[mobglob-discuss] Backgrounder: Pettigrew's push for the FTAA

[Gordon Flett]

Just in case anyone has forgotten the secretive, undemocratic and
blatantly untruthful tactics which were used to force Canadians into
NAFTA and nearly did the same for the MAI, here's a reminder.

Although the parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade condemned the backroom dealing, lack of transparency
and outright duplicity on the part of then-minister Sergio Marchi,
successor Pierre Pettigrew has shown no interest in allowing Canadians
to know what he wants to commit them to live with. His record on
disclosure of vital information to the public -- or even his fellow-MPs
-- is less than stellar, to say the least. Transparency and democracy
are not on his agenda ... until they are forced upon him by others, and
even then he stalls.

It's not bad enough that he isn't resisting measures which have been
demonstrably bad for the environment and Canadian sovereignty. In fact,
he is one of the most active promoters of implementing the
"investor-state" provisions, under which a foreign-owned company which
would like to make money polluting in Canada can sue the Canadian
government for banning toxic substances and win millions to compensate
for the "expropriation" of its hypothetical profits as well as force the
repeal of the legislation! (See the MMT case for how this plays out in
practice.)

Of course, one of the reasons a substantial number of Liberal Cabinet
Ministers (including John Manley and the PM) are in favour of this
provision is because the powerful businessmen who contribute to the
campaign coffers assure them there is money to be made by Canadian
companies if they can compel California and other ecology-minded states
to repeal their own anti-pollution measures. Another is that
"investor-state" means foreign investors are given a definite edge over
local businesses -- they can sue governments before secret tribunals
which look at trade impacts only, whereas companies based in the country
can only avail themselves of the open courts where the laws of the land
still outweigh the "right" to profit from ecologically or socially
destructive business practices. The Government of Canada may be sinking
millions into "Regional Economic Development" but that doesn't mean
they want sustainable development or local ownership. Nobody really
cares about the numbers when it comes to unemployment, homelessness or
families dependent on food banks. What matters to most federal
politicians, whether we like it or not, is one particular trade figure
-- "Exports to the U.S." -- and the standing of certain Canadian
corporations and financial institutions in world markets.

Nobody really cares about the numbers when it comes to demonstrations
against the undoing of democracy to serve the interests of an economic
elite, either, until those numbers reach the critical point at which
they can no longer be branded "riots" organized by "outside agitators"
and anarchists. It took a solid year of determined effort by ordinary
people all around the world -- writing their representatives,
petitioning, demonstrating, and demanding that the corporate media cover
the real story -- before the Multilateral Agreement on Investment was
unmasked, publicly debated by our elected representatives (who didn't
like it any better than we did but took longer to catch on) and finally
abandoned as something the public would never accept.

Well, just as we warned at the time, the MAI itself was discarded but
not the agenda it was meant to make into supranational law. That is
still being pursued -- in Washington, Ottawa, Davos and now even in
Montreal -- by the same folks who use "structural adjustment" to deprive
third-world citizens of education and drinking water, and "international
trade" to eliminate jobs and social programs here in the name of
"remaining competitive".

It was Larry Summers in his days at the World Bank, not Pierre
Pettigrew, who complained that the developing countries were "grossly
underpolluted" and sought to rectify the problem by making loans and
development projects contingent on accepting toxic waste from the
developed world. It was the IMF, not Pierre Pettigrew, who made
Argentina its Latin American poster-child for the benefits of
strictly-applied neoliberal policies and Brazil and Chile outcasts for
resisting the "flatter the rich and f*** the poor" approach to improving
the world. But it seems to me that our International Trade Minister is
all in favour of that particular brand of voodoo economics ... which can
only mean he hasn't been reading his Latin American news very carefully
lately, let alone the Business section which tells the other half of
the story.

Get ready, people. Whether you do it with a pen or a picket-sign, your
computer or calls to your MP and anyone else with influence who might
listen, it's time to start telling the truth about the FTAA and what it
would mean. We certainly can't count on Pierre Pettigrew to do it.

Sincerely,

Judyth Mermelstein 
Montreal, QC

Backgrounder: Pettigrew's push for the FTAA

THE CONTEXT

Awareness must be increased among citizens of how free trade deals erode
democracy. As the gap between rich and poor widens, as environmental
protections become ever more tenuous, and as private sector influence
accelerates, people can no longer afford to be complacent. Statistics
about GDP growth and potential share of foreign markets which Pettigrew
prattles on about like a broken record do not change the fact that under
NAFTA, 75% of Canadians saw a decrease in real income (1990 to 2000;
Statistics Canada), that labour unions are being seriously undermined
(particularly as factories close shop in favour of cheaper labour
abroad), and that our health and our environment have been forced to
take a backseat to corporate profits (e.g. Crompton Corporation recently
filed a hundred million dollar suit against Canada for banning a
pesticide which is widely suspected of causing birth defects and of
being a carcinogen).

Yet for Pierre Pettigrew, the bigger concern is the way this popular
awareness is threatening to find expression in provincial politics.
Anti-GATS resolutions, looming FTAA consultas, and a simmering
anti-neoliberal stance among people like Quebec's trade minister Louise
Beaudoin could become a threat if they all fall into conjunction. The
strategy, therefore, is to ensure that key people are coopted before
they turn into bonafide threats....

JUST WHO IS THIS PIERRE PETTIGREW?

Pierre Pettigrew epitomizes all that is most hated about the FTAA and
corporate globalization. For Pettigrew -- a man who has been described
as having "a calculating machine for a heart" (Michel Vastel; Le
Soleil) -- profits are the lifeblood of society. Testifying before the
Standing Committee on Foreign affairs and international trade (SCFAIT),
Pettigrew stated in June 2000: "It's important to draw a distinction
between our trade progress and labour and the environment.... We should
not link these things together at all costs." Forget about any
provisions that might help to ensure that the corporate agenda is
subordinated to (or even tempered by) environmental, health, or labour
considerations. Money is the bottom line.

Pettigrew nurtured this attitude during his time (1985-95) as
vice-president of the international accountanting firm
Samson,Bilair/Deloitte & Touche. The experience also afforded him the
opportunity to build a strong network of upper echelon business
connections. Then, using his Liberal connections, he got himself
parachuted into a secure Montreal riding (Papineau St-Denis - Liberal
stronghold since 1917) via a 1996 by-election.

Having been 'elected' (using the term loosely), Pettigrew was soon made
Minister of Human Resources (1996-1999) where he implemented reforms to
the unemployment insurance program. These reforms resulted in about 20%
of claimants being cut off from benefits (mostly women, due to stricter
maternity leave eligibility requirements). The changes were undertaken
even as the EI budget was soaring to unprecedented surplus levels of
over 20 billion dollars (a figure which continues to balloon today as
contributors' access to benefits remain restricted). Pettigrew was also
responsible for removing the "un" from Un-employment Insurance, a
cosmetic strategy which was perhaps inspired by the successful nose-job
which he underwent at around the same time.

In spite of his decade of experience at the helm of one of Canada's
most prestigious accounting firms, it was during his term as Human
Resources Minister that over 1 billion dollars was irresponsibly
allocated to various corporations for 'job creation'. Eighty per cent
of such projects were discovered to have undergone no financial
monitoring, and in 15% of cases, not even an application form could be
produced. But a few months prior to the government audit which brought
these facts to light, Pettigrew was shuttled over to the International
Trade Portfolio, leaving his successor, Jane Stewart, to shoulder most
of the blame.

It was around this time that Pettigrew released his "The New Politics
of Confidence", a vanity-press publication which was characterized by
most reviewers as lurching and incoherent, and was quickly forgotten.
Nevertheless, it has some rare moments... such as when Pettigrew
declares his belief that "... above all, it is better to be exploited
than to be excluded." For an expression of blunt, paternal, colonialist
mentality, try to beat that.

Pettigrew's tenure as International Trade minister has been highlighted
by some remarkable duplicity. Recall how, in early 2001 he tried to
defuse concerns about the lack of transparency in FTAA negotiations by
claiming that "there is nothing that looks more like a free-trade
agreement than another free-trade agreement". People have "nothing to
fear from those texts" he reassured people.

Nobody was fooled. Over the next couple of months, demands to
'liberate' the FTAA draft text grew into a powerful movement, and
finally, at the Buenos Aires ministerial, Pettigrew and his colleagues
were forced to relent. A promise was made to release the text which,
eventually (three months later) was made good. In spite of being
heavily bracketed, it confirmed all the worries that critics had voiced
(and Pettigrew had emphatically denied). But because of 'translation
delays', this confirmation came long after the Summit of the Americas
was over. Pettigrew's opponents were therefore unable to use it as
ammunition when they most needed it.

Pettigrew's most underhanded manoeuvre, however, has been his deceitful
manipulation of the Chapter 11 issue. For many people, the sole concern
regarding NAFTA had initially been the labour issue, but as time went
on, it became apparent that whenever corporate profits came into
conflict with government regulations and the case was brought before a
NAFTA tribunal, corporate profits came out the winner. Not
surprisingly, the list of corporations with pending cases before NAFTA
grew, and at the same time, governments were becoming terrified of
passing any sort of regulations that might limit corporate abuses (the
so-called 'chill effect'). Recognizing, at last, the threat to
democracy represented by NAFTA's investment chapter, popular
denunciations of Chapter 11 began gaining momentum.

Hoping to stem this tide, Pettigrew began making promises in mid-2000
about how there was "no way" Canada would accept a similar chapter in
the FTAA (June 15, 2000; Financial Post). In December of that year, he
reiterated that he would not sign a deal if it included a Chapter 11
equivalent: "That's my position; I'm very preoccupied with this"
(December 13, 2000; Globe&Mail). He also claimed to be initiating a
review of the existing Chapter 11 in NAFTA.

Nothing ever came of the review. But in June 2002, a Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade report was published which
included a recommendation (no. 21) that "NAFTA type investor-state
provisions should be excluded from the FTAA agreement." Pettigrew
responded that "the Government is not advocating the replication of the
NAFTA dispute settlement rules in the FTAA". This might have passed
unnoticed but for the fact that it was uttered by 'Slippery Pete'
Pettigrew. Exact "replication", it was observed, could be avoided by
slight alteration.

And sure enough, ministerial spokesperson Sibastien Thiberge was soon
admitting that Canadian negotiators in Quito would in fact be pushing
for investor-state provisions to be included in the FTAA deal.
Moreover, in November 2002, a leaked working version of a DFAIT
memorandum destined for federal cabinet ministers called for the
inclusion of investor-state provisions in *all* trade agreements as
standard policy.

Pettigrew might not wish to admit it, but the mask is off. Never has it
been more crystal clear what he represents: the epitome of all that
people oppose regarding free trade.