FRIDAY - FEB. 7 - 2003
ANTI-FTAA PROTEST!

JOIN US TO:
-RAIL AGAINST THE FTAA
-EXPOSE AND OPPOSE THE MACHINATIONS OF PIERRE PETTIGREW
-DENOUNCE THE RITZ CARLTON FTAA CABAL
-DEMAND THAT BORDERS BE OPENED TO PEOPLE BEFORE GOODS

Location: in front of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel (1228 Sherbrooke Street West)
Date: Friday, Feb. 7
Time: 12:30 p.m.
Bring Your: Noise makers, placards, petti-peruques, spirit of resistance

On Friday, Feb. 7, Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of International Trade and Canada's main political exponent of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement, will meet with provincial counterparts at Montreal's Ritz Carlton hotel. Planned in secret (news of the meeting came to light only a week ago) and closed to the public, the meeting was arranged to seduce provincial delegates into the free trade cabal by offering them the possibility of playing a role in international trade negotiations (a package which carries with it the promise of glamorous destinations, glitzy hotels, and boundless opportunities to schmooze and hobnob...). And coming to close the deal is none other than Mr. Neoliberalism himself, Pierre Pettigrew. Media access to the event is limited to photo ops at 12:30 and a press conference at 2:00pm. As for the public at large, the press release from DFAIT suggests that our existence has been forgotten. This, we will rectify.

THE CONTEXT

The Ritz meeting occurs within a context of increasing awareness 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,Bélair/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 Sébastien Théberge 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.