Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada
November 15, 2005
The Right Honorable Paul Martin
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6
Re: Canadian Government Approach to Fourth Summit of the Americas
Dear Prime Minister:
Common Frontiers is a multi-sectoral working group of unions, human rights, environmental, faith-based, student, development and economic and social justice organizations which carries out a program of research, analysis and action on the social and economic effects of economic integration in the Americas. We brought Canadians to Mar del Plata to participate in the People's Summit of the Americas with counterparts from all over the hemisphere just as we have to earlier Summits in Santiago and Quebec City.
Recognizing the obstacles in achieving consensus among all 34 participating nations in the hemisphere, and with the way forward from Mar del Plata in mind, we are forwarding our overall concerns as well as specific comments on the process which led up to the Fourth Summit of the Americas as well as its stunted outcomes. Given the lack of consensus achieved at the official summit we urge you to review the declaration from the People's Summit for inspiration.
Overall , we believe that the theme of the 4 th Summit, Creating Jobs to Confront Poverty and Strengthen Democratic Governance could have been an important starting point for a new approach to combating hemispheric inequalities. We had hoped the Canadian government would embrace this opportunity enthusiastically. This, however, has not been the case. Despite growing consensus on the need for fresh alternatives to policies of economic liberalization, Canada, it seems, has missed the chance to make a positive contribution to this debate, and to establish positive alliances with other governments seeking alternatives. As a result, official Summit documents prompt several concerns regarding both process and substance, as well as to the effectiveness of these agreements in attaining the thematic objectives of the Summit.
Common Frontiers, our member organizations and allies throughout the hemisphere have engaged for almost ten years in developing and presenting “Alternatives for the Americas”, outlining policies dedicated to equitable and just outcomes. The focus on jobs, on decent work, is a key starting place. But it cannot be assumed that current policies emphasizing growth and Free Trade Agreements based on private and foreign investment, alone, will yield adequate employment. Despite your vocal support for liberalized trade in Mar del Plata, the link between “free” trade and employment has not been demonstrated, for example, in the NAFTA. Public investment and attention to the domestic market and the generation of domestic revenues for domestic use are also essential. If poverty is to be overcome, decent employment, respect for human rights, democracy and social justice must take centre stage and not be subsidiary to market liberalization as has been the case in recent years.
With regard to process , we recognize the efforts made by the government of Canada since the first Summit of the Americas in 1994 in appearing to promote transparency and open consultation but note the need to further advance these models. Consultations in the current round of negotiations of draft texts were infrequent and ill-timed with relation to the SIRG meetings. It is difficult to track results of civil society inputs or the fate of specific contributions to the consultation process.
With regard to substance :
1) The draft Declaration and Plan of Action did not demonstrate approaches adequate to meet the challenges of inequality and poverty: inequalities within and between nations, regions and sub-regions must be taken into account. The recognition of the importance of access to resources, rights to property and inheritance, etc., summarized in the recent final outcome of the UN Millennium +5 Summit provide some useful principles, and the recognition of the Millennium Development Goals in the draft Summit Declaration was useful. Canada has a history of social policy based on principles like universal access to services, although the Federal Government has itself retreated from Federal guarantees to adequacy in social assistance. Thus, Canada, like the other nations in the Hemisphere could find common interest in policies which combat inequality and its roots, rather than an ineffective and marginalizing “targeting” of the most poor. Access to decent work in a framework of recognized and respected labour rights can be one of the chief components of this approach. More attention, than was evident in the draft documents, must be paid to rebuilding the capacity of governments to play a pro-active role in ensuring the accessibility and re-distributive functions of these instruments. This capacity, in Latin America, has been undermined by decades of structural adjustments. Canada could have helped steer a useful discussion on strengthening the revenue generation of governments in the hemisphere by dealing, among other things, with harmful tax practices such as tax havens, capital flight, and tax competition.
2) The draft Declaration and Plan of Action embodied too narrow an approach to economic objectives. Beyond the progressive theme of the Fourth Summit, it appears clear that the main objective of some of the negotiating governments was to reaffirm the continent's commitment to economic policies aimed at trade liberalization, guarantees for investment and holders of intellectual property. These policies, as practiced in recent decades have not demonstrated the capacity to deal with the fundamental inequities and continuing poverty which plague almost all nations in the hemisphere. In the efforts to promote decent work, eliminate poverty and strengthen democratic governance, this economic orientation is, in our view, insufficient at best, if not completely detrimental. Not only has Canada avoided mitigating the effects of such approaches, it has taken a leading role in trying to incorporate their continuation through the revival of FTAA talks as a Summit commitment.
A number of Latin American governments signaled a desire for a different approach, which takes much greater notice of their specific national priorities and provides policy space for government action. Canada, has not, to date, demonstrated modification of its approach in light of these new developments in Latin America.
As indicated above, Common Frontiers and allied groups have developed alternative policy proposals. It is time that we collectively take a second look at alternatives. We regret that neither domestic nor hemispheric formats for consultation, to date, have proved at all adequate for serious and substantive consideration of these alternatives.
3) The draft Declaration and Plan of Action lacked a human rights perspective : Decent work, elimination of poverty and democratic governance all call for a clear commitment to human rights: “work”, in the first place, should be viewed as a series of codified human rights which are indivisible from other human rights. Poverty is a violation of human rights and calls for strong social policies. Democratic governance, needless to say, is only attainable with the full realization of all human rights. We are disappointed that there are no indications that the Summit will be a significant step in this direction. We recognize that Canada has played a proactive role in the incorporation of some human rights provisions in the Summit documents. It is our view, however, that those references are insufficient.
Canada has not yet ratified overall Hemispheric as well as economic, social and cultural rights instruments, which weakens our position on human rights, as well as the defense of the rights themselves. Considerations of ratification by Canada of the OAS human rights instruments should be accompanied by a strong commitment by Canada to fulfill all of its current human rights obligations under the United Nations and under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, it is indispensable to many Canadian organizations, particularly human rights and women's groups, that Canada only ratifies the American Convention on Human Rights if this ratification allows for the protection of reproductive rights of women in Canada, and supports the struggle for reproductive rights for women throughout the Americas.1
4) The draft Declaration and Plan of Action lacked a satisfactory gender perspective. Gender must be a cross-cutting theme permeating various dimensions of the documents. The preliminary versions of the Summit documents showed that gender gap deficiencies are approached from a ‘productive' perspective, to the exclusion of ‘reproductive' work. However, as historical research shows, women's increased labour participation does not equate to gender equality. Rather, the tendency is for women workers to become a cheap reserve army of labour, disempowered by underlying social inequalities and thus vulnerable to exploitation. We believe that the feminization of the labour market is not a positive development when it only works to maintain employment inequities. A s noted in Labour's Platform for the Americas,: “to adopt a gender perspective implies not only delivering programs for women, but creating programs that transform the system of gender relations, encouraging men and women to make positive changes that place women and men in a position of equality.” 2 Although Canada has proven to be a clear ally of women's rights defenders throughout the negotiations, it has failed in promoting a gender perspective that goes beyond the strict limits of the workplace.
5) The draft Declaration and Plan of Action reflect unacceptable security objectives. While an adequate concept of human security includes many social dimensions, there is a concurrent danger in treating such challenges as poverty, social conflict and crime as if they were threats justifying military responses. The pressure from the United States to consider many challenges through a counter-terrorism lens reinforces this danger. Canada has advocated a more positive view of human security and it is important that we reinforce those tendencies in the hemisphere which have sought to keep large regions nuclear-free, which have worked to reduce regional conflict and levels of armed force and military expenditure and which have trained policy and security forces in knowledge and respect for human rights and monitored the effectiveness of human rights policies on behavior.
With regard to their effectiveness:
6) The draft Declaration and Program of Action lacked guarantees and specific processes for implementation. Neither the Declaration nor the Plan of Action spoke concretely as to how proposed objectives will be realized. The absence of any serious initiative to attach accountability measures to both documents is a deficiency that will severely weaken the few commitments, if any, that civil societies of the continent will consider satisfactory.
In conclusion, we re-iterate our conviction that an alternative approach to the Hemisphere is required of Canada. There are openings among governments, regional organizations dedicated to economic cooperation and human rights as well as among civil society organizations. However, Canada must establish that it offers credible interest and commitment to a new approach. The Summit was an opportunity missed, but we remain committed to pursuing dialogue on alternatives for the future.
Sincerely,
Ken Traynor on behalf of
Common Frontiers Members
cc: Mr. Peter Boehm, Special Representative to the Prime Minister for the Fourth Summit of the Americas.
The Hon. Pierre Pettigrew
Amb. Paul Durand, Permanent Mission of Canada to the Organization of American States
1- The Convention currently contains a clause, Article 4.1, regarding states' obligation to protect “the right to life, in general, from the moment of conception”. This clause is cause for serious concern. the federal government has not indicated how, in the event of ratification, it plans to fully uphold women's reproductive rights given this language.
2- Excerpt from Labour's Platform for the Americas, developed by ORIT (Inter-American Regional Labour Organization), the Andean Labour Council, the Caribbean Congress of Labour, the central labour coordinating bodies of Central America and the Southern Cone, and the national labour federations of Canada, the United States and Mexico.