A second 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."
27 October 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:
I wrote to you on Sept. 6th regarding the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), which if passed would cripple our Parliament's ability to pass laws in the public interest. I wrote "your government ... intends to transfer power from Parliament to large corporations, eliminating public control over them within Canada, without the informed consent of the Canadian people."
This is a serious allegation. However, in your response of Sept. 19th, you neither confirmed nor challenged my statement. You just said, "your letter clearly sets out the issues of concern." Mr. Harb, what is your current belief about the MAI? Has it changed since you defended the MAI by phone with me during the federal election?
Below I will try to explain why, regrettably, I cannot make use of your response.
I seek to become properly informed, as part of my democratic duty as a citizen. Accordingly, I expect you to write me an informative response. It is reasonable to expect you as my Member of Parliament, especially in the governing party, to inform your constituents fully on the government's intentions and the reasoning for them, so they understand that you are making properly informed decisions (i.e. you vote on government bills) on their behalf.
Thus I wrote that "It ... seems reasonable that you:
1. "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 that you
2. "make clear to your constituents the implications of the MAI for Canadians," as you see them, and
3. "explain who would benefit from each MAI proposal, who would bear what costs and risks, and why they should."
I also wrote that, in my view: "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
4. "urging the appropriate House of Commons committee hold public hearings across the country without delay to examine the MAI proposals," and now that Minister Marchi has agreed to hearings, "ensure that we in Ottawa Centre are informed of such hearings."
I also wrote: "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."
All this seemed clear. But you misrepresented my request. You responded, "I can understand your desire for more information and for public awareness of the implications of such an agreement." You changed "expectation" to "desire." They have two different meanings. You imply that the need for public awareness is simply desire on my part, that in effect, "I do not recognize any expectations for my conduct as an MP"; only constituents' "desires." If you meant something different, would you please say so?
Finally, I asked, "What actions will you take?"
And you responded:
"Please be assured that I will look into the various sections of the [MAI] draft which you have indicated are of special concern and will communicate with my colleagues and the constituents of Ottawa Centre on issues which require review or input."
However, "communicate with my colleagues" tells constituents nothing, and "communicate with the constituents of Ottawa Centre" suggests that (A) our MP will decide for us (likely having been told by the Minister's office) which issues we should be informed about and which we should not, and (B) that your communication with your constituents will be little more than "tell and sell." Now that hearings are scheduled for November, will you inform all your constituents of such hearings, without delay?
I realize that you are very busy, and that perhaps the Minister is too busy to answer your queries, and that staff draft your responses. However, I am prepared to pursue this matter to the full extent necessary to get a clear response from my own Member of Parliament. It is our duty as citizens to spread the word (e.g. through community newspapers) about legitimate questions that we ask our MPs, and any responses given that would seen by citizens as not answering in good faith. The irony with the MAI proposal is that it would enforce such good-faith answering through its "Transparency" provision, but to investors only (notably large corporations). Under the MAI, all your other constituents would become, at least in legal terms, second-class citizens.
I trust that you will not send another disappointing "non-response" in which my MP says simply, "leave it with me." Rather, I would like you to answer my questions. Will you please tell me specifically, for each of the four expectations mentioned above -- simply yes or no for each:
A) whether you agree that they are reasonable and B) whether you will meet these expectations?
And will you do it before it is too late for you to convey constituents' views to your Minister before the next MAI negotiation round?
Sincerely,
Terry Cottam
1004-218 MacLaren St.
Ottawa ON K2P 0L7
di238@freenet.carleton.ca
(613) 236-6433