Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to speak to your committee. Please convey my gratitude to the committee members and staff.
I'll introduce myself. I'm a Canadian citizen. Before becoming a professor at the Université de l'Ontario français, I conducted research in Ecuador in the political economy of development field, first at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels, and then as a professor at FLACSO‑Ecuador. This university is a graduate and post‑graduate institution in Quito.
I have three observations.
Ecuador is currently going through an unprecedented security crisis. It would be wise to stop the negotiations, or at least postpone them.
Ecuador used to be a relatively safe country in the region. However, in recent years, new tensions have undermined the security of the country. The previous government of Guillermo Lasso declared a state of exception to regain control at least 10 times. Last August, during the election campaign, candidate Fernando Villavicencio was shot dead in the street while campaigning for tighter security. Since January 8 of this year, a state of exception has once again been imposed in order to combat criminal gangs that threaten the country's stability. Canadian parliamentarians who are concerned about human rights should ensure respect for trade negotiations before proceeding.
The reasons for the security breakdown are complex. However, strong signs point to the country's decline in the face of a reorganization of drug production and trade in the area bordering Colombia. According to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 80% of the increase in coca leaf production in Colombia has taken place in the Putumayo and Nariño departments on the border with Ecuador, suggesting that this country serves as a transit point.
Free trade isn't just about Canadian exports and investment. It's also about openness to imports. Parliamentarians who are concerned about security and crime issues may wonder whether a trade agreement would also pave the way for new black market routes into North America.
Second, an agreement shouldn't protect investments through arbitration mechanisms such as investor‑state dispute settlement, or ISDS, especially in the mining sector.
Canada shouldn't champion corporate interests at the expense of democracy, friendship among peoples and the rights of indigenous peoples. A supranational arbitration mechanism whereby corporations can take legal action against governments through ISDS would only serve to undermine Ecuador's sovereignty and the ability of its people to influence their development.
The main Canadian investments in Ecuador are in the natural resources extraction sector. This sector is highly contentious in Ecuador. Last August, alongside the elections, two referendums were held in which local communities opposed industrial or even artisanal extraction of non‑renewable natural resources.
There's little consensus on investments in the natural resources sector. It would be unwise to take advantage of the ongoing security crisis to try to lock in the rights of Canadian investors when local communities are calling for more democracy and consultation and rejecting the extractivist development model of harvesting non‑renewable natural resources for export.
In Ecuador, attempts to convert the oil windfall into a tool for development have been failing for 50 years. It's hard to see how this could be the case with other minerals without a strong local processing component.
Indigenous organizations and environmentalists are among the first to criticize non‑renewable resource extraction projects. The Canadian government, through its inclusive approach to trade, seeks to make trade agreements that show respect for indigenous peoples. It would be unwise to support, through international rules agreed to by economic elites temporarily in power, the actions of firms rejected by local communities.
My third observation is the following. Ecuador is led by an unstable and short‑term government, headed by the son of the country's largest banana exporter. He was elected to complete Guillermo Lasso's term. Guillermo Lasso abandoned his presidency to avoid impeachment proceedings. Neither of these two presidents have received strong support from the legislative body. Within the National Assembly of Ecuador, the current leading political force has a clear political history of expressing reservations about free trade agreements and opposition to ISDS. These reservations are enshrined in the Ecuadorian constitution, in particular in article 422. Again, it would be unwise to take advantage of the ongoing security crisis to negotiate a free trade agreement. A certain economic elite in power has close ties to the agro‑exporting sectors, which are among the only sectors that stand to benefit from a free trade agreement in the short and medium term. This agreement may not last.
I understand the desire to protect the environment and include women and indigenous people in international trade through side agreements. However, that isn't exactly the aim of these organizations.
Women's organizations and indigenous organizations aren't focusing on free trade. Instead, they want to protect access to land and food sovereignty. Barring a bold, inventive, creative and innovative agreement that protects small‑scale agro‑ecological production, food sovereignty, the ability of small and medium‑sized businesses to adapt to competition, the local processing of resources that the country chooses to extract, and by determining only truly complementary sectors that protect environmental sustainability—