Good afternoon. My name is Pierre Laliberté and I represent the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec. We thank you for giving us this opportunity to express our views.
As you undoubtedly know, we represent 550,000 workers in Quebec in nearly all fields, be it the manufacturing sector and in private and public service.
I must tell you quite frankly that generally speaking, we are disappointed in the approach that the current government has taken once again to the whole issue of free trade agreements. As we have often had occasion to say in the past, we are not against free trade or the expansion of trade from a philosophical standpoint, but we feel that it is a matter of how these things are done. We feel that in the past 20 years—and we can talk about a record that goes back to the signature of the free trade agreement with the Americans—the Canadian government has tended to replace industrial policy with trade policy. The government's approach is to allow our champions in the industry to do what they need to do and consider that its own responsibility is mainly to open doors through trade agreements.
We have a different viewpoint. Indeed, we have observed on the one hand that in the real world, each country tries to come up with champions and structuring policies which we do not tend to do as much here in Canada in many ways. Moreover, what is important to us is to determine whether this leads to greater prosperity for the people we represent and more generally for our workers. We have noted that for the past 25 years—and this does not apply only to Canada but just about everywhere, especially in OECD countries—treaties and accords signed in the framework of freer trade generate economic activity, but it does not necessarily translate into an improvement in the standard of living of workers. This leads us to question this agenda.
Moreover, the decision to undertake negotiations with Korea seems to us somewhat arbitrary. Our government seems to want to follow the decision of the American administration. We do not want to be left behind, so we do the same thing they do. We see that the Americans are also seriously questioning whether this accord is a good idea. We share that hesitation.
As we have already mentioned, we think that it would be better for Canada to act in the framework of multilateral negotiations. In that context, it is in a better position to influence the agenda which, needless to say, goes beyond a bilateral framework, and to obtain some degree of influence that transcends its economic power. We are quite disappointed to see that efforts are made to sign bilateral agreements, given there is a program underway at the WTO and that under that program, we could perhaps promote our assets far better. We think that in the long term, things should be done under that framework. This is the only way we will manage to ensure that our main economic partner, that is the United States, will respect rules that are quite clear.
We obviously object in principle to the fact that no one is taking into account more explicitly the whole issue of protecting workers' rights. You will no doubt hear that comment from other labour confederations or unions.
For us of course, the goal of trade promotion is first and foremost to ensure that people who work in industry here or abroad do better. The fact that these considerations are not taken into account more explicitly is, in our opinion, a sort of technical flaw. In fact—and here I will put things more bluntly—we hear a lot of those speeches about Kyoto, about the need to bring about change and to restructure our economy in order to address the problems of the environment and sustainable development. And yet, the negotiations that always seem to attract the most attention in the framework of trade agreements do not take these issues into consideration. That concern is non- existent because no one cares about goods and services are produced: we only care about the goods and services themselves. Whether an item was produced in conditions of extreme pollution at the border as no significance for Canada. In the 21st century, we think that these considerations should be far more present.
I'm slowly coming to my conclusion. We also think that the current context is not particularly favourable to the signing of this kind of agreement with South Korea. We are obviously talking about the situation of the manufacturing sector. The auto sector, for its part, would be more affected by this agreement. It's not going particularly well, and if the forecast for recession in the United States comes to pass, it won't go any better. Given these conditions, we see in this agreement far more dangers than promises. Especially since the problem with regard to Korea—and I imagine that you will hear more about this—is not so much the customs tariffs as is the non-tariff barriers. That's always more delicate. As we can see in the case of the Americans, there is a certain degree of arbitrariness. Sometimes conflicts are based on interpretation of a public health or public safety issue, for example.
That said, I recommend that you look at all this with as critical an eye as possible, even if it means putting this agreement on ice until we have a clearer idea of the impact it could have. Let me point out that studies published to date are not particularly significant nor are they as solid as they could have been. At least, that is our opinion. I think that when hearing witnesses discuss the situation in their sector, you will probably be in a better position to assess whether or not it would be a good idea to move forward on this.
Thank you very much.