2024-05-02 16:14:07
Legislator Pierina Correa defends herself and assures that part of Correismo’s observations on the Tourism Law were accepted. She rejects being described as “traitor» on his own bench.
The decision of seven assembly members of the Citizen Revolution to vote in favor of the Tourism Law proposed by President Daniel Noboa, against the majority of the bench, leaves a bad taste in the Correísta hosts.
Six of them have not come out this March 22 to give explanations about their reasons. Pamela Aguirre, president of the Oversight Commission, even appointed her alternate to participate in the session in which the impeachment process of the former Minister of Energy, Fernando Santos Alvite, was to continue.
Nor, to date, is the version of Marcela Holguín, Xavier Jurado, Johanna Ortiz, Milton Aguas and Henry Bósquez known, who helped the law return approved to the Executive with 83 endorsements.
The one who did decide to speak with PRIMICIAS was assemblywoman Pierina Correa, sister of former president Rafael Correa, who this time aligned herself with the thesis of the Noboa government.
If the bench decided to vote against, why did the seven support the law?
A clarification. We never said we were going to vote against.
Did you know then that you would support the Tourism Law?
This is what happened: we, including myself, participated in the debate of the first report in the commission and defended, among other things, the non-privatization or incursion of private investment into protected areas.
They welcomed our observations and others that, to begin with, had nothing to do with tourism, but that they agreed to include, even with members of our political organization.
But did the three Correísta members of the commission vote against the second report?
They did it, because it was given to them seven or 10 minutes before the vote. If we review that meeting, they supported the vote against under the argument that they had not had enough time to review the text.
Once we had it in hand, it was analyzed and it was verified that what we asked to be removed was removed and a large part of what was asked to be included was included. So there was no reason to vote against it.
I said it: that law had 13 different subjects and the least it had was urgent economic matters. But once approved by the CAL, what we had to do was improve the text.
If there was no reason to oppose it, why did the majority of the RC bench vote against it?
There were some last-minute impasses. There were different positions from colleagues who wanted to vote against. I always try to do coherence exercises: if I participated in the first debate, and my observations were accepted, give me a reason to object. Obviously, the law cannot be 100% liked or tailored to one person.
And were the recommendations of the other legislators who voted in favor accepted?
In the case of Johanna Ortiz, as a local resident, her proposal focused on the Arts Festival. She proposed a reduction in VAT by 7 points for 10 days to encourage people to go on cultural tourism.
They didn’t include it, but she understood that the law was good in general terms for tourism, not just for her province. The other can be included in the Culture Law that we are discussing.
What other CR proposals were left out?
Pamela Aguirre defended Imbabura’s status as a geopark declared by UNESCO. She proposed that 10% of mining royalties be allocated to promoting care and tourism in the province. She didn’t include it either, but she was aware that her province is eminently touristy and that no, because she didn’t like that, she had to go against it.
Putting it in black and white, I told them to vote for the least bad. Because, the other thing was not getting the votes to deny it and for the original text, which was much more harmful, to enter through the ministry of law.
They have been called traitors and “Judas”
Since when to think differently is to be a traitor. If they insult me, things are received from who they come from. I was taught that dirty linen is washed at home, but if some want to make it public, let them do it.
Is there a break in the Correísta bench?
Let us remember that this is not the first time that we differ in ideas and concepts. When the Rape Abortion Decriminalization Law was voted on, they called me right-wing, camouflaged as part of the left. There were disagreements and even insults from people on the same bench.
Can you turn the page and continue this time?
I am not going to insult on social networks. If there are discrepancies, let’s sit down with a coffee and talk. I don’t think the topic is enough to talk about breakups. Perhaps there is discomfort or a possible distancing with one or another assembly member of the block.