The MAI Hearings...
by the Sub-Committee dealing with the MAI
(Full name: Sub-committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment)

...are over! There are no plans for more hearings. Nonetheless, call your MP and ask, "when there will be an MAI hearing in our area?" We comment on the hearings below.

The Sub-Committee continues for the duration of MAI negotiations. It reported its recommendations in December. The evidence from most or all the hearings is now available. For instance, the Nov. 4th session consists of a statement by Sergio Marchi, Minister of International Trade followed by questions and answers by Marchi and William Dymond, MAI, Chief Negociator.

The Sub-Committee was struck Oct 23 by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They met Nov. 4th, 5th and 7th to hear testimony from Minister Marchi, the chief MAI negotiator, Bob White with Canadian Labour Congress, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. They met 3:15 to 5:30, Nov.17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26 and 27 to hear public presenters.

Most requests to appear before the Sub-Committee were not considered because of the hundreds of applications for a mere 24 public slots. For information on the hearings contact the Clerk of the Sub-Committee, Mr. Richard Rumas, at (613) 996-1664. Fax 947-9670, e-mail rumasr@parl.gc.ca.

Sub-Committee members: (9 total)

Government

Chair: Bob Speller
Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Trade Minister)
Sarmite Bulte
Raymond Folco
Robert Nault

Opposition Members

Bill Blaikie (NDP)
Charlie Penson (Reform)
Maud Debien (BQ)
Benoit Sauvageau (BQ)
Scot Brison (PC)

These hearings are a farce

The MAI-Not! Project with OPIRG-Carleton will release an analysis of the fairness of the hearing process. Meanwhile, we note that:

Minister Marchi has allowed only snap hearings with only 20 hours allotted for public testimony, only in Ottawa, with no publicity, and only after opposition pressure. While the debate has been useful (with Bob White, Tony Clarke, Maude Barlow and others skilfully taking on MAI proponents), the outcome will be predetermined by the nature of the process, such as Liberal-dominated committees subject to party and Cabinet discipline, arbitrary restrictions on public participation, and absence of any requirement by the government to defend its own proposal.

We assert that Canadians can reasonably expect Members of Parliament to explain the MAI proposal to the public. Canadians do not need to defend their opposition to any government proposal. We can expect answers as to:

• "Who would benefit from the M.A.I., how and why, in the short term and long term?
• "Who would bear what costs and risks, and why, in the short term and long term?

In our view, it's fair to say, "no answering, no MAI."

Updated 29 Dec 1997