"We have free trade in capital, and goods and services, but we don't have free trade in protestors" - Bill Blaikie, MP

On June 14th, at the urging of NDP Trade Critic Bill Blaikie, the House Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade invited Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew to answer questions about his approach to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

What follows is a transcript of Bill Blaikie questioning the Minister:

The Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)): I'd like to go now to Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. I understand before I came from the House the minister made reference to our previous discussion with respect to chapter 11 of NAFTA and the commitment that he made at an earlier meeting that Canada would not be seeking a chapter 11 investor-state dispute mechanism in any future trade agreements. I'm very pleased to hear him reiterate that commitment. Now we just have to get him to see the wisdom of taking it out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or failing that, if you could get rid of the agreement altogether.

But, in any event, I would like to engage him on some of the ideas I think that are behind his presentation. I'll just mention a few of the things that I notice in his remarks which kind of caught my eye, if you like.

He talks about why we would exclude others and condemn them to isolation as if the rest of North and South America is just waiting for the free trade agreement, and that prior to it they exist in this horrible state. It seems to me quite the contrary. What we're doing is we're not moving to include them so much as to impose a kind of a market mentality on them that will not always serve the best interests of their people.

I'm reminded of the way in which, for instance, people of various Caribbean islands have already felt the consequences of the market mentality by having their trade relationship with the European Union struck down with respect to bananas, and having various local economies ruined as a result of WTO decisions. So I think it's hardly fair to characterize what is going to happen to the FTAA as some kind of unmitigated benefit to everyone.

You say why should we deny to these other countries what has been our path to prosperity? Well, I would certainly want to argue with you about whether in fact free trade has been our path to prosperity. We were a prosperous country before we entered into free trade agreements; and we were a more just country before we entered into these agreements. So prosperity, if you like, or export statistics aren't the only measure of what makes a country. Prior to entering into these free trade agreements there were less homeless people on the streets, there was less poverty in Canada; in a lot of the other ways in which you might measure a society you might come to an entirely different conclusion than what you've come to in your remarks.

You talk about a greater range of choices for consumers. Our concern, those of us who are opposed to these agreements is that may be so, but you know, the sort of spiritual motto of our society certainly isn't sort of 'I shop, therefore I am.' There are other things in life besides consumer choices, and one of them is citizen choices. Certainly, a great many people would want to argue that even if our consumer choice has broadened and I think that's arguable, that the range of choices available to us as citizens and collectively speaking and certainly a great many people who would want to argue that even if our consumer choice is broadened. I think that's arguable, that the range of choices available to us as citizens and collectively speaking as a democracy is greatly decreased.

We can produce a long list of things that Parliament for instance was once able to decide. Whether it has to do with drug patent legislation, bulk water exports, split-run magazines, managed trade agreements like the auto pact. The list is quite long of things that were once properly the object of democratic decision-making that are now taken out of that realm and given over to these free trade agreements. So I would just ask you to consider that as well.

Finally you talk about environmental and labour standards and the fact that according to your analysis, wherever trade increases, wherever this economic model that you're in favour of has been imposed or successful, then environmental and labour standards have increased. I would just want to disagree with you profoundly on this.

The fact of the matter is that it's in the last 15 or 20 years since the neo-Conservative now slash neo-Liberal revolution that has brought deregulation and privatization of free trade agreements that environmentalists in particular have become more and more worried about the future of the planet. In fact a lot of the progress that was being made in the 1970s towards trying to design an economy that was more environmentally-friendly was dashed in the early 1980s with the Thatcher, Reagan neo-Conservative revolution and that there's a really strong argument to be made that the market mentality leads to quite the opposite. So I guess I could say I just think your analysis is riddled with holes and things that I wouldn want to take issue with.

The Acting Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau): Why are we not surprised?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'll leave you some time to take issue with me.

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Thank you very much. Bill, yes I called your attention in your absence to the top of page 6 which is the commitment that I had made on not implementing such [an investor-state] mechanism. I'm glad it was reported to you by the time you came.

You have raised a number of very important questions. There's no doubt about it. I am not one who believes that the market mentality should be imposed on everyone and should be the name of the game completely. Certainly not. I believe that the market is a wonderful place for self-fulfilment of individuals and it's a very productive place. It's a place that is quite effective, efficient, productive. It's certainly better than any other economic model that we've had so far.

Now I'm one who believes in a balance between the market and the role of government. I believe that we still need governments to indeed do a number of important tasks. An individual is a citizen before being a consumer. I totally agree with you.

Now the difficulties we have as governments now. You say it was much nicer in terms of social justice before free trade and after. Well yes. When I say yes, yes I understand what you mean.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You got it right the first time.

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, you say that but-

Voices: Hear, hear.

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Twenty years ago-

Voices: Hear, hear.

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Yes, I disagree.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: Free trade is not the only thing that happened in the last 20 years. There have been a number of technological developments that widened the gap between the haves and the have nots. There was at the time, deficits of billion a year. So when you live way above your means at the level of billion a year, indeed you end up having lots of money for all kinds of things. So don't blame free trade for a certain number of corrections that our government has had to do. If we didn't have the debt that we have today, we would be as a government able to do a lot of choices that we can't because of the certain decisions of the 1970s and the 1980s.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We still wouldn't be able to do the things I mentioned no matter how much money you have.

Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: So free trade is not the only thing that has happened. The market is not the only thing that decides those things. The progress in technology, the difficulties for instance in redistributing wealth. I mean it is a challenge for governments now because there is a lot more mobility between the countries. So we have to take a lot of things and it's very complex.

But that progress and technology, the difficulties, for instance, in redistributing wealth, it is a challenge for governments now because there's a lot more mobility between the countries. So we have to take a lot of things and it's very complex, but all in all, all in all-and you say Canada was prosperous before free trade, yes, but before free trade Canada was a member of GATT. Canada has been a trading country since its inception, since its very birth. We traded wood and furs. We were born that way.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, I know all that crap.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: You know all that. No, no, but I'm looking at the right to...

L'hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Oui, oui, c'est comme ça, Radisson et Desgroseillers, mais on a toujours été un peu commerçants.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Spare me the grade three history lesson.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: No, no, no. But what I want to say is that our prosperity has always been built on trade. We were created on trade at first. We've been a member of GATT before free trade.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's entirely different than free trade, GATT.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Well, it is certainly trade liberalization and it is certainly promoting the eliminating of barriers. So I beg to differ with your analysis. You're not surprised. But I believe, honestly, that, yes, market mentality, in a narrow way, is not something myself or my government subscribe to. And when our colleague from the Official Opposition will speak later on, he will probably find me far too leftist for his own sake.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's not hard to be left of Genghis Khan.

Mr. Pierre Pettigrew: Anyway, what I mean is that I think we have a balanced approach between the role of government, in which I believe, because it has a lot of legitimacy and the place of market, which is a very productive thing.

But just to conclude on the market, it's very productive, very effective. I believe in markets, but it can do a lot of bizarre things and that's why we need governments to continue to have a role to protect citizens and individuals.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have a subquestion.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Diane Marleau): Well, I'll get back to you. You've had your 10 minutes, so we'll go around.

...

The Acting Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau): We will go now to Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Minister's response to madame Lalonde he talked again and I've heard this from several ministers of trade now when we're talking about labour standards, they say well, we can't impose our standards on these other developing countries.

For Heaven's sake, let's make it clear once and for all, we're not asking to impose our standards. We're asking to impose core labour standards. We're not talking about the Canada Labour Code, or the provincial labour code of Ontario, or Quebec, or anywhere else. We're talking about the right to organize, the right to free collective bargaining, the right to freedom of association. These are not cultural evolutionary developmental things.

These are basic human rights and to suggest that somehow we want to impose our standards on them is to misrepresent what people are advocating when they're talking about enshrining core labour standards in these agreements.

Now you say, don't ask the trade ministers to do everything. Fair point, but I think the point that Maurice Strong makes and that others make is that right now the trade ministers are in charge of everything, whether they like it or not, because it's only trade law that is enforceable. It's trade law and the decisions of these free trade agreements that trump everything else. It's trade law that trumps environmental law. It's trade law that trumps cultural law. It's trade law that trumps health, for instance, when it comes to drug patent legislation, or whatever.

So unless you're willing to give the same kind of power to these other institutions, you say you want to have these other institutions deal with this, but are you willing to give them the kind of teeth, the kind of enforceability that the WTO and these free trade agreements have? Because if you aren't, it's just a diversionary tactic. Send it off to the ILO, or even send it to the NAFTA Environment Commission where the government itself can nix what the NAFTA Environment Commission studies, as our own government did just a couple of weeks ago.

So it's a bit of a dodge if you don't mind me saying so to say these other organizations should look after it if you're not willing to go on the international stage and argue that these organizations should have the same kind of clout that the WTO has, and they don't have it now.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: You know, I am even supporting an ILO-WTO working group where the ILO could learn from the WTO and take examples from some of its enforceability and some of its mechanisms-

Mr. Bill Blaikie: They can chat to each other from now until doomsday, unless they are given the kind of enforceability ...

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: But you have to begin somewhere and the place to begin is to have a common ILO-WTO group where they will exchange and see what can be done in common.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: A final supplementary on that, one of the other things that has concerned me and we talked about civil society and dialogue and everything else, now I wonder why is it that the Canadian government and I know this isn't specifically your responsibility perhaps, but it is something you should be concerned about as the trade minister, take what happened in Windsor, it's the Canadian government keeping Americans out. There were all kinds of Americans who wanted to come to Windsor in order to be part of the protests and they couldn't get through the border.

At least the Americans let the Canadians through in Seattle-

The Acting Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau): That's out of order. That not his responsibility.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Why do we have free trade in capital, and goods and services, but we don't have free trade in protesters?

The Acting Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau): Mr. Blaikie, that's totally out of order. That's not a question for the Minister of Trade.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: First of all, there were security reasons of people who might have been protest.

The Acting Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau): Mr. Blaikie, that's totally out of order. It's not a question for the Minister of Trade.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: First of all, there were security reasons, there were security reasons of people that might have been bringing certain elements and certain tools that were not particularly used for, but I can tell you in Seattle, that I met a couple of thousand Canadians that the certain mobility-

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes because the Americans let them in. But we didn't do the same for them in Windsor.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: No it was done, I understand for security reasons.

?

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Coquitlam-Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): And what about clearly identifying some of those who is their stock and trade to deliberately misrepresent what's going on, of one individual who seems to be making a career of it is Maude Barlow, and so much of what that lady says is blatantly not true. Some of it is out and out fraud. But the thing is is that you've got to have the expertise to be able to respond to those issues in a very organized and factual way because it's hard to respond, it's easy to accuse. And I'm talking about some of those organizations that really are a difficulty.

Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Well I think it's important, we have a much better Web site than we used to because a lot of these organizations are using the Internet and these tools, and I think we are improving daily, and our Web site has become very, very effective and very good and is largely visited. We're in a democratic society and people are free to express themselves and to say all sorts of things. Some of it is legitimate and good concerns. Some of it can be absolutely inept and unfortunate.

I know that these people often have demands about us that they wouldn't live themselves. They say be transparent. And I look to some NGOs, I see they are being transparent too. Who finances you? Who has mandated you? And they will speak for Canadians. Oh yes, thank you very much.

We have to be very cautious about taking it at face value, the representative of a number of...but let's be clear here, many NGOs and most NGOs support trade. Most of them that I engage in dialogue, in Seattle and elsewhere, they engage in a healthy dialogue. They have preoccupations. They want better answers that we use to give them. They're more demanding. That's fine. I don't have any problem with that. What is important is to engage in that dialogue and make sure...but most NGOs support trade. Let's not all think that they're against it. That's not true.

The Acting Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau): Thank you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Point of order, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair (Hon. Diane Marleau): Yes, sir.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Even the NGOs he doesn't like support trade, they just don't support free trade. So let's not accuse people of not supporting trade.

* * *

For the entire transcript of the above meeting