Meeting our MP on the MAI
Shown here to illustrate how you might apply accountability
principles to the MAI.
By Terry Cottam, MAI-Not!
Project and Henry McCandless, Alliance
for Public Accountability
MP: Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre
Time and date: 5pm, 10 Dec 1997.
Present: Terry Cottam, Henry McCandless, Madalena Santos and Bob
Lamont.
All but Bob live in Mac Harb's riding.
We met beforehand for an hour to plan our questioning strategy. We then met for one hour in his office in Centre Block, Parliament Hill, with his assistant.
In general, Mac Harb was friendly, and passionately argued the rhetoric of globalization and free trade at every opportunity. He also evaded many of the questions put to him, very much like a Minister in Question Period.
He opened by saying that he was "fully familiar with" the MAI, yet at the end asked Terry Cottam for his copy to photocopy it for constituents, should they ask for it. We asked him instead to phone the clerk of the House committee that discussed the MAI. (This underscored the value of us bringing a copy of the draft MAI text to test out the MP's awareness of its contents.)
Mr. Harb had difficulty (either real or feigned) with the "who" question, from the equity statement idea (see Accountability Principles, http://mai.flora.org). By contrast, this was grasped instantly by the audience at a MAI debate at our local Unitarian Church in September, that the government should set out for citizens who would benefit from the MAI and who would bear what costs and risks.
For brevity, this summary leaves out (a) the MP's responses not answering the questions put to him, which were extensive, and (b) statements of belief made by we the interviewers, which are less crucial than our specific questions put to the MP. The summary also clusters the questions and statements, rather than strictly following the discussion sequence.
Question to MP: "So who would benefit from the MAI?"
MP: Canada. Everyone. Take Northern Telecom. A big, successful, Canadian company with revenues from all over the world. When they sell more phone switches overseas, everyone at Nortel benefits, including the middle and lower level employees. In Ottawa, when Nortel does well, so does everyone in Ottawa. Nortel does its R and D mostly in Canada, lots of highly-paid, skilled jobs.
MP: The MAI should be global, extending to WTO countries. (My personal view is that) the MAI is so important that OECD/WTO should exclude countries that refuse to sign the MAI. Asked if we could quote him on that, he retracted and said if they choose not to sign, it's their choice.
MP: The MAI will protect Canadian corporations, such as others stealing Teleglobe's signals.
Q: Can't Nortel move jobs to some country such as India that has lower wages? Wouldn't allowing companies to move wherever, whenever they wished be harmful to Canadian production?
MP: That's globalization; People in India and elsewhere deserve to have jobs too. Each country should do what it's best at. It's a two-way street: Canadians shouldn't worry; they are the best in the world in (named half a dozen mostly technology areas)
(We failed to ask: But what happens to the Canadian (and Indian) employees left without jobs when the transnationals move the manufacturing/work location? And what ensures that Canadians do more than just assemble parts and ship them back out again?)
MP: Canadian laws would not be affected by the MAI, including environmental laws.
Q: What about Ethyl Corp suing the Crown under NAFTA for lost projected profits over MMT because of Canadian environmental regulations? Wouldn't a successful claim overturn Canadian law?
MP: Did not answer the question.
Q: Citizens need to be adequately informed on the important implications of the MAI. What do you plan to do to inform your constituents, for example in public consultations, your householder, etc?
MP: If there is enough interest, then I'll explain the MAI to constituents (ie no proactive action planned, which fits with the Mulroney government 1985 leaked memo on free trade cited by Toronto Star article, which counselled keeping issues out of public debate because debate lessened their chances for support. A week after our meeting with the MP his December Householder was distributed to his constituents. It had no mention of the MAI, confirming his intention of not raising the issue with constituents.)
Q: Does the MAI add anything significant beyond NAFTA?
MP: Apart from saying that there is no formal Agreement yet to compare with NAFTA, the MP did not answer the question.
Q: Do we need enabling legislation for the MAI, beyond that enacted for MAFTA?
MP: I don't think so. I hope not!
Q: If no enabling legislation is needed, how will the MAI get discussed in the House?
MP: Opposition Days or Members' motions can create the discussion/debate.
(We did not ask: Are there rules of procedure that could truncate MPs' debate in the House?)
MP: It's important to understand that there is no Agreement: the circulating May and October 1997 drafts of the MAI are just discussion papers.
Q: Wouldn't you say that such a document, started two years ago, would have been seen by the participating executive governments enough times such that the probability is high that the latest draft, for the most part, reflects what would be agreed to in April 1998?
MP: Did not answer the question.
Q: Wouldn't you agree that the MAI intentions should be set out for Canadians so they can act to approve, alter it or halt Canada from signing?
MP: I trust our negotiators to protect Canada's interests. Anyone who would oppose transparency would oppose any kind of trade agreement. (note: the MAI meaning of transparency is creating a "hit-list" of a country's laws to be rolled back.) What's being circulated is not an official document; it's just a draft paper done for the OECD. No country has signed it. Citizens' questions should start once a draft exists that's authoritative (April 1998). If they don't like it, citizens can write to any number of people: their MP, Minister, Prime Minister, etc, and attend committee hearings.
CONCLUSION:
Mac Harb makes a good mini-case study in underscoring an elected representative's accountability for explaining the MAI. In this case, a loyal government party member who associates himself with business interests rather than community-building, and is unsympathetic to any position that smacks of "trade protectionism." Yet he argues the cause for literacy and education rights in Canada. He was, on the whole, uncooperative and somewhat patronizing in answering our questions, in the sense that he knew what we were getting at but didn't respond.
FURTHER ACTION:
Our experience suggests that other Harb constituents should meet with him and force answers to the "who" questions beyond generalities citing companies such as Nortel. For others meeting with other MPs, they should be prepared to force their MPs to state whether they think the "who benefits and who pays" questions are important to be answered for Canadians, and what the MPs' own answers are.
In the case of Mac Harb, we printed an article on his response to both inquiry letters on the MAI, in our community paper, the Centretown Buzz (also posted here). We did not use Harb's second response to Cottam's letter in our meeting with him, and we should have, so we still need to use that written round in future meetings which build on Harb's written response. Nonetheless, it serves as a useful example to publicize for other constituents to consider, that of a ritual response from their MP, whose mind is already made up.
In our post-meeting discussion, we decided to post our experience on the MAI-not! web page to help others with interviewing their MPs and to get further than we did in this "pilot" run with Mac Harb. It would be useful for other MAI-Not's to try asking the "who" questions to their MP, write up their experience as we have done, post it on the newsgroup and our website, and of course, make it available to the MP's constituents through community media and public events.