The provisions of an international
agreement to liberalize investment rules around the world are causing concern
among not only social justice activists, but pro-life and pro-family supporters
as well.
The concern is serious enough
to warrant a former federal cabinet minister calling the pact "the most
frightening proposal to come before the Canadian people in my lifetime."
The Multi-lateral Agreement
on Investment (MAI) is being quietly hammered out in Paris by the 29 members
of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, including
Canada, the U.S., most European countries, Japan, New Zealand, Australia,
Mexico and Korea. The process was begun in 1995 to create "a level playing
field" for investors in signatory countries and remedy the supposed weaknesses
of World Trade Organization provisions on investment issues.
Although the agreement was
expected to be ratified by the May 1997 OECD ministerial meeting, various
complexities and major, unresolved differences prompted the setting of
a new deadline for May of this year. But a recent Toronto Star report suggests
public fears have moved the federal government to take a second look at
signing the deal.
And, significantly, most
developing countries have not wanted to be part of the talks because they
have major restrictions on foreign investment and are in no hurry to deregulate.
The MAI's advocates, however, hope that by having a large group of countries
initially sign the deal, more will follow out of a fear that they won't
be able to remain competitive and attract investment.
Critics say blackmail may
also be used to bully developing countries into signing. The scenario is
that these poorer countries will be denied World Bank and IMF loans, investment
or economic aid, thus ushering in another period of neo-colonialism for
them.
The MAI's supporters claim
the pact will both promote and generate global wealth and prove to be an
economic boon to Canada. "Powerful new trading and investing economies
in Asia and Latin America have emerged to compete vigorously with North
America and Europe," the federal government said in a statement. According
to International Trade Minister Sergio Marchi, MAI will "ensure that investment
and trade continue to translate into jobs and prosperity for Canadians
at home."
During a phone-in program
last May, former international trade minister Art Eggleton charged that
opponents of the MAI are simply "fear mongering" and that the pact is "good
for the country." But opponents say the agreement serves as little more
than a charter of rights for multi-national corporations - and such rights
would supersede those of governments and individuals for a minimum of 20
years. It is this fact that most troubles pro-life and pro-family representatives.
Bill Mullally, an adviser
with Campaign Life Coalition in Toronto, said the agreement has the makings
of another, surreptitious United Nations initiative towards one-world government
and population control. "Let's say that at some point in the future, when
a Canadian abortion law is in place, an international consortium tries
to open up in Canada a multi-purpose clinic whose services include abortion.
"Under the MAI, the consortium
could, through an international court based in Europe, sue a Canadian government
if that government tried to restrict its activities in any way. And, there
would be no recourse to appeal of the court's decision."
Winifride Prestwich, an Interim
columnist and analyst of international affairs particularly when the United
Nations is involved, said the fact that the UN has a hand in the MAI is
reason enough for concern. "Anything at all connected with the United Nations
is dangerous," she said.
The MAI is based largely
on a background paper written by University of Toronto business professor
Alan Rugman - who also served on the international trade advisory committee
that created the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988. According to
a recent article in Canadian Dimension magazine, its roots lie in pressures
exerted by the U.S. Council for International Business, the Office of the
U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. State Department.
Canadian Dimension says the
secrecy surrounding the negotiations is evident in the fact that the word
"confidential" was stamped on every page of draft MAI documents that were
obtained by social justice advocates.
Observers say the MAI essentially
makes it illegal to discriminate against foreign corporations, and that
government regulations on the environment, labour, social programs - and,
one would assume, abortion - are only acceptable if they are not inconsistent
with the "performance requirement" provisions of the agreement.
Those provisions prohibit
a government from applying measures in "an arbitrary or unjustifiable manner"
or from taking steps that disguise "restriction on investment." But what
that means is open to wide interpretation. The Canadian Environmental Law
Association, for example, observes that rulings under disputes over the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade have consistently gone against national
health standards, "leading to the systemic elimination of governmental
options previously thought available."
Tony Clarke, head of the
Polaris Institute and former social affairs director for the Canadian Conference
of Catholic Bishops, says the MAI gives corporations "quasi-diplomatic
status," thus putting corporate rights over those of citizens.
"What happens,” Clarke said,
“is that corporations are in a position actually to take away the powers
of governments to serve and protect the democratic rights of their citizens
through legislation, with little or no recourse in return."
Joe Gunn, director of the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops' social affairs commission,
says the CCCB is concerned about the MAI's ability to weaken the ability
of governments to protect their peoples. The CCCB in 1979 produced a document
that observed multi-national corporations are "a new form of economic power
and domination" that represents "a serious threat to the common good of
peoples and nations."
Paul Hellyer, who was a cabinet
minister with federal Liberal governments during the 1960s, noted in a
recent speech that the MAI is "the most frightening proposal to come before
the Canadian people in my lifetime." He currently serves as leader of the
Canadian Action Party.
"Our very existence as a
nation is at stake," he said. "If the MAI is signed, there is a strong
probability that within 10 years, we will have to lower the Maple Leaf
flag and run up the Stars and Stripes in its stead."
Hellyer said the agreement
is "pure poison" for Canada and other small countries, because one of its
goals is the systematic elimination of nation-specific exceptions.
"Nations are being asked
to surrender their rights to legislate on behalf of their people and put
their fate in the hands of multi-national corporations and international
banks whose interests may be inimical to the welfare of citizens."
Hellyer concluded that globalization
is not a panacea that will lead to universal prosperity, but rather will
create a world in which a few people will become very rich while the majority
stagnates. "In the end, the (economic) system will crash one more time,"
he predicted.
