A first letter to an MP on the MAI
Shown here to illustrate how you might apply accountability
principles to the MAI
Please see analysis under "Meeting with our MP
on the MAI.".
5 September 1997
Mac Harb, MP for Ottawa Centre
Centre Block Rm. 552-D
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
harbm@parl.gc.ca
(Parliamentary office 996-5322)
Dear Mr. Harb:
In the very near future, your government plans a fundamental change to how our laws are made in Canada. It intends to transfer power from Parliament to large corporations, eliminating public control over them within Canada, without the informed consent of the Canadian people.
Under the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), all of Canada's governments -- including provincial and municipal -- would cease to have power to implement laws in the public interest if the laws ran counter to the aims of transnational corporations. The MAI is being negotiated through the 29 rich countries of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) but would be open to any other country. In the words of Renato Ruggiero, Director General of the World Trade Organization, "we are writing the constitution of a single global economy."
I have acquired a copy of May 13th draft the MAI, read it and shown it to several others. Let me suggest you look under "Dispute Settlement, Investor-State" starting on page 61. There you will find provisions for a closed tribunal that can be best described as a "kangaroo court," because of its blatant built-in bias towards investors. For instance, it would permit corporations to sue governments to uphold the provisions of this treaty, but contains no provision for governments to sue corporations.
In other words, corporations would rule our elected governments, rather than the other way around. The MAI enshrines "investor rights" as globally enforcable over the rights of humans and other lifeforms.
Mr. Harb, I have been discussing this matter with other citizens in your riding. The shocking injustice represented by this proposal serves as an urgent reminder that Canadians are entitled to fair and competent representation by our elected officials. It thus seems reasonable that you:
- inform yourself about the MAI's implications for Canadians, to a standard reasonable to expect of a Member of Parliament, in order that you can recommend passing, amending or rejecting this proposed treaty, and
- make clear to your constituents the implications of the MAI for Canadians, and explain who would benefit from each MAI proposal, who would bear what costs and risks, and why they should.
Your constituents in Ottawa Centre can fairly expect you to set out this information publicly, item by item, allowing any challenges of its validity. This is simply applying the precautionary principle that citizens apply to important responsibilities such as safety and the environment.
As our MP, it is your duty to ensure genuine public consultation and debate BEFORE our government takes action to commit Canada to this treaty. This includes urging the appropriate House of Commons committee hold public hearings across the country without delay to examine the MAI proposals, and ensure that we in Ottawa Centre are informed of such hearings.
Do you agree that these expectations are fair? If so, what actions will you take to meet them?
I look forward to your reply in the very near future. The OECD's deadline to finalize the MAI is now May 1998, but does not rule out the agreement being finalized even sooner.
Sincerely,
Terry Cottam
1004-218 MacLaren St.
Ottawa ON K2P 0L7
di238@freenet.carleton.ca
(613) 236-6433