Corresponding With a Conservative

An Email Exchange on the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

By Frank Seier and Joanne Robertson; June 15, 2009 - Znet
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21700

[Note: The following email exchange took place between two Canadians (Joanne Robertson and Frank Seier) and Conservative parliamentarian Ed Fast. Most remarkable about it is the sarcasm and contempt shown by a politician towards constituents. During the parliamentary debates, Conservatives showed surprise when they heard that Liberal, NDP, and Bloc (Quebecois) politicians were receiving letters from all over the country against the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Campaigners generally didn't write the Conservatives. The Conservative parliamentarian's attitude towards those who wrote him shows why...]

June 3, 2009
From Joanne Robertson
To: Conservative MPs and Prime Minister

Honourable Prime Minister Harper and Conservative MPs:

I was shocked and dismayed to read in the Hansard transcript of the recent debate on Bill C-23, an Act to Implement the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, that Conservative MPs (MP Ed Fast, among others) stated that they are not aware of any public opposition to the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA)). I hereby go on the public record that I am opposed to the CCFTA, and respectfully request that your government withdraw Bill C-23 until such time as there has been an independent human rights impact assessment done of the CCFTA.

As you are aware, the current Colombian government of President Uribe is a notorious human rights violator, and Canada's approval of Bill C-23 would condone past violations and be seen internationally as an endorsement of the continuation of the Uribe government's practices.

When your government entered into the CCFTA negotiations in mid-2007, it claimed that the Uribe administration's human rights record was improving. Since that time, the human rights situation in Colombia has deteriorated in the following ways:

1. the humanitarian crisis has worsened - there are now approximately 4 million internally displaced persons (second only to Sudan in absolute numbers) as part of a campaign to cleanse rural land of indigenous populations in order to make it available to transnational corporations

2. the murder of trade union leaders/activists by right-wing paramilitaries has escalated - out of every 10 trade union leaders/members killed in the world, 7 are Colombian

3. only 3% of such murders are investigated/prosecuted by the Uribe government

4. scandals linking the Uribe administration to right-wing paramilitaries have increased - including the recent "para-politics" scandals involving the bribery and influence-peddling by paramilitaries of Uribista Congress members - the Uribe administration has extradited paramilitary members to deflect public attention

5. scandals linking the Colombian Military to the extra-judicial killings of innocent civilians in order to exaggerate the progress of Uribe's "war on drugs" efforts have increased - including the "false positives" scandal where innocent civilians were lured into conflict areas, murdered and dressed in guerrilla uniforms, and alleged to have been shot in an armed conflict with the Military

Prime Minister Harper, you have argued that it is ridiculous to require Colombia to "fix all its human rights problems before Canada will engage in trade relations with it." With all due respect, Honorable Prime Minister, as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international law requires Colombia to respect and protect human rights immediately, not when it is more economically convenient for it to do so, as your government proposes with its "trickle-down theory of economic engagement["]. Moreover, by rewarding a human rights violator like Colombia with a free trade agreement, Canada throws away one of the strongest tools the international community has to ensure compliance by recalcitrant states with international law.

This government's position on proceeding with a free-trade agreement with Colombia is inconsistent and at odds with its past position on econimic relations with notorious human rights violators. Colombia's record puts it in the company of countries such as Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc. with whom Canada refuses to have trade relations based on their dismal human rights record. And Canada's inability to substantively influence China's human rights behaviour, notwithstanding a significant history of economic relations, seriously undermines the theory that it is easier to influence human rights behaviour through economic engagement.

By approving the CCFTA and Bill C-23, Canada's internationally recognized reputation as one of the world's staunchest supporters of human rights will be seriously tarnished. Canadian exports to Colombia are relatively insignificant, and a free-trade agreement will not sufficiently increase trade to justify Canada destroying its international human rights reputation. This is a bargain in which Canada has everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Colombia will point to the CCFTA as Canada's seal of approval of the Uribe administration's policies and practices, in order to embellish its human rights record internationally. It will use the CCFTA approval to pressure the United States' Congress to approve a US/Colombia free-trade agreement, which is currently stalled due to human rights concerns.

Canada's Parliamentary Standing Committee on International Trade has recommended that a human rights impact assessment be carried out and the recommendations of that assessment be addressed before Canada considers signing, ratifying and implementing the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Honorable Prime Minister, I call on you and Conservative MPs to support the recommendations of Parliament's Standing Committee on International Trade to conduct an independent human rights impact assessment, and withdraw Bill C-23 until such time.

Yours truly,

Joanne Robertson
Sault Ste. Marie, ON

[Ed Fast's Reply]

From: FastE1A@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement
Date: June 3, 2009

Joanne, thank you for your standard form email. Sadly, your characterization of my having stated in the House of Commons that I was "not aware of any public opposition to the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement" is quite false. Although there are some in Canada who oppose this Agreement and free trade agreements in general, I believe most Canadians understand that Canada is one of the great trading nations of the world and thrives in an environment of freer trade.

Just to clarify for your records, here, is the statement made in the House of Commons by MP Niki Ashton: "I have received numerous letters expressing opposition to this free trade agreement, as have so many others in the House", to which I responded, "I did not get one. You are making it up." In fact, from the 135,000 residents of Abbotsford, I have received no letters and only three emails on the subject. It's easy for people to make claims that they have received "numerous letters" on any given issue when they don't actually have to table proof of same. As mentioned above, the suggestion that Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to the Canada-Columbia Free Trade Agreement is wrong. I believe that engagement with countries such as Colombia through FTAs can actually lead to an improvement in the human rights environment in such countries.

In the future, if you wish to attribute quotes to me, please ensure that you do so correctly.

Ed Fast, M.P.
Abbotsford

[Frank Seier's Rejoinder]

Subject: canada-colombia free-trade agreement
Date: June 4, 2009
To: FastE1A@parl.gc.ca, Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

Dear MP Ed Fast:

I have received a copy of the below email from you to Joanne Robertson regarding the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement (CCFTA) - quite frankly, I was embarrassed to read your reply, given that you are the political representative of a riding in the province in which I reside.

Technically, yes, you did not state that you "were not aware of any opposition to the CCFTA" - however, what you did state was that Niki Ashton was "making up" her statement that she and other members of parliament had received numerous letters in opposition to the CCFTA - this amounts to you calling her a liar, and that you do not believe that there is any opposition to the CCFTA, or at the very least you are not aware of any.

This is exactly what Joanne Robertson said you said.

I hereby go on the record as supporting Ms. Ashton's statement and rebutting your inference that she is s liar - as the author of numerous letters to members of parliament voicing my opposition to the CCFTA, I can attest to the fact that members of parliament have received numerous letters in opposition to the CCFTA.

Anyway, enough for semantics.

Your response to Ms. Robertson misses the point of her letter and gets caught up in red herrings that have nothing to do with the issue - which the Conservative Party is very adept at.

You say that "I believe most Canadians understand that Canada is one of the great trading nations of the world and thrives in an environment of freer trade" - if this statement reflects the level of critical analysis and sophistication of the Conservative Party trade policy, Canada is in much deeper trouble than just the CCFTA - if this is the only criteria of whether or not to enter trade relations, that is, whether it is good for the economy, without asking questions like "whose economy?", "which segment of that economy?", "at what cost to social justice and human rights?", etc., this government is truly incompetent - if benefit to the economy is the only criteria, does this mean the Conservative government will be re-establishing trade relations with Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc., which were cut off, some by your own government, because the human rights and social justice costs of free trade were too great?

Most Canadians would not support freer trade if it comes at the cost of 4 million internally displaced people, hundreds and thousands of innocent deaths and the exacerbation of an economic inequality that it one of the highest in the world - this is the current situation in Colombia, one which the CCFTA will make worse - in simple terms, most Canadians would not support free trade at the expense of violating human rights.

If the conservative government told the Canadian public about the content of the CCFTA, which was negotiated in secret and mainly for the benefit of Canadian mining companies and wheat and beef producers, and which your government refuses to subject to an independent human rights impact assessment as recommended by Parliament's CCIT, most Canadians would not support it.

Finally, MP Fast, you state that "engagement with countries such as Colombia through FTAs can actually lead to an improvement in the human rights environment in such countries". I have heard the Conservatives and Liberals throw around this "urban myth" on numerous occasions, never once offering any concrete proof of this - let me offer you a piece of concrete evidence to the contrary - after long-standing and extensive trade relations with China, how much has economic engagement led to an improvement in the human rights environment in that country? This is a timely example, given that today was the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, with no evidence that the Chinese human rights environment has improved at all.

Please do not respond to this email if the only purpose is to engage in semantics, distraction from the facts or obfuscation - please feel free to reply if you are interested in constructive debate of the relevant facts.

[Ed Fast's second reply]

From: "Fast, Ed - Riding 1A"
FastE1A@parl.gc.ca
To: "fseier@yahoo.ca"
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009

Subject: Re: canada-colombia free-trade agreement

Frank, thank you for your email. When someone suggests, as both you and Joanne have now done, that I do not believe that there is any opposition to the CCFTA, they are twisting my words, presumably to fit their political agenda. I have no doubt that there are other misguided individuals who believe as you do. I do NOT believe that the large majority of Canadians, when fully informed, oppose the CCFTA. I am quite confident that the FTA with Colombia will, over time, lead to Colombia becoming more respectful of human rights. It is certainly your right to differ with me, just don't twist my words.

Ed Fast, MP
Abbotsford

[Frank Seier's second rejoinder]

From: fseier@yahoo.ca
Date: June 7, 2009
To: FastE1A@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, JuliaP@parl.gc.ca, Davies.L@parl.gc.ca, Cardin.S@parl.gc.ca

Dear MP Fast

Thank you for your reply - we seem to be making some progress - you have now accepted that there are some other Canadians, albeit misguided like myself, who oppose the CCFTA (I hope this is not a mischaracterization of what you said).

This brings us to the substantive issue of your belief that a large majority of Canadians, when fully informed, do NOT oppose the CCFTA - as you are aware, the CCFTA was negotiated by the Conservative Party behind closed doors, in an accelerated fashion and without any involvement of the political representatives of the large majority (i.e. 62%) of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservative Party (in other words, it was negotiated under the direction of the political representatives of a minority of Canadians) - moreover, the Conservative Party evinced its utter disdain for democracy and disrespect for Canada's Parliament by rejecting out of hand the Commons' Committee on International Trade (CCIT) recommendation that the CCFTA be subjected to an independent human rights impact assessment before it is signed, ratified or implemented, which Canada's Parliament, let alone the Canadian public, requires to fully inform itself regarding the CCFTA. Therefore, what is the evidentiary basis for your belief that Canadians, if fully informed, do NOT oppose the CCFTA, when it was negotiated behind closed doors, on behalf of the political representatives of a minority of Canadians and the Conservative Party has consistently refused to provide the Canadian public with the information it requires to fully inform itself?

You also state that you are "quite confident that the FTA with Colombia will, over time, lead to Colombia becoming more respectful of human rights." (this is a direct quote, so hopefully I have not mischaracterized it). As I stated in my previous email, the Conservative Party has not provided one shred of evidence on which to base such confidence - I provided you with concrete evidence of the opposite, that long-standing free trade with China has not led to it becoming more respectful of human rights, evidence which you have not rebutted. MP Fast, optimism is not a policy - government policy needs to be based on something considerably more substantive than your personal optimism.

MP Fast, your repetitious request that you not be misquoted has become a moot point - it appears to be for the sole purpose of distracting attention from the real issues - both Ms. Robertson and I have presented you with concrete arguments supported by factual evidence to show that most Canadians, if fully informed of the facts, would NOT support the CCFTA - this includes evidence to support the argument that the human rights situation in Colombia is getting worse, not better (e.g. the 4 million internally-displaced persons as a result of the ethnic cleansing of indigenous and afro-colombian peoples from their traditional territories to make it available for exploitation by multi-national corporations; the influence-peddling and corruption of the para-politics scandal; the extra-judicial murders of innocent civilians by the Colombian Armed Forces in the false positives scandal; the impunity of paramilitar[ies] for their war crimes or their extradition to avoid the government being implicated in those crimes; the ongoing targeted assassination of trade unionists and other political threats, etc.) and that economic engagement with notorious human rights violators does not lead, over time, to an improvement of the human rights environment in such countries (after decades on economic engagement with China, it continues to violate the human rights of its citizens, and deny that such violations, such as the Tiananmen Massacre, even occurred). In response to these arguments and supporting evidence, you have not provided a single argument or fact in rebuttal - I can therefore only conclude that your beliefs and confidence regarding the CCFTA are based on nothing more than political ideology and naive optimism.

In conclusion, I am offended by your statement that Canadians who oppose the CCFTA are "misguided" - I have made serious personal efforts to fully inform myself regarding the CCFTA, and the information obtained through those efforts, including the arguments and supporting evidence presented to you in this email, clearly support my position to oppose the CCFTA. I believe that the majority of Canadians, with this same information, would also oppose the CCFTA. Most Canadians would not support freer trade if they knew that it comes at the cost of 4 million internally displaced people, thousands of innocent deaths and the exacerbation of an economic inequality that is one of the highest in the world - this is the current situation in Colombia, one which the CCFTA will make worse. In simple terms, most Canadians would not support free trade at the expense of violating human rights.

If you and the Conservative Party have information that will help enlighten myself and those other misguided Canadians who oppose the CCFTA, I invite you to present it to myself and the Canadian public. In light of the secrecy in which the CCFTA was negotiated and the undemocratic way it is being forced through Parliament in violation of the CCIT's recommendation that an independent human rights impact assessment first be completed, a reasonable conclusion is that there is no evidence to support the CCFTA, or that if the Canadian public was fully informed of the information the Conservative Party does have, a majority would oppose the CCFTA.

MP Fast, the ball is in your court to prove that Canadians who oppose the CCFTA are misguided.

f.

[Ed Fast's final reply]

From: "Fast, Ed - Riding 1A"
To: Frank Seier
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 3:36:51 PM

Subject: RE: Canada-Colombia free-trade agreement

Thank you for your follow up email. It is quite clear that you and I won't be "seeing eye to eye" on the issue of free trade. This will be my last comment to you on the subject. Just to clarify, Canada does NOT have a free trade agreement with China, as you have implied.

[Frank Seier's conclusion]

June 12, 2009

Dear MP Fast:

Thank you for your reply.

I am disappointed by your response. Given the numerous arguments and supporting evidence I have presented to justify my opposition to the CCFTA, and my statement that the Conservative Party support for the CCFTA appears to be based solely on political ideology and naive optimism regarding its benefits for human rights, I expected that your reply would contain a substantive rebuttal.

Sadly, rather than a substantive response, your only reply is that "we won't be seeing eye to eye on the issue of free trade". It is impossible to see eye to eye on an intellectual basis, when your only response to the arguments and evidence against the CCFTA is that your support of the CCFTA is based on "belief and confidence". While it is true that in a democracy, we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts, or in your case, no facts at all, to support those opinions - this applies, doubly so, to an elected representative of the people.

It therefore appears that we have come full circle, and that this is an appropriate point at which to end this disappointing exchange - the accusation that you made against MP Ashton that precipitated our exchange has since been proven false - Members of Parliament had received numerous letters opposing the CCFTA, including mine, at the time she made the statement (and, no doubt, many more since then).

However, it looks like you have been "hoist on your own petard" of your statement that "it's easy for people to make claims that they have received 'numerous letters' on any given issue when they don't actually have to table proof of same". If you still stand by the principle underlying this statement, you will have to acknowledge that the same can be said regarding your position in favour of the CCFTA - that "its easy for people to make claims that the FTA with Colombia will, over time, lead to Colombia becoming more respectful of human rights, when they don't actually have to table proof of the same".