International Trade Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. It's a pleasure to have you present to us.

This issue has been in front of us for a couple of years. I was actually just looking back. It was May 12, 2008, when some of the committee had the chance to go to Bogotá and area and see first-hand the plight and the conditions. Some of the rural areas are intolerable. We want to work together with them to try to increase the quality and standard of living. I believe that's the goal of each one of us.

We had a chance to work with the United Nations. Canada's government invested about $3 million—the largest contribution to helping with human rights issues at the time. Mr. Julian and a few of us toured a school and had a chance to meet with some of the individuals first-hand. Connie Watson, a CBC reporter who went with us when our chair, Lee Richardson, spoke to some of the folks, wrote:

Conservative MP Lee Richardson asked local officials whether a free trade deal will help the situation.... They said investment would be welcome, especially in roads, schools and jobs for the displaced people—40 per cent of whom can't find work in the city.

As I mentioned, we realize it's a significant challenge, the progress that Colombia has made to date, as my colleague Mr. Keddy alluded to. We're trying to strengthen their economy and society.

I guess my question would be to Professor Harrison. We believe that engagement rather than isolation is the best way to support positive change. Would you agree with that?

[Dr. James Harrison]

I think the question I would focus on would be the narrow one. The human rights impact assessment process is trying to assess what the actual impacts of the agreement will be. The important thing is that you don't take an ideological position, and the impact assessment process should not take an ideological position on isolationism or integrationism. It should stand above that, and only then will it have the kind of credibility with all actors to be a process that can tell people what the actual impacts are.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Professor Richani, you look lonely over there in New York, so I'll ask you a quick question.

As concerns the aspect of our friends to the south, we work closely with the U.S.—I'm a member of the Canada-U.S. committee, and recently had this discussion. My understanding is that President Obama has alluded to working towards trying to move this agreement into place. I hear timing is of the essence. We've heard from the cattle industry, the hog industry, the lentil industry, the pulse industry; we've had various agricultural witnesses before us.

From your perspective, what's your reading on the situation in Washington on the timing of this agreement?

[Dr. Nazih Richani]

I think they're waiting for you guys. In other words, maybe Canada would be the springboard for the FDA agreement. I think that's why in your deliberations it's extremely important to factor in the implications of your agreement on Colombia's political and economic future. In other words, I think that if you approve it, then it would provide justification for the Obama administration to go forward. But I can tell you, the Obama administration is facing serious problems regarding that issue, in terms of pressure from labour groups on the human rights component of the assassinations that are still going on in Colombia, in spite of the improvements you alluded to. In other words, maybe your approval will give impetus to the Obama administration to go forward with the agreement.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

And the last question is for whoever would like to answer. We were there with some Canadian companies. We had an opportunity to see first-hand the issue of CSR, corporate social responsibility. Do you think with Canadians moving into Colombia and working with the Colombian companies, we can lead by example? As alluded to earlier, is it better to engage them rather than sort of leave them with out any hope? Because I believe this agreement is providing hope, opportunities, and jobs. Maybe it's not perfect, but we can build on it as we have an annual reporting mechanism.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sorry, you'll have to get that on the next round, Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's five minutes, and we want to hear from Mr. Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to the witnesses.

My first question is for Mr. Richani.

Good afternoon, sir. I greatly appreciated your testimony. I completely agree with you. You have expressed a different point of view on the economy. You talked about agriculture, food sovereignty, local agriculture and food security. In my opinion, this is increasingly important economically. Some say that all we have to do is open mines or large plants in Colombia and then producers could go work in the mines and buy the food. Personally, I think that is backwards.

In your opinion, what is the importance of food sovereignty in a country like Colombia and the importance of local agriculture for Colombian producers and the Colombian people?

[Dr. Nazih Richani]

I think this is the critical issue. My concern is we have said that at least 50 million people are living in the rural areas, and most of these people's livelihoods depend on agricultural production. So therefore we need to weigh the interests of these groups in any trade agreement with Canada or any other trade agreement.

Specifically, even the World Bank and the FAO are coming to an agreement that food production is the major thing, not only for Colombia but in the developing nations at large. And if you keep in mind what happened during the food crisis a couple of years ago, that was the first alarming shock.

This free trade agreement, if it incorporates in its provisions articles that safeguard the production of the small persons, would be a positive thing. In other words, you have to put mechanisms in place whereby the small producers of grain, maize, corn, peas, potatoes, rice, and sugar are not affected negatively. If they are, how could we provide for...? I mean, we should make sure that these peasants do have access to markets, that they do have access to better fertilizers, they do have better access to mechanization, and what have you.

In other words, we have to factor in the strategic interests of this sector, because we don't want to transform Colombia into a net importer of food, and making it just produce some cash crops and some mining. What happens after the mining dries up? We transform the 45 million people of Colombia into beggars.

Is this how we contemplate the future, in 10 or 15 or 20 years down the line? So it's not about today. It's not about tomorrow. It's about the future of Colombia. So that's why we should really make sure that we have a mind to the interests of the agriculture production in Colombia.

From my studies, I have seen that in every region where multinational corporations have invested, such as Casanare, Arauca, or Putumayo, it has affected our agriculture production negatively. It was detrimental. It created all the implications of the Dutch disease. In other words, people clamoured to become part of this new production of oil or coal or gold at the expense of food production, but the consequence of that is what? That's why provisions should be put in place to make sure that this does not happen. Basically it's the responsibility of the Colombian government to put in place policies that could mitigate the effects of the Dutch disease. This is not taking place.

Colombia today is witnessing a boom in the mining industry. Foreign direct investment has increased tremendously. Now the figures are alarming. Therefore, what will happen in the wake of this boom? Less agriculture production, less food security. And therefore what happens after that boom dissipates is the critical question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our guest for appearing today.

I will apologize. I did not hear opening statements, as I've only just arrived, so frankly I've not heard your testimony. So if any of this is a repeat of a prior question, I will apologize. For all I know, you also put the free trade agreement with....

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Holder, there's a problem of turning pages with the mike open.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Sorry, can we try that again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Go ahead, Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Can you hear me better now?

I thank our guests for attending and providing testimony. And I apologize. I've only recently arrived. I'm not new to the committee, but I'm new to this meeting today. For all I know, you all support free trade with Colombia, which would be great. I say that insofar as I come from the government side, and we have some supporters around the table for this.

I want to take us back, if I can. Since this committee has been dealing with the issue of Colombia, we've had something like 125 witnesses discussing both sides of the issue, all with very strong and passionate views on one side or the other.

Some of the things that I have heard—and this is not intended to be selective hearing--from an economic standpoint.... And again, I will apologize if you are talking about the issues of human rights. We all respect that's important. We also understand that the economic issues are important. With economics you get into issues of agriculture and other things.

But the sense I have.... Probably the majority of testimony I've heard has suggested it's like that Beatles' song, Give Peace a Chance. It's like give this an opportunity, because there has been some remarkable progress, by whatever way we want to define it, since President Uribe has taken power. And he is soon to relinquish it, in a democratic forum actually, which I think speaks volumes on the man and the system.

We've heard from people from the agricultural side, both in Canada and in Colombia, who have talked about the importance of agriculture. Right now, and you may all know this, we do some $1.35 billion of two-way trade. So it isn't that we don't do trade.

It seems to me that if I had a choice of a much more formalized, rigid, rules-based system, versus one that is loose, that doesn't address the labour agreement in detail, the environmental issue there, perhaps even a human rights issue agreement that may well be there.... I mean, this is a country, in my sense, that is trying very hard.

I think that when we look at this, as we're trying to create this rules-based system, my question—and I'll pick one.... Mr. Harrison, what's wrong with having a rules-based system? I don't mean that in an accusatory fashion. Does it not make practical sense? You're a lawyer, I gather, from the school of law. Does it not make sense? You live by rules. We are in a country of rules. England is a country of rules. Does it not make sense that if we do trade anyway, that we provide a rules-based system for them?

Could I have your thoughts, sir, please?

[Dr. James Harrison]

As I've been saying, I think I'm probably the least qualified person to answer a specific question, because I don't claim to have any knowledge of Colombia and Canada.

The point I am strongly making to the committee is about assessing the rules. One doesn't bring in any rules willy-nilly. The rules of any kind of game can be beneficial or they can have negative impacts. The important thing is that you assess those rules.

A human rights framework gives you the ability to assess those rules, for instance, on the impacts on small farmers. I don't think there is this big dichotomy between the economic issues, as you put it, and the human rights issues. In fact we can use the human rights lens to give us a useful medium through which to view what the impacts.... For instance, we talked a lot today about what the impacts of free trade deals on small subsistence farmers in Colombia might be. The important thing for me is scrutiny of the rules. To me, that is what the human rights framework does.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I appreciate that.

I would challenge the phrase “willy-nilly rules”. Perhaps that's a British expression--I don't know it--but it doesn't sound very formal. I think what we have here is a formal rules-based system, which in terms of labour conventions and in terms of environmental assessment and conditions is considered very strong. I think the details are quite precise.

There is a Canadian expression, and perhaps you know it: the devil is in the details. My Cape Breton mother made that up, and she would say you can't define anything until you know precisely the things you're dealing with.

I think this is as comprehensive an arrangement, perhaps with flaws.... But if you're going to assess it, wouldn't the opportunity to give it a chance be there?

You started, Mr. Harrison, and perhaps you could finish off that thought. Does it not make sense to give it a chance?

[Dr. James Harrison]

“Willy-nilly” probably was the wrong choice of words. I think I was making the point more generally that one shouldn't think that rules by themselves are a good thing. It's the nature of the rules that you bring in and the way that changes the way the game is played that is important.

Again, I would stress the fact that the human rights methodology gives you a particular perspective and a way of assessing those rules. I was heartened by the original proposal of the standing committee that an ex ante assessment of the trade agreement would take place because I thought that would have been a useful mechanism for assessing the rules of the game, and mitigating those rules where necessary in order to take account of potential negative impacts.

I am still positive about the fact that even if it's not an ex ante assessment, an ex post evaluation of those rules will take place. But as I said at a number of points, I think there are ways in which that assessment must take place to be meaningful.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I wish I had more time. I'm being told by the chair that we're done, but can I say thank you and I'm sorry that we didn't have more opportunity to dialogue.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Holder.

Mr. Brison.

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

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the importance of Colombia's sovereignty, and of course inherent in sovereignty is self-determination. The two front-runners in the current presidential election, Mr. Mockus and Mr. Santos, support these free trade agreements. They also support the security agenda of the previous government. In fact, all the major parties believe in the same direction that has taken Colombia where it is today from where it was in 2002.

Why do you believe that the Colombian people themselves do not deserve the opportunity to determine their futures democratically through elections, to vote for freer trade, to open up their economy, and to vote for governments that provide them with improved security over what they had prior to 2002?

Mr. Richani.

[Dr. Nazih Richani]

The issue is basically that we are academics and we have studied the implications of the free trade agreements, and the bottom line is we are better informed than the layman or laywoman on the street and therefore we know, as experts, the most vulnerable sectors that could be impacted by these free trade agreements. I'm not against it. All I'm saying is you have to factor in and weigh in the interests of the producers of food in Colombia. So if you do that, and you provide provisions and safety nets for the producers of food and food security for Colombia, then let it be. That's our role as academics: it's to tell you.

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

No, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Richani.

[Dr. Nazih Richani]

You are most welcome.