> Peter C. Newman, Macleans Magazine, March 2, 1998 > > MAI: a time bomb with a very short fuse > > The inability of negotiators in Paris to finalize the proposed > Multilateral Agreement on Investment gives Canada a welcome chance to > stand back and consider the treaty's awesome consequences. > > Ottawa has been virtually silent on the issue, presumably following the > same advice as was given in a secret PMO memo, leaked in Maclean's when > the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated in 1988. At > the time, Brian Mulroney's advisers told their master: "It is likely > that the higher the profile the issue attains, the lower the degree of > public > support will be. Benign neglect from a majority of Canadians may be the > realistic outcome of a well-executed communications > program." > > That has certainly been Trade Minister Sergio Marchi's approach, and it > has worked up to now. Considering that 29 countries, > including Canada, have been negotiating the new trade accord since May, > 1995, the proceedings have been kept amazingly > secret. There has yet to be a full-scale parliamentary debate on the > issue; it is as if the future of this country had surreptitiously > been relegated to senior civil servants, apparently with a mandate to > sign the country away. They have done virtually all the > negotiations to date, and no one with any degree of public > accountability has had much of a look in. This is not only wrong; it is > stupid. > > Nobody understands the likely impact of the MAI. Reading the draft > treaty, I kept thinking it must be either a joke, or Tom > d'Aquino's ultimate dream come true. To be fair, d'Aquino and the > Business Council on National Issues that he heads, have > been surprisingly quiet on the issue. When I talked to him about MAI, he > would only say "the fundamentals of the Multilateral > Agreement on Investment have been around for years. All that stuff about > reciprocal access to each other's economies, none of > it is really new. > > "And yet MAI has been painted by the left as this great Satan. To say > this is going to be the final screw-down, and that we're > going to lose our sovereignty is madness, absolute madness. It's only > through economic emancipation, only through being > economically stronger, that we have the best chance of protecting our > independence and our sovereignty." > > > > The Supreme Court ought to be examining the legality of signing the > MAI instead of Quebec's possible independence > > His argument is valid, in terms of the notion that only the strong can > survive in a global economy. But the question remains > whether any self-respecting country can sign such an agreement. Unless > it doesn't mean what it says, and is a statement of > philosophy instead of intention, its provisions will rob national > governments of the ability to impose sovereignty inside their own > territory. Once that is gone, what is the point of pretending you're > still a country? > > If we sign the MAI as it is now written, the threat to Canada could far > outweigh the potential harm of Quebec separation. The > Supreme Court of Canada ought to be examining the legality of such a > treaty, instead of the largely symbolic case of Quebec's > possible unilateral declaration of independence. > > The heart of the MAI is that there ought to be no difference between > domestic and foreign investors in any of the 29 countries > that make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. > That could mean an end to protection for any > cultural sector or parts of the economy currently covered by domestic > ownership rules. Everything would be wide open in such > a Darwinian world, up for grabs to the highest bidder. In all likelihood > that would be some U.S. transnational, which would > treat our most treasured institutions with all the subtlety of a Genghis > Khan. Carla Hills, the U.S. trade representative, recently > gave cause for concern when she summed up American trade intentions this > way: "We want corporations to be able to make > investments overseas without being required to take local partners, to > export a given percentage of their output, to use local > parts, or to meet a dozen other domestic restrictions." > > The MAI, if I read it correctly, goes even further than granting > national treatment to foreign corporations. In effect, it endows > privately owned corporations with the power -- but not accountability -- > of nation-states. It is no coincidence that 488 of > Fortune's 500 leading global corporations are domiciled in OECD > countries. (Only five Canadian companies -- BCE Inc., > CIBC, George Weston Ltd., Royal Bank of Canada and Seagram Co. Ltd. -- > make the grade.) The MAI would remove > many barriers that now apply to these corporate giants, and the ability > of the government to freely take action regarding > environmental standards, labor laws and patent exclusions that adversely > affect foreign investors would be compromised. This > kind of sanction would not merely apply to big companies doing large > transactions in high finance. Its effects run close to the > ground, where we live and work. If Wal-Mart decided to build near a > village square, and the locals won a referendum halting > the superstore's construction, Wal-Mart could then sue under the MAI, > and win. > > As more and more Canadians realize the Multilateral Agreement on > Investment's full implications, they will demand a national > debate about its pros and cons. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment > may become law, but it is my bet that its unforeseen > consequences will be one of the defining issues in the general election > of 2001. >
