The Canadian and U.S. governments signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1988. In 1992, there were negotiations to add Mexico in a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Both agreements were bitterly contested prior to being signed. Citizens’ groups and unions argued that NAFTA would mean the loss of Canadian jobs to lower wage jurisdictions, and that the agreement would hamper the ability of Canadian governments to act in the national interest. Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, made those arguments before a House of Commons committee in November 1992.
The speech
We believe the extension of the FTA to encompass the continent and eventually the hemisphere is basically the creation of what we are calling a “continental economic constitution,” which we believe will further remove the ability of Canadians to set our own social, economic, resource and foreign policy decisions. It denies Canada its political sovereignty. NAFTA continues to force Canadian businesses, institutions, practices, allegiances, from an east-west to a north-south axis. It furthers the investment rights of American corporations in Canada and it places Canadian corporations that might wish to stay in Canada in a very difficult position. They are disadvantaged if they wish to stay here.
NAFTA is secretive and undemocratic
NAFTA panels are going to be established to set standards and rules for the continent, and final say over the legitimacy of any government policy — federal, state or provincial — will rest with these panels. They will be closed to the general public and their reports are to be confidential. We believe this is an issue of democracy.
NAFTA requires federal governments to ensure its terms are implemented by the provinces. This is fairly new in NAFTA, or it is an extension, certainly. This will affect provincial practices such as supply management boards, employment equity programs, environmental regulations, and local sourcing rules.
NAFTA requires that all government-run operations, from pension plans to garbage collection, be open to competitive bids from other countries. Provincial practices that favor local firms or promote local hiring will be subject to challenge from NAFTA panels, as will government-subsidized training programs.
NAFTA handcuffs future governments
NAFTA article 1106 contains further prohibitions against any future Canadian government setting conditions on the behavior of foreign companies. Another Auto Pact would be impossible to negotiate.
NAFTA includes new provisions that impose a commercial definition on Canadian crown corporations, both federal and provincial. These will likely be used to constrain governments from directing these enterprises to act as agents of government policy. . . They will require crown corporations and agencies to behave like private firms.
NAFTA adds coverage of transportation services, signaling the clear intention to create an integrated North American transportation system over time, with a single set of standards regarding health, safety, and sustainable development.
NAFTA enshrines deregulation in telecommunications, granting foreign corporations national treatment access to this industry and limiting Canada’s ability to impose terms and conditions on these companies.
NAFTA extends monopoly drug patents
NAFTA includes an extensive chapter on patents and copyrights, absent from the FTA. It allows private companies to claim ownership of living matter. It makes the legislation extending monopoly patent rights to foreign drug companies irreversible, and we believe it may destroy the generic drug industry in Canada. We are very concerned about how this is being pushed through with so little public discussion, separately from NAFTA and the legislation being debated tonight.
NAFTA failed to get a Canadian content ruling in autos to supplement the overall rule of origin, leaving us vulnerable to production shifts to Mexico and the U.S. south by auto companies.
NAFTA enshrines resource sharing
NAFTA includes the disastrous proportional sharing provisions of the FTA for Canada. Mexico won an exemption from the proportional sharing clause, which obliges continued export of scarce natural resources even in times of shortage, but Canadian negotiators did not use the opportunity to push to recover this power.
NAFTA and FTA would be violated by any Canadian move to restrict or diminish foreign control of forest lands, but Mexico won an exemption and will continue to restrict foreign ownership in the forest sector.
It is significant that the Canadian government never seized the opportunity of the NAFTA to insert the Canadian prohibition of water exports.
NAFTA trades away supply management
NAFTA trades away the right to establish additional supply management commodities, a system that is already under intense international pressure. As well, all remaining agricultural goods will see the gradual elimination of import controls, encouraging open competition among the farmers of the continent, regardless of the wages they pay their employees, their environmental practices, or their health and safety standards.
NAFTA does not include enforceable environmental protection. It simply states that countries should not waive environmental rules to attract industry, but there are no outright prohibitions or sanctions included. That Mexico currently ignores its own regulations is nowhere mentioned . . .
NAFTA process is undemocratic
Given the far-reaching nature of NAFTA and the evident damage we believe has already been inflicted by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we believe it’s unconscionable for this government to be proceeding in such haste, with so little public consultation . . .
We want to register our strong disagreement with what we feel is an undemocratic process. This is going too fast; it’s too big an issue. It must go before the Canadian people for debate.
Source
Canadian Speeches: Volume 06, No. 10, February 1993.
Photo
World Future Council
Great Canadian Speeches 
Leave a comment