Article from community paper
Submitted after second response was received from
our MP, and before our MP meeting.
Community papers are small but have generally high readership and rarely
reject such submissions.
Centretown BUZZ (free distribution about 7000), Ottawa, December 1997
point-of-view:
Is the M.A.I. a Recipe for
Global Transnational
Corporate Domination?
(...GULP!)
Our Members of Parliament should tell us what they know about a disturbing proposal being negotiated behind closed doors by Canada and twenty-eight other industrialized countries. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is cited as nothing less than a constitution for global rule by transnational corporations.
The MAI would cripple Parliament's ability to implement laws in the public interest, because our governments would give their "unconditional consent" for foreign corporations to sue in order to overturn any core-policy laws that ran counter to their profit aspirations. And since governments would have no right to sue foreign investors, the MAI would pit non-profit organizations and local businesses against powerful transnationals on an uneven playing field.
And make no mistake, the MAI is a local as well as a federal issue. It would affect all government levels, including services such as schools, health services, snowplowing etc., that are normally provided by local firms, organizations or the public sector. If the City of Ottawa even publicly debated barring a transnational's bid because of its poor ethical or environmental performance, its claimed loss of public reputation could be considered "equivalent" to expropriation, and precipitate a lawsuit!
So who wants the MAI, besides large investors and money speculators? Twice I wrote to Ottawa Centre M.P. Mac Harb and asked him to explain, as the central accountability issue, who would benefit from each MAI proposal, who would bear what costs and risks, and why they should. Twice he evaded these question. He said only that "the overriding objective of this process is to strengthen the Canadian economy and to create new jobs for our citizens by increasing foreign investment in Canada and protecting Canadian investments abroad." And yet large foreign corporations continue to lay off workers by the thousands, while small business remains the primary source of job creation.
A commitment to the MAI may be only five months away, yet the Minister for International Trade, Sergio Marchi, has released no detailed explanation of the MAI. He has allowed only snap hearings and only in Ottawa, with no publicity and less than 20 hours for the public testimony against the MAI, that terminated on November 27th.
Mr. Harb's response to me on this was only generic: "We have had the opportunity to hear from proponents and opponents of the MAI and this dialogue has been very useful and informative." The Foreign Affairs committee must report to Parliament in December, based on these limited hearings, on a proposal which would seriously affect Canada's sovereignty. It is unlikely to be critical of the MAI because of its government-member majority.
Mr. Harb seems comfortable with assurances by the Minister and his negotiating team that "Canada will only sign a deal that promotes (our) national interests." He also said he would "communicate with my colleagues and the constituents of Ottawa Centre on issues which require review or input." But how should an MP decide for us which issues we should be informed about? We need to ask Mr. Harb why he supports his government's plans to sign away our democratic rights.
We need to find out what they know about the implications of MAI. For more information, including the full MAI text, call 520-2757, or visit the website http://mai.flora.org.
By Terry Cottam, Co-ordinator "M.A.I.? Tell Us Why" Campaign
Ontario Public Interest Research Group, Carleton University