CIIT Committee Report

Dissenting Opinion

Bloc Québécois

No, four times No!

The Bloc Québécois wishes to express that it strongly strong disapproves the current report, which is biased and does not reflect correctly the opinion of the Committee.  Furthermore, in the current circumstances, the Bloc wants to state its strong opposition with the conclusion of a free-trade agreement between Canada and Colombia. 

We say no because it is bad trade policy

Let’s be honest: the Colombian market is not particularly interesting.  Trade between Canada and Colombia is limited.  Last year, Québec only exported 82 M$ in Colombia.  Most goods that Canada sells in Colombia, like western grain, would anyway find a buyer during the current food crisis.  Exporters from Canada and Québec would, at best, see minimal benefits in the conclusion of this agreement.

Indeed, the main government objective in concluding this agreement has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with investments.  Since this agreement would contain investment protection provisions, it would help Canadian investors in Colombia, mainly in the mining sector.

We can understand that some Canadian companies can be attracted by this possibility but we don’t see what the populations of Québec and Canada, that the parliamentarians are supposed to represent, would gain.

If we rely on every investment protection agreement that Canada signed over the last 20 years, the one with Colombia would contain provisions allowing an investor to directly sue a foreign government if it adopts regulations that diminish the output on its investment.

Such provisions are particularly dangerous in a country where labour and environmental laws are at best insufficient.  In fact, any legislative change will necessarily increase the constraints for the investors, which exposes the government to judicial proceedings.  Such an agreement, by protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in the Colombian standard of living, is likely to delay the necessary social and environmental progress in Colombia.

The Colombian subsurface is very rich.  Years of civil war resulted in many parts of the territory not being developed.  But those regions are those where the situation is the most fragile.  Bringing foreign investments where there is a civil war and violence of all kind is reckless and likely to turn those regions into a powder cask.

We say no because it is bad foreign policy

The government of Canada regularly repeats its intention to deepen its relations with Central and South America.  We agree with it.  But what country does it choose to enter South America?  Colombia, a country whose government is isolated on the continent and whose sole unconditional support is the Bush administration.  It is not a very clever choice.

Canada has, in the past, been an appreciated honest broker in zones of conflict.  With the Conservative government, that Canadian policy has been thrown away and, with it, Canada’s good reputation abroad.  Five years ago, the Conservatives wanted Canada to participate to the war in Iraq.  Two years ago, they made their mark during the war in Lebanon by clearly siding with one belligerent and against the other.  This year, it sides with the most right-wing government in South America.

Mixing ideology and foreign policy leads to bad foreign policy.  With this free-trade agreement, Canada moves further apart from most South American countries and contributes to isolate itself on the world stage.  And it makes Canada unfit to play a role of honest broker and facilitator on the continent.  It is bad foreign policy.

We say no because we disapprove the government’s behaviour

Democracy is fragile.  It relies on the respect for democratic institutions and, for a good part, the goodwill of political actors.  As representatives of the population, we cannot accept contempt for democratic institutions and process.  We would then approve an authoritarian drift and would only have us to blame if it continues.

We are used to marks of contempt for democratic institutions and process on the part of the Conservative government.  The Prime Minister’s office ordered committee chairs to sabotage the work of Parliamentary Committees.  Control of information is so excessive that it frankly prevents access to information.  It regularly refuses to implement decisions of the House of Commons.  Even the Trade Committee tasted Harper’s medicine when the government rejected the report asking to exclude water from trade agreements.

In the case of free-trade with Colombia, le government pushed contempt even further.  The committee made a serious study, as one can see in the current report.  It held wide consultations and hearings and even traveled to Colombia.  But the government decided to conclude the agreement before the Committee finished its work. 

The government’s message to Parliamentarians is as follows: I do not care what you think, say or do.  And it delivers the same message to the population, especially to the numerous witnesses that presented a brief to the committee.  We can’t accept that behaviour.  Such lack of respect for democracy can’t become a precedent.  Democratic institutions must not function that way in the future.

We say no because we respect human dignity

Colombia has the worst situation in terms of human rights on the hemisphere.  There are 3 million displaced persons in Colombia, second only to Sudan on the planet.  Assassinations of unionists are numerous and most of them are unsolved.  There are numerous allegations of collusion between the government and right-wing militias, 30 parliamentarians face charges of corruption, including a close family member of President Uribe.

It is true that the situation is not as catastrophic as it was a few years ago but it is far from ideal.  There is no worst moment to abandon the possibility to use the economic leverage to intensify pressure on the Colombian government.

When they want to promote human rights in the world, countries use the carrot and the stick: they support efforts to improve the human right situation and they withdraw advantages to countries where the situation worsens. 

By concluding this agreement, Canada would deprive itself from the capacity to pressure Colombia.  In fact, not only it would not be able to withdraw advantages to Colombia in case of a major setback in the human rights situation but it would literally give away both the carrot and the stick to the Colombian government.  The US Congress understood it and it is why it rejects a similar trade agreement with Colombia as long as important progress has not been made.

The government repeats that the trade agreement comes with side-agreements on labour and environment.  Such side-agreements are clearly inefficient.  On the one hand, they are not part of the trade agreement.  Thus, investors can continue in impunity to destroy the rich Colombian environment, displace whole populations if it facilitates their extracting activities or kill union activists.

The side agreements would only condemn the Colombian government to pay a fine.  And that fine cannot exceed 15 M$ a year.  Thus, when the maximum fine is paid, the side agreement will not allow any further condemnation.  And what are worth 15 M$ when you are prospecting foreign investments that amount to billions?

We acknowledge that those side-agreements, while not effective enough to compensate the perverse effects of the trade agreement, are a step in the right direction.  If the government decides to set aside the free-trade agreement and to only sign the side agreements on labour and environment, it can count on our support.

But when it comet to the free-trade agreement itself, the Bloc Québécois will not accept to abandon Canada’s capacity to promote human rights in Colombia in exchange of mining rights.

We want good trade agreements

Contrarily to the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois is not a party of narrow minded ideologists, especially when it comes to trade issues.  Instead of rushing to conclude ill designed agreements that promote free-trade and whose only merit is to help a Bush administration’s ally, we evaluate them on a case by case basis.  And this agreement doesn’t pass the test: it is of little interest for the Quebec nation and would likely be harmful, both to Canada’s reputation abroad and to the human rights of the population of Colombia.

Contrarily to the NDP, we are not opposed to trade liberalisation as long as it is done correctly and that it contributes to the prosperity of the countries that adhere to it.  Bloc Québécois supported NAFTA, and it has been a good thing for Québec.  This spring, we supported an agreement with EFTA and pressed the government to enter into negotiations with EU for an eventual free-trade agreement.  In those three cases, such agreements are in the interest of Quebec and have limited perverse effects.  It is not because of a systematic opposition to trade that we oppose the free-trade agreement with Colombia.  It is a bad deal.

And contrarily to the Liberal Party, we don’t hesitate to stand up to defend Québec’s interests and values. 

So what to we think of a free-trade agreement with Colombia?  For now, it is out of the question.