|
5 June 2002
Dissenting Opinion
SCFAIT Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment
Report on Canada’s Economic Links with the Americas
Svend J. Robinson, MP
The New Democratic Party dissents from this report. We believe that the experience of the FTA and NAFTA has been destructive to people and the environment in Canada, Mexico and the US. It would be terribly wrong to extend the corporate power entrenched in NAFTA throughout the Americas by supporting the FTAA. Further, we note that the key economic player in the NAFTA, the United States, has shown repeatedly that it does not really believe in free trade at all. On softwood lumber, steel, agricultural subsidies, and energy among others, the US will go it alone and ignore its free trade rhetoric. Too many citizens in the Americas are hurting from these policies. The FTAA would make it worse.
While my New Democrat colleagues and I acknowledge and value the dedication and hard work of my fellow Sub-Committee members in holding extensive hearings with a wide variety of important witnesses on the subject of Canada’s economic links with the Americas, in a number of important respects we cannot concur with the final report of the Sub-Committee. In some cases we dissent from the conclusions drawn by the majority, in others we find that the conclusions of the report do not accurately reflect the evidence heard by the Sub-Committee. Like my colleagues, I want to thank all of the witnesses who appeared before us. Their evidence was of great value for its depth and insight.
Unlike the other members of the Sub-Committee, my New Democrat colleagues and I disagree in principle with free trade agreements such as NAFTA and the FTAA, and therefore we cannot recommend that Canada seek to deepen its involvement in such detrimental accords. FTAs are undemocratic in the sense that they deliberately preclude parliamentary oversight of their operations, they offer no opportunity for the views of concerned citizens to be heard, and their rulings are made by secret tribunals which have the power to overrule national legislation. While this may be acceptable to corporations which seek unimpeded access to global markets, it is unacceptable to those who would retain the primacy of national sovereignty as protection against unchecked corporate power.
In its report, the Sub-Committee has taken some small steps towards addressing some of these concerns. However, it does not go nearly far enough. The following are the key areas in which we believe that the majority report must be changed or strengthened:
| | • | The Report makes no mention of the urgent need for FTAs to include provisions which explicitly require member states to uphold the primacy of international human rights law, particularly in situations in which the trade agreements themselves conflict with domestic or international legislation designed to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. As Warren Allmand, then President of Rights and Democracy, told the Sub-Committee, it is imperative that we recall that universal human rights as embodied in UN treaties include the right to work, the right to just remuneration, the right to food, the right to housing, the right to health care and education. Too often, these inalienable rights have been ignored and subsumed by FTAs. As Mr. Allmand testified before the Sub-Committee, under international law, all member states of the United Nations are obliged to ensure that “human rights should prevail over trade treaties” should these two be in conflict. My NDP colleagues and I call on the government of Canada to put people and the environment first, rather than global corporate profits. |
| | • | The Report recommends that Canada encourage other FTAA participants to support the inclusion of language within the preamble of the agreement that would urge FTAA partners to respect the minimum labour standards within their respective jurisdictions. We believe that this recommendation is far too weak. Respect for international labour standards must be made a required provision included in the body of any international trade agreement. |
| | • | The Report envisions hemispheric FTAs as a means for promoting economic and social development, and reducing income inequality. We believe this is dangerous over-simplification of the effects that expanded trade has had in the Americas. According to Oxfam International’s recent report, Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade, Globalization, and the Fight Against Poverty, “in Latin America, rapid growth in exports has been associated with rising unemployment and stagnating incomes. Real minimum wages in the region were lower at the end of the 1990s than at the start of the decade. Evidence … shows that the rural poor in particular are losing out.” We believe that trade can be effective in combating poverty, but only when trade agreements provide adequate provisions for the support of human rights, and give favourable treatment to poorer member states. Simply opening the markets of Latin America to free trade would only result in more rapid and extensive resource exploitation by North American corporations, and would likely perpetuate the poverty of our hemispheric neighbours. |
| | • | The Report recommends that Canada consider the use of parallel agreements on labour and environment issues. Yet we have seen with NAFTA that such side agreements provide no effective means of enforcement, and as a result are little more than token measures. We believe that these issues must be central to any international trade agreement, and should be subject to meaningful enforcement. Multilateral environmental accords must take precedence over trade deals. |
| | • | The Report recommends that Canada enhance the transparency of free trade negotiations as well as civil society participation by actively encouraging governments within the Americas to consult widely with their populations and civil society. My NDP colleagues and I wholeheartedly support this recommendation. However, we note that it is somewhat compromised by other recommendations, which suggest that Canada should conduct education campaigns in Latin American and Caribbean countries to promote “the merits of free trade in general, and the FTAA in particular,” and that Canada should “take on a ‘champion’ role regarding the FTAA.” We believe that Canada and indeed all nations must listen carefully to the views of civil society with regard to international trade, rather than simply taking the advice of corporations seeking only to increase their bottom line. A propaganda campaign of the sort implied in the recommendations of the Report would only prejudice the government’s response to the voices of civil society, and so this recommendation should be abandoned. |
| | • | Reflecting the views of many witnesses, the Report recommends that Canada seek not to include investor-state provisions such as NAFTA’s infamous Chapter 11 in the FTAA, or any future FIPAs. My New Democrat colleagues and I support this recommendation, having seen the devastating effects it has had on the sovereignty of all three partner countries in NAFTA. However, even without investor-state provisions, FTAs pose a serious threat to national sovereignty and democracy. For this reason, we believe it is imperative to include provisions in any international trade agreement which allow for meaningful parliamentary oversight of the operations and decisions of the agreement’s administrative body. |
These are the key areas in which we believe the report should be strengthened. Our fundamental concern is with the erosion of democracy, as power is transferred from elected representatives accountable to the public, to corporate boardrooms accountable only to shareholders.
|