Selling Out Communities for Free Trade

As Canada and the EU negotiate a landmark free trade agreement, we should ask ourselves who really benefits from the deal.

This week, a fourth round of negotiations on a landmark free trade deal between Canada and the European Union is taking place in Brussels. The proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) goes well beyond the scope of both NAFTA and the terms of the WTO. Every fundamental aspect of Canada's economy, from food policy to intellectual property rights and public purchasing to environmental protections, will be affected.

In an editorial that ran in the Toronto Star on July 5, Roy MacLaren, Co-Chair of the Canada Europe Round Table for Business, lauded the ambitious agenda of deregulation that CETA represents. MacLaren, who sees strict EU agricultural and environmental standards as "noxious” trade barriers, is a staunch free trade advocate pushing for "rules-based trade liberalization" – code for more rules for government and fewer for corporations.

There is nothing wrong with improving Canada's economic relations with the European Union or any other country. But the Harper government has suggested that its EU deal is about trade diversification, when CETA is really about lowering standards and reducing the role of governments – and, by extension, local communities – in developing sound economic policy.

Trade policy must be based on the principles of fairness, equity and sustainability. It should be grounded in communities and tailored to improve our – and our partner's – standards of living. Harper's recent free trade deals with Peru and Colombia fail miserably by this measure, and were ratified despite very strong opposition; nothing in the Canada-EU negotiations so far suggests this deal will be any different.

We know because we've seen much of the secret text already. The Trade Justice Network, a group of over 25 environmental, labour, and civil society organizations, released a leaked copy of CETA in April when negotiators met in Ottawa for a third round of talks. There are more than enough controversial parts to warrant a national debate on whether we can afford to sign this deal.

Canadian and European negotiators have set their sights squarely on privatizing public water services and other utilities in which EU-based service companies are interested. They propose stricter patent protections and a weakened agricultural supply management system which will give more power to large seed companies while taking it away from farmers.

Deregulation of Canada's important telecommunications sector and the potential for complete foreign ownership, as the E.U. secured in its recent deal with Korea, threatens to spill over into broadcasting and cultural policy.

Further, negotiators are looking to remove the rights of local governments to manage their purchasing decisions by deeming environmental, ethical or ‘buy local’ policies “barriers to trade.”

In Toronto, for example, the city council has adopted a local food purchasing policy for public buildings that supports nearby farmers, and put local hiring requirements on transit and other projects. Ontario's signature Green Energy Act has likewise spurred on the province's renewable energy industry through the creative use of local content quotas and good rates for solar and wind energy production.

These programs create jobs that cannot be outsourced. They create a local economy that responds to the needs of its community. But each of these initiatives would be discouraged by CETA and could even be dismantled for being “unfair” barriers to profit.

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Harper doesn't believe in responsive, grounded economies that promote community engagement. The way out of the current economic crisis, he told G20 leaders last month, is to reduce what governments – and therefore people – can do to foster economic development. He suggests continuing to open markets through bilateral trade deals, lower corporate taxes and the deregulation of sectors where corporations feel there are too many rules.

This policy has largely failed over the past 30 years. It has created a handful of rich people, but not well-being for the majority. It increased production and trade, but spread it unevenly across the globe, and unevenly within Canada as well.

This economic system has produced a triple-crisis – economic ,environmental/agricultural, and social – that cannot be corrected with more free trade and more deregulation.

Many countries, including the United States, have started to turn away from free trade fundamentalism. The WTO is at a standstill because developing countries rightfully demand a more balanced trading system. But in the face of this trend and despite the economic crisis, Stephen Harper wants world leaders to push ahead with yesterday’s failed economic models.

The Trade Justice Network will be in Brussels to meet with members of the European Parliament who are also concerned about CETA's impact on public policy. They don't want North America's genetically modified crops. They won't be impressed to hear about the potential consequences of giving Canadian companies NAFTA-style investor rights to sue European governments.

Canada and the EU don't need to conclude this kind of deal. What we do need is an honest account of how much our governments are willing to sell off to reach an agreement.

Even more importantly, Canadians need to begin a national discussion on how we are going to work across borders to create a global economy based on justice and equality.