This video documents "The Nelson Chapter of the Council of Canadians is holding a public forum on CETA, the latest trade agreement that the Canadian Government is negotiating with the European Union Friday, February 11 at 7:30 p.m. at Nelson United Church. Guest speaker is Peter Julian, NDP International Trade Critic along with Alex Atamanenko, MP. We urge you to come out and learn how CETA will affect you." Part 1 of 3 parts: Peter Julian addresses public forum on CETA (Canada European Trade Agreement). Peter Julian, International Trade Critic, NDP, House of Commons, Member of Parliament for Burnaby New Westminster Produced by Small Town Films Inc. Please reference original source when reproducing this material. Video transcripts: (Peter Julian) "In any country there are different ways that you can erode democracy. I mean the most visible level of course is through secret police and through oppression, but you can also erode democracy through a simple signature. And much of what we are going to talk about tonight is the impact on our democracy and our quality of life of this agreement that is being brought forward. And that is the Canada European Trade Agreement which is also known as CETA, and before I start talking about some of the elements of CETA, I'd like to just deal with the four myths that are being put out by the government on CETA and on Trade Issues generally because I think it is important to put that side up front and centre before we get into what is the meat of the agreement and why Canadians should be concerned. First off, and this is something you'll hear from the Free Trade cheer leaders, you'll certainly hear about it from the government on the issue of CETA, is that Free Trade Agreements have brought unprecedented prosperity to Canada. And that is something you'll hear from lobbyists in Ottawa, that are certainly far more out of touch as to what is happening to the people of Canada than the people of Nelson. The fundamental problem with that argument, that Free Trade Agreements have brought unprecedented prosperity to Canada, is that it's simply not true. Stats Can has been following Canadian family income levels since 1989, which is the implementation date for the first Canada Us trade agreement. This what they tell us after 20 years; the middle class, and those are families generally earning between 40 to 60 thousand dollars a year, have lost on average one week of income for each and every year since the Canada US Free Trade Agreement was signed and implemented back in 1989. In other words they are working their 52 week years but it's like they are being paid only for 51. For the lower middle class families earning 20 to 40 thousand, the decline has been even more pronounced they've lost twice that. Two weeks of income, for each and every year since the trade agreements were implemented. And for the poorest of Canadians the decline has been even more pronounced. For those Canadians earning less than 20 thousand a year they've lost a month of income upon average for each and every year since 1989. Now it hasn't been the same for all levels of society, and it is true to say that one part, the wealthiest of Canadians have actually seen their incomes sky rocket over this same period, their incomes are up 35%. The wealthiest of Canadians; the corporate lobbyist, the corporate CEO's, now take most of the Canadian income pie in Canada. They take over 50% of the whole income in Canada. Now the income decline has been particularly pronounced among the youngest of Canadians, so let's look at the reality today 20 years later with the Free Trade Agreements but also with the accompanying economic policies because what we are talking about is a package of economic policies including Free Trade that has led to this decline in income. For most young people today they have actually found that their income has declined, they are going on to the job market with lower wages than existed before, for most of the jobs that are created in the economy today the jobs are actually part time or temporary in nature. What that means is that those younger people who are coming in at lower starting wages are not able to get the full time family sustaining wages that used to exist in our economy at a time when we had much more progressive economic policies. And most of those jobs that the younger people are looking for no longer come with pensions, so look at this portrait for just a moment. We're looking at record levels of student debt, young people coming onto the job market with lower level of wages, not able to get anything more than part time or temporary jobs through the course of their working career and at the end of their working career they are looking at a situation where it is most probable they will not have a pension at the end of their working life...

• published: 14 Feb 2011
• views: 463