CIIT Committee Report

DISSENTING OPINION

PETER JULIAN MP– NDP CRITIC ON TRADE – December 5, 2007

            In negotiating trade agreements and expanding Canada’s trade relationships with the rest of the world, it is impossible to separate human rights, labour rights and the environment from trade issues. Unfortunately, the report of the Standing Committee on Trade fails to recognize how these areas are necessarily intertwined in Canada’s international trade.  While the NDP believes that diversifying Canada’s trade portfolio is of fundamental importance, we are not encouraged to see this attempt to strengthen economic ties with countries that do not respect human rights or democracy.

            Since the implementation of the Canada US Free Trade Agreement in 1989, Canadians earning less than $60,400, or two-thirds of Canadian households, have seen a decrease in their real incomes.  The income share of the richest 20% of the population now approaches 50% of all income, leaving less of the pie for everyone else.  Clearly, free trade has only benefited the wealthy. The poorest of Canadians have seen their income drop so severely that they have lost the equivalent of one and a half month’s income since the Canada US Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA were signed. Most Canadians are working even harder and longer hours to take home less pay.  There has been a 48% overall increase in the number of Canadians working overtime since 1991, and the amount of hours overtime they are working has also increased, by 22% since 1991.

            The NDP has already tabled a Dissenting Opinion in March of 2007 in which it outlined its vision for a fair trade policy for Canada.[1] The NDP reaffirms the vision of that dissenting opinion.

            The NDP’s International Trade Critic, Peter Julian, has also tabled a motion, M-308, which incorporates the principles of fair trade:

M-308 — October 16, 2007 — Mr. Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that all international trade treaties, agreements and investment policies it develops and advances: (a) adhere to ethical principles of economic justice and fairness; (b) uphold and respect international labor rights, including a sustainable wage, basic benefits, and collective bargaining rights; (c) promote the advancement of women in social and economic development; (d) advance democratic principles, broad-based equality, sustainable human development, and poverty alleviation; (e) secure the Earth’s natural environment and respect the right and responsibility of people to maintain the global commons through the sustainable use of their local and traditional resources; (f) are evaluated in the light of their impact on those who are most vulnerable; (g) involve the meaningful participation of the most vulnerable stakeholders; and (h) respect the legitimate role of government, in collaboration with civil society, to set policies regarding the development and welfare of its people.

            The NDP agrees that as far as Canada’s relationship with the European Union goes, it makes perfect sense to try to increase Canada’s trade with this group of nations.  The EU is comprised of nations of similar economic size to Canada, with similar political systems.  They are a good match for Canada’s trade objectives.

            The committee report makes some other valid technical recommendations about how to increase economic ties with other countries, and the NDP has pushed the committee to acknowledge that Canada needs to invest much more effort into trade promotion, something that has been cut by the current government.  Overall, however, the majority report contains a sad lack of vision, and ignorance for human rights, as well a blind belief in free trade agreements.

For instance, the Minister of International Trade, in his appearance before this committee, referred to trade between Chile and Canada, which has grown since the implementation of a 1997 free trade agreement.  However, the trade deficit between Canada and Chile has also grown; in Chile’s favour.  The Minister focused on the new investment avenues that the trade deal has provided to Canadian corporate investment in Chile, dismissing the importance of the deficit.  Therefore, the policy of the Conservative government is clear: as long as Canadian corporations can use the investment protection clauses in a trade deal to acquire assets and maximize their profits in other countries, the loss of hundreds of thousands of well-paying Canadian manufacturing jobs is unimportant. 

            Can international trade be carried out without considering human rights?

            The committee position in regards to the Arabian Peninsula is inappropriate.  By advocating stronger economic ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council, whose largest member is Saudi Arabia, the committee is encouraging and legitimizing a regime that harshly represses human rights, particularly women’s rights.  While the economic opportunities in Saudi Arabia are considerable, its human rights abuses are overwhelming and can in no way justify increased trade. 

            Recently, a 19-year-old Saudi woman who was viciously sexually assaulted by seven men was sentenced to six years in prison and 200 lashes simply for being seen in public with a man prior to the assault. Turning a blind eye to this kind of betrayal of human dignity is itself criminal.  It is inappropriate and unethical to negotiate privileged trade agreements with repressive governments such as Saudi Arabia and yet this is exactly what the majority of the committee recommends.

            This committee also recommends pushing for closer economic ties with ASEAN, a group of countries in Asia that includes Burma’s brutal regime, on which the Conservative government claims to be putting pressure.  This is hypocrisy.  Continuing to expand trade with Burma completely nullifies all of the symbolic pressure Canada may put on its military junta.

            Asian democracies are the key priority of a diversified Canadian international trade policy.  Canada has a rich cultural diversity that includes many people with cultural and economic links to Asia, links that could be used to help expand trade.  There is no shortage of nations with excellent records on democracy and human rights with which Canada could build stronger trade links.

            What sort of message does Canada really want to promote on the international stage? It is too easy to preach democracy and respect for human rights one moment and then turn around and continue to do business with some of the most despotic regimes on the planet.  Where are the values of equality, social justice and democracy that are so frequently identified as ‘Canadian’? They are sadly missing from international trade objectives and the committee report.

            The government supported the Foreign Affairs Committee’s Round Table on Social and Corporate responsibility, which recommended the implementation of a framework to hold companies accountable for their actions in developing nations.  The spirit and content of the Round Table is being categorically ignored in the committee report.

            The NDP has been consistently fighting for an alternative to the current trade policy.  On March 28, 2007, the NDP presented another Dissenting Opinion to this committee, decrying a lack of fair trade in Canada.  The issue of trade and human rights was recommended to be included as an important dimension of any trade policy:

A policy in support of fair trade policy promotes labour rights, decent working conditions, and the respect of children and the environment by our trading partners. Trade has to often been   automatically correlated to growth while in fact, unjust trade degrades competition and promotes the wealth of the very few and the exclusion of the many.[2]

            When the Progressive Conservative government was negotiating the Free Trade Agreement with the United States in1985, the NDP also authored a report titled, “An Alternative Strategy: Fair Trade Vs. Free Trade,” in which it called for fair trade, not free trade.  This would be part of an ensemble of mechanisms that would encourage sustainable trade abroad and self reliance here in Canada.  Twenty-two years later, however, the government still has not committed Canada to fair trade practices and continues to prefer trade with governments that commit egregious human rights abuses.

            The NDP is also concerned with this committee’s blank endorsement of the Conservative government’s policy of bilateralism, in which it tries to negotiate as many NAFTA-template trade agreements with as many individual countries as possible.  The NDP acknowledges that the multilateral system and especially the WTO are in urgent need of reform and we believe completely abandoning international cooperation is a bad choice.

            Why is fair trade a viable alternative?

            New Democrats believe that fair trade is a real alternative with powerful economic and social opportunities.  In a multilateral context, Canada can become a leader in expanding trade with other democratic nations, taking advantage of our rich diversity and cultural links around the world.  Expanding trade with nations who have vibrant and healthy democracies, where industries respect workers’ rights and encourage development, are the cornerstones of a healthy fair trade policy.

            Fair trade incorporates social justice into its business practices.  Fair trade focuses on local businesses that invest in the community and help to build local sustainability.  Workers’ rights and environmental rights are built into the foundation of business and empower both workers and consumers to make more sustainable choices.

            It is a compelling economic choice.  Fair trade produces stable jobs that can help combat poverty, allowing democratic nations to flourish and build a sustainable economy.  For example, in Quebec, in 2000, 64% of cooperatives were still in business five years after starting up, whereas only 36% of private businesses had survived.[3]

            Diversifying Canada’s trade portfolio would also have the added benefit of lessening this country’s almost complete reliance on the US market, which, through destructive legacies such as the softwood lumber sellout brought about by NAFTA, demonstrate the need for fair trade with other countries.

            The NDP recommends the incorporation of a clear and well defined Human Rights Impact Assessment into any future negotiations on trade agreements with other nations.  This is the single most important recommendation to be considered by the government.

            Why is the government traveling in the wrong direction?

            The Conservative government’s response to these serious concerns about international trade and human rights has been embarrassingly weak.  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and International Cooperation responded to an NDP question in the House on the government’s negotiations with Colombia on a Free Trade agreement, a potent example of this government’s dangerous disregard for human rights on international trade.

            The Parliamentary Secretary, as well as the Conservative members of the committee and the Minister of International Trade, have all consistently made the argument that,

Human rights benefits can accrue to the people of other nations if we give them the opportunity      to enter into trading relationships… opening doors to trading opportunities around the world is a        way to advance human rights successfully and we will continue to do that.[4]

            In sum, the belief of the Conservative government is a ‘trickle down’ effect for human rights: they believe rights will come simply by establishing trade links.

            This argument is based on a flawed principle.  Privileged trade with other countries does not bring advances in human rights and democracy and history has no shortage of such examples.  For example, would the Conservative government have tried to negotiate a Free Trade agreement with Apartheid South Africa, Pinochet’s Chile, or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in order to bring an end to their brutal regimes?

            Will the Conservative government go as far as to claim that Canada’s trade relationship with China has translated into more democratic rights for Chinese citizens? It has been eighteen years since the massacre at Tiananmen Square; Canada’s trade with China has exploded, but democracy is still an illusory dream for the Chinese people.

            The Conservative government is happy to style itself as tough on crime; however, it is clear that when it comes to organized crime such as in Colombia, where the government is trying to negotiate a Free Trade Agreement, corporate criminals will be home free.

            When Canada trades with a government that abuses human rights, it is legitimizing the regime and its human rights abuses.  Even worse, when Canada tries to negotiate privileged agreements with these governments, as the committee recommends, Canada is directly economically underwriting the ongoing existence of these brutal and despotic governments.

           Trading with nations that are “politically stable”- in the words of the committee- but also have no democracy or freedom, is morally irresponsible.  Thankfully, the NDP recognizes that it is not the only option.  Forging a new trade policy based on multilateral fair trade would permit Canada to become a leader on the international stage.  It would be a chance to undertake, one again, the kind of project that is uniquely Canadian: recognizing that important link between social justice and all spheres of government.