Why should we stop the  M.A.I.?

MAI stands for
"MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT."

The MAI is being quietly negotiated through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a club of 29 rich countries, with no meaningful debate or input from citizens. The World Trade Organization calls it "the constitution of a single global economy." ¹ The MAI would be "open to accession by all countries,"^{p11 MAI text} with intense pressure to join. The text uses deceptive legal language which obscures the consequences for most people. "Investor" is broadly defined, but large corporations would benefit most because of their size, resources, political and legal clout, and presence in many countries.  

How would transnational corporations benefit?

• AN UNACCOUNTABLE GLOBAL COURT or "effective dispute settlement procedures."^p9 Governments would give their "unconditional consent to the submission of a dispute"^p63 to this new global tribunal. With few exceptions, virtually all our laws, right down to our local bylaws, would be subject to the threat of successful corporate lawsuits through the MAI. If investors from other countries which sign the MAI decided that one of our laws breached the MAI, including laws that held them accountable to employees or our community, they could sue our government for virtually unlimited damages ^p62 under an onerous "expropriationand compensation" clause.^p51 Tribunal rulings would be "final and binding."^p67
• OUTLAWING LOCAL CONTROL. The MAI would phase out laws which restrain transnational business, in order to foster "liberalization of investment regimes." Our governments would "rollback"^p154 or remove laws that violated the MAI and achieve "standstill"^p152 i.e. not pass any more laws which, for instance, hinder access to government contracts by foreign investors,^p31 or give advantage to domestic firms. Under "Transparency,"^p15 governments would create a hit-list of all "non-conforming" laws subject to standstill, rollback, or potential investor disputes.
• RULES FAVOURING GLOBAL BUSINESS would enforce "national treatment" (between foreign and domestic investors) and "most favoured nation" status^p15 (between foreign investors). Every foreign investor could claim "treatment no less favourable" than that applied to the most favoured investor, whether domestic or foreign, in a given country. Domestic businesses in our high-wage, democratic countries would compete directly with foreign investors (i.e. the transnationals) which operate or source in low- wage, low-tax regions ruled by repressive regimes. The MAI would ban restrictions on "transfers"^p53 of capital or "key personnel."^p16 Jobs, plants and profits could move anywhere, anytime with no financial penalty. The MAI would also prohibit "performance requirements"^p19 which require investors to buy, source, hire or invest locally, rather than in low-wage, repressive regimes.

How would common people benefit from the MAI?

THE MAI DRAFT OFFERS NO BENEFITS FOR NON-INVESTORS. The preamble just has vague assurances such as "the creation of employment opportunities and the improvement of living standards."^p9 However, this sounds unlikely if, for instance, the MAI would ban "performance requirements" which encourage job creation or local investment. Also, the MAI tribunal would have no provision for governments to sue foreign investors,² i.e. no means to prosecute foreign-based corporations on environmental, labour or any other social concerns. The U.S. Council on International Business is uncompromising on this: "We will oppose any and all measures to create or even imply binding obligations for governments or business related to the environment or labour."

Why does our government want this treaty?

THE MAI IS A PRODUCT OF ONGOING GOVERNMENT DECEPTION. MPs are not being fully informed. Sergio Marchi, Minister for International Trade, has allowed only a few little-publicized hearings. He even claimed "there is no agreement," that MAI discussions are "preliminary." Yet the MAI was almost ratified in May 1997. Now, contrary to media reports, the MAI is not dead, but has simply switched to one-on-one negotations to deal with dissenting OECD countries. If they sign on, they would be locked in for 20 years.^p95 This "would offend the centuries-old principle... that no government or parliament tie the hands of a future parliament." (Bill Blaikie, MP)

You can hold MP's accountable on the MAI

• WRITE YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. Try our sample letter on the reverse. It challenges MPs to justify their government's own proposal: "Who would benefit from each MAI proposal, and why should they? Who would bear what costs and risks, and why should they?" Try our letter-writing guidelines. Follow up with phone calls, more letters and a meeting. Be sure to ask if s/he has a copy of the MAI draft text. Without it, your MP cannot claim to be properly informed.
• Write op-eds and letters, especially to community papers which are more likely to accept them.
• Educate yourself and all your friends about the MAI and accountability.

Visit our comprehensive website for more information (below). You can help hold our government accountable on the MAI, NAFTA and other anti-democratic proposals, and reclaim Canada for ALL Canadians -- not just a greedy few!

SOURCES: 1. Preamble Collaborative (US); 2. The Corporate Rule Treaty, Tony Clarke, CCPA Apr 97; "P" page no's are from the latest draft M.A.I.: Consolidated Text & Summary, 1 Oct 97 (see our website.) Updated 16 May 1998.