International Trade Committee on May 13th, 2010

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

Fair enough. You are a good judge. I will say that, Mr. Chair.

The electoral issues you've raised--fear and coercion, vote buying and selling, misuse of identity documents, illegal possession of identity documents, coercion and intimidation of voters, fraud--paint a pretty stark portrait. When we talk about sovereignty in Colombia, I'm wondering whether there are any precedents of a government trying to push ahead--as the Conservative government is doing--with an agreement in the midst of an election campaign, particularly one that's characterized by all these obstacles to free and fair elections.

In the past Canada has played a role in observing and condemning governments that don't allow free and fair elections. I can't think of a precedent where you have a government actively interfering, as they are in pushing ahead with this agreement at this time.

I'd like to ask both of you, do you think this in some way might legitimize the brutality of the Colombian secret police, the Colombian military, the Colombian paramilitaries in trying to push ahead with this agreement at a time when the government is actively stopping the free and fair elections in all regions of Colombia and the factors that would contribute to free and fair elections there?

[Barbara Wood]

My sense is that if they were truly concerned about our free trade agreement and the opinions of Canadians and the Canadian government, we may have actually seen less of these illegal and violent activities during an electoral campaign than what we saw. In fact, from what we heard from hundreds, even thousands, of people on the ground, these illegal activities have not diminished.

I don't think the fact that we have been promoting a free trade agreement during an electoral campaign has actually had an effect, which I think we could then extrapolate to question our influence in being able to positively affect the violent situation in Colombia through a free trade agreement.

[Carleen Pickard]

I would add to that, in agreement with Barbara, saying obviously the Colombian government hasn't made a larger effort to take any...and not just our recommendations but other recommendations of international organizations that have been on the ground in Colombia, to make any concrete changes toward the concerns that are raised.

Outside of that, the question around whether or not the Canadian government should be pushing forward during an electoral process I think certainly is important to consider. At the same time, I go back to the case of the independent human rights impact assessment.

I've read through most of the testimony to this committee to date on the assessment, and I haven't heard anybody say they think it's a really fantastic amendment and therefore it's unnecessary to do the human rights impact assessment report. I do wonder why the committee is seeing this as taking the place of the human rights impact assessment report, when really that is an outstanding piece of important investigation that the committee should be presenting to the government so that people can fully understand what's happening on the ground.

In closing, I want to quickly add to the question around the United States being able to impact the human rights situation. I think we've seen Plan Colombia to date.... I'm not sure how familiar everyone is with Plan Colombia, but we certainly haven't seen a decrease in the drug trade. We haven't seen a decrease in the violence.

The numbers that Barbara outlined in her presentation clearly point to a dramatic increase, in a lot of cases, in killings and in violence in communities. So the amount of money that the United States has put into Plan Colombia has clearly not had an impact on making people's lives better in Colombia.

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

Thank you for that.

Obviously, when you look at the Mexico situation, where a rules-based trading system has led to a rural meltdown in Mexico and a substantial increase in drug-related murders and drug trafficking, it would be ridiculous for anyone around this table to try to pretend that rules-based systems actually bring an end to drug trafficking and crime. In fact, what's happened is exactly the opposite, but that's a discussion, Mr. Chair, for another time.

I'd like to come to the issue of amendments. We have had commentary on the amendment that Mr. Brison has offered, even though we've only started to hear from human rights groups and labour organizations. The CCIC said it lacks credibility and the damage from a non-credible process is high. The ITUC, Mr. Benedict, said on Tuesday that it wasn't a credible amendment.

I'd like you to say in a word what you think about the amendment, how you'd describe the amendment, and whether you believe it lacks credibility.

Secondly, there's the whole issue around whether the Canadian government actually looks at the report that the Colombian government produces. We have, unfortunately, stark evidence of this when the DFAIT testimony on Colombian human rights was exactly the same as the Colombian government's testimony on human rights, glossing over all of the appalling human rights violations that are taking place there. What we have is a carbon copy from both governments, I think proving the theory that this is simply the Colombian government producing a report and the Canadian government rubber-stamping it.

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

Mr. Chair, the member is attacking the public servants of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

No.

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

Please continue, Mr. Julian.

Finally, there's the difference between the issue of what Mr. Uribe and Mr. Santos have said about human rights and what they say behind the scenes. The BBC reported that Mr. Uribe said those serving human rights just end up promoting the policies desired by those in collusion with terrorism, in other words, connecting human rights activists to terrorists. Could you comment?

[Barbara Wood]

Over the two terms of Mr. Uribe's time as president in Colombia he has made numerous public accusations against human rights defenders in particular, but also journalists and trade unionists, as being terrorists, or as being militants of terrorist organizations, or covering up for terrorists.

This is extremely unfortunate, but also extremely dangerous in a situation like Colombia, where to be linked with a guerrilla or a terrorist organization is tantamount to having a target on your forehead. Human rights organizations internationally have repeatedly asked that this kind of public and official statement not be made because it is indeed so dangerous, and absolutely inappropriate as well. It's unfortunate that those statements have been made and continue to be made, if not by the president, then by some of his closest allies.

Getting back to the point of whether the amendment dealing with human rights has credibility, I would say it does not. Regardless of who is collecting that information, the Colombian government will still have, as I understand it, a fair amount of control over what the report says because it will be reporting on them. Indeed, it will be difficult I think to be able to make a fair and impartial judgment of the human rights situation at that point.

[Carleen Pickard]

I would briefly add that in July I was in Bogota for a very short amount of time, for six days. We were down there looking at the feasibility of doing this mission in February. At that time we went to the Colombian government. We met with the government-funded, -sponsored, and-promoted human rights office, the human rights commission. We met with a woman there who is the spokesperson on human rights for the Colombian government. She said emphatically, over and over again, that her commission was not funded enough to be able to speak to or to make a human rights evaluation or assessment of the situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Trost.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I don't hog the time, I will end up sharing it with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.

I have to say, this has been one of the most bizarre and odd legislation or treaty study things I've ever worked on, in that, by and large, the debate is not what is best for Canada, which is normally what we tend to do. We have some of our agriculture groups here, and it seems to be generally accepted that this trade deal is good for Canada economically. But what we seem to have had is a bit of a debate between the witnesses, pro and against, about whether this is a good trade deal for Colombians.

If I can summarize—and correct me if I'm way off base here—the essence of the argument I'm hearing from the two witnesses today and otherwise is that this is a bad deal for Colombians because ultimately it will legitimize the current regime, its allies or its perceived allies, depending on who you're talking to, and their behaviour in abusing elections, human rights, etc. Am I accurately summing up the core of the argument? Everyone has details about what has been done and whatnot, but essentially you're saying this is a bad deal for Colombians. It's bad to have this free trade deal agreement because it will legitimize an illegitimate regime. Is that close to what the core is?

Please be fairly brief in your answers. Is that the core of your argument?

[Carleen Pickard]

I believe Canada has an important role to play in the world in terms of having an impact on trade, human rights, and development in countries.

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

Could you give me a more direct answer?

[Carleen Pickard]

I know my argument is not that this is a bad deal for Colombia; it's a very bad signal that Canada is sending to the rest of the world.

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

So I was close there, but I can accept that I was a little bit off. This could be a good deal for Colombians, but Canada is sending a bad signal by doing it. Would that be more accurate to state?

[Carleen Pickard]

No.

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

See, I'm having a bit of a hard time getting this one, because it's not an argument about whether it's good for Canada. We seem to have that.

From my perspective, if it's good for Canada and good for Colombia, why wouldn't we do it? So who is this deal ultimately bad for?

I'll go to our friend in Vancouver.

[Barbara Wood]

Thank you.

In addition to what Carleen has said, which I think is a very important and weighty issue that we need to consider as Canadians, I also believe that although a human rights impact assessment—believe me, I feel like a broken record in continuing to say it—would help us to see this better, the trade agreement with Colombia could exacerbate an already staggeringly difficult human rights situation.

There needs to be more—

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

So you're saying it would be bad for Colombia because it would exacerbate the human rights situation.

[Barbara Wood]

There's a very great potential for that, and that's what I think an impact assessment could help us to see.

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

Here's the problem I have with where your argument is going. Maybe that argument is true and accurate, but you're asking a bunch of Canadians to make that judgment for Colombians.

I have a sister-in-law from Cali, Colombia. I'm having some friends up tonight from Colombia. I'm hosting them in the parliamentary restaurant. One of them used to be a human rights attorney down there and did work on various things, until, for various reasons, she was forced out of the position. When I go down there, I talk to friends, and I don't see the opposition to it that I see from Canadians. There are some who are opposed, there are some who are in favour, but we keep having a problem in that the political parties that don't support the agreement tend to have very little support.

I know we've talked about how there has been crookedness and corruption in the elections, and I don't doubt that. With Chicago, and with Tammany Hall, American politics had a lot of that, too. I can list incidents here in Canada as well. But ultimately, shouldn't we let Colombians decide what this is all about? Wouldn't you say, at the end of the day, Colombians need to decide whether this is a good deal for Colombia, and Canadians need to decide whether this is a good deal for Canada?

[Barbara Wood]

I agree with you.

Go ahead, Carleen.

[Carleen Pickard]

Thanks, Barbara. I'll be brief.

I think the purpose of this committee is to determine whether or not this is good for Canada, and overall a good deal. I'll take the opportunity now to say that I do not understand the opposition to a human rights impact assessment report. If it uncovered that it would be positive for Colombia and positive for Canada, then that report would have been dutifully done.

You heard from Yessika Hoyos Morales, an attorney from Colombia, so you have heard from people in Colombia who are also speaking to, from, and on behalf of the people in Colombia.

[Barbara Wood]

I think also that we have many people--names have been put forward--from Colombia who would be able to speak directly to the committee as Colombians. I know some of them have been heard, and I hope that more are able to be heard. I think your point is well taken, and we need to hear from Colombians from a diverse representation of civil society.

May I also give just a quick background to Colombian politics. For those of you who know, in the eighties, the demobilized guerillas from the M-19 formed a political party called the Unión Patriótica, in which they decided to disarm and join the political process through an agreement with all parties. Over the course of the next decade, less than a decade, over 3,000 candidates--

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

Thank you.