Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 9 - Evidence - June 17, 2010
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to which was referred Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are here with a panel of witnesses to deal with Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.
As the committee agreed last night, we will start our study with officials from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Labour Canada, and any other departments that might be affected by this bill and that wish to appear.
I understand that the chief negotiator on this agreement was Ms. Carol Nelder-Corvari, Director, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance.
Carol Nelder-Corvari, Director, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you. We are pleased to be here to respond to any questions on this bill from honourable senators.
We are pleased to have reached this stage as it is two years since the completion of the negotiations. This is a very strong commercial agreement with Colombia. It compares very well with the U.S. agreement that was negotiated with Colombia. It will put our exporters on equal footing in a number of areas with other exporters that are also negotiating with Colombia. The European Union has concluded an agreement with Colombia, which is proceeding to implementation. The United States, as you know, concluded their agreement some time ago. That agreement has been held up in Congress, but indications from the Obama administration are that it will be moving forward in the near term.
It is vitally important for Canada to solidify its foothold in this growing market. Colombia experienced significant growth in recent years prior to the recession and appears to be recovering.
Key exports in agriculture for Canada are wheat, barley and pulses. We also ship an increasing amount of machinery, light trucks and mining equipment to Colombia, which is expanding its mining and its infrastructure operations extensively. There is a range of opportunities for Canadian goods exporters, service exporters and investors.
Our investors are very important in terms of establishing a channel for exports and services. These are all equally important areas. We believe that this is a very robust commercial agreement that is widely supported by Canadian stakeholders who look forward to its implementation.
The FTA negotiated with Colombia is comprehensive. It includes a labour and environment side agreement, as well as, for the first time, chapters on labour and environment in an effort to more fully integrate those issues into the FTA model.
With me are Pierre Bouchard, who was the chief labour negotiator, and Dean Beyea, the lead market access negotiator. Mr. Brookfield is here from the legal division at DFAIT to answer any questions you may have on the clauses of the agreement. Émilie Revil, from DFAIT geographic division for Colombia is also here.
We are prepared to respond to your questions.
Senator Stollery: My first question is for Ms. Nelder-Corvari. Have you any idea of what percentage of Colombians work in agriculture?
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: Agriculture is an important part of their economy. I do not have the exact number.
Senator Stollery: Is it 60 per cent or 70 per cent? In Canada it is 1.5 per cent.
I ask this question because it strikes me that any agreement with Colombia, a country with which I am quite familiar, will be largely an agreement about agriculture. I recall the Macdonald commission's report talking about agriculture and culture being two almost intractable things to resolve in trade agreements, which is why they are not in the Canada-U.S. agreement. Therefore, it is pertinent to know what percentage of Colombians will be affected by this agreement.
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: The major imports from Colombia in the agricultural sector are coffee —
Senator Stollery: Yes, they are coffee, sugar and bananas. They refer to them as dessert economies.
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: Yes, and cut flowers. Those sectors will benefit by this agreement. As well, the Colombians attach a great deal of importance to textile and apparel exports to Canada, particularly given that their exports to Venezuela and Ecuador have been disrupted in recent months. They see Canada as an important market in those areas as well.
Senator Stollery: As you are probably aware, there have been big difficulties. This committee is very aware of those difficulties as pointed out to us when we spoke to the three political parties while in Mexico City. The only thing they agree on is the difficulty with agriculture in the NAFTA agreements and that it has depopulated large sections of Mexico. Was that considered when dealing with Colombia? I have read the Colombian statistics, but given the civil war, I wonder about their accuracy. Are the problems similar?
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: The honourable senator is correct: Agriculture is important to Colombia. For that reason, their agricultural representatives were an integral part of developing the Colombian position that was put forward in these negotiations and is reflected in the balance of the results.
Senator Stollery: I understand, but the coffee exporters do not have a problem because we do not grow coffee in Canada. Coffee, sugar, bananas and flowers, as I say, are often jocularly referred to as "dessert economies." I know that the textile sector is small, but it is important.
The question seems to be similar to the Mexican agricultural sector. The horticultural exporters were all in favour of NAFTA. However, that is not where the people work; the agricultural sector is the rice sector because, as you know, Colombians are huge consumers of rice and beans. That has been a big problem in Mexico; the bean and maize producers have been wiped out. It is one of the sources of all of the massacres we all read about and the instability on the border of Mexico.
You do not know what percentage of Colombians work in what must be their most important sector.
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: I do not know the exact percentage. I am reluctant to provide that information. The honourable senator is probably correct that it is larger than the Canadian percentage.
When we do these negotiations, we do them with developing countries such as Colombia. By definition, there is a longer phase-out period and the tariff is offered on behalf of Colombia because of the recognition of the need for adjustment.
As I said, there were very intense discussions within Colombia on the full range of FTAs in which Colombia has been engaged to their agricultural industries. I had the pleasure of meeting with several of those industries while I was there. I can tell you that their position was reflected in what was negotiated by the Government of Colombia.
Senator Stollery: I am sure.
I have a final question. I know a little bit about trade agreements, as does this committee because we have been involved with them for many years. They are really about the dispute settlement mechanism. After all, most trade does not have a problem. Colombians have never had a difficulty selling their coffee, sugar, flowers and bananas in Canada. It really boils down to a dispute settlement mechanism.
As we know in Canada, the most intractable disputes are always over agriculture and forest products. We have never been able to resolve the softwood lumber dispute with the Americans. We know the grain producers keep bringing new suits against them for illegal this, that and the other thing.
What a ridiculous position I find myself in because, after all, I am Canadian and I work in the Canadian interest. I understand that.
How do you think a developing country like Colombia would fare in a dispute with Canada in terms of costs, legal bills and all the rest of it? The last figure I heard in softwood lumber was $300 million, and that was 10 years ago. How would Colombia be able to defend itself any better than the Mexicans have in a dispute, and the Mexicans have not fared well? Dispute is really our only concern.
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: Based on my experience, I met more lawyers than economists across the negotiating table in Colombia. I can tell you they are very adept at presenting their interests and that Colombia has very strong legal traditions in terms of their capabilities in that regard.
The point of dispute settlement, as you say, is to have a way to resolving disputes —
Senator Stollery: Which is all a trade agreement is.
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: — without resorting to political tensions that can occur when there are problems between commerce.
This dispute settlement chapter, like in our other FTAs, is a good equalizer in terms of ensuring each side gets to present its arguments in a fair manner. It is resolved in an independent way.
Senator Stollery: That has never happened between Canada and the U.S., but I would be interested to see how it happens with Colombia.
Mr. Bouchard, Colombia does not have labour unions; they have los gremios, company unions. I think the real issue is the dispute settlement mechanism. I will not pursue it because it will never work, so there is no point in me pursuing it.
However, I have found the debate a little puzzling because while the critics should be concentrating on the impossibility of Colombia ever winning a dispute settlement, they have been concentrating on the labour part of this business.
The last time I talked to someone in Bogota was a while ago. He was the ILO representative a few representatives ago. He said they do not have unions. They are company unions. The insurance company has a union, the bank has a union, and the Colombian coffee association runs their own government. I have heard it described as a system of parallel governments because of the long and difficult history in Colombia. I am very friendly with Columbia. I am not saying this to be critical. Columbia has huge problems.
What possible impact can a labour agreement have on a country that does not have labour unions?
Pierre Bouchard, Director, Bilateral and Regional Labour Affairs, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Colombia does have traditional unions, as we know them.
Senator Stollery: In what sector?
Mr. Bouchard: In the public, private, agricultural and industrial sectors. The rate of unionization has actually gone up. In the last few years, it has gone up from 4 per cent to now maybe 7 per cent, it is still relatively low.
Senator, you might be referring to other organizations that we see as problematic. Actually, the Colombian government sees them as problematic, and they are called "cooperatives." These are organizations where the employers will have a say in this. However, the government is trying to adjust its laws to ensure that these organizations do not undermine the traditional unions. It is a recognized problem. This is what you might be referring to.
Senator Stollery: The Spanish word I know very well is los gremios. I have been to Melgar many times where you go past all those recreational centres that have their own operations. It is a series of company unions. The army has its own organization. That is what I was told by one of their representatives at the ILO in Geneva.
In order to have a traditional union sector, you have to have an industrial sector. The only one I know of is the textile sector. They have had a stock market in Medellin since 1943, so they do have a textile business.
Mr. Bouchard: Former Minister Blackburn and I visited some of these enterprises and talked to union representatives. I would say there are various shapes. You have the traditional unions and the cooperatives. There are also associations with different kinds of employees and even employers. You have the full range.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I would like to welcome all of our witnesses and say that we are delighted to have you here at our committee this morning.
Bill C-2 contains labour and environmental agreements which, according to Canadian officials and international negotiators, are not only the most stringent that we have signed as a country in comparison with any other country, but also the most stringent of any agreement ever entered into with any other country in the world.
Given that we already have a trade relationship with Colombia, can you foresee the possibility that this new rules-based agreement may have any impact other than to improve labour standards and environmental conditions?
[English]
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: Reinforcing labour rights in Colombia was an important objective for Canada in this negotiation. For that reason, there have been efforts to provide greater foreign assistance in this area. The negotiators speak to the details of the robustness of the labour agreement, but it certainly was a major objective. Colombia has been transparent about its desire to strengthen its traditions in these areas. It has agreed to abide by the International Labour Organization's principles and reflect those principles in its laws. It has taken numerous steps to protect its union representatives with a multi-million dollar program that provides security.
There is an effort and openness on the part of Colombia. They acknowledge that improvements are needed and that there are real problems to deal with. They are looking to other countries, such as Canada, and these sorts of agreements to help move them forward. Canada's vigilance in this area will be an important part of implementation.
Mr. Bouchard: For this agreement, we have two main elements of labour provisions to the trade agreement. One element is the comprehensiveness of the obligation, how high is the level of obligation. The other pillar is how strong is your dispute settlement to ensure that other countries will respect that obligation.
When we talk about this agreement, no doubt we can say that it is the most comprehensive. We like to use the word "comprehensive" with regard to the level of obligation. This is the most comprehensive labour agreement Canada has ever signed. In terms of obligation, as you mentioned, we have surpassed similar agreements or labour chapters signed by the United States. Our negotiations surpassed the negotiations between the European Union and Columbia. In terms of level of obligation, this agreement goes beyond any other agreement in existence today.
In terms of the robustness of the dispute settlement, this is a very robust agreement. Of course, we would try to solve any dispute through cooperation. That is the best way to resolve problems. We try to find a problem solving approach to the dispute-resolution mechanism. However, in the end, if there is no compliance, there is a possibility of monetary assessment or, if you wish, financial penalties of up to $15 million per year to be deposited into a fund that would ensure the problems are resolved.
In terms of that robustness, just to be factual and careful, there is a debate as to whether our approach is more or less robust than the American approach, where there is the possibility of imposing trade sanctions, the money is not deposited into a cooperation fund, et cetera. We think our approach is just as robust and that our approach will find solutions. There is a debate about the word "robustness" of the dispute settlement, but there is certainly no debate with regard to the comprehensiveness of the obligation. Even some union representatives recognize that these are the most comprehensive in existence today.
Senator Di Nino: I also extend my welcome. The only real criticism I have heard comes from those who are concerned about labour laws, the environment and human rights. We heard a good explanation of the agreement on cooperation and labour.
Could you provide further enlightenment on the agreement on the environment, which is also a serious issue?
Ms. Nelder-Corvari: The negotiations are interesting. There is a preconception that developing countries are resistant to labour and environment agreements because their domestic laws are not up to standard and they feel this will impose developed country requirements on them. This was not the case, and we are finding more frequently it is not the case.
In fact, Colombia is a good example because it negotiated a comprehensive agreement with the United States that included the environment. They have developed expectations among civil society who expect to see the same sort of accommodation in the next agreement. They have expectations that their environmental heritage will be protected. That is what we encountered in this negotiation. The labour and environment negotiations went very smoothly. There was an effort to make progress on all fronts in that area.
With respect to the environment, the agreement requires Colombia to effectively enforce its laws. The agreement refers to the importance of the protection of biodiversity and our respective rights under the international Convention on Biological Diversity. The agreement contains provisions that Colombia can relax its environmental laws in order to attract trade and investment.
These are standard provisions in our agreements. We went further on labour because of the particular interest in Colombia in this regard. We made greater efforts to reinforce the progress they had been making.
The penalties or the obligations concerning the environment and labour are not as important as the ensuing cooperation because of engagement out of this agreement. The real difference will be the countries working together under international principles towards stronger rights for both the environment and labour.
The Chair: Welcome to the Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister of International Trade and to the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Labour.
Both ministers are here to represent the government position with respect to Bill C-2. We started with the officials because our meeting started before the ministers were able to be present.
Hon. Peter Van Loan, P.C., M.P., Minister of International Trade: Thank you, madam chair. You have heard from the officials. I do not know how much we can add. However, it is a pleasure to be here today to speak to the committee about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.
In today's globalized world, we cannot deny that Canada's economic prosperity, our commitment to democratic governance and the security of our citizens are linked with those of our neighbours. Based on this reality, Prime Minister Harper announced in 2007 that enhanced engagement with the Americas would be a foreign policy priority for Canada.
[Translation]
In this announcement, the Prime Minister stated that Canada's vision for the region would be built upon three pillars: strengthening and reinforcing support for democratic governance, building a safe and secure hemisphere, and enhancing the prosperity of citizens.
[English]
As one of the oldest democracies in Latin America, with a strong tradition of democratic institutions, Colombia represents a solid partner for enhanced engagement. The Government of Colombia continues to make improvements towards a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy. They have taken positive steps toward this goal.
[Translation]
The Canadian government firmly believes that it is vital for Canada and other countries to pursue policies of engagement and support for peace in Colombia and that by creating economic opportunities, we can contribute to Colombia's improvement. The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement can help provide these opportunities.
[English]
Colombia has already proven that it is dedicated to improving the economic conditions of its citizens. It is a strong and exciting market with approximately 48 million people, sound macroeconomic policy and improved security under current leadership. These factors have all generated favourable economic conditions.
The free trade agreement with Colombia is a core element to help Canadian businesses take advantage of new opportunities and to grow in this market. This agreement, along with parallel agreements on the environment and labour cooperation are a key part of the government's broader free trade agenda and Canada's larger foreign policy.
Canada has established a series of free trade agreements, as honourable senators know. These include the United States and Mexico under NAFTA, Israel, Chile, Costa Rica and Peru. More recently, we took the initiative to implement new free trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association countries. Legislation is currently in the House of Commons for a free trade agreement with Jordan. The government also signed a free trade agreement with Panama on May 14, 2010.
We have been through three rounds of successful negotiations that appear to be ahead of schedule on a free trade agreement with the European Union. Further negotiations are scheduled with for July and October. We will then take stock before proceeding with the horse trading exercises in expectation of having a free trade agreement — they call it a comprehensive economic trade agreement — inked by the end of 2011.
We are also negotiating with a number of other countries. We recently launched formal negotiations with the Ukraine. We have ongoing negotiations with what we call the "Central America Four" — El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras. Discussions are underway with CARICOM and the Dominican Republic. We are exploring other opportunities elsewhere, such as Morocco. We are laying the groundwork for negotiations with India. We are always pressing Japan, which is a more reluctant partner, to see what can be done.
Colombia has consistently been a significant trade partner for Canada. In 2009, our two-way merchandise trade totalled $1.3 billion. Over the past five years, Canadian merchandise exports have grown by over 55 per cent.
Clearly, Canadian businesses see potential in this marketplace. That is particularly true in the agriculture sector. In 2009, Canada exported agri-food products worth nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to Colombia. Colombia is the second-largest market in South America for our agricultural exports.
In terms of foreign investment, Canadian investment in Colombia is approaching $1 billion. We were at approximately $800 million in 2009. Services exports to Colombia approximate $80 million to $85 million per year.
The reality is that Canadian exporters, investors and service providers will be at a disadvantage if we do not make the most of the available opportunities. Other key trading partners recognize the potential in the Colombian market. Of course, our largest competitor, the United States, is already geographically better positioned than Canada to trade with Colombia.
Implementation of this free trade agreement represents an opportunity to help our exporters, investors and service providers to strengthen their position.
[Translation]
Once implemented, the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement will benefit Canadian exporters by lowering significant trade barriers in the Colombian market. In particular, Colombia will eliminate tariffs on nearly all of Canada's current exports to Colombia, including wheat, pulses and mining equipment. And over 85 per cent of Canadian agricultural exports to Colombia will be duty-free immediately.
The removal of these duties is a significant advantage for Canadian agriculture and agrifood producers. This sector is critical for Canada as it contributes about $100 billion to the country's GDP and employs over two million Canadians.
[English]
The benefits of this deal extend across the Canadian economy. It is also expected to have a positive impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector. With rapid growth in the Colombian economy in recent years, Canadian companies made important investments. The strong presence of Canadian companies has also created many export opportunities for Canadian exporters of industrial goods, particularly oil, gas and mining equipment manufacturers. Some of Canada's leading exports to Colombia include off-road dump trucks and auto parts. These products will benefit under this agreement.
For Canadian and Colombian investors alike, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement offers significant gains. Two-way investment is absolutely critical as a driving force in today's global economy. It is important for Canada to maintain both inward and outward investment with our global partners — partners including Colombia.
Thanks in part to Colombia's burgeoning oil, gas and mining sectors, this number is expected to grow in the coming years.
[Translation]
These are just a few areas where Canada has significant interests and can offer a lot to our Colombian partners going forward. The agreement offers an unprecedented level of stability, predictability and protection. It establishes a stable legal framework, with strong obligations that will ensure the free transfer of investment capital, and protection against expropriation. It also gives investors access to transparent, binding and impartial dispute settlement processes.
[English]
Our service sectors will also benefit from the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, and this sector is a primary driver of the Canadian economy, responsible for 71 per cent of our gross domestic product and three in four Canadian jobs. The Colombian market holds many opportunities for growth across the services sector in areas such as financial services, legal services, engineering and high technology.
Canadian service providers have a substantial presence in the Colombian market. Fuelling these numbers are financial, mining, engineering, petroleum extractor sectors and tourism.
[Translation]
This agreement will afford service providers a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment and it will provide additional measures of confidence.
Under the agreement, Canadian service providers can plan for the future and know they will be treated the same as Colombian service providers. These are just a few strengths of this free trade agreement.
[English]
It is a comprehensive deal that includes obligations in various areas, including financial services, temporary entry for business people, technical barriers to trade and sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures related to food and agricultural products.
The government has made a commitment to Canadians that will help them compete and succeed, and this agreement comes at a time when Canadian companies could truly use that advantage over our competitors. If we proceed to adopt this and implement this quickly, there will clearly be a window during which we will have a competitive advantage over others, such as the United States and the European Union, who, while having negotiated free trade agreements, have not yet moved to implement them.
Hon. Lisa Raitt, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour: It is a pleasure to be with you here today. Thank you for inviting me to speak on Bill C-2, because it includes the very important labour cooperation agreement that has been reached between Canada and Colombia.
I will focus on three principles of the agreement today: the strength of these kinds of international agreements, the importance of the process, and how it raises the bar for human rights in Colombia and elsewhere.
One of the main strengths of this new agreement is the economic benefits that it brings to Canada, and Minister Van Loan has spoken to this. Our government has emphasized many times that Canada remains deeply committed to the principles of free trade and open markets. Our government believes that by generating economic growth a country can reduce its poverty, and by creating bigger markets where people can do business in a free and fair manner, growth in business is encouraged and access to financial prosperity is extended.
The economic opportunities in Colombia are significant. It is an emerging market of 44 million people and an economy that is growing every day. Forecasts suggest a 4.7 per cent growth in Colombia's GDP over the next five years.
As Mr. Van Loan pointed out, the two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia was more than $1.3 billion. There are hundreds of Canadian companies doing business with Colombia. It is an investment destination for 50 Canadian companies, principally in mining and oil exploration and manufacturing, and we know that those sectors are vital to Canadian prosperity and innovation.
Canada continues to promote the idea that markets work best when they are open and that trade flows better when it is free of obstacles. The Canadian way of doing business is through collaborative growth and through prosperity, and that is an idea that is worth bringing to international markets.
There are many strengths within the agreement, and these will help the citizens in both of our countries. In Canada, many of our citizens have been faced with significant challenges through this global economic recession. While they are encouraging signs that a sustained recovery is taking place, we do have to be vigilant in strengthening trade and taking advantage of economic opportunity. With this in mind, we also need to ensure that economic development moves in unison with social progress.
Our government believes that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights. We are committed to working with Colombia to improve labour standards and, of course, to protect workers. That is why this agreement, the Canadian-Colombian labour cooperation agreement, was negotiated in parallel with the free trade agreement, and that is why it is important.
The agreement will facilitate cooperation on labour issues and it will hold Colombia accountable for maintaining rigorous domestic labour standards and reflect those set out by the International Labour Organization. This agreement commits both Canada and Colombia to ensure that laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work.
This declaration covers a wide range of workers' rights and obligations. It includes the right of freedom to association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace.
While these principles are important, our government's agreement with Colombia actually goes further. It commits both countries to provide acceptable protections for occupational health and safety, and it also sets strict employment standards, such as minimum wage and hours of work. This agreement also helps to ensure that migrant workers receive the same legal protections for working conditions as do nationals.
The labour agreement is far more than simple rhetoric; it is actually backed by enforcement. The labour provisions negotiated in the context of the free trade agreement are some of the most comprehensive and robust ever negotiated by Canada with any of its trade partners. It commits both countries to enforce their domestic labour laws and to respect internationally recognized core labour standards. It also creates institutions and mechanisms for intergovernmental consultations and joint activities, as well as for independent evaluations and dispute settlement. Citizens can submit complaints to Canada and Colombia concerning any of the obligations found in the agreement. There are very real financial consequences for those who fail to respect the obligations in this agreement; penalties of up to $15 million annually. These penalties will accrue in a special cooperation fund that will be used to help address labour issues and to ensure compliance. Through this agreement, Canadians will have a unique tool at their disposal to ensure that the Colombia government continues to demonstrate the political will and provide the necessary resources to improve the labour situation.
We are aware of Colombia's difficult track record concerning labour and human rights infringements. This record needs to improve, but we need to fully engage Colombia as trading partners so we can discuss what needs to be done to improve the lives of its citizens. By establishing this level of cooperation, Canada will now have direct dialogue and be able to address labour infringements. This cooperation agreement will give our country more leverage and will allow best practices and democratic values to be established.
We want to be clear that we are committed to working with Colombia to ensure that it is able to meet the obligations in the new agreement. To complement this agreement, Canada is providing Colombia with $1 million in labour-related technical assistance funding. However, there should be no illusions. Colombia still has a long way to go in addressing its track record on human rights. Today its government is engaging the international community in a constructive way.
We are encouraged by Colombia's progress in addressing the cycle of violence and underdevelopment that has affected this country for decades. By deepening both the economic and political engagement between our countries, Canadians can support the citizens of Colombia in their efforts to create a safer and more prosperous democracy.
I am pleased to be part of an important year for Canadian economic leadership on the world stage. As you know, we are hosting the G8 leaders meeting as well as the G20 summit. Against this backdrop of leadership and international influence, the new labour cooperation agreement with Colombia does send an important message. We are sending the message that Canada is open for business and we are willing to lead in sharing with our trading partners the best practices and values that drive the Canadian way of doing business. We want to build safe, healthy and fair workplaces, and we want to respect human rights and a democratic tradition. These are not just Canadian values; they are a fundamental part of how we engage in trade and how we help to build a better world.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today. Of course, I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Smith: The fact that Minister Van Loan and I were law partners for many years does not constitute a conflict of interest if I ask him a question. It is ironic that Minister Raitt also worked in our law firm.
Senator Di Nino: You did a great job building Conservatives.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
Two or three days ago, I wound up as the Senate critic on this bill. Fortunately, I had attended a few briefing sessions and heard a fair bit about it from our colleague Scott Brison who has been high energy in trying to make this happen.
I have one question. The only thing people talk about is balance. In a nutshell, do the perceived benefits of increasing trade between our countries and strengthening the legitimate economy in Colombia outweigh the negatives? We all know about the other side of the economy, which hopefully will shrink and the legitimate economy will grow.
Perhaps this is a test case of negotiating an agreement with a country in whatever category you want to describe Colombia as being, given their problems, and whether the leverage you get from linking in these side agreements arrives at the basic conclusion that the benefits outweigh the negatives. My judgment has been they do.
Could I get comments from the two ministers on how they came to that conclusion? If they had not come to that conclusion, we would not even be here.
Mr. Van Loan: Obviously we believe the benefits outweigh any downside. In fact, nobody has credibly pointed out any downside. None of those who are critical of doing an agreement with Colombia because of its human rights concerns has made any suggestion to me that anything in this agreement would adversely affect human rights or labour conditions. In fact, everyone acknowledges that you would see an improvement in the standards of living for Colombians and an improvement in labour conditions; that is not the issue. Those who have the problems just do not want you to deal with a country they perceive as having significant problems.
In terms of leverage, although we have these parallel agreements, we would be flattering ourselves to think we are somehow influencing any change in the conduct of those governments. However, I genuinely believe that the government of Colombia right now and what will likely be the administration in the future is committed to improving their performance in all these areas on their own, never mind our involvement and our influence.
It is a positive influence and a positive thing to have the agreement. However, it is quite clear that the genuine direction of the Colombian government for some years has been to deal with lawlessness, to improve the standard of living of their citizens, to improve the rule of law in their country and to make progress on all these fronts that we think are important.
Economic growth and development is an important part of that engagement with the outside world. It is all positive influences to the extent of further foreign investment; more ties to countries; you are more linked to them, particularly in services; and the financial sector and with investment where you do get the people-to-people transfer and merchandise-to-merchandise transfers. Those are all positive influences. I see all kinds of ways in which this agreement will benefit that progress that Colombia has been committed to achieving, and I expect will continue to achieve.
Ms. Raitt: Senator, from the perspective of the labour program, any time we are able to formally engage another country on labour standards is an opportunity for us. It is an opportunity for us not only on the political level dealing with my counterpart in Colombia. The key on this labour cooperation agreement and the million dollars in technical assistance is that we are actually supporting projects that aim to build capacity within Colombia's Ministry of Social Protection.
We are actually going right into the bureaucracy and the officials in Colombia to help them understand better and give them more tools about labour rights, social dialogue and occupational health and safety. It is an opportunity for us to get into this country in order to help bring it along. Indeed, many of our officials have been able to go to Colombia already. It really is the one part of the labour program we do not talk about a lot. Sometimes social change happens because of the sharing of best practices. Sometimes it goes up as opposed to political will coming down.
That is why it works well to have it along with the broader free trade agreement: It gives us access and allows us to have best practices. There is also a complaints procedure that is incredibly important. At least we will get notification. There is that escape valve for people who see that parts of the LCA, Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement may not be enforced; that they are able to make a complaint to Canada and that we could have a discussion around that as well. It is beneficial.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I am pleased to welcome Minister Van Loan. We have been hoping for a visit from you for several years now. Your appearance is made possible because of your responsibilities as the Minister of International Trade.
These negotiations began in 2002. I will use your words, Mr. Minister, when you said that the Prime Minister stated that these negotiations were founded on three pillars and I would like to focus on the second, namely, a secure and safe environment in the southern hemisphere.
Since 2002, more specifically, since 2007, our negotiators, the Government of Canada, you and we have been observing the safety and security of Colombia. What do you say to those who are telling us that Colombia is not taking the required action to stem violence in Colombia? You just told my colleague, Senator Smith, that you are confident that the Colombian government will do what is needed in order to reduce this violence. Since 2007, can you convince us that there have been improvements made in that regard?
Mr. Van Loan: There are many examples of progress achieved in improving labour conditions in Colombia. The best example is the opinion provided by the International Labour Organization.
[English]
For the first time in 21 years, the International Labour Organization has taken Colombia off their list of countries they want examined for failure to comply with international workers' conditions. To me, that is evidence. The International Labour Organization is not a big pro-business organization; it is a labour organization concerned with labourers' rights. The ILO publishes this list annually and for the first time in 21 years, Colombia has moved off that list.
That is evidence, again validated by a credible third party outside organization of the progress that Colombia has been making on its own. If you take a look at what they are doing on all fronts, they are seeking to do that. Certainly, there is some element of conflict in the battles with the drug gangs in Colombia, with FARC, the terrorist organization. However, that is also achieving progress. They are taking on the source of the instability. Last week, we saw the liberation of senior police officials who had been held hostage as long as 12 years by FARC. Again, it is another example of progress that has been made in rolling back the influence of those narco-terrorist groups.
This is all positive. It is not without tension to get there, but that tension is not caused by the government. That is the tension caused by the government trying to address a destabilizing influence.
Senator Downe: Mr. Van Loan, in future trade negotiations, do you believe Canada should adopt a United States' approach when side agreements on labour and environment are included in the main text?
Mr. Van Loan: That has some appeal. In our negotiations with the European Union, that is how it will be reflected; that is the current plan. They will not be side agreements but part and parcel of the text.
I expect that if we are to see success in trade agreements with CARICOM and with India, we will have to approach these questions a little bit differently. You will see some resistance to parallel agreements there. What protections we will have will have to be within the main text of free trade agreements with those particular countries, and they might not be the same as what you see in the parallel agreements here.
I think you will see a trend in the direction of having them in the broad text.
Senator Downe: I am glad to hear that. I think you would agree that enforcement is easier if it is in the main text than in side agreements.
Mr. Van Loan: I will ask my colleague to respond.
Ms. Raitt: One thing that is not known clearly from the labour program is that we have other agreements with other countries. We have a memorandum of understanding with China, for example, in sharing best practices. The labour program itself does have connections in other countries, and we are happy to work alongside our partners in international trade to ensure that when we are considering the broader free trade agreements, that we are also considering how we improve the workplaces in the countries we are trading with.
The Chair: How would the federal and provincial governments put these agreements in the main agreement as opposed to the way we work them out now with some understandings?
Mr. Van Loan: The role of the provinces and territories in any trade agreement is interesting. The Buy American clause was the first occasion where we had a heavy involvement of the provinces in the negotiations. They were not at the table, but they were together in a room because most of the obligations we were taking on were provincial and municipal obligations. It was essential to have them all on board for the negotiating position. They worked with us behind the scenes and Canada represented the country, put forward its negotiating position and ultimately worked out a deal.
The Canada-European Union trade agreement is entirely different. There the provinces and territories are actually at the various tables, dealing with the various sectors. We are pretty sure that will have the positive effect of getting us two agreements in which all the provinces are on board, and we have little concern about ratification down the road. We hope we will not encounter some of the other problems that might come with that kind of process. We will cross those bridges when we get to them, but right now it looks fairly positive.
In subsequent agreements, I do not know if we will always have the provinces and territories at the table. For some provinces, it is a significant burden to have to deploy resources to do that. For Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, it is pretty easy, but for some of the smaller provinces that is a big demand in terms of manpower and labour. Each agreement will have a different character. Quite frankly, the stakes for some provinces and some free trade agreements will be pretty small; for some the stakes will be bigger. We will just have to continue playing each one in its own unique way. That is the way Canada is, though.
Senator Downe: Unlike the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement, the agreement on the environment has no dispute settlement mechanism, no compliance requirement and no fines or penalties. Why is that?
Mr. Van Loan: The expectation is that we are creating a mechanism that ensures the enforcement of each country's respective environmental laws. It is a fairly flexible provision, and that has been the approach that both countries have agreed upon.
Senator Downe: Could you tell us about the outstanding work Liberal MP Scott Brison did on the labour agreement, in the spirit of a non-partisan environment?
Mr. Van Loan: I am not sure that has anything to do with the labour agreement, but Mr. Brison took the initiative to put together a proposed parallel human rights agreement, something our government did not believe was necessary but we had no objection to it. The Government of Colombia had no objection to it.
It was quite clear, as we advised the Government of Colombia, that in a minority Parliament it would be necessary to have some cooperation and support from the Liberal Party in order to have this agreement passed into law. Colombia has had some frustration in getting their free trade agreements ratified elsewhere and they indicated they were prepared to live with that arrangement. On that basis, we agreed to support its inclusion by way of amendment. That has resulted in the agreement being before you now and the potential of it becoming law before we rise for the summer.
Senator Downe: I am just glad the outstanding work of Mr. Brison is recognized. Thank you.
Senator Segal: It is quite clear that the minister is not prepared to admit before this committee that the whole idea was Scott Brison's idea and that the Government of Canada, our embassy, our ambassadors and the diplomats from Colombia have actually no role whatsoever; that if it were not for Mr. Brison, none of this would have happened. I think it is churlish on your part not to admit that at the exact moment he enters the room. Where is your sense of feeling, for God's sake?
Mr. Van Loan: In fact, it was all Mr. Brison's idea. He did work closely with officials and diplomats in the Government of Colombia. As a result, we have what we have in front of us.
The Chair: Thank you. You will see a different atmosphere in the Senate than perhaps in the other place on this issue.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Minister, Madam Minister and public officials accompanying you, my question will be very brief.
After five years of civil war, Colombia was faced with a challenge, its dependency on the narco-economy. Do you see legitimate trade as being a potential benefit that may, for the Colombian workers, open up real, sustainable opportunities to help them leave behind the narco-economy, which fuelled the conflict, turning it more into a drug-related conflict as opposed to one based on ideology?
Mr. Van Loan: It is obvious that the greater the number of legitimate opportunities there are, the more likely it is that workers and entrepreneurs will opt for honest and gainful employment.
[English]
We certainly think that the more opportunities you create for a legitimate economy, the more likely it is that workers and entrepreneurs will take advantage of that. I probably should not tread into this historically, but of course Canada has its own history with early entrepreneurs who made their careers in dubious backgrounds and then, after the end of prohibition, became more legitimate entrepreneurs. That happened in the United States as well. There is hope that you will see that kind of transition over time to a more legitimate economy.
Senator Wallin: This point was mentioned in answer to Senator Smith, but in terms of clause 10, minister, are you completely confident that it would allow you to deal with human rights and labour issues?
This is the joint commission response, clauses 10 and 11, that the commission has the responsibility for supervising implementation of the agreement, overseeing further elaboration of the agreement, considering any matter that may affect the operation of the agreement, and the joint commission may set up subcommittees and working groups, et cetera, to accomplish the tasks.
Do you think you have enough room in that clause to deal with any issue that might arise?
Mr. Van Loan: We are satisfied that we do.
Senator Mahovlich: You mentioned that the mining industry is involved in Colombia. Have the mines had a problem in doing business with Colombia in the past?
Mr. Van Loan: You are asking if they have had a problem. The opportunity that is presented here, for example, is for a greater certainty of protection of your investment. Pursuant to the agreement, we have many mining companies around the world that have experienced spontaneous expropriations and other challenges to their rights after they get to a certain point in the process. This will provide further legal protection from that, should one face that situation. Of course, with changes in government in some parts of the world, sometime you see these sudden about-faces. There would be that element of protection.
In the shorter term, for example, the significant duty on mining equipment exported from Canada to the mines — this is for the benefit of our manufacturing sector and for mines in Colombia — would be eliminated under this agreement. There are economic advantages as well.
Senator Mahovlich: I know there are many Canadian mines all around the world. We have mines in Russia and Finland. The Canadian mines are interested in helping out communities, but this can be difficult when dealing with a corrupt government. This is apparent in Africa, where the mines have had all kinds of problems. This agreement may help the situation in Colombia.
Mr. Van Loan: As I said, we expect the agreement will provide greater certainty, especially in the event that we see a negative turn in the political situation in Colombia.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to both ministers for appearing. Many of our questions are about human rights concerns.
Minister Raitt, you spoke about $1 million you gave for best practices on labour issues. How are you working to help the Colombian government develop best practices around human rights?
Ms. Raitt: As I indicated, part of the technical assistance is to have that sum of money put aside so we are able to access the Ministry of Social Protection. Perhaps Mr. Bouchard can indicate specifically what the program has been doing with Colombia.
Mr. Bouchard: We have been working on a range of issues. We have a $300,000 project with the International Labour Organization to try to bring employers and unions together. Regarding labour inspection, we have a program to establish a mechanism for the Colombian ministry responsible for labour to be better able to inspect work places. We have programs on health and safety in the workplace. We have a program on better knowledge of labour laws by employers and workers. We also provided direct assistance by sending mediation and conciliation experts to Colombia to train these experts.
Canada's assistance is broad ranging and well received by the Colombian government.
Senator Jaffer: We know there is great suffering, especially for women, regarding human rights. Do they have specific programs, especially around human rights, for women? Is Canada developing or assisting in the development of programs that assist women to deal with these issues?
Mr. Bouchard: In our technical assistance, the rights of women are always important. It is a cross-cutting theme across our programming, particularly in regard to labour inspection. We know women are particularly vulnerable in the workplace. We try to look at that issue. Health and safety in the flower industry is another issue where women are more vulnerable in trying to form unions and defend their rights.
There are particular workplaces where the ratio of women is much higher. We know it is an area where we need to focus our attention. That is what we are currently doing.
Senator Jaffer: We have received a lot of communications from people that are of the opinion Canada should not negotiate this agreement until we look at human rights issues. I do not hold that opinion. We need to be involved to have an influence. Minister Raitt, you have touched on the issue of human rights. I want a more complete answer so I can respond to people why it is not necessary to wait until all human rights concerns have been addressed before negotiating this agreement.
Ms. Raitt: I firmly believe, as you pointed out, that to affect change from the ground up, we need to be on the ground. The report from Colombia to the United Nations Economic and Social Council talks about programs for women. A training program run for trade union leaders and affiliated members covered material such as the ILO conventions, training programs on collective bargaining, social dialogue, new forms of trade union organization, negotiation and dispute resolution, labour reforms, civic training, social leadership and the labour rights of women. I think it is important, at least, to put on the table dialogue that normally would not necessarily be included in Colombia. We cannot contribute on these issues unless we are there.
The nice part of having this agreement is we can send officials from our labour program. They have legitimacy on the ground, and they come with best practices, as opposed to using a larger, broader United Nations mechanism of providing help in dire areas.
For us, it is giving the people the tools to teach others within their organizations and having contact between the labour program in Canada and that in Colombia. We are building relationships through the framework of a formal agreement between two countries. I think that gives you the heft and legitimacy you want to offer people.
Senator Di Nino: Considering some of the challenges that the Andean region is facing, is there also a political or geopolitical value to this agreement?
Mr. Van Loan: We have a good relationship with Colombia. We believe Colombia is on the right track and that their government is a constructive participant in the international community and the broader region. As you know, there are issues with some of Colombia's neighbours. We believe the agreement will further strengthen Colombia's efforts, particularly as they are making a considerable push to improve their human rights record and standards. That kind of stabilization is positive. We send that signal of support to Colombia when, perhaps, their next door neighbour may seek to destabilize them.
Senator Di Nino: Colombia obviously has and is considering agreements with other jurisdictions. This agreement will protect Canadian companies' access to the Colombian market, particularly vis-à-vis the U.S., which may have an advantage.
Mr. Van Loan: The expectation is that after this agreement is in place, Canada will have a free trade agreement with Colombia when the United States and the European Union have not yet ratified their agreements. That will create a window of opportunity for Canada to compete for some period of time.
It will provide Canadian farmers in particular, but also manufacturers, with a specific price-point advantage over others. This will provide an opportunity to grow our market share within Colombia and to grow their overall market. Our agricultural sector and manufacturers have been particularly enthusiastic about this.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I have two relatively brief questions. How do our environmental laws resemble each other, because we have a side agreement on the environment?
[English]
Mr. Van Loan: I invite you to explore this further with our officials. However, my understanding of how the parallel accord on the environment works is that it requires each country to adhere to their respective environmental laws. There is no expectation that Canada will assume Colombia's environmental laws or they will assume ours. Rather, each country will be obliged to enforce and respect its own laws as they relate to the environment.
Senator Robichaud: That is what I read, but how do they compare?
Mr. Van Loan: I invite you to ask the officials that question; I have not examined that in detail. We will have an official chime in on this.
Betti-Jo Ruston, Deputy Director, Regional Trade Policy, Americas, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: What Minister Van Loan said is accurate. The core obligation related to the agreement is for each country to enforce its own laws effectively.
Concerning the comparison between the environmental provisions for Canada versus Colombia, I can get back to you with more details. However, Colombia has made strides in this area in recent years. It is a priority for their government.
Mr. Van Loan: A comparison is a complicated matter in a federation like Canada where we have 14 different sets of environmental rules. Each province and territory regulates the majority of the actual practical environment regulations in its own jurisdiction and each has a different regime.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In a press release on the protection of the environment, the following is stated: Ensure the implementation of an environmental impact assessment process.
Are we to conclude from that statement that we will actively be encouraging Colombia to implement an assessment process?
[English]
Mr. Van Loan: We are not seeking to impose our environmental laws on Colombia or to change their process. The obligation is for Colombia to enforce the laws they have in place.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: In the Agreement on Cooperation between Canada and Colombia, there is a clause that calls for the abolition of child labour; are we therefore to infer that there are many children who are presently in the labour market in Colombia?
[English]
Ms. Raitt: Unfortunately there is, senator. According to Colombia's report, the national child labour rate per 100,000 children aged between 15 years and 17 years was 12.8 per cent in 2001. In 2003, it was 10.4 per cent. In 2005, it was 11.6 per cent. Clearly, it is still happening. I do not have the most up-to-date figures, as the information is available only to 2005.
That is why CIDA is focusing on child labour laws in their program disbursements. I cannot speak to that because it is not my program. One of the most important aspects of the agreement is that we will ensure that they uphold the conventions of the International Labour Organization with respect to child labour. Unfortunately, child labour is a reality in the world, including in Colombia. That is why it is important that we speak with them and help them to move that number down.
The Chair: Minister Van Loan, I know that you have had this file since you assumed your portfolio. I was struck by the involvement of all the officials in Colombia. Often trade agreements are negotiated and signed with only the involvement of the minister. It appears that there was a collective will within the Colombian government, extending from the president to the ministries, to understand the issues they had to face in negotiating with us as well as the issues we were facing.
Is it fair to say that provisions on labour practice and human rights will be adhered to due to the greater knowledge and input?
Mr. Van Loan: I was not the minister when this agreement was negotiated. It has been around the House of Commons for a while. However, I am told that what you have related is accurate.
The parallel agreements are good, and a strong commitment to having that happen is fundamental. It is important to have a government that is committed to getting past stereotypes from another era and demonstrating that it has changed. Trying to gain broader acceptance into the world community has led to strength of engagement and openness to sophisticated trading agreements as well as a broad trade agenda and a way of reaching out. That is the commitment from the president and throughout the administration. I expect that will continue after the final round of elections, which will take place in a couple of days. This is a reflection of a genuine intent on the part of the Government of Colombia and one that will endure over the long term.
The Chair: Minister Van Loan and Minister Raitt, thank you for appearing and answering our questions. I would also like to thank the officials for appearing and for providing material in advance. It was very helpful in our work.
Senator Smith has given due notice that he wishes to move a motion to hear one further witness. I believe there will be consensus. Senator Smith, would you like to move your motion?
Senator Smith: I move that the committee hear Scott Brison, member of Parliament, on this matter.
The Chair: The Honourable Scott Brison is here. Honourable senators, is it agreed that we hear from Mr. Brison?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Mr. Brison, this committee is aware of your background and your name has been mentioned in the chamber concerning this bill. Welcome to the committee.
Hon. Scott Brison, P.C., M.P., as an individual: Honourable senators, thank you for agreeing to have me here today. When I entered the chamber and heard Senator Segal speaking effusively about me, it surprised me. The last time Senator Segal commented on me was in my riding the Sunday before the election of 2004, and his comments were printed in the papers the following week. Senator Segal said, "If Scott Brison had a mirror on his desk, he would never be able to go to lunch." My partner Maxime said it was the best line he ever heard about me and he agreed completely.
The Chair: I think we should go back to the Colombia free trade agreement. We have put a number of interesting statements on the record.
Mr. Brison: I thought it would be helpful to make myself available to the committee if there were questions about the human rights treaty and the reportage mechanism. It is the first of its kind and groundbreaking in many ways. We are told there are discussions in the U.S. Congress now demanding a similar commitment from Colombia and a similar reportage mechanism as part of the ratification of the Colombia FTA. It has also received attention in the European Union because they are going through ratification deliberations. It does have the capacity to make a difference.
Those of us who believe that human rights engagement can be strengthened by economic engagement still fear that once a trade agreement is signed there is no mechanism to revisit rights issues officially on an ongoing basis. This agreement would help provide a mechanism for both our houses of Parliament and their Congress to be engaged on an annual basis.
When a human rights report is provided to the house on an annual basis, this committee of the Senate and the Trade Committee of the House of Commons, and the Human Rights committees, can hear witnesses. These committees can draw on the expertise of civil society groups and NGOs and provide them with an opportunity to have input and contribute to the dialogue about human rights progress in Colombia.
Ultimately trade relations are simply human relations. I have a strong interest in Colombia, not just as trade critic for my party, but I have a long-term friendship with the Minister of Trade of Colombia, Luis Plata. Mr. Plata and I had discussed this issue for some time. The opposition we faced to this trade agreement has been extremely strong and focused, mainly from the usual suspects who are against all FTAs, but there were significant concerns.
Last spring, President Uribe met with our caucus. Bob Rae and I followed shortly after with a visit to Bogota and Medellin. On the last day in Bogota, I proposed informally to Minister Plata the idea of an annual human rights impact assessment process that could help address some of the fears that people have about the potential negative effect of an FTA on human rights. That was followed up by discussions during the fall. The Colombian government was quite open to the discussions.
I was at the World Economic Forum, Summer Davos in Dalian, China where we continued the discussions with the Columbian government. In January, I approached Minister Day and let him know we had an idea that could potentially make a difference. It was towards the end of his time as minister, so I continued the discussions with the Colombians and met with President Uribe again at Davos, and we got to wording we could agree on in March with the Colombian government. At that time, we presented it to the Canadian government, the Conservative government, and negotiated with the three parties effectively in some ways to get to an agreement on wording. On May 17 an agreement was signed between the Governments of Canada and Colombia on an annual human rights reportage mechanism for both countries.
I want to clear up some misperceptions. The NDP and others have said that this is simply a mechanism where Colombia would report on itself. That is patently false. The fact is that both the Canadian government and the Colombian governments would do an annual report on the impact of this free trade agreement on human rights in both countries. You may wonder why we would bother with the inclusion of Canada. When you are dealing with a bilateral relationship and a respectful relationship, there has to be reciprocity. However, it is not Colombia reporting on itself. That is part of it, but the Canadian government, DFAIT officials, will have the responsibility to engage civil society and human rights experts and to compile on an annual basis the facts, the statistics and report to our Parliament.
Finally, the discussions started, as honourable senators know, in 2002. Since 2008, this Colombia FTA has had 100 hours of debate in the house, and I think 60 hours of debate in committee. It has been debated longer than any budget bill that I am aware of in recent history.
The agreement contains significant trade opportunities for Canada. Some of those have been discussed — the mineral and extraction sectors and the agriculture sector. Companies like Brookfield Asset Management are in Colombia. They have established a $400 million infrastructure fund for Colombia, and I was glad to hear the reference to the importance of Colombia geopolitically in the Andean region, particularly due to what is going on in Venezuela and the threat that President Chávez represents to stability in that region.
You know the history of Colombia, and I have spoken with Senator Stollery who has been there many more times than I, but it is a country that has been torn apart by conflict and civil war for 40 years. The civil war began over ideology but has become more of a drug war. There is still an unacceptable level of violence in Colombia, and much of it is caused by the drug wars. I believe we have a responsibility to provide legitimate economic opportunity that can help the people move from those drug wars and that cycle of violence.
In Colombia I met with former FARC and former paramilitary members, and I asked them why they got involved in this kind of activity, and they told me quite bluntly it was the only way they had to make a living in the villages where they grew up.
I think we have an economic opportunity in Colombia, but we also have a moral responsibility to engage positively and respectfully and to try to give the Colombian people an opportunity to move forward as partners.
Last, on the human rights amendment, we have had some very positive responses from experts. Dr. James Harrison from the University of Warwick told the trade committee that the Canadian proposal was exciting and that it could become a model in this area because no other country has yet included this in the scope of a trade agreement. He thinks the assessment is a great endeavour to be embarked upon. The former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in Canada and former Ambassador to Colombia and Mexico Gaëtan Lavertu said that it is a good opportunity to review the impact of the agreement, and he said we should probably do that for all agreements.
Peter Harder, former Deputy Minister of DFAIT, called the agreement a significant innovation in free trade agreements, and believes that future Parliaments can build on this precedent.
In Colombia, Dr. León Valencia who is the executive director of Arco Iris commented that it would provide a useful yearly forum to discuss the situation in Colombia and give Canadian citizens the opportunity to monitor human rights violations in our country.
Dr. Gerardo Sánchez Zapata head of one of the largest private sector unions, the textile and apparel industry union, speaking on behalf of 12 private sector unions in Colombia said, "This procedure is welcomed by Colombian workers and we are thankful it helps strengthen a mechanism already in place that monitors and evaluates the progress in matters of human rights and freedom of association in our country."
As parliamentarians, we should take this seriously and, on an annual basis, engage our committees to make this mechanism work and make it meaningful.
Finally, this is an opportunity for us to see that minority Parliaments — I have sat in five Parliaments, and this is one of the more sulphuric, if you will, — can work if we are constructive. I know there is typically a greater level of constructive activity in the Senate than there is in our house, and I think this is an example of where government and opposition parties can work together to do good things. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to participate in that process.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brison, you touched on the human rights mechanism and that it is really for two governments to file their point of view. I found that a rather curious comment from the NGOs and others because, in fact, that is how the international system works at the United Nations. Governments file their perspectives and when they do, they should take into account civil society, business, and other factors according to their own governments. In the end, it is an open, transparent way where they put their record and then there is a dialogue with those who come back and say, no, that is not the case, and it generates the activity.
Very quickly, so I do not monopolize the time, did you feel it is one well-known way of how we monitor human rights in other fields, and that is by governments having to come forward to put their records down in some transparent way?
Mr. Brison: One of the benefits of this reportage mechanism is that the reports are made to Parliament. Parliament can engage this committee. The Committee on International Trade can engage and ask the NGOs and the civil society groups to come before Parliament. Clearly neither the Government of Colombia nor the Canadian government want a significant doubt between what the civil society groups are saying and what the reports are saying. As a result, I would say that there is an incentive for governments to engage those groups in those reports.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Colombia has recognized the significant progress Colombia has made. I think the UN Commissioner on Human Rights would be a good partner for both the Colombian government and the Canadian government. I think it will be very important for both governments to take the mechanism seriously and ensure that it is a credible process.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Brison, thank you very much for being here, and for the work you have done around the issue of human rights. We have received many communications from people who are concerned about us signing this deal before ensuring issues of human rights are taken care of. I am not of that view. I think you need to be there, and you have spoken in detail that you are satisfied that as much as can be done so far has been done.
The idea intrigued me, as you were saying, about reporting to Parliament. We have not had this bill as long as you have. Is there anything in the bill that says that we need to hear every year, or are you saying this should be our initiative?
Mr. Brison: The report is made to our Parliament, their Congress. At that point, it is up to committees to engage. I cannot direct the work of committees, but I would expect fully, particularly given that this is an unprecedented mechanism, not just within Canada but internationally, that we ought to engage meaningfully at the committee levels, both in this place and in the House of Commons. It is important that we do that.
Some of the opponents to this agreement have asked for an independent human rights impact assessment before the agreement is signed. That is a challenge for a couple of reasons because it is very tough to evaluate the impact of an agreement that has not been signed on human rights, to be able to predict the impact.
The second issue is making it independent without any government. They say we should not have government involved in these reports, yet, Senator Andreychuk mentioned why government is actually an important vehicle for those reports. When I asked some of those groups who would do those reports, they said, "groups like us." They have already said that this agreement is bad for human rights, so they have already provided us with their independent human rights assessment. It is very tough, because, frankly, the anti-trade movement and the unions have taken a very ideologically rigid position on this issue that is based more on their opposition to trade than anything else. I found very frustrating to try to engage them meaningfully, and I have tried. I think we all would like to see a greater level of engagement with civil society on such issues.
Senator Jaffer: In speaking about Parliament as a follow-up to human rights, are you also planning to ensure that the rights of women are respected? We know that the rights of Colombian women have been adversely affected during Colombia's many years of conflict. What do you envision to look at how the human rights of women have been breached in Colombia? I am thinking especially around the issue of the flower industry, women who sell flowers.
Mr. Brison: We visited a very large flower production facility near Medellin, and the employees were almost exclusively women, and they told us some of their stories. These are people whose husbands and fathers and brothers in some cases were killed in some cases on the same day by either former paramilitary groups or FARC, in some cases 10 years, 15 years ago. The importance to them of having a safe place to make a living was very clear, and places to sell their products are critically important. I believe the human rights impact assessment can help women significantly.
The question was raised about children earlier. One of the things there is not a lot of awareness of is labour laws in Colombia are actually more stringent in some areas than they are in Canada. The challenge is the lack of enforcement. Canada has helped with that. I believe HRSDC helps fund 150 labour inspectors in Colombia, and I think we should look seriously at providing more resources to provide more labour inspection. However, the rules themselves are quite stringent, but the difficulty is the lack of resources for enforcement. I think that is something we should look at in Canada, perhaps as Parliament in making that recommendation to the government, to look at increasing resources provided for labour inspection and enforcement in Colombia.
Senator Segal: Just so I am clear, the Government of Colombia would file a report annually on human rights implications and effects of this bill, and then we would have a chance to see it. That would be public. I take it our government would do the same with respect to human rights in this country?
Mr. Brison: That is correct. Both governments would do reports, but the Canadian government would do a report on the impact of this agreement on human rights in Canada and in Colombia. The Colombian government would do a similar report on the human rights, through their DFAIT equivalent, on human rights in Colombia and in Canada. It would not be simply Colombia reporting on its own human rights situation. The Canadian government would be required to provide an assessment of the impact of the agreement on human rights in Colombia as well as in Canada.
Senator Segal: Notionally then, one might anticipate a debate in the Colombian legislative process about how we treat our First Nations and that sort of stuff. Could that be a part of that process?
Mr. Brison: Absolutely.
Senator Segal: Because of your own background, both as a trade spokesperson for the official opposition and your prior association with trade policies of another national political party, may I ask whether you actually accept and embrace the strategy of bilateral trade agreements throughout the Americas as opposed to what is often suggested, namely the need for a larger hemispheric trade process? I would be very interested in your perspective on that question.
Mr. Brison: Most of us would agree that a functional, multilateral approach would be preferable to bilateral agreements. Canada could be doing more to reboot the Doha Round. I would like to see us doing more on that. However, there are huge challenges to that and, in the interim, bilateral agreements and diversifying our trade relations from our dependence on the U.S. I think makes a lot of sense. Whether it is EU or India, we ought to be putting a lot of attention to FTAs within the Americas. I would like to see more attention to India and China, as an example, because of the huge opportunities they provide.
To go back on the First Nations side, we met with Colombia's Foreign Affairs Committee of their Senate. Anyone who says that Colombia does not have a functioning democracy should have seen that session. The senators had a vigorous debate. Some senators were opposed to the FTAs and some were in favour. Incidentally, as far as the political support in Colombia, only 9 per cent of Colombians in the congressional election and in the most recent presidential election voted for the one political party that is opposed to these FTAs, which is the Polo Party.
Two senators in the Columbian Senate represent indigenous peoples. Structurally there are two Senate seats for indigenous peoples. It was interesting hearing the representation made by one of those senators at the committee because he was expressing concern about an FTA and potential exploitation of indigenous people by the extraction sector. He was open, but he was concerned about that.
I was thinking about 30 years ago in Canada when, by and large, the Aboriginal people were opposed to exploration, but something has happened over the last several decades where now they are economic partners in the development of mining, mineral and oil and gas exploration. I do not want to sound culturally condescending as if we have our act together here in Canada, but there are ways we can work together with other countries and deepen our discussions and have meaningful engagement on how we deal with some of those intractable challenges, for instance, indigenous peoples.
We may surprise ourselves and find that some of these countries are doing some things. I mentioned the fact that in their Senate they have seats set aside for indigenous people. There may be some areas where we can learn from them and there are some areas where we can share our experience and help them. I would hope that deeper economic engagement and rules-based trade could help fortify that relationship.
Senator Di Nino: First, I want to congratulate and thank Mr. Brison. I read his contribution to the debates in the other place and I thought they were fair and balanced. You were critical and constructive, but your support for this bill is quite apparent.
I believe you have pretty well answered my question with your comments, but I just wanted to make sure I fully understand that with the agreement, which you were responsible for having included in the agreement and signed, you are quite happy for us to proceed expeditiously to deal with this and pass this piece of legislation; is that correct.
Mr. Brison: I will not tell a Senate committee how to conduct its affairs. Some of you are much more experienced than I am. I have great respect for Parliament and for your work, so you will deal with this bill as you see fit. I will not preach to you from the other place how to deal with your legislation, senator. I have too much respect for the Senate of Canada and for the important work that this committee does.
Senator Di Nino: That is fine.
Senator Nolin: That is a good answer.
The Chair: I am glad you did not say we were much older. You just said "experienced."
Senator Di Nino: He did. He said exactly that.
Senator Stollery: Colombia is a very complicated country. It has the most diverse geography in the western hemisphere, which is one of the reasons why Colombians tend to have a great attachment to their province. They have songs about what particular province, called a prefecture, they come from. They are very attached to it. The result is that since 1822 or 1823 they have had generally a weak national government for all kinds of reasons, many civil wars and all the rest.
The current business that everyone is really referring to, which is the FARC in Colombia, started on April 9, 1948. This is the Bogotazo, which was the terrible riot in Bogota when Marulanda broke out of jail. He broke out of Ibague prison on the night of April 9, 1948, and he only died about last year or the year before.
The FARC was not originally the FARC. Remember that it is a Liberal government in power in Colombia. The war between the Liberals and the Conservatives resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being killed in the 1950s. In regard to human rights in the atmosphere of a civil war, when you talk statistics in Colombia, how could anyone ever take statistics when you cannot go to large areas of the country because you will be kidnapped?
During the Bogotazo, a friend of mine, a Guatemalan who was at the first meeting of the Pan-American conference in Bogota when General Marshall and Fidel Castro were there, told me about walking down the street when the national archives blew up. He said it was like a volcano of paper. The entire history of the country went up in smoke on April 9, 1948.
Statistics in Colombia are hard to come by because, since then, there have been areas you cannot go into. What kind of a census taker or statistics taker would go into the FARC areas? Colombia is complicated yet interesting country. It does have in a funny way a democracy. I have supported President Uribe's handling of the FARC and finally getting the military out of their bloody bases and doing something, which they had not done for years. There were many areas you could not go into unless you were armed. There is no question that there has been improvement in Colombia.
Of course, there are human rights problems in a place where there is civil war, with people shooting at each other and defending themselves. That is not the issue. The issue in this trade agreement, which I will not oppose any more than I opposed the Mexican part of NAFTA, is the agricultural sector. When we are talking about these countries, we are talking about agriculture. No one seems to know what percentage agriculture represents, but at least 50 per cent and more — in my opinion, it is probably 60 per cent of the people — work in agriculture. They live in the countryside. Colombia has bad roads. That is another historical problem. You will see muleteers. Where else do you see people with mules in pack trains because they have to supply villages in remote areas? That is very common in Colombia. Those are the people who will be affected by this agreement because Colombians' main occupation is agriculture.
What happened in Mexico was similar; of course, it is not the same. The maize and bean producers were wiped out by cheap exports from highly subsidized U.S. maize exporters and Canadian bean exporters, who were very efficient producers.
What happens in Colombia when, as we have all noted, it is the agricultural producers who have been in favour of this agreement at the Canadian end? I do not blame them. What happens when there is a dispute? A trade agreement is about how to handle an argument, a dispute. How will Colombia be able to defend its agricultural sector when there is an inevitable dispute?
Mr. Brison: As I mentioned earlier, there is broad-based support for, not just this FTA, but FTAs in general, in the U.S., the EU, Canada, and FTAs within Colombia.
You would probably agree that drug production has crowded out much of the traditional agriculture in Colombia already. There is always a fear of what the impact may be on local agriculture as a result of FTAs. Again, the drug industry, the narco-economy is responsible for much of the crowding out and the taking over of land that has occurred.
In terms of Mexico, one of the reasons we see an escalation of drug wars in Mexico in the last couple of years, and even in Jamaica, as I am told by people who know more about this than I do, is because of the success of the Uribe government in Colombia at clamping down on drug activities. The drug cartels are able to go anywhere. They are quite mobile.
In terms of roads and infrastructure, there are Canadian companies that are very good at infrastructure construction and financing. I think that Brookfield Asset Management's decision to establish a $400 million Colombian infrastructure fund is a very positive step.
On trade, you are right, there is strong interest among Canadian agricultural interests, but there are also some differences in terms of where the production is in Colombia and what they are producing and what we are producing. There may be some overlap, but my understanding is that most of the commodity groups within which we would have a competitive or comparative advantage are distinct from areas that are dominant in terms of Colombian agriculture.
Senator Stollery, you have spent a lot more time and have more expertise on the ground in Colombia than I do, and I have great respect for that.
Senator Stollery: I want to make one point on drug production. I met the man who killed Pablo Escobar. Drug production in Colombia is an exaggerated thing. The alkaloid level of coca produced in Colombia is very low. The alkaloid is in Peruvian coca. In Colombia, it is the transit and the laboratories. That is the thing. In terms of it taking over agriculture, I have to say that is not so.
The Chair: Mr. Brison, thank you for appearing at the committee and sharing your perspectives on Bill C-2, and also sharing with us your involvement in the process. Your entrance was rather dramatic, but your testimony was substantive. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Brison: Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, is it agreed that we now move as a committee to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 2 to 5 carry? I have clustered those that are related.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 9 to 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 15.1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 16 to 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 24 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 25 to 29 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 30 to 42 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 43 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 44 to 46 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 47 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 48 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Schedules 1 and 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I have two points. We did not receive any requests for appearances from the last time that we discussed this bill. We had suggestions from other people saying that we should hear other witnesses, but they personally did not ask to appear. They made comments about the House of Commons process, of which we were aware.
Senator Stollery: It is all the same letter sent by different people.
The Chair: The steering committee will be meeting on our study. We have received word from the committee that we will receive funds, so we will deal with that and report to committee members.
(The committee adjourned.)