FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Canada and the TPP

What are we to make of the Trudeau government’s schizophrenic attitude towards the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)?  Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland formally signed the agreement yesterday in New Zealand but repeated her assurances that critics shouldn’t worry – the government hasn’t committed to ratifying it and consultations and a full Parliamentary debate will precede any ratification. Fair enough – ratification is at least two years away. Yet so far the consultation process has not penetrated the ideological bubble created by her trade department officials. In spite of the fact that by far the biggest concern of critics of the deal (including Joseph Stiglitz and a United Nations report) is the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) feature (the one that allows corporations to sue governments for regulating), she seems to be either ill-informed or misled about its impact. At a panel discussion in Vancouver in January she seemed unaware of the ISDS.  Her fellow panelists, both economics professors, actively downplayed the threat of ISDS.

For many of us who have dealt in the past with the trade bureaucrats promoting these investment protection agreements it is easy enough to suspect that Freeland is being deliberately misinformed by her own staff. There is no doubt that the Trudeau government is eager to portray itself as open to persuasion on the TPP. To bolster the position that they still might say no, the government has engaged in a flurry of consultations across the country and has made a point of inviting ordinary concerned citizens to send in questions and criticisms to Global Affairs Canada. TPP-PTP.consultations@international.gc.ca. Sounds good so far. But it is the execution that raises serious questions about how genuine the consultation will be.

First, the consultations reveal that the vast majority have been with groups supportive of these agreements: provincial government ministers, business groups, industry reps, universities, etc. Of 74 such meetings (as of Jan 31) there have been just a handful with “students” (but no student council representatives who have actually studied the TPP) and a couple with labour – the CLC and Unifor. There have been literally no meetings with NGOs who have actually taken the time to closely examine the TPP – not the Council of Canadians, not the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, not any First Nations (whose solemn agreements with governments can be trumped by ISDS) nor any environmental groups.

Obviously there is still time for such NGO engagement but the opening volley does not bode well for balanced input. The more serious sign that trade officials are busy manipulating their minister is the answers that Global Affairs Canada provides to individual Canadians who take them up on the offer to engage. When they write to the government asking about investment protection and the ISDS in the TPP here’s the response they get:

“With respect to Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), the TPP will not impair the ability of Canada or its partners to regulate and legislate in areas such as the environment, culture, safety, health and conservation. Our experience under the NAFTA demonstrates that neither our investment protection rules nor the ISDS mechanism constrain any level of government from regulating in the public interest.”

This official government reply to Canadian citizens is so brazenly dishonest and demonstrably false as to shock even the most jaded cynic. Does Freeland know what is being said in her name? Since NAFTA came into effect on Jan 1, 1994 it has been subjected to over 35 NAFTA investor-state claims. Nearly two thirds of these have involved challenges to environmental protection or resource management. Canada has already paid out over $170 million in damages in six cases (lost or settled) and abandoned most of the “offending” legislation and regulations. We currently face additional corporate challenges totaling over $6 billion in potential penalties for NAFTA “violations” such as the Quebec government’s decision to ban fracking under the St. Lawrence River.

This, of course, does not take account of the legislation and regulations (including those of the provinces) that have never made it out their cribs – killed by the chill effect of knowing they wouldn’t pass ISDS muster. A recent UN report quoted a former Canadian official as saying: “I’ve seen the letters from the New York and [Washington] D.C. law firms coming up to the Canadian government on virtually every new environmental regulation…. Virtually all of the new initiatives were targeted and most of them never saw the light of day.”

In one of the most egregious cases ever decided under NAFTA (Bilcon of Delaware) a NAFTA tribunal last year effectively overruled federal and provincial governments’ environmental concerns in allowing a quarry to go ahead in Nova Scotia. In a detailed dissenting opinion one of tribunal’s members, University of Ottawa law Professor Donald McRae stated: “Once again, a chill will be imposed on environmental review panels which will be concerned not to give too much weight to socio-economic considerations or other considerations of the human environment in case the result is a claim for damages under NAFTA Chapter 11. In this respect, the decision of the majority will be seen as a remarkable step backwards in environmental protection.”

When the Bilcon decision came out even one of NAFTA’s strongest supporters, Toronto trade lawyer Larry Herman, immediately expressed concern that the dispute tribunals were unilaterally expanding their mandate to circumvent domestic courts. The Bilcon decision Herman observed: “…will feed ammunition to those who oppose international arbitration as a form of dispute settlement.”

Just as these unaccountable panels are expanding their powers to interfere in the democratic legislative process, Canada is about to extend these arbitrary powers to corporations in nine more countries in the TPP. Yet so far that Bilcon “ammunition” has run smack up against the Kevlar vests in the Global Affairs bureaucracy. The latter is powerfully reminiscent of the bad old days of DFAIT – the old Department of Foreign Affairs and International Development – where a priesthood of trade bureaucrats protected the Holy Grail of “free trade” against all detractors. So deeply did they believe in their mission that factual analysis of agreements like NAFTA and the MAI was not even acknowledged let alone listened to.

Noel Schacter, the Director of the International Branch & chief negotiator of trade policy for the BC NDP government in the late 1990s, recalls dealing with the federal officials:

“Federal government trade negotiators sold free trade by overstating the upsides and underestimating the downsides.  This was especially true of investor-state provisions which had the potential to be lethally damaging to critical social policy areas such as Medicare or the environment.  These public servants appeared to have little knowledge of these social policy areas and little concern. During my tenure I never saw any independent analysis that demonstrated why provisions in trade treaties were necessary or how the broader public good would be served.  It often felt like being in a temple of true believers and those of us who questioned the doctrine were heretics.”

Is there any way to counter the pernicious influence of these free trade zealots?  The most powerful antidote would be independent analyses of the various controversial areas of the TPP – in other words genuine consultation. Literally the only time this has ever been done regarding these agreements was under the NDP government of Glen Clark which provided funding for numerous social sectors – such as First Nations, women, unions, and environmentalists – to hire independent experts and study the impact of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) on their constituencies. The resulting studies led the government to oppose the MAI (which eventually failed).

If Mr. Trudeau and his Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland are truly committed to broad consultation beyond the business community they should follow the same model. In fact, they already do something similar under the authority of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency which administers a “Participant Funding Program,   which supports individuals, non-profit organizations and Aboriginal groups interested in participating in federal environmental assessments.” It would be a tragic irony if this consultation program led to new environmental legislation – only to find that it violated the TPP and triggered a multi-billion dollar investor-state suit.

More articles by:

MURRAY DOBBIN, now living in Powell River, BC has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist for over forty years.  He can be reached at murraydobbin@shaw.ca

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
March 27, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Rob Urie
Bailouts for the Rich, the Virus for the Rest of Us
Louis Proyect
Life and Death in the Epicenter
Paul Street
“I Will Not Kill My Mother for Your Stock Portfolio”
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The Scum Also Rises
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Stimulus Bill Allows Federal Reserve to Conduct Meetings in Secret; Gives Fed $454 Billion Slush Fund for Wall Street Bailouts
Jefferson Morley
Could the Death of the National Security State be a Silver Lining of COVID-19?
Ruth Hopkins
A Message For America from Brazil’s First Indigenous Congresswoman
Kathleen Wallace
The End of the Parasite Paradigm
Anthony DiMaggio
Misinformation and the Coronavirus: On the Dangers of Depoliticization and Social Media
Andrew Levine
Neither Biden Nor Trump: Imagine Cuomo
David Rosen
God’s Vengeance: the Christian Right and the Coronavirus
David Schultz
The Covid-19 Bailout: Another Failed Opportunity at Structural Change
Evaggelos Vallianatos
In the Grip of Disease
Edward Leer
Somebody Else’s World: An Interview with Kelly Reichardt
Robert Fisk
What Trump is Doing in the Middle East While You are Distracted by COVID-19
Daniel Warner
COVID-19: Health or Wealth?
Thomas Klikauer – Norman Simms
Corona in Germany: Hording and Authoritarianism
Ramzy Baroud
BJP and Israel: Hindu Nationalism is Ravaging India’s Democracy
Richard Moser
Russia-gate: the Dead But Undead
Ron Jacobs
Politics, Pandemics and Trumpism
Chris Gilbert
Letter From Catalonia: Alarming Measures
Richard Eskow
Seven Rules for the Boeing Bailout
Jonathan Carp
Coronavirus and the Collapse of Our Imaginations
Andrew Bacevich
The Coronavirus and the Real Threats to American Safety and Freedom
Peter Cohen
COVID-19, the Exponential Function and Human the Survival
César Chelala - Alberto Luis Zuppi
The Pope is Wrong on Argentina
James Preston Allen
Alexander Cockburn Meets Charles Bukowski at a Sushi Bar in San Pedro
Jérôme Duval
The Only Oxygen Cylinder Factory in Europe is Shut down and Macron Refuses to Nationalize It
Neve Gordon
Gaza Has Been Under Siege for Years. Covid-19 Could Be Catastrophic
Alvaro Huerta
To Survive the Coronavirus, Americans Should Learn From Mexicans
Prabir Purkayastha
Why the Coronavirus Pandemic Poses Fundamental Challenges to All Societies
Raouf Halaby
Fireside Chatterer Andrew Cuomo for President
Thomas Drake
The Sobering Realities of the American Dystopia
Negin Owliaei
Wash Your Hands…If You Have Water
Felice Pace
A New Threat to California’s Rivers:  Will the Rush to Develop Our Newest Water Source Destroy More Streams?
Ray Brescia
What 9/11 Can Teach Us About Responding to COVID-19
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
The Covid-19 Opportunity
John Kendall Hawkins
An Age of Intoxication: Pick Your Poison
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
The Propaganda Virus: Is Anyone Immune?
Nicky Reid
Fear and Loathing in Coronaville Volume 1: Dispatches From a Terrified Heartland
Nolan Higdon – Mickey Huff
Don’t Just Blame Trump for the COVID-19 Crisis: the U.S. Has Been Becoming a Failed State for Some Time
Susan Block
Coronavirus Spring
David Yearsley
Lutz Alone
CounterPunch News Service
Letter from Truthdig’s Editor-in-Chief Robert Scheer to the Publisher Zuade Kaufman
CounterPunch News Service
Statement From Striking Truthdig Workers
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail