Good afternoon. My name is Pablo Hydrik. I teach here at Carlton University and Professor Laura McDonnell kindly invited me to to help Charity say this a panel on the civil society perspectives on on NAFTA and maybe the future of trade negotiations or the implementation of What these trade negotiations that have recently concluded We're going to have for presenters and then I'll try to have help to have as many questions and debate as possible we'll begin with John Foster and who Will provide as a background on how this has been moving. Thank you Good afternoon. I'm sort of the ghost of Christmas past in this panel dealing with basically the period of the formation of the Tri-National Alliance against NAFTA which runs really from the mid to late 1980s forward through into the Alliance Hemispheric Social Alliance against the free trade agreement of the Americas Just in preliminaries a couple of remarks what I'm saying talking about today is covered in part in this handy little book called coalitions across borders by Jackie Smith and Joe Bandy. It's about 13 14 years old. It contains Chapters from Laura McDonald and myself among others but deals with a variety of Organizing across borders even Solidarity with Polish pig farmers, which I had never thought about before So I just recommend that maybe it's in your library Secondly to note that this Presentation is based primarily on the experience of English Canadians as Laura pointed out earlier The history in Quebec although parallel and often similar has important nuances, which are different and I didn't attempt to cover those The final preliminary is remember we are in the pre-internet pre-email era here things were dependent on that wonderful antique instrument the fax and And also interpersonal meetings. I think we're relatively more important than they are now, but I may be wrong about that I think they are always important Now in terms of the context Mexican civil society I would say in the period we were organizing was on the upswing or on an upswing by 1994 forces which became allied in the Allianz Cecivica Were sufficiently strong to organize a voluntary plebiscite across the federal district Demanding democratization remember the federal district was its government was basically appointed by the federal government Up until that time The political atmosphere the party political atmosphere in Mexico was particularly Electric at this time with the formation of the PRD which has been mentioned the closely fought election of 88 and Guatemala Cardenas from at that point the PRD and his allies were seeking Exterior linkages with Mexican-American communities in Chicago, San Diego various places and allies abroad as well as at home We were just through the federal election of 1988 in Canada which was fought over the bilateral free trade agreement with the US and The majority of voters supporting parties opposed to that agreement But the Mulroney conservative government reelected and the agreement sustained a number of civil society formations emerged in response to that initiative Including the pro-Canada network which became the action Canada network the Toronto later Ontario coalition against free trade co-chaired by Professor Marjorie Cohen from the National Action Committee on status of women and myself and These groups were aware of the coming initiatives to expand that agreement to include Mexico However, most of us thought that process would take ten years. We thought we had time One nuance that distinguishes the 1980s from the 1990s Was that when a few of us visited Washington in the mid 1980s to seek understanding Canadian apprehensions about the FTA Negotiations we found very few in the halls of Congress and very few among research groups and NGOs Who connected with our fears whatsoever as far as they were concerned in general the presupposition was that free trade Was the progressive road? What were we scared of? Meanwhile MacArthur Foundation-funded initiative called US Mexico de Allegos Brought together Mexican social actors together with us and ultimately some Canadian counterparts Not focused on trade per se, but through much of what I'm talking about they provided Convening power when activists from the three countries could meet clarify understandings and debate De Allegos had a catalytic catalytic effect on this process Now in terms of initiative I want to underline the importance of Canadian initiative in the formation of the tri-national alliance in September 1988 before the election a working group of the decades old Latin American working group or log called common frontiers organized a visit of three Canadians to the macula and Looking at implications of what the free trade agreement might mean in terms of Makila production The whole discussion about runaway plants and so on They also sought out contacts with Mexican worker organizations and set out to find ways to work together This new organization involved several unions NGOs ecumenical formations the National Action Committee the Center for Policy Alternatives and the Canadian Environmental Law Association and set out to monitor developments mandate specific research raise Mexican voices in Canada and vice versa and Initially brought to Canada Jose Luis controller from one of the groups working with the migrant and Makila questions in Tijuana And Adolfo Aguilar Zinser Who at that point I think was a journalist but later became a senator and ambassador to the UN For Mexico we organized a twin organization, which was initiated as Fronteras communes in Mexico and it later gave way to the formation of the Mexican network in front of free trade Now in June 1990 President Bush Announced the commencement of bilateral negotiations with Mexico But that year was also key to the organization of civil society Two events in Mexico City in 1990 were decisive in establishing the shape of civil society alliances against NAFTA The Mexican opposition party the pan basically the right-wing opposition in Mexico Backed a major trade policy event in downtown Mexico City organized Considerably by professor good Teresina Gutierrez assay who some of you may know 10 Canadian proponents of the free trade agreement were invited to debate with 10 critics many of whom came from opposition NGOs and They looked at the the dimensions critical elements of the bilateral FTA in order to see implications for any new agreement and try to relate To where Mexican to the interests of Mexican society issues like provision of social services trade union rights, etc And following that event common Frontier's allies organized a bilateral in quen through For 30 Canadians and 60 Mexican participants hosted by the independent trade union Federation the fat a Log staff person resident in Mexico assisted with contacts with the latter Now there was an interesting nuance about that the issue was whether or not at that point to engage Americans and such an encounter and It was felt that that would change the nature of the debate considerably So it was agreed really I think at Canadian behest That first of all we established bilateral relations between Canada and Mexico and invite the Americans later And that was what happened In November of that year Mexican and Canadian representatives visited Washington Hosted by key u.s. Environmental Labor rights development NGOs and policy research centers The u.s. Alliance for responsible trade emerged in early 1991 the in Quintrell Canada Canadian Mexican in Quintrell Amplified by u.s. Participation later became the pattern for ensuing years commencing with an event in 1991 in what's a pic? and these would involve dozens of activists and NGO and labor representatives Following the in Quintrell and the West to pick meeting there were basically two streams of Trinational practice in what emerged as the Trinational Alliance against free trade though never formally Incorporated as such One level was the pursuit of the negotiation by groups of activists following each stage of the Negotiations in each of the three countries Seeking intelligence about the details Analyzing implications publicizing what was up until then a very opaque practice of intergovernmental bodies in October 1991 around a hundred and fifty activists met in Zacatecas hammered out a joint analysis and an initial declaration and that kind of practice Continued the second level was that Mexican civil society primarily Hosted several Trinational conferences sizable events with several hundred Participants in Mexico City in each case organizing sectoral working groups sharing policy and working out joint positions This is important in terms of coalition organizing. I think Because networks essentially needed living targets The existence of an official project and after provided the alliance with a magnificent shared target for five years One of the possessed specific actors a sequence of political moments of institutionalization That became the focus of campaigns The necessity of responding to the next negotiating site The next issue on the official agenda the next opportunity For reinforcing concern in Congress Parliament or the Mexican public gave form to the alliance it did so by forcing a certain discipline and Routine on the organizers involved and by provoking a certain set of strategies and Tactics and by demanding ongoing substantive and tactical clarification by the various partners Supporting this engagement were for regional coalitions The result kept the club the red med mexicano The Canadian coalition and what ultimately became two of coalitions in the United States Collaborating Office to office essentially through one or more staff person and fax machine Well of the NAFTA process continued as I say for about five years The US took a further initiative hosting the first summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994 Those who were engaged in the NAFTA process had to initiate if they wish Of course new links and organizations with organizations Possible allies throughout the hemisphere that led to a meeting a key meeting at the Belo Horizonte Brazil trade meeting in 1997 which led to the formation of a broader alliance the hemispheric social alliance Which began to embody many of the same characteristics of the? Trinational alliance This further process Benefited from some of the impacts of the trinational experience The political impact of the coalitions engaged in the trade battles has never met the hopes and expectations of Participants yet there were marks of success some of which have been referred to in earlier presentations In affecting the official agenda One achievement of limited but increasing transparency in the negotiations process Achievement of recognition and at least marginal participation for civil society actors in Consultation in all three countries This was something I'm known in Mexico until the organization of the Trinational alliance the sidebar Liberian and Environmental agreements the several-year hiatus in US fast-track authority and The release of texts limited consultation and introduction of a civil society Committee relating to the FTA a process in conclusion The formation of the Trinational alliance in various related links represented a change in the posture and perspective of many Canadian actors Tony Clark former chair of the Action Canada network noted the shift from International let's say development work that was doing something for third world countries To a situation where our only hope lies in identifying those mutual interests that we both have in common Out of that some real solidarity is developed Secondly, there was a continuing relationship with Mexican politics Rotemuc Cardenas defeated candidate for the presidency Came to Canada at least twice in one case for a round table on Parliament Hill in April 17th 1991 hosted by CLC had Bob White and in another case in Vancouver as I recall for the BC Federation of Labor This was something again Pretty well unknown when you have a leading Mexican politician engaging with Canadian labor and civil society some other contributing elements to the relative success or limited success of the Trinational some academies Provided space and more not only to dialogue ghost but to other initiatives the Center for US Mexican relations at the University of California San Diego University of Chicago University of Wisconsin and there were academics some of whom you might recognize who contributed analysis as well Jonathan Fox from the West Coast Catherine Thorop who authored the round corporation study on the auto industry long before we were talking about it and Ian Robinson secondly related to research contribution the research personnel of the major US unions and Those in the ecumenical formations like the late John Dylan of Gatfly were particularly useful in focused research That related to alliance issues a few key journalists were very helpful thinking particularly of Luis Hernandez and David Brooks associated with La Pornada and as well as the people associated with Sencos the Mexican NGO analyzing The Mexican press from essentially a political economy economic point of view Funding was never extensive but often decisive and in this I would credit Unions who supported fact-finding visits NGO supportive volunteers like Cusa volunteers working in Central America and small Christian initiatives like the frontier internships out of the US The Canadian contribution to the formation of the Trinational Alliance did not fall whole from the heavens It was built on a decade or more of political economic research and Experience in organizing north south south north visits of human rights trade union civil society and religious volunteers and the knowledge of potential partners and allies which built up over that time Many of them in Mexico. Thank you Thank You John for and thank you John for your presentation After this we will have presentation from Sujata day who is a With a lead trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians. Thank you So I'm going to talk about the environment in NAFTA and what we did during the the talks First of all, I think it's really important to to bring up first of all why this actually matters Why are we even talking about the environment? I mean, we know that there's a global crisis It's the international intergovernmental panel on climate change has basically said we have 12 years in order to limit climate change To 1.5 degrees So within that context, it's really important to to talk about trade because trade has a very large impact on The environmental crisis It increased trade means that there's more greenhouse gas emissions It also means increased trade means that companies can leave Jurisdictions and subtract themselves from regulations So it's very important within within NAFTA that we have a strategy of how do we deal with the environment and Not an a strategy that deals with the current existential crises There's always Examples for example and in the original NAFTA. There was ways in which Regulations were changed so that companies from the US could go to Mexico and produce lead priorities where there was less Less lower legislation. So trade is not environmental neutral So it's very important because we we there was discussed that the difference between national interests and international Interest and we within trade agreements. We have very very binding and Mechanisms to deal with problems around trade. We have a race towards trade agreements and we make sure that those things count but when it comes to environmental Agreements, we don't have the same urgency and nor do we have the same amount of mechanisms to To to basically enforce what we're doing on the environmental level so within NAFTA very NAFTA when the NAFTA years we saw a lot of people would talk about what in Canada that we changed from a basically Front to from a patrol from an industrial economy towards more of a petroleum-based economy within the NAFTA years Jim Stanford who was with Unifor talks a lot about how at one point in 1999 Value-added industries represented 60% of the sector now They're at 40% of the sector so as we are moving towards a petroleum economy that becomes much harder to bring in other industries So and and to have and we become more dependent on that and that is very important when we're talking about the first nations who are often on the the front lines of those Projects having to do with the the the environment So because of this we had decided that we were going to concentrate A lot on NAFTA. So we made a series of recommendations With mod Barlow wrote a report our chairperson mod Barlow who was you know originally in the first NAFTA fight wrote a series of Recommendations we also did more than that. We sent out about 30,000 Letters to the Prime Minister and to Freeland we also put up an ad on the on the national CBC We talked to six except to many politicians. We had a series of tri-national reports That we did to reinforce our recommendations so Which weren't all all in the environment, but I'll just talk about the ones that were about the environment The first one was to eliminate chapter 11 As you know chapter 11 is the the mechanism which gives corporations the right to sue states over Regulations that could get in the way of their profit There's been a lot of research on how said how two-thirds of the Cases against Canada have been about environmental Legislation recently we just saw that Bill Kahn got a seven million dollar settlement for the quarry in Nova Scotia That it it was that refused by the Nova Scotia government. So this is a very important Issue that we wanted to bring up and we also did some polling as well You can see that Canadians were not informed or very much in favor of getting rid of chapter 11 the other issue that we tried to deal with was energy proportionality and that was a Clause within NAFTA which forces Canada to export a certain percentage of its energy to the United States Mexico decided that they didn't want to be part of this But Canada has this this clause within the original NAFTA And we had commissioned research by Gordon laxer professor Gordon laxer is professor Emeritus at University Alberta. We did a joint Paper with the Sierra Club in United States and Greenpeace, Mexico to talk about how the environment was affected in In NAFTA and specifically on energy proportionality We also with this research said that with energy proportionality We would be producing of twice of Canada's current emissions and about 12 times greater our emissions target for 2050 as set by the G8 in 2009 so this was a very important clause that we also needed wanted to get rid of We also dealt with water water is a good in the annex of the original NAFTA What that means is that it needs to be it can we cannot put limitations. So if we were trying to Prevent for example bulk bulk water exports right now all the provincial and federal legislation doesn't allow it But if it were allowed, there's also another Thing which is a proportionality of goods within the original NAFTA and that would say that we would have to also Maintain those proportions of water within that so that so that was another issue that we were also working on Within water They basically got rid of the proportionality clause in the new NAFTA so that that doesn't exist They have a side letter on water So they tried to listen to us at some level space existing water in its natural form is is protected However, what happened is that water once it's commodified we either through, you know, it's sold as water As a bottle of water for example or as a service it is a commodity and is it effective to market mechanisms within NAFTA and The results of the negotiation basically proportionality was taken out of the of the NAFTA We think that's a very good win that this proportionality clause was taken out ISDS was also gone between Canada and the US and Canada and Mexico So this is a major win for Canadian public policy environmental policy However, we have to remember that this is not a Continued win for example, it exists between Mexico and the US still And especially in a reduced form it also does exist between Government contracts in its full form with Mexico. What happened is that with the AMLO government He wanted to make bring back a lot of the privatization and relook at some of the contracts that were given to private companies in Mexico And basically so they were at a point in the negotiation They were going to get rid of of ISDS for Mexico then American oil companies went whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa We have contracts in Mexico and we have a new government here. We can't do this So ISDS was brought back in for telecommunications And for energy sector and for certain government projects within within Mexico The other thing we have to also note is that at the same time Here's while we were getting rid of ISDS between Mexico and Canada We had another trade agreement that came in which is a CPTPP. So effectively we still have ISDS between Mexico and Canada through another agreement that we just adopted My analysis is that perhaps for for Canada where we have we have more mining and other interests within Mexico and other countries So for that for that you Canadian corporations are very grateful to keep ISDS Whereas within the American context it was it was less interesting for us But and there's still a legacy period of three years So there's three years after the deal comes into effect that people can still use ISDS However, this is a major policy win for Canadians because we are the most sued in in NAFTA We are the most sued developed country in the world in ISDS. So this is a major win The other part of NAFTA though that in the one hand we have all these sort of gains in NAFTA by the other hand we have sort of What we say at the council can use except there is it's a bit like one step back for forward two steps backwards So on the one hand we have this open-door policy where you know corporations could basically sue over policies And that's been gone. But now there's all these insidious ways through the back door that Come companies can can influence our regulations and environmental regulations So the one thing and I know that the CCPA and Stuart true has and a lot of research on this is is regulatory cooperation And so basically regulatory cooperation is like the back door for corporations They've been trying to do it through all these different agreements where they finally got it and they have a binding in this in this agreement So basically interested persons corporations get a notice of when regulators are trying to regulate They're invited to be part of this process They're invited to be part of opac committees that that meet it's often in their history of regulatory cooperation These are not civil society or people who are there. They're mostly industry people. It puts onerous burden on regulators to defend their regulations to say yes fact They these they really need to do this. We couldn't do another we couldn't actually do another way of regulating It requires that all all regulations be signed space So that means when you're regulating you can't deal with you know other considerations It also puts the burden on the regulator to prove that okay We have to prove the size not the corporation that has to prove that you know we this is not harmful It's the regulator has to prove that there is a harm So it definitely puts a break on trying to to to put regulations The other thing is that it often will what we talk about is regulatory Harmonization where all the regulations are all even and corporations could just jump over the border You know and everything's same, you know, and that's the the the goal However, often that is about lowering standards and going to the lowest common denominator is not necessarily about increasing Standards so when we talk about issues like GMOs or glyphosate or health labeling or rules on food inspections Cigarette labeling safety rules. These are all Now put in this back door where corporations can can game those type of Regulations which have a huge impact on the environment. So they don't have it through the one door, but they've got it through the back door the other part is the Environment chapter much has been discussed about an environment chapter and it was you know a separate side agreement But then he was brought into the actual Agreement and it's very much the old TPP style language As we often say there there's absolutely no mention in the agreement at all of climate change or global warming or the Paris Accord And it seems like that is a bit retrograde in in the sense that if we're talking about international agreements And and this century it seems like not that's sort of the elephant in the room that you can't can you even talk about the environment without Talking about climate change It's also been mentioned. There's very very weak enforcement. You can only enforce the the the agreement when it has to Change trade flows. So it has to be dealing with investment It has a very a few and multilateral agreements that are mentioned in it You know on pollution on endangered species on ozone and marine pollution, but many of those are not very very little enforceable language often even With Sierra Club has mentioned that it has also gone backwards from the original NAFTA They take it out multilateral agreements that were there in the original NAFTA So basically it's a 1970s agreement for you know a 21st century problem Other problems for us the supply management the inroads that the US will get into our market Good, I'm actually not over time So the inroads in terms of us will mean that in Canada with Council of Canadians and many allies Campaign to make sure that bovine growth hormone was not produced in Canada And as you might know that's something that we they're used in dairy to make milk production increase And it's something that is very very harmful in cows Health Canada decided that at the end that they were going to not license it So that doesn't mean it can't come in it means that no one here can use it So with supply management being affected that means we're going to have imports of US dairy with that uses bovine growth hormone, which is going to be difficult for us in terms of health reasons It's also gonna be very difficult on farmers because they're not only competing with these big agro companies who are coming in They're also competing with farmers who are producing at a larger scale with bovine growth hormone Other problems. We're also looking on there's another side letter on energy Which is talking about how we're going to regulate and how we're going to bring together, you know Pipelines make it most easier for for for pipelines to challenge regulations Also parts of the agreement which make it cheaper for pipelines to come in so there's a large large talk about energy Integration within the Americas and that could be very problematic. We're also going to be commissioning research on There has been many attempts on it to get into complicated weeds. We have Disciplines on crown corporations and state-owned enterprises in the agreement. So basically what it says is that Corporations are, you know, basically anything owned by the state has to be as much done to the market as possible But however in the agreement, we decided that our trans-mountain corporation Well, they don't have to be part of that we as a state can protect Trans-mountain from from those market liberalizations. So that shows a serious Policy priority of this government and that's something that needs to be questioned So basically what we're saying that within the US debate is it's going to be very interesting all the leading US Environmental groups like 350 like Sierra Club like Greenpeace are all basically saying not to ratify the agreement in the US Especially in its current form. So what we're worried about this here in Canada Where we tend to have less of a debate or we tend to follow the US debate There's going to be a rush to say, okay, this is the best agreement we can get You can't do anything basically against the US who has all the power that we have to basically take this as it is And there's nothing we can possibly do. We're not reopening this agreement. But where what I'm saying is that the rush to Ratify such an important agreement is not really healthy. We need to have a democratic debate in Canada We need to wait and and and take the emphasis all the All the push from the Democrats that we have here and use it to get another much more progressive Agreements and because we can do much better on when it comes to the environment within NAFTA. Thank you Many thanks to suyata for your presentation After her we're going to have a presentation by Angelo Dicado who is the who's Uniforce strategic research and policy Analyst, thank you Okay, I've left your note there with the timing with sujata. No, no, you can't have it. You can't have it back So good afternoon. Yeah, good afternoon everybody. Thanks for the opportunity to speak here today And thank you to Laura for the invitation I Think the past few years As I'm sure others in the room and on the panel for sure can attest to has been a real whirlwind on Trade to say the least. I think I've been permanently scarred by this experience As I still have a recurring dream where I'm on the phone Battling the static trying to explain to my grandmother How NAFTA's auto rules of origin work and then I wake up in a panic and I've had this dream twice It's a bizarre The saga of the US MCA or the kusma or NAFTA 2.0, whatever you want to call it is is far from over That's clear and sujata Mentioned that a bit and like like most things with the Trump administration Trying to figure out a plan or what's around the next corner is often a bit of a crapshoot But I think there's value in this panel and us reflecting on our experiences and engagement as civil society On trade for the past couple of years because at least in my view there's been some notable changes in how Collectively we are talking about trade and how we are acting on trade I was asked to comment on the role of unions as civil society actors and the role We've played in shaping the North American integration agenda as well as our role in NAFTA Renegotiation and our expectations over the coming months and I'll try to do that And I will focus a bit on the labor piece I know that others have talked about it and also a bit on the auto piece I Guess what I want to do is offer a few general observations three three general Observations that are drawn from my personal experience for more than about ten years of direct activism on trade And also I guess the relatively extraordinary and unique access that Uniform had and I had in the NAFTA renegotiation process these past years So I'll start with a first observation and it's that it there does seem to Appear that there's a different narrative that's forming on free trade is unlike what we've experienced in the past And I just want you and indulge me a bit just for a little bit of history Although I thought I really enjoyed John's presentation on that. This is more of a union kind of history I remember reading I never got to work with him, but I knew him red Bob White's book hard bargains if you haven't read it Fantastic, and it says right and right towards the end in the fall of 1985 that the Mulroney government invited trade unions through the Canadian Labor Congress to participate in a committee on the proposed Canada-US Free Trade Agreement that committee's mandate wasn't to determine Which was the big question at the time whether Canada should pursue free trade or not and again You were reflect on the two different time periods. We're talking about here today I mean not only does Canada have you know more than a dozen free trade agreements infinite number of tax bilateral tax treaties and FIFA's and other free trade instruments at that time this was groundbreaking stuff and there was we were at a fork in the road we were deciding what path we were going to take and so That committee that was that we were being asked to participate in wasn't about that question and in Bob's words in the book It was about how far free trade should go and how fast and that clearly offside with where the union movement was at at the time The CLC rightly rejected the invite and they proceeded to mount what I think was the most impressive Counter campaign against corporate investor privilege agreements I wanted to patent my own acronym in the world of trade the kippas the kippa Free trade agreements in Canada that we've ever seen and I think we've ever seen since There's a poster on the wall at the Unifor offices It's a poster of a May 15th 1993 Anta NAFTA anti NAFTA rally that was held on Parliament Hill And this was prior to Photoshop. So I trust what I'm seeing in this photo There were more than 100,000 people by some accounts a quarter of a million people standing outside center block protesting NAFTA, which was absolutely remarkable and I'll even go so far as to say almost Unfathomable today that we would be able to pull out those kind of numbers That Canada US FTA and the subsequent NAFTA battle Was ultimately lost But the principled resolve to campaign against these agreements and what they stood for it did sustain For years to come as it as it should have Although certainly the passage of NAFTA was a significant body blow to the whole spirit of countering these free trade agreements in the years to come there was far less public resistance Over subsequent and smaller bilateral trade deals that came online with Israel with Chile and with Costa Rica And then at the same time as I mentioned other free trade instruments being concocted like FIPA's and Investment treaties bilateral sector agreements like open skies agreements for air Transit and many others at that time unions like other groups in civil society We were trying to fry up a lot bigger fish at the time around the WTO Millennial round of negotiations the MIA the OAS and so forth the next big Series of bilateral trade deals surfaced in the mid-2000s that included Colombia that also included South Korea But by this point popular opposition to free trade that was stoked in the 90s It had really all but vanished And that's probably the subject of another panel that we should do and unions at least I can speak for us We were very much tackling these new agreements in different and I would say less meaningful coalition building ways and Usually through the lens of very narrow and specific issues that were targeted on on vulnerable sectors So reflecting back the mainstream view that evolved I think in that time period was that a free trade was a net positive for Canada That was sign sealed and delivered after 1993 or even 1998 and as much as self-interested unions protested free trade was still presumed to be good for workers and Under Stephen Harper, I think there was an intentional resurgence of bilateral free trade We were about to embark on a very ambitious era of free trade since the 1990s But at the time unions views weren't being solicited and we were generally frozen out of the discussions We would rarely receive invites to any consultations We were left to build counter narratives warning of free trade not as a popular movement But more as kind of a resistance struggle happening on the margins And then the first great crisis of capitalism struck and it wreaked havoc on working people around the world It was like a dumpster fire that was fueled by latent workplace social and status anxieties that have been festering for decades Including because of these free trade agreements and it was a crisis that was made worse by these boneheads doing neoliberal policy Who were gutting public services? Deepening economic crises and inequality and they were trying to put out the fire by spraying it with gasoline Today, I think there's a growing dissonance in the mainstream view of free trade and globalization And it's being driven by disaffected working people and I was really encouraged to hear Chris talk about that on the morning panel There is no natural consensus in this opposition except that the status quo right now is untenable and that free trade Has failed working people Not necessarily a narrative that says free trade has failed But that workers and by extension other social conditions of trade they have clearly been left out of the equation We can say this now without being laughed out of a room Despite who's there with us, which is a remarkable change over 10 years I'd like to think that at least in North America Unions and our partners have helped seed that that counter narrative over the past 30 years through very sustained and incisive criticism and as a result we engage in along a weighted NAFTA renegotiation and it happened in Some ways through a different lens than I think we had had done it when it first came out It's a very messy and distorted frame. That's for sure It's creating some incredibly difficult and uncomfortable conversations Especially among union members which has a tinge sometimes of racism and a tinge of of pro-trump support But this is the reality that we face Nevertheless though, it's a fracture in the mainstream trade debate And it's something that social movements have been waiting for and it might be the most significant development in the broader Continental integration agenda so far And so this is the first point I want to make the second is that the experience We've had with NAFTA renegotiation is changed our expectations of engagement on trade agreements Folks in this room might have a different historical experience But this was the first time I can recall a concerted effort by federal officials to openly discuss Negotiating proposals and strategies with unions in advance of and during talks Uniform like other unions. We were part of a group Multistakeholder group called a labor consultation group and it was being led by ESDC through the forum officials gave us briefings on negotiating texts They invited us to provide input and make suggestions and provided us updates as talks were going on On top of this it felt to me There was a far greater degree of open dialogue with other officials throughout the bureaucracy and lead negotiators It was certainly not on the same level as what we were having at the labor consultation group But we were able to easily get captive audience meetings with negotiators and again I don't know how effective they were all the time But very different from what we experienced under the previous government in the case of auto and rules of origin We developed a very close technical working relationship with the folks at global affairs and it was through this relationship in this platform that we had Actually proposed concepts like labor value content that tied market access to things like factory wages Which is a model that I you know I'm not sure exists in many other free trade or bilateral bilateral trade arrangements And it was a proposal that was originally scoffed at and we were kind of literally laughed at But then became an interesting compromise position as the talks kind of came to their conclusion The final text on auto is very complicated I can talk about this another time or through questions and it does have its challenges, but It's not as ambitious as we had hoped But there are other details being worked out in the series of uniform Regulations being developed and still we have a voice at that table And we are still being consulted on how best to do this The concept was never about bring the jobs back as I think a lot of the messaging and the rhetoric was in our view this model was intended to solidify a North American production footprint and Disincentivize corporations from easily just moving work across borders It was enough to prompt at least whether or not we you know We're fully supportive of where we've landed or not I think it's better than what we had and it's it's interesting But it was certainly enough to prompt our quote friends at the Fraser Institute those great folks To who suggested after the details came out that clearly quote clearly for the auto sector The US MCA is a step backwards to the managed trade days of the 1960s harkening back to the Canada US auto pack that is absolutely ludicrous to think that that's what's happened here And that's clearly not the case But it was definitely a different outcome and one that in our view will complement our ongoing work to advance a National automotive strategy and it's one example I'll say of our direct and strategic engagement paying off to some agree and having a positive effect Now what to agree that engagement is sustained is still an open question Our engagement with trade officials is really not formalized in any specific way unlike what happens in the US and the EU to some extent and Is very much subject to changing political headwinds and Shifting political priorities. Maybe the only exception to that is that under the CETA agreement We are participating in a domestic advisory group which has its own more structured kind of formal nature to it It would not surprise me in the least given how loose this relationship is That unions will quickly return to the bitter cold wilderness of trade policy under a different government Especially with our experience with the conservatives the last observation I'll make is that any meaningful advancement in trade alternatives I think requires a greater degree of transnational cooperation in civil society The cross-border solidarity work that was done Angela mentioned it among unions including with independent Mexican labor organizations I thought was quite fruitful Together Canadian US Mexican organizations We really lit fire to the prevailing notion Especially among small-sea conservative politicians that NAFTA has been nothing but good for Mexican workers We effectively framed Mexican labor reform and union democracy as not only a principled matter But a matter that would benefit all industrial workers across North America There was a relentless stream of news articles and stories about Mexican state oppression During the NAFTA talks that was magnified as a result of the NAFTA talks And I think of those miners that were shot and killed at that goldmine Canadian old goldmine It's absolutely atrocious, but had a lot of oxygen because of the NAFTA going on And it helped build momentum for labor reform language in the text And that was captured as others have mentioned in a special annex to the labor chapter We may find it difficult to sustain an effective and meaningful popular solidarity movement Among workers in North America outside of the NAFTA spotlight I know that Unifor and the steel workers and others are doing a very good job trying to forge these ties in a meaningful way But it is way too easy to fall back now on our modes of self-interest The combative forces of free market competition and then the desire to preserve jobs And we're grappling with this right now with General Motors and Oshawa, which has become a very challenging fight for us There are a lot of questions around the new NAFTA labor chapter including on long-standing enforceability questions, and I'll tell you I'm I'm with that a hundred percent But to ever think that progressives on questioning NAFTA would say that what we need is to strengthen the enforceability mechanisms of arguably the worst trade agreement that we've ever had is Remarkable because that's what this will require That chapter 31 the new dispute settlement mechanism has to be reformed to fix the loopholes that the Democrats are championing again So there's a bit of a talking out of both sides of our mouth on this one and something We have to be I think very careful about of what we're actually proposing and Coupled with that are open questions about how Mexican workers are able to take advantage of some of these new openings to secure proper collective bargaining agreements governed by democratically elected union Representation and under the annex and also the reform legislation that is working through there will be a four-year time clock on contract votes having to be Voted on by Mexican labor how we assist our Mexican comrades in this struggle how we support them in those inevitable fights which have started already and Referencing the Matamoros dispute happening in Mexico that I think is going to be the true test of lasting solidarity that will come out of this experience in the USMCA negotiation and so if we're able to contextualize these struggles that are hopefully going to happen within a Reasoned criticism of the new agreement this might actually if done right be a source of fresh air in support of the development of Progressive trade alternatives that we have long needed and long called for Among the union movement and as this mainstream Narrative of free trade continues to shift in in some cases in our favor. Thanks Many thanks, Angelo Now we have a Nadia Ibrahim who is a coordinator for the trade justice network. Thank you. Thank you very much Thank you to Laura and the organizers for inviting me to speak today As Pablo mentioned, I'm the coordinator of the trade justice network, which is a coalition Labor environmental and other civil society groups in Canada I also as Laura mentioned worked with her on a research project around trade and gender equality Specifically looking at the Canadian government's progressive trade agenda So I'm going to wear both of those hats and try to pull from both of those experiences First I want to offer a few reflections on the role of civil society as my fellow panelists have The role of civil society in shaping the North American integration agenda specifically in the context of the recent NAFTA renegotiation And I wanted to speak specifically to the coalition building that again has been touched on already today Yeah, so from in my perspective from the outset of the renegotiation's civil society engagement was really rooted in and oriented towards collaboration and of course there's a long a long and strong history of Collaboration and solidarity across North America among civil society actors And so this is a much more brief history of that but in in my view and this was touched on earlier today I think much of the civil society engagement and coordination Was was kick-started or catalyzed by the tri-national meeting in Mexico City that's been mentioned in 2017 and at that gathering so it was it was hosted or organized by our Mexican allies Who invited civil society and social movement actors from across North America to gather in Mexico City? This was shortly after the renegotiation had been announced and essentially they wanted to get folks together to put our heads together And figure out how a civil society going to respond what might our approach be those sorts of questions and From the gecko the consensus was that we needed to engage in solidarity and collaborative work That the only way that we were going to be successful in registering our demands or our concerns Regarding a renegotiation would be to form a united front And again, there's a strong history of this And and knowing that we needed to combat the tendency to pit workers and communities against one another Especially in the context of trade agreements and trade negotiations and in the North American context We know that unfortunately there's a history of this of this division and and unfortunately escape-goating Mexico in particular and Mexican workers and so at the meeting and This was something that was referenced as well We recognized that amongst specific organizations or networks. There were inevitably going to be different Specific approaches to the renegotiation or varying specific demands or priorities And and that was okay, and we knew that we might not reconcile that but the effort was to To articulate and discuss what might be our common concerns or our shared values and this Was eventually written in a joint declaration. I think Angela mentioned this Identifying those common concerns and values and I think John mentioned something similar from a previous Previous era, and I think that reminds me of Laura's mention of the or someone's mention of the cyclical nature of civil society activism and So this joint declaration really formed a foundational document that would then inform the work in the advocacy that we were doing And even if organizations or groups chose to tackle different issues or take different positions or different approaches Such as the more kind of radical or versus reformist debate that was referenced This would serve as sort of a unifying document that we could come back to I think that was really valuable The gathering also kick-started a tri-national network of communication This mostly took the form of an email list serve as well as phone calls and some meetings that really allowed us to Share updates and intel about the talks share any research or analysis that was coming out about specific issues as well as actively coordinate on or share information about any planned initiatives or actions across the continent And when there were opportunities to do so to help organizations, maybe plug into that work But otherwise to at least amplify what was going on in other regions In Canada we formed a pan-canadian coalition Specifically around the NAFTA re-negotiations. So this was to serve a similar purpose to keep us in touch and regularly communicating sharing updates and intel and to plan any Coordinated positions or initiatives one of the main activities that we organized was a civil society summit in Ottawa in the fall of 2017, I believe to coincide with one of the rounds of negotiations here in Ottawa And and that was oriented towards doing some public education work as well as a political action I believe in Laura's presentation There was a photo on the front with Sujata in it from that event and also to do more strategizing and coordination So we invited folks from across the US and Canada as well as Mexico. So a sort of a follow-up to that Mexico City gathering Overall, I think there was a sense and this has been touched on already There was a sense that the NAFTA re-negotiations presented a real opening or opportunity To what felt like what felt like an opportunity to influence the process I from where I said I think civil society saw the re-negotiations as an opportunity to not only reform the specific deal or to make improvements on the text But to really rethink the model that we have for international trade and not that this was necessarily a new position But it felt like maybe this was an opportunity to do that work and In the Canadian context the Trudeau government's progressive trade agenda and general progressive rhetoric Felt like there was more receptiveness to progressive ideas or progressive critiques of NAFTA or or the trade model And also as has been touched on this government was seemingly more open and willing to engage in consultation and Civil society or stakeholder engagement And so again, it felt like there was a real opening or opportunity Ultimately, I think we were disappointed with the outcome and recognizing that the deal is not yet finalized or ratified rather but and yeah, I won't I won't touch on this because some of the Shortcomings or issues have been touched on already today Though of course There were some notable wins as Sujata mentioned the elimination of energy proportionality that clause as well as the rollback of ISDS While while limited or or not perfect. I think it's worth Acknowledging that civil society played a role in in making that happen And at least making it so that we're talking about these issues a little bit more Notably though even if the agreement isn't exactly what we were hoping for One thing that I do want to stress and this is something that we've been talking about around the TJN table Is that the work that civil society did including folks in this room? Really helped to build some significant momentum during the NAFTA renegotiation And so we saw more attention being paid in the mainstream media or in political debates Around trade issues particularly in the North American context We saw civil society and social movement actors helping to shift public opinion While maybe not completely to where we would maybe like it to be we did see more visibility And attention being paid to progressive ideas or alternatives And notably we did see some cracks in the system Particularly the the rollback of ISDS comes to mind as something that Again while imperfect it illustrates a crack in the system that that we can maybe pry open a little bit further And so that's something that we're hoping to discuss a little bit more how we might leverage or build on that progress The other thing that I wanted to speak to that question that had been posed to panelists was what are the opportunities and obstacles for civil society To influence government and business agendas So here I wanted to pull from some of the work that I done with Laura on on trade and gender Specifically the progressive trade agenda because I think it encapsulate encapsulates some really interesting opportunities as well as obstacles So as I mentioned the PTA seemed to present an opportunity or a space to engage in progressive ideas and to talk about alternatives In terms of the gender dimension The Trudeau government which has posed itself as a feminist government And committed to gender equality component of the PTA It felt like there was an opportunity to maybe advance gender equality through trade policy Or a broader policy agenda and as part of the research project that we did we interviewed folks representatives from civil society groups and this was a common sentiment that we heard that there were this was an opportunity to put forward proposals that would genuinely contribute to advancing gender equality and So I won't go into detail here because this is documented elsewhere But some of the things that we heard in those interviews were that there was an opportunity To enact enforceable gender equity provisions as well as to allocate the appropriate amount of resources or funds to realize the stated goals In addition to that To engage in meaningful consultation with experts advocates and the public with regards to gender To engage in gender mainstreaming So the application of a gender lens in the entirety of an agreement or throw out a policy making agenda Rather than solely as a standalone gender chapter And so this would be particularly important in areas like public services Labor rights environmental protection food sovereignty of these sorts of things and And finally there was a lot of discussion about the lack of analysis that had been done within the government and otherwise regarding the gendered impacts of trade or How we might advance gender equality through trade policy And so there was a lot of discussion about the need for applying an intersectional and gender-based analysis To trade agreements as well as trade policy in all aspects of the policy making process So again the PTA also represents an obstacle in the area of gender equity not only because We felt as though the the outcome that we got in the US MCA or the QSMA Felt short on its stated goals regarding gender equity And so this is a challenge not only because It fails to adequately address the gendered impacts of trade in that it it has some references to gender but but What I would argue is not a lot of substantive Change or weight behind it But this is also a challenge And this echoes I think what Laura was talking about with progressive neoliberalism is that the progressive Rhetoric maybe gives the illusion that gains have been made on these issues Or or that they've been addressed when when in reality, maybe that's not the case Maybe we'd argue that it's a co-optation of the language or simply symbolic commitments that sort of thing But the other thing that I do want to mention is I think looking at where we're at today with the PTA The Trudeau government has seemed to back away from the language of progressive trade or the progressive trade agenda in particular But that said they've we've already Heard them make these commitments under the banner of progressive trade What comes to mind also is the statements that Christia Freeland and others have made with regards to the rollback of ISDS And kind of echoing some of the sentiments that civil society has long been saying With regards to ISDS and its implications for public policy And so I think there's an opportunity to hold them to those commitments and to those statements And and to kind of use that as a new opening perhaps to push for progressive alternatives or or substantive changes and Finally just a couple other general obstacles that I would touch on with regards to civil society engagement One thing that we've heard we heard in our interviews with civil society reps But also something that we've seen in the trade justice network and with our allies is the lack of or the challenge of capacity and resources is constantly a barrier and That was something that we heard in our interviews with regards to the women's movement and other progressive movements over time such as compared to the original NAFTA talks and Also the one thing that we heard a lot about was the the challenge of organizing or maybe engaging with the public Someone described it as the amorphousness of trade. So this idea that it trade agreements can feel very abstract or separate and these complex Legal documents that have no bearing on our day-to-day life Whereas we know that that they do and so trying to to communicate that in a way that's accessible and digestible is a challenge Especially in the Canadian context where as folks have talked about today Trade or NAFTA was seen as something just kind of taken for granted or even as a inherent positive And so I think those are things that we need to to figure out how to tackle. So I'll leave it there for now Can maybe jump into other things in the questions period? Many thanks Nadia, but we have quite a bit of time for questions and Suggestions maybe we can take a couple and then we let our speakers respond. Yes Chris Roberts CLC. Thanks so much for excellent presentations all they were terrific panel. I've been struggling with how to understand the relationship between What I think Nadia referred to and what Laura introduced earlier as progressive neoliberalism or left neoliberalism and the way in which Labour in particular, but maybe other actors have been integrated into the state's project in a different way in this round of trade negotiation than than previously and Transnationalism I mean we're in a moment when economic nationalism political nationalism as a project of the right is Capturing more of the working class. I think in Canada and the United States other countries around the world there's a political realignment of labor going on and the ability of of You know traditional vehicles for the working class the trade unions the labor movement to articulate that sentiment into a into a true transnationalism seems to me to be Complicated by this progressive neoliberalism and the way that it has integrated Quite effectively. I think the the the organizations of the labor movement in particular So it's it's a complicated question, but I'm just struck by What Angelo said about you know the the previous fights where you had hundreds of thousands of workers mobilized with it, maybe a different vision of of of what trade policy should be and it had a It exerted pressure on the state in a way that that we're not seeing I think in in the current Moment as as explaining why Labour has all of these openings with the Canadian state and with the the Republican administration in the US So I guess I if that makes sense at all if you could say something about how to understand The the the effort to construct a new transnational solidarity continentally At the same time as we're being pulled into this Relationship which is awkward with with neoliberal states Thank you Okay, well, I feel my question is somewhat different. So hopefully we'll be able to unpack all of this so My name is Christiana by the way, I asked a question earlier So I was just wondering if if you could all kind of provide your perspective your own or your organization's perspective on what What civil society Well, like people an organization that advocate for civil society like rights should do to address sort of the Contempt that they often face because I find that a lot of the times People that are that advocate that are very very active Advocates for civil society and for the rights of the common people are not seen as heroes until after their time And a lot of times like while they're you know doing their thing everybody just thinks that they're like the most annoying individual on the face of the planet and And that can be very discouraging for people who are looking to maybe become advocates And don't want to get everybody hating on them So I'm just wondering if you could provide some insight on how you personally address that within your organization or as an individual and Yeah, so that's pretty much the gist of it for me. Thank you Thank you. I Take a different tack. I think civil societies can sometimes be a thorn in the Neck I'm going to give you some figures Canada is considered to be the worst polluter in terms of greenhouse gas production per capita 25 tons per individual India is considered to be one of the lowest at three tons of greenhouse gas production per individual Greenhouse reduction per capita is the wrong metric We are being taken in North America, especially in Canada for a very rough ride Unless you multiply the per capita greenhouse production per capita by the population density It is totally meaningless if you do that Canada comes out smelling like roses at 85 tons per square kilometer Europe at 1,000 Europe is 928 Europe is saying that we are the best people who are looking after climate change We want to reverse climate change and what we want to do is decrease the per capita greenhouse reduction That's that's going to play against us Canada's economy has been hobbled by a Misunderstanding, please take that into consideration do something about it when we clamor about the change in climate We have to talk about The proper figure if we don't do that these organizations the civil organization are doing a disservice to us And President Trump is saying the right thing, but he doesn't know how to articulate it. That's his problem Otherwise his policies are actually quite sound So I ask you what is to be done in the future about these civil societies that are raising such a red flag But are not really telling us the right story Thanks. Thank you We can go in any order you prefer to take the questions and comments you have received go ahead Just a quick quick sort of footnote to answer to Chris's question about transnationalism one of the things that didn't happen, but sort of came up as an idea around The NAFTA process toward the end was an initiative I think by congressman David Bonnier who I guess was from Ohio if I'm not mistaken Which got some response from Lloyd Axe worthy on the Canadian side, which was basically an extension of the European model That is that you create an overall rights agreement for the continent Protecting labor rights, but other rights as well which might even include environmental rights Although I'm not sure that was a theme at the time which would provide a framework In a sense for for transnational governance, but also for transnational Organizing as I recall that had a very brief Half-life and disappeared because the Position of the three governments in particular of Canada United States was we're not talking about governance. We're just talking about trade Yeah, I'm very interested in the development of the whole progressive trade agreement because it's very interesting because I think One of the things you I did a lot of organizing on the CEDA file in Europe And so what what you saw happening in Europe is that there was a large amount of people who were basically 300,000 people went on the street to protest Against CEDA and TTIP at a certain point and what you saw it what I think happened at that point Is there were two different things that were going on? It was the growth of the populace like on the one hand you had when you got to the United States election For example, you had the Trans-Pacific Partnership and basically everybody from Trump to Hillary Clinton basically Basically criticized the agreement so and then you had in the CEDA context where the CEDA and TTIP were becoming very Almost toxic and poisonous daily both from the fairly the right wing, which is Trump the lapens and so on Often using the same rhetoric of the left. I'm saying that, you know I just was watching a speech by Bannon where he talks about the deplorables and he talks about all the people who are left out of trade So so at one point you see that trade is becoming Toxic on an international level both from the the resurgence of the the right and the resurgence of the left And so Canada within this context is trying is working on on CEDA and they're trying to think well How do we how do we make this work? And you know well, but we're a progressive government So we think we are anyway, so we're going to come up with this whole thing of how do we sell neoliberalism and that's this whole Progressive trade agreement basically that that we're going to do things As if you know, we're doing that so for Europe we're going to have this whole Interpretive clause that's going to like interpretive dance It's going to talk about our values and then we're going to go to the US and we're going to do these gender clause things We're going so and but it's absolutely un Uncoordinated there's no rhyme or reason to to why you know, for example in CEDA We have investor estate and we think it's okay within the European context But in NAFTA we were happy that we got rid of it We want gender we want like we didn't get our gender or or or a digit is clauses somehow But somehow it's progressive So we want progressive CEDA and progressive NAFTA because we can be progressive when we're in Europe We'll go around and say we have progressive values then we'll go to the US and say oh, yeah We have the same progressive values Trump, you know, there's some point progressive has to actually mean something And and that's the other thing too I mean, there's a lot of people who talk about these NAFTA agreements like we've had this amazing amount of consultation Well, it depends on who you are within the consultation process If you are a stakeholder like you're in an industry that actually has a NAFTA effect And then you have a closer relationship and I understand that that that makes a lot of sense But often the other console the other part of consultation was you know showing up and talking in Europe They had talked about the idea of having Something we all tried to bring to Canada was one One negotiating round with civil society that was something that was on the agenda and that never happened because in the North American context It wasn't it wasn't going to be likely and so it's really interesting because we talk I was just really interested in the things you were saying because at some point How we get along and how we relate in civil society has a lot to do with what our power is Vis-a-vis the states that we're dealing with so in Europe They had a lot of power because they are you know mostly Western European countries lots of money lots of they're taken seriously within their governments They have the ability to go to each other quickly. They're used to they have a European Union Who supports them a lot so they have a lot of power Within there to make changes and they are heard and they're put within the process There's some differences with Central Europe, which has less less of a you know an infrastructure But generally they're they're fairly even you come to the into the Americas and to North America We're in a situation where there's huge imbalances of power We're civil society is not really like you know everyone is coming to us like it was very ironic because in the European context They're all saying oh well Canada. We're we're not as progressive the Europeans Please please help us out but here in the North American context the Americans or in Mexicans are coming up to us and goes You have the most progressive government. Please help us out and we're like. Oh, no Yes, your government's so progressive Justin Trudeau. He's so progressive. I'm like. Oh boy. We're dead And and then you also have the problems of capacity differences like the difference of I mean within the center of the negotiation Though the government that did have the most power was the US I mean even now like all the negotiating rounds were in the US even now We we in our ratification processes are going to be able to have very little effect unless we we go to Washington So that's that's also part of it. I mean, especially I think one of the tricky parts also was language We don't have the same when we think besides English Canada and I mean Mexico the level the English is not is not as high as You know within the European Union. There's less capacity for them in terms of financially We can't just fly like in Europe We can just go and meet each other and show up at all the negotiating rounds We don't have that those economies like I besides some of the unions Um, I wasn't able to follow all the negotiating rounds and heart and I'm one of the more wealthier Organizations within civil society. So that that's part of that is part of the whole capacity issue of how you know And so without those fundamental supports being given to civil society The idea of trans you know national solidarity is kind of meaningless Those are the important things that need to be you know thought into I mean the governments have to give us The capacity as well not just over listen to you and well you kind of show up to the the grounds You're not in the negotiations. You're not there and then we'll just kind of listen to you We have to be you know put in the process and given that that capacity as well Because businesses there they're all over the place. They're just flying around. They're on the cocktails. They're doing this They have access we a civil side. You're are coming in afterwards and about the point about being annoying It's so Yeah, it is a problem and because why we Often I'm asked that you're here and you're not talking about the economy. You're not talking about industry Why why is it that you as civil society have have any right to be here? I'm it's funny because I was looking at past articles about mod Barlow during the M. R. R. Spokesperson during the multilateral agreement on investment And there was a lot of oh the articles are horrible that she's crazy. She's an inform She's this and and the MAI is not is not doesn't exist anymore because basically a piece of It was leaked to the council Canadians at that time and that was one of the things that actually got rid of the Agreement, I mean, I think that in terms of civil society I think that there's a an aspect that the economy and somehow us were kind of different This the economy is important. We're not really important But there is no functioning economy without the environment. There is no functioning I mean and this whole trade system does not work if more and more people find themselves completely outside of the trade system This whole thing come falls apart and I think the big challenges of our society Environmental change inequality what the future of work is those conversations have got to start You know, if we're going to have any society at all those those conversations have got to start happening now Thank you. I just a quick story just when you talked about the European Union and the Civil Society organizations. There was a meeting at the CLC Angela was there at this meeting. I was on conference call, but we were sitting there, you know with them and It's like we're talking, you know civil society unions to unions and they were they were the question of the day was How do we make the best out of a bad situation? This deal is getting passed how do we ramp up the level of obligation and Enforcement and and all of this with respect to the labor chapter and so I mean there's a big story behind that but The the comment that was made by I think the chair of the committee to us was like well just tell your government And it's like you want like we would knock on the door to the Ministry of Labor during the Harper government and say Hey, we want to talk to you about something. It's like that. It doesn't work that way That's not how it is here. And so there's also, you know understanding the nuances of different Politics I guess but I'll go back to Chris's point. I Struggled I struggled with this. I think this requires a lot more heavy thinking I think But yeah, I did the concept of progressive neoliberalism I know I think I understand kind of what that means it in some ways I think it's easily understood as as being able, you know to create progressive outcomes in a situation of Free market economics and deregulation I think in some ways this is kind of what we do every single day at the bargaining table is trying to trying to make Progressive an inherently un-progressive thing. So to what degree that that you know encapsulates, you know the inherent contradictions of of where we are in 2019 on trade versus where we were in 1993. I think there's a lot more, you know Muddiness to that so probably needs to be kind of sorted out But you mentioned about 1993 and and I just that's the first thing I started reflecting on and I certainly what I was around I just wasn't physically there on Parliament Hill But I was listening to her van or something like that But I don't you might have just said this in passing but the way you framed it was that there in 1993 you got 100,000 people on the Hill and these people possibly have a different vision of what is to be right and And I don't know if it was some sort of heightened social awareness or or consciousness around the neoliberal project and its failings or This was something new Like this idea of free trade and we were scared and we wanted to stay the way it was and Other people who were around can maybe give me the Coles notes of the actual You know Beyond the rhetoric beyond the headlines what actually was driving the popular movement and if I'm if I'm gonna try to take my Lessons from today day-to-day and try to import them back in time. That's what drives us a lot today is fear about like Oh my god, this is new. This is different. We can't have that. Well, what do you want? I just want it the way it is right now and and I worry about a kind of a you know Reclaiming history in some sort of heightened Awareness thing because I would guess that that's maybe what was driving this more at that time The other thing I want to say too in the context of what is progressive neoliberalism and what it means for this discussion is You know uniform has been spending the last Year and a half and I know we've partnered with the Council of Canadians in certain cases Hosting public town halls talking to workers talking to anybody who wants to listen to us About trade and one of the lessons that we try to impart and remind our members is that even just talking about trade is complicated because trade and These free trade agreements and all of the stuff embedded in them and the objectives They're trying to achieve like they're not the same thing. We've been trading with people for a long time We've supercharged our trade relationship through neoliberal Objectives and and and you know putting in deregulatory measures and things within these agreements That's not necessarily what trade is and the more we conflate these two concepts the more difficult it is to think Alternatively because you think well the alternative is note rip those things up And we're just gonna we're gonna go into our caves and we're gonna figure out what we're like It's it's more than that and I and I think that's part of how we we move forward in contemplating what a 21st century project of Progressive economic nationalism how that looks in a globalized Transnational context I think it it has to start from these Demystification Exercises about about some of these pieces the other thing about and maybe the last thing on this piece Is around the hole where we stand on questions of economic nationalism? I mean when Trump was elected even when he was working his way through the process of being elected You listen to him. I have a copy of a speech. He gave in Pennsylvania. I swear to God I think it was a speech given by Buzz Hargrove like like you know It it was it was basically riffing off everything We've said for 25 years about the economy about trade about workers it was just coming from someone who had a fundamentally different agenda and so This is created that I forget who mentioned it But someone creating tensions for the US labor movement because I think part of them is like oh my god He's saying what we've said we have resolutions past that convention saying what he is saying But we can't support this guy because there's other factors at play And so it's getting them into a bit of a pretzel when the same thing here to a lesser degree where? We are we've been talking about economic nationalism We've been trying to nuance that whole line of thinking for a long time But now when you do it you you got to be careful because we start playing into even crops of our membership Who are showing up to rallies wearing yellow vests now and wearing waving uniform flags like that is a slippery slope? And I guess it's a pitfall of trying to build a popular movement But trying to be inclusive with as many different Progressive concepts whereas other people in some other cases. It's very simple. It's me not them That's it done and if you can fuel that narrative. I'm good I'm with you and and that goes to maybe the last point that you had made about You know, maybe we are annoying. I sometimes I feel like I'm annoying but Civil society and our gaining traction I think it's about how you see yourselves reflected in what the civil society organizations are trying to portray And and I think we are inherently against the mainstream and that makes it more difficult for people to just naturally gravitate into what we're doing If you ask that same question to a group of union members I think the answer would be like we need more TV ads or something like this But it's so so fundamentally deeper in terms of how People can can see themselves reflected and anyways, that's that's a not just another panel But maybe another week-long session of conversations we should have So and maybe just on the point of this thorn in our side I don't I don't want to speak to I don't think I have any authority to speak to this question around How we talk about greenhouse gas emissions and all that although I think the points you've raised are pretty provoking and Certainly sparking my thoughts, but us being a thorn in someone's side in some ways even though we wouldn't say that outright I think that's kind of our job in some ways because the the side We are trying to be a thorn in is is sort of a mainstream vision of the economy the way that it's working And it doesn't always work for other people hence Groups form in protests to that mainstream concept So if we're there not being a thorn in that side, you don't need then that means everything is in pure utopia I think that's maybe a value of us being Equal parts annoying and equal parts frustrating, but anyways, just my thought This is a very fun panel At least for me. I am used to very boring panels I like any please any more questions comments. Yeah, um, thank you It was a great panel and I just want to say that I'm probably maybe more optimistic now after hearing you Angelou about maybe what how we what we were able to accomplish and how we shifted the narrative away from potentially racist tropes and instead broadly supported Mexican workers and that that was That was very useful and and Nadia in terms of building Allegiances and networks that maybe will continue on and continue to be useful So one of one of the reasons I think labor reacted the way that they did this time was because they didn't see those millions of people on the hill or whatever it was thousands of people on the hill as having I'm like I'm exaggerating. It's trump, right? Like how many people came to them? Yeah Those those people on the hill as having won anything they feel like that lost and that that they They didn't they didn't achieve their goal. So we needed to try something different Um, and so what would you sit think now? Even though it's not we're not done. What lessons do you have for how we might approach it next time? And how do you think we're how will we how should we continue the networks that we've built? Yeah, oh, and I think we should just embrace our inner commudians We should be a thorn in this line. I presented to a senate committee on trade and one of the senators is he's like Scoffed at me you're out on a nice flow But it makes us stronger because you have to do your research and know your stuff and and know what you're talking about to be solid on what you're saying Thank you. First of all, my apologies to Nadia. I know you had maybe some responses to the previous round So maybe you want to begin with that? Sure. Thank you. Yeah, sure I don't know that I have any immediate thoughts on on angela's question. I might need to to chew on that a bit but sure Regarding chris's question about progressive neoliberalism Um, I liked what angelo said about this challenge of making progressive something. That's inherently Unprogressive or an inherently unprogressive thing. Um, and I think the the canadian government's trade agenda Represents that really nicely. Um, I think it was also angela that maybe was talking about the evolution of this Agenda and and how it kind of was something that they stumbled into and maybe wasn't Um, a conscious effort to outline this comprehensive agenda, but rather kind of they got stuck Um, in a few different situations that then they had to kind of backpedal and say, okay Well, sure. This is a comprehensive policy package or or agenda. Um and so anyways, I think, um It's an interesting sort of case study or example of of where we're at Um, and like I said before I think even if the way that it came about was maybe Disingenuine or reactionary or an intentional at least. I think there's an opportunity to to hold them to that um And to call for genuine genuinely progressive alternatives Or changes And also on the question about the the perceptions, let's say of civil society. Um I don't know that I have any great insights. Um, and the trade justice network isn't Always engaging with people directly because we're kind of a network of organization so I know that I'm not the best position to speak to this but um I do think that um, it was mentioned the the work that uh uniform and the council of canadiens have done with the Is it the people's trade? process is that what it's called under the banner, um and so yeah, I think that also Speaks to the type of work that we need to be doing in terms of meeting people where they're at And whether that's doing some educational work, but also learning About the experiences of communities and people and to to have frank conversations about what's been happening as well as to pick What another's brains about where we might go? And yeah, I just think that idea of meeting people where they're at As opposed to always it being the same group of us in a room kind of talking about The same sorts of critiques or or ideas. Um, I think that that isn't necessarily going to either get us Where we want to go or or change perceptions of what we're doing? Um, so yeah, just some some initial thoughts But I think these are all great and big questions to to chew on. Um, so yeah, I'll leave it there for now I can start Yeah, so, um, yeah, it's an excellent, um, excellent question And and I'm happy to you know, we chat further. I think this is the right conversation that we have to have now, right as a movement So a couple of things. Yeah, uh, you know From where we were in 1994 When this was all done there there may have been a degree of Defeat a feeling of defeat and then that might help explain what what transpired But they're you know Boy, I have to be careful how I say this Because we were I mean we were right we we have been right about What happens when you give transnational corporations the ability and the flexibility to extend supply chains to every corner of the world And allow them to more seamlessly move things across borders You're going to see work Progressively move to places where people can do things cheaper and as technology technology is advanced It's made countries that historically have not had the capacity to do certain work They can now do that and and the market the labor market for for competition and all this is expanded We were right and we saw the effects of that But you know reading through a lot of the other materials that we produced It wasn't just about trying to paint a picture of what happens in in this scenario We were saying a lot of things. There was a lot of of Of things we were saying that we were going to lose that Canada would be taken over We would be you know, it was it was like off the charts and I've I've had material that was produced in 1993 That says this and so part of me. I remember reading one chapter of it I was written by caw at the time ua w and it was I said if we pass nafta This will happen to the auto packed and it's like boom. That's exactly what happened They dismantled it because they had new tools to do that. But in other case, we will lose all public services Okay, so we like that didn't happen like that, but there's other pressures that have created But it was like, oh my god, we're gonna lose our culture We're gonna lose canada and so the popularization of the approach 25 years later. It's like We didn't really do like that didn't really happen bad things happen But not not as bad as what we and so I think there are still people who see it as nuanced as most of us do You know that that we did lose in a lot of cases But the average person who might have said yeah, I don't want this they might think Okay, well now we've had 25 years of it and whatever like, I don't know It's not that bad like that could also be part of why there isn't a groundswell Of of um of anger around these things. So again, I I I don't know what it is But maybe it's our fault. Maybe we just didn't do a good job of sustaining Yeah, right, right, right, right. So anyways, I'll fit in. I want to hear I know you have a lot of the things to say about anyways So the other thing your question more specifically is like, what do we do the next time? What does the next time look like and that is an excellent question I don't know what it is. I think it's like, uh, you know that It seems like the NAFTA gave us a platform that we didn't have because I don't know that a lot of people are Paying attention to including the media. What's going on with the pacific alliance trade agreements or mercury trade agreements It's it's not as impactful. I guess on us as NAFTA is so I imagine unless we're gonna again renegotiate NAFTA or have some crazy conception of a new multilateral agreement That's so damaging. There might not be the same amount of oxygen that we can, you know Suck in or whatever, but I think what it might do As if we can frame some of the victories that we've had we now have new platforms To criticize and challenge and say there are different ways of doing this Uh, and you're not doing them and look because we did create new market access restrictions for auto Why can't we do that in all sectors? Why why doesn't they, you know, don't tell us it can't be done because it's done So it's it's new ways of frustrating the model that I don't know we had before because Same as you being at these trade committees If you know endlessly it's like well, what do you think we should do mr. Decaro? What what's the Well, we had the auto packed in the 1960s So maybe we can do that again and it's like we can but that's all we got like that's that's all I've got to work with or some Different vision that I can't quite articulate of a new world that we need to start building Which is great, but I don't know how to explain that to a committee So this gives us new mechanisms to say no, we should have ISDS Because look what look what the minister said just last week or whatever we can do that Uh, so I think that helps us and then on the on the go forward thing too um, I think our job as I said in my remarks is about Uh, making sure we're doing what we can to try and work in solidarity, especially with Mexican workers Uh, to try and elevate those standards Frustrate their model that's created a lot of distortions and in anti competitive behavior across supply chains And when we do have victories we have to magnify them and one thing we learned and I you know, I've been to Mexico City four times in the last year and uh, again NAFTA gave us the platform and Jerry had the microphone and he would talk about it But it's when we talk to our Mexican allies. We were very careful to say to them Look, we want to help you but we don't want this to seem like we're swooping in here Rich Canadian union guy is going to tell you how to fix your problems. That's that's not what we want And they were they were appreciative of our acknowledgement of that But they also told us we don't have a platform So when you show up here and do this you're you're creating something that wouldn't exist if you didn't And I think that was a lesson too humbling lesson to say they need us And we have to do what we can to and I think that's what meaningful solidarity looks like And I think we got a lot of work to do if we want to make that happen Or we can simply kind of quiet down and retrench and then it just it's another lost opportunity So I think in anyways in those ways I that's how I would respond Um, it's it's I'm always sitting there in my mind thinking how is it possible? um, it used to be um When mod says all the time that canada used to be in the 1980s at the forefront of what was trade We were the center of the world when it came to talking about trade um, and now um when you look at what's what's going on I mean, there's an there's an appetite that's very much global And anti-trade and it just doesn't seem to be happening in canada And so it's really strange too because on the one hand we as it's also something that we as progressives have been talking about for You know decades and decades and decades the free trade of the america's the the wto protests and I mean the wto protests was it was very interesting too because it wasn't The usual suspects. They were very young people Very, you know people at my my age at that time In their 20s and it was a very you know, and that was and it was very much You know, like it was the the whole no logo thing the whole globalization So how did this movement all of a sudden become Bannon's thing or or trump's thing or Le Pen's thing or where did that happen? Like what did we do where we stopped capturing people's imaginations where people just kind of thought okay, that's them again This is repetitive. This is boring. We've heard it all again. I mean, I was just looking at um You know 1930s and how a lot of progressive movements at that time were doing really well And then basically all of these Right-wing movements took all their language basically and and and pulled it out And so I think we're going through through that again on the one hand All the issues that we have to talk about they're more relevant than they've ever been At you know, they're they're you know, 50 people own like half most of the wealth of planet Everybody feels they're in precarious jobs. We may not have any jobs, Robert Robots are going to do what they're going to come back to canada But apparently robots will do our jobs so so we we won't need work because we'll be post work We'll have you know guaranteed incomes. I don't know how but I mean the the issues that we have here a climate change I mean These are these are the issues that that we need to be talking about right now here in Canada And what I I do think it may be at this point We need the help of our American allies. I was just reading something about how trade is going to be really hot in in the next election some people are saying next us election because from the right from the republicans and NAFTA and from the left left is not popular So how do we as canadiens maybe import that like that's something I've been thinking about how do we get europeans over How do we get americans over how do we bring that so we reinvigorate our discourse and also renew it because I mean, we can't be talking about our social programs have all gone I mean no, I mean we have to have a very much more nuanced analysis of where trade is now and I think I think that one thing angela was saying about how often we're being reactive We're always reacting to these trade agreements that come other it's not and we have to be because people only care about what we As trade trade nerds people only care about us when it's in the news So and they only care about it when it's when trump says something so we have to be there But at some level I mean I think we we do have to start thinking about the mechanism of a completely different trade world trade order I mean one of the reasons why people are going to nationalism is that's the only place where we have a state That's the only place we can regulate. That's the only place we there is any democracy. There is no democracy at an international level There's only the market and a market that we're we're making more and more More and more corporate captured. So how do we make those mechanisms? That are going to go beyond you know beyond that Within trade, how do we make those international mechanisms where we actually do have power? And I think trade agreements might be part of that of that That thing but we have to actually create that mechanism. What does that mean legally? What does that mean economically? How do we create sanctions where if someone violates environmental or labor law as we can sanction them? Like can we think about things at a global level that that that could be very interesting and I and I think Like what will we do next time? I mean There's a lot of I mean one of the things we have we learn is from solidarity But solidarity means that we also have to have The ability the financial ability that I mean when we did in europe we had a lot of research We had a lot of concrete actions I find sometimes that as a trade movement we're often and analyzing and we're talking and consoling each other about Just how nobody understands us but often I think that sometimes we have to think about Concrete actions or how do we use moments like in mexico city? For example, how do we use movement that to do political action? And I find sometimes because we're in trade is so theoretical It's so abstract that often we're all in the abstract and we're not thinking I mean, how do we we make this a put into political action? And that's the step that we all need to think about how to how do we work that out? I mean, I really loved working with the europeans because there was always action There was always communication. There was always like strategy whereas in the north american context We never everyone's sort of I guess we're american or north americans. We kind of go to our own So we never really had that, you know, what's the next step? So how do we monkey wretch this? How do we, you know, how do we get into that? And I think those are the ways that we need to do we have to have an imagination of a project We need to be able to get other people to share our imagination And we also have to make it work We have to bring the actions together to do that and and that I think is unions labor environmental groups Everyone has to be thinking about how do we make this into a political project? Thank you very much. Um, I know we are pastime. I don't know if laura you want to add some closing remarks Also john and nadia if you wanted to add a few more words afterwards Sure, just a quick comment really not really a question. Thank you so much. This was a great discussion So exciting to be able to organize this like a Christmas day all over again to have people really want to hear from speaking like this I would just wanted to pick up a couple of points john made At the beginning about lessons from the past one point you made was about Research and academics and sujata just Mentioned research, but I think it's not been so much linked to University research and that's a problem on both sides the academics haven't been doing that but whereas So I think we need to find new ways to do that and it's certainly if you look at You know the neoliberal side One reason why neoliberals have been so successful is they they have such a strong body Stormtroopers who are out there selling this agenda, you know developing models and And and they're very much linked to the to university and think tank Workers that and that really helps them consolidate that agenda and I don't think the left really has that And another point was resources There was sort of a tone of sort of beating yourselves up that you haven't done as much as in the 90s Well, one thing that happened in between was neoliberalism and the cuts to civil society organizations people used to talk about, you know, jane jensen and Susan phillips wrote fabulous work about citizenship regimes in canada and how those were restructured under Both the martin and and harper governments. Well, they weren't writing about harper yet just even under martin There were so many cuts to civil society organizations and we saw this particularly in the case of the the women's movement that you know Stash status of women national commissioners National committee on the status of women had Substantial resources coming to it and it could do real work because of that And similarly in labor, you know, there used to be substantial funding for international Solidarity work that came through sida And that was cut cut. There were so many cuts to civil society organizations So it's not just, you know, you haven't done a good job, but The resources aren't there that used to be but also I just really appreciated what angela was saying about the need for Providing that kind of solidarity. I mean, we still have some resources compared to mexican unions and And now it is a really propitious moment. I think we do have allies in the in the government now The labor minister is the daughter of all-time remulc activists Berta lujan And our Arturo Alcalde, you know So there's a long history right there in the mexican government. They're now in government And that could change a lot of things Even if there are some limitations to what two aspects of the new government's agenda. So some rambling comments. Thanks Thank you very much. Um, I I came late. I don't know lori if you have any closing remarks for the day or something But uh, otherwise Okay, well, thank you so much everybody for coming It was a great christmas day all over again. There's certainly the weather's not shifted much since christmas We'll just keep going um So I really appreciate especially this last panel to get civil society people here to give us their ideas from the grassroots and We'll go on and think more about these issues in coming days. So thanks a lot