Hey everybody,
On Friday, Dec.4th/98 Elizabeth May, executive director of the Sierra Club
of Canada, testified before a committee of the Nova Scotia Legislature.
The Standing Committee on Economic Development heard from Elizabeth on the
subject of MAI with particular regard to the status of negotiations and
the likely effect of the MAI on the local economy.
Having acted as an intermediary between the Sierras and the Clerk of the
committee I felt considerable satisfaction (and relief) at the mere fact
of the presentation at length going ahead. All the same the meeting itself
proved interesting.
The committee is composed of 9 MLAs, three from each party in the
Legislature. The full complement of NDP members showed up, supported by
their caucus colleague Howard Epstein, a brace of Tories were on hand and
all three government members were in attendance.
I found that guessing party affiliations was pleasantly diverting (though
a trifle too easy). I was already acquainted with 3 of the 4 NDP MLAs
while the fourth was a dead giveaway in view of his easy manner with
Howard and the others.
The Liberals made themselves fairly obvious by their obnoxious manner :
one of them spent virtually the whole session noisily destroying a
styrofoam cup while a second, arms folded, stared directly ahead,
maintaining a supercilious expression throughout. I gained the distinct
impression that they had decided in advance to barricade themselves
against the presentation.
By process of elimination this left the Conservative duo. They were much
more polite than the Grits but did not display quite the degree of
interest in the proceedings manifested by the NDP.
Elizabeth gave a brief account of the development of negotiations on
multilateral investment in the recent past, stressing that the OECD-MAI
had to be understood in the broader context of the ongoing liberalisation
of international commerce. To this end, perhaps, and to simplify the
matter, she gave the impression that multilateral investment talks
originated at the World Trade Organization (whereas negotiations at the
OECD began in 1995 prior even to the establishment of the WTO).
The above notwithstanding Elizabeth's attempt to convey the message that
concerns about the MAI arose not from one text in isolation, but from a
set of principles common to a number of treaties, met with mixed success.
Jamie Muir (PC/Truro-Bible Hill), seemed very intent on finding out
whether "the" MAI was alive or dead and appeared unpersuaded that
negotiations at the WTO could be tantamount to the same thing. Meanwhile,
Francene Cosman, Minister of Community Services (the only Grit who deigned
to speak at any point), apparently considered that it was "back to the
drawing-board" for proponents of the MAI.
For all that I would say that Elizabeth opened some eyes. Her exposition
covered the drawbacks of NAFTA chapter 11 and like provisions in other
instruments (such as the MAI, of course). Elizabeth definitely got some
attention when she explained that chapter 11 allows multinational
corporations to sue Canadian governments in secret and without a chance of
appeal. The Opposition members attended closely and even the pugnacious
Cosman did not try to defend the measures described.
As an environmentalist Elizabeth was clearly less than comfortable
speculating on the possible economic outfall from the MAI. Her main
contribution in this area was to explain that a key element of the current
crop of investment treaties is "national treatment", which is to say,
according the same treatment (by legislators) to all investors regardless
of whether they are foreign or domestic.
Elizabeth cited enforcement of the 200 mile offshore limit as a clear
violation of national treatment and noted that there would be implications
for other resource extracting enterprises such as logging companies and
the Sable Offshore Energy consortium. Of course, given that the Sierras
are far from keen on SOEP and Nova Scotia's present forestry practices, it
is not to be wondered at that Elizabeth evidently found it hard to become
exercised about this type of provision.
Instead Elizabeth naturally focussed on environmental issues. She showed
how the WTO in particular has had a devestatingly regressive impact,
breaking ground for the production and distribution of genetically
modified material, promoting drift-net fishing and so on. This, she
explained, was an inevitable result of the WTO's singleminded dedication
to advancing the corporate agenda.
Her proposed solution was the promotion of countervailing institutions : a
World Environmental Organization and a pumped-up International Labor
Organization. Readers may recall some recent messages which I sent
reporting advocacy of this idea by prominent public figures such as French
Prime Minister Lionel Jospin (and also outlining my disagreements with
this course of action! See
'Green WTO analog
promoted').
After Elizabeth's exposition the committee members were invited to ask her
questions. As might be expected, division of powers figured prominently
with Howard wanting to know how the provinces could be bound in their
areas of jurisdiction by an international undertaking on the part of the
federal government.
Seemingly caught on the hop, Elizabeth spent a few moments fumbling for an
answer. In the end she responded by suggesting that a foreign corporation
could launch proceedings against Ottawa should the firm feel itself
aggrieved by a province (or a municipality, which is not a separate level
of government under the constitution but a subset of provincial rule).
Ottawa in turn would hold said province accountable by, e.g., withholding
tax disbursements.
In a brief discussion afterwards with Elizabeth and Howard the three of us
agreed that, in essence, Canada's negotiating team had simply not bothered
itself with constitutional niceties. Absorbed in their mission of writing
the "constitution of a new global economy" (to quote WTO Director-General
Reanto Ruggiero) the negotiators must either have overlooked the issue of
separation of powers or regarded it merely as a technical obstruction
which would be dealt with in due time.
Howard's participation induced a contretemps, with Cosman stating her
displeasure at his pinch-hitting (Howard is not a member of the Economic
Development Committee). For his part Howard - veteran of the cavilling
Municipal Council - heckled Cosman and snapped his newspaper in her
general direction. Darrell Dexter (NDP/Dartmouth-Cole Harbour), Chair of
the committee, remained impassive in the face of the members' provocation
and eventually the duellists dropped the matter.
Maureen MacDonald (NDP/Halifax Needham) set out a view - one she
characterized as that of a friend working in the field of international
development - and asked for Elizabeth's thoughts on the subject. Briefly,
MacDonald's friend regards nation states as sites of institutionalized
racism and consequently considers the dimunition of government's role as
potentially liberatory. (In passing let me add that this position is one
of the principal apologetics of neoliberal discourse).
Elizabeth responded strongly, not by trying to absolve nation states of
wrongdoing but by showing that handing control over to transnational
corporations could only render conditions even more inegalitarian. Quoting
UNCTAD's 1998 Trade and Development Report Elizabeth noted that the
combined wealth of the planet's three richest individuals is equal to the
GNP of the 48 poorest COUNTRIES. Moreover, corporate executives are
unaccountable even to their own shareholders; how, she wondered aloud, can
tipping the balance of power even further in their favor produce a juster
world?
The most electric and, arguably, most productive exchange took place
between Cosman and Elizabeth. After noting acidly (albeitly correctly)
that Elizabeth had provided an overly long answer to a fairly
straightforward query, Cosman went on to enquire as to how Canada could
reap the benefits promised by the MAI without incurring the costs which
Elizabeth had warned of (e.g. investor-state lawsuits).
Since, in framing her question, Cosman had made reference to the presumed
difficulty of establishing international labor and environmental
standards, Elizabeth first addressed this aspect. Elizabeth noted that in
fact these standards are already being inscribed in treaties. However,
they are degraded ones - as they are bound to be in covenants that take as
a given that aught that hinders international trade is ipso facto
illegitimate.
Thus having disarmed her interlocutor Elizabeth pressed the advantage of
her position by putting paid to the suggestion that any possible advantage
could accrue to Canada via the MAI. She noted that Canada's International
Trade Minister Sergio Marchi had as much as said so himself. It is not
Canada, Elizabeth stated, but perhaps a handful of major Canadian
companies which could conceivably profit from the MAI.
Building upon the foregoing Elizabeth's peroration introduced the concept
of a very different kind of investment treaty. Instead of looking at how
to free up capital flows Elizabeth argued that it is past time to regulate
them - or at least so-called "hot money" - by means of an international
tax on currency transactions such as that proposed by US economist James
Tobin. When Elizabeth revealed that Sergio Marchi and even Paul Martin
had shown interest in a Tobin Tax Cosman - "deserted" by her federal
colleagues - was reduced to muttering that she hoped the Chair would bring
in a spokesperson for the other side of the matter. Fred McMahon from
AIMS, maybe?
---Antoni
AIMS - Atlantic Institute for Market Studies
GNP-Gross National Product
MAI-Multilateral Agreement on Investment
MLA-Member of the Legislative Assembly
NAFTA-North American Free Trade Agreement
NDP-New Democratic Party
OECD-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PC-Progressive Conservative
UNCTAD-United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
WTO-World Trade Organization