We're going to go now to the Bloc.

Monsieur Laforest.

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

I am tempted to answer Mr. Keddy in this way: if the members of the government of Colombia are as pure and good as he claims, how come they are unable to prevent the murders of trade unionists, the displacement of populations and the violations of human rights? I find it somewhat strange to hear this government being described as being made up of people of good faith when we see those totally unacceptable things happening in Colombia.

Let me also make a comment about the question put to Mrs. Pickard by Mr. Cannis who asked if you have ever supported a free trade agreement. As far as I am concerned, that is irrelevant. Whether or not you supported previous trade agreements does not concern me because I was not there. However, I need to hear from people who were there on the ground, people who observe the consequences of a free trade agreement.

In closing, I want to make a brief comment for Mr. Holder. You gave us a list of some groups supporting the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement but you might be able to get even more support — and perhaps even the support of other opposition parties — if you were to accept, as the committee did originally, an independent assessment of the true human rights situation in Colombia before the ratification of the agreement. Our opposition is due to the fact that we are violating a previous all-party agreement.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mrs. Pickard and Mrs. Wood, for being here today.

I am not a regular member of this committee but I have been given some information. I have been told that 2,690 trade unionists have been killed in that country since 1986. I have been told that the US State Department and Amnesty International have concluded that 305,000 people have been displaced in 2007. In other words, they have been removed from their homes, their communities, their jobs. In 2008, that figure reached 380,000.

You have been on the ground and you have observed the electoral system of that country. I sometimes hear it said in Canada that two or three votes might sometimes be stolen in our ridings. This is like comparing a firecracker to an atomic bomb. There is absolutely no comparison. Canada is a country with democratic rules that are respected, which does not seem to be the case over there. You went to that country, you reported the results of your observation of the electoral process, and we are being asked to let Colombians decide. I agree with that. Let us let Colombians decide but, if they have no credible democratic system, how will we know that they were really the ones deciding? That is my question.

[Carleen Pickard]

Thank you.

I was also disturbed by the comparison between Canada and Colombia in terms of electoral crimes, or the state of democracy between Canada and Colombia, which I do think are two fundamentally different things. I would encourage folks to go back to the report that we did put out. There are also other reports, and I would encourage people to look at the questions that the OAS report also raised after the congressional elections. But to anybody who states that elections in Canada are anywhere comparable to those in Colombia, I would challenge them to find communities in Canada where all of the men in the community are rounded up and put on trucks and driven out to a field and told in the middle of the night, “If you don't vote for the ruling party, we will kill your family after the election.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

It is five o'clock. I guess we could move on to other business, but I think there is a sense that this is about as far as we're going to go.

So let's wrap this part up and thank our witnesses today from the Council of Canadians, Carleen Pickard, and from CoDevelopment Canada, Barbara Wood. Thank you for your attendance here today.

[Barbara Wood]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We do have a few minutes for our other agenda to proceed now, as we suggested, with the Canada-U.S. procurement bill, which we were going to do earlier.

You look puzzled, Mr. Julian.

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

No, I'm ready to get to work, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Normally we would have gone in camera for this. I don't have a lot of time, but we'll switch to in camera in about two minutes.

In two minutes we'll begin a discussion in camera on the agreement on government procurement.

We will have a two-minute break.

[Proceedings continue in camera]