Proposition 54K1308

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'Accord entre l'Union économique belgo-luxembourgeoise, d'une part, et la République du Panama, d'autre part, concernant l'encouragement et la protection réciproques des investissements, fait à Panama le 26 mars 2009.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Sept. 9, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Panama international agreement investment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 12, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

I am not referring to the debate we have had in the committee. Nevertheless, I will try to call the government and the majority to reason. Indeed, it seems problematic to ratify this type of agreement with a country such as Panama, when it is known that this country is considered a tax haven that is home to more than 350,000 offshore companies, which places it on the third place in the world in this matter. Thus, this agreement will allow, among other things, companies to systematically benefit from a 100% exemption from income tax during the entire period of activity.

On the basis of these elements, questions arise in terms of consistency of our development cooperation policies. We cannot, on the one hand, ensure that our cooperation partners can finance development cooperation, especially from their own resources and therefore also from the tax resources of those countries, and on the other hand, sign such types of agreements that exempt companies from paying tax and from having real income taxes.

I therefore call on the common sense of this majority to simply reject this treaty which does not respect the most fundamental standards in terms of social, environmental and fiscal standards, and which, in addition, raises serious questions in terms of human rights. I did it in the committee. This was not followed by any effect. The majority had the holiday period to think about it. Per ⁇ it has been used properly. In any case, I ask you to pay attention when voting on this draft, because this agreement does not respect the most fundamental rights. I hope you will take this into account.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, like Mrs. Grovonius, I will not resume all the discussions that took place in the committee. I just want to reiterate our commitment to this type of consent.

We feel that for everything related to social rights, environmental rights, tax rights, it is clearly preferable to move forward through agreements. It is better to try to carry the vision, which is also that of the European Union, capable of advancing the situation of individuals, of populations, in countries where there is no great tradition of respect for social rights. The majority, and in any case my political formation, supports the action of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this area because we feel that it is a bit playing the good soul than staying on European soil by saying that it is horrible to negotiate with countries where social and trade union rights are not respected. This is ultimately a fairly easy position, it is to have the "back in the butter" than to say that we should not try, through agreements, to get to improve the situation of the populations on the spot. This is why we support the bill.

Mr. Miller, you know that our group is generally quite constructive compared to the principles you set out, which are to try to be inclusive in a whole series of treaties. We will vote against this treaty for various reasons. First, because this type of agreement is now within the competence of the European Union and not the competence of Belgium. It is a relic of the past. Moreover, this is not necessary today, especially since we have just signed a broader association agreement with all the countries of Central America, and therefore Panama. This treaty does not add any value to the criteria you have just outlined.

On the other hand, it is true that it is in retreat from principles to which I thought the MR was attached after hearing Mr. Louis Michel on the radio a few months ago about TTIP. There is a private arbitration mechanism. Now, I thought I understood that you were opposed to this type of mechanism.

This is one of the reasons why we will also oppose this treaty.

Environmental and social clauses are almost absent from this treaty. They are well below what they used to be in all UEBL agreements that have been signed since the 2000s. If I remember correctly, it was the same liberal minister who, at the time, had negotiated far better and higher environmental and social clauses – although they could have been improved – than those of this treaty.

Therefore, we will vote against this treaty, against this trade agreement.

Mr. Miller, the question is who will benefit from such an agreement. Panama is a tax haven. This year, we could still read in the newspaper Le Monde: “The vitality of this fiscal paradise rests on disturbing foundations: speculation, corruption and money laundering.”

In 2013, the PTB also published a study on the large fortunes present in Panama. This was an exercise joined by the press shortly after. It was found that all the great Belgian fortunes (Spoelberch, Brother, Emsens, Bekaert, Saverys, Paquot, Forrest and others) had companies in Panama to take advantage of this tax haven. The press ⁇ cited this example of a company of Albert Frère that had sold works of art, including the Rembrandt, through an offshore company in Panama.

In addition to this tax paradise status, there is also the status of multinational paradise and social hell. Indeed, the condition of workers, including those working on the expansion of the Panama Canal, is really problematic. In recent years, laws against the right to strike have been adopted. The major multinational companies working on the channel, including Belgian groups such as de Nul or Ackermans & van Haaren, were pointed to the finger at this occasion.

The content of the agreement is therefore worrying. As colleagues have said, there is nothing binding on social standards, including the right to strike that is not respected in this country, or on environmental standards. This is ⁇ worrying. There is also the issue of arbitration clauses. A recent example shows the danger of such an agreement. I think in particular of this gold mine project in Spain where 17 million contaminated waste would be dumped. There was a large mobilization of the population. Finally, the regional government rejected this pollution. But the Canadian company that originated this project launched an arbitration procedure based on the same agreement as this.

This arbitration procedure sees the claim of 35 million US dollars. It was because Spain had signed such an agreement with Panama that a Canadian company was able to activate its Panama subsidiary to claim those $35 million. It is questioning!

Without wanting to provoke the MR group, I have a concern in terms of conflict of interest when I find that this project is essentially supported by dragging companies such as Ackermans & van Haaren whose boss, Luc Bertrand is the father of Didier Reynders’s head of cabinet. I have no evidence of a direct connection between the two, but we can’t stop asking ourselves the question. Why is there such an urge to advance such projects when Minister Reynders’ cabinet chief is, by the way, the manager of the Ackermans & van Haaren group?

A foreign minister might worry about the fate of a Belgian-Marocan tortured in Morocco – but he cares little about it. He cares about the economic interests of Belgian multinational companies, including that of his head of cabinet, ranging from organizing a meeting at the Embassy in Panama with the two Belgian draggers in order to settle their conflict. I don’t know if it’s the role of a foreign minister to make the game of some multinational companies that he is close to.

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that our group cannot allow such words to pass. These are attacks based on the smugglers of the PTB study center. These attacks target people who are not present. If this door is opened within the assembly, every speech will be a personal attack and this is not acceptable!

I can discuss many issues – whether political or economic – with Mr. Van Hees, but I reject these attacks. Everyone knows that, if the majority wants to vote on this bill, it is also because there are economic interests of Belgium and our companies. Of course, this does not resolve Mr. Van Hees believes that our companies are doing well; he prefers them to be in trouble.

I would like to ask my group leader. This issue will be addressed at the Conference of Presidents.

Mr. Miller, I did not intend to intervene, because we have already had a lot of debate in the committee. However, I would like to make two comments.

First, we will ratify a mutual investment protection agreement with a country where the right to strike does not exist. This has been denounced by the International Labour Organization. Certainly, we must be able to protect the investments of our companies, but it is still singular to do so with a country where one of the fundamental rights of the labor, the right to strike, is not respected.

Second, this treaty aims to protect investments mutually. It is clear that two Antwerp companies are ⁇ interested in the Panama Canal. Can you quote me, Mr. Miller, Panama companies who would like their investments in Belgium to be protected, since we are talking about reciprocity here? I do not think so. This shows that this type of agreement is ⁇ unbalanced and is systematically concluded in favor of the developed countries, of which we are part. What we demand, we went from opposition, is that if you sincerely want the economic development of these countries, conclude agreements on an equal basis and not unequal, as is the case with this treaty.

As I have often said about the criticisms of Europeans who sign agreements with the United States or other countries, the first are often presented by MM. Hellings, Van Hees and consorts like people who negotiate against their camp. I don’t know the Panamans, but I don’t feel that they are necessarily negotiating against their companies. That would surprise me a little.

Mr. Hellings, you may not have heard the beginning of my speech. I do not blame you for this. I anticipate what you said.

According to my group, it is better to negotiate agreements and bring them to countries where social rights – you are right when you talked about the right to strike in Panama – are not enough. Indeed, we feel that it is through such agreements that we can get partners to respect the populations, their social, environmental fingers, etc.

Mr. Miller, let me say respectfully that we differ on this point.

Our companies invest in Panama because they give themselves a competitive advantage, this type of country does not respect social rights. If that were not the case, they would not go there. It is less expensive to invest in it because social rights are not respected there. This is why it is so important for these two Belgian companies to have an agreement that values and protects their investments.

We see the difference of views.

Mr. Miller, I see the facts. I see that we are rushing to bring the House to an agreement that clearly benefits two Belgian multinationals who have links – you can’t deny it – with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I find that the implementation of this agreement will be at the expense of the Panama workers who have already led struggles, organized strikes against the various companies working on the canal, including the Belgian companies. However, since then, a law aimed at prohibiting, to break the strikes has been voted in this country. This is the reality!

In doing so, we would be entitled to wait for the lessons of the past to be drawn and for the agreement in question to impose respect for social rights, including the right to strike. However, this is not the case.

Mr. Van Hees, you obviously have the right to have your opinions, but there should not be a question of inculpation. In this regard, caution must be exercised.

This is not an indictment. This is a constatation. I find, in any case, that a person who is the administrator of one of the groups that directly benefit from this agreement is also the head of cabinet of a minister. This is a political reality that cannot be denied. If abusive deductions are not circumstances, the facts are worrying and interpellant. And I wonder if it would not be appropriate to think about a way to avoid certain potential conflicts of interest.

The concept of conflict of interest exists in our legislation. I ask this question because the situation interpels me.

Mr. Speaker, although my group is in the opposition, I consider that the intervention of my colleague from the PTB is unacceptable. It is not necessary to make an amalgamation between the daughter of Unntel, etc. Even if I will oppose this trade agreement for the reasons I have cited, this amalgamation is totally unacceptable.

We are in a small country. Everyone has the right to perform functions. It is not at all a matter of an agreement that would have been accelerated, since it dates back to 2009. I cannot accept this kind of amalgam, even though I will oppose this agreement.

On behalf of my group, I would like to thank Mr Dallemagne and his group.

According to the latest analysis of Mr. Van Hees, I can only see one thing. He tells us that the Panamanian people have already fought many battles, tried to obtain social rights, etc. I fully respect this and feel very solidary with these struggles. The reality, Mr. Van Hees, is that you can talk about this type of fighting in our assembly, the Belgian parliament, but that will result strictly in nothing.

We have the weakness of believing that, when there is an agreement that engages Belgium with a country like Panama, parliamentary control over government action then takes another dimension. Through an agreement like this, Belgium becomes also responsible for what is happening, for the implementation of this agreement. I repeat our will, our hope that through this type of bill, little by little, the Belgian vision – I once spoke of the European vision but now I can speak of the Belgian vision – the principles of social law can also find to apply more in Panama. That is why, I repeat, the MR votes this bill.

I do not want to repeat what I said in the committee. This is largely in line with what Mr Heller said.

However, between the debate in the Commission and the debate here today, a new fact has occurred. Fourteen days ago, the OECD published a list of countries that will or will not participate in the automatic exchange of tax information. A number of countries have been blacklisted by the OECD, including the Cook Islands, Nauru and Vanuatu. Three great tax havens.

You can guess which country is still there: Panama. The reason why it was hesitated to sign this agreement since 2009 was due to that country’s fiscal unreliability. If you know a little about our country’s political history, you know that we were in government at certain times. I regret that the current majority has no problem with this.

With even greater conviction than fourteen days ago, when we were debating this in the committee and this information was not yet known to us, we will vote against it. I would like to reiterate how disappointed I am by this majority because they do not adhere to an internationally agreed approach to tax fraud. The cornerstone of this policy is the automatic exchange of information, which this country, Panama, does not give home to.

Mr. Speaker, as our colleague, Mr. Speaker, correctly said. From Germany, this agreement is the result of a negotiation that ended in 2009. The words of mr. Van Hees are perfectly condemned. Would I dare to say that they are not surprised by the way this party generally takes its distance from the democratic field.

As for the substance of the project, I recall that it is a protection of the investment of Belgian companies in Panama. This is the scope of the treaty. This is not an agreement that deals with all kinds of matters. This agreement aims to protect the investment of Belgian companies, including those working on the expansion of the Panama Canal, which will benefit a whole region and subregion of Latin America as well as international trade. In this context, we decide to further protect the investments of Belgian companies. This is the exact scope of this agreement concluded between Belgium and Panama, neither more nor less.