Dear Ms. Qualtrough,
I am dismayed to learn that the government of which you are a part may sign TPP on February 4th. This without the free and open consultation with Canadians that Mr. Trudeau promised.
During last Fall’s election, at the announcement of successful completion of TPP negotiations, none of you, your leader, nor the Liberal Party of Canada raised Canada’s participation in this agreement with its sovereignty attacking investor/state dispute settlement (ISDS) provision as the fundamental issue it should have been. I really do not understand why our sovereignty did not take front and centre as THE issue through the election campaign and I asked you on more than one occasion to address the issue before the vote. After all, if international corporations can sue Canada in SECRET when the government of which you are a part takes action to correct the damage inflicted by the previous government, then we will find ourselves impotent to act. I have no problem with free trade, as such; I do see that betraying Canada's sovereignty as entirely another matter.
The now departed so-called loyal Conservative government negotiated in secret, then signed and eventually ratified the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPPA) which goes far beyond simply providing for freer trade but, in effect, diminishes Canada to a resource colony of the Communist dictatorship in Beijing for the next thirty years. With the inclusion of the ISDS provision, Chinese firms (which are merely arms of the Chinese Communist dictatorship) with investments in Canadian business now have the right to sue Canadian federal, provincial, and municipal governments in secret trials if new environmental, labour, health and safety, business practice, etc. law impinges on their investment. That is to say, Canada now has to clear such new laws, regulations, and court judgements with Beijing in order to bring them into effect.
Similarly, that government negotiated in secret, then signed both the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), both now awaiting ratification. It also brought Canada to participate in the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) secret negotiations and has signed other so-called free trade agreements, all of which include provisions for ISDS by which international corporations can turn to the International Centre for Settlement of Investor Disputes (ICSID) to sue sovereign nations, Canada included, in secret trials by tribunal outside of any national judiciary to overturn new law enacted out of a nation’s sovereign right to govern itself. Thus, Canada will have to clear such new laws, regulations, and court judgements with corporate head offices in order to bring them into effect and hope to remain safe from attack.
As I understand it, the evil of ISDS lies in its capacity to defeat the sovereign right of nations to govern themselves. With its secret trials and no recourse to appeal, the ISDS provision raises international corporations from the subjects of nations to, in effect, non-territorial kingdoms equal with or superior to no-longer fully sovereign nations while reducing participating nations, Canada included, to resource and labour colonies of those corporations. For suborning Canada’s sovereignty to international corporations through ICSID, former Prime Minister Harper and those of his ministers involved in these negotiations should be called to answer to the charge of treason.
I have deliberately placed links throughout this letter to commentary by others, both domestic and international, on the danger of these modern so-called free trade deals with their inclusion of ISDS through the ICSID. If my understanding of this very fundamental issue is not sound, please educate me and your constituents as to just how it is that:
•Canada submitting to ICSID and its ISDS secret trials may not constitute suborning of our sovereign right to govern ourselves;
•ISDS proceedings may not raise international corporations from being subjects of nations to, in effect, non-territorial kingdoms, equal with nations;
•ISDS proceedings may not be SECRET TRIALS, utter anathema to a free and democratic society, but be open and public;
•Decisions by ICSID tribunals in ISDS suits may be appealed to a higher court;
•ISDS suits may be in either direction to allow nations to sue corporations, not just corporations to sue nations; and
•ICSID tribunals made up of corporate lawyers (one selected by the suing corporation, one selected by the defending nation, and one so-called neutral, but all drawn from corporate legal practice and vested in corporate interests) may be fair and impartial judges of ISDS suits.
Instead of ISDS, Canadian operations of international corporations that find themselves at issue with our governments at whatever level should bring the matter to an open and public Canadian court within the Canadian judicial system for decision under Canadian law in the same way as Canadian corporations and Canadian citizens must do. If an issue exceeds the competence of Canadian courts, an international corporation should be required to publicly request its home nation government to pursue the matter in an open and public international court on a sovereign nation versus sovereign nation basis that clearly holds international corporations as subjects of sovereign nations and not as equals with sovereign nations.
I can only hope that Mr. Trudeau will do the right thing and refuse to ratify TPP on February 4th and CETA when it comes up for ratification unless the sovereignty destroying ISDS provision gets stripped from them and that he withdraws Canada from the secret TTIP and TiSA negotiations as long as they remain secret (after all he promises to be open with Canadians) and also contain the sovereignty deleting ISDS provision.
If you cannot educate me satisfactorily on every point above and the government of which you are a part does ratify TPP to confirm the previous government’s abrogation of Canada’s national sovereignty, may I respectfully suggest that you resign your position in cabinet and cross the floor of the House of Commons to sit as an independent MP or with the one caucus that seriously strives to retain our sovereignty.
Please share your thoughts on this vitally fundamental issue in cabinet, in caucus, and publicly with your constituents.
Thank you for your attention,
Edwin M. Hopkins,
Cc: The Delta Optimist, The Council of Canadians, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister of Foreign Affairns Stéphane Dion, Minister of International Trade Chrystia Freeland, Interim Opposition Leader Rona Ambrose, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, Green Leader Elizabeth May.
Although the International Centre for Settlement of Investor Disputes (ICSID) with its investor/state dispute settlement (ISDS) has existed for quite some time, I along with most of the Canadian public was not aware of this danger to Canada's sovereign right to govern ourselves. This may, in part, be a consequence of the fact that international corporations have only recently taken to exploiting ISDS to their advantage, challenging national governments more frequently than through previous decades. I did not recognize the danger back when NAFTA was negotiated, signed, and ratified. It was only with publicity of the controversies at the time of the Canada-China FIPPA announcement and eventual ratification that I came to understand the threat Canada faces. ISDS forms part of very many modern so-called free trade agreements and through that provision international corporations now attack nations' sovereign right to govern themselves. Through the ISDS provision, international corporations seek to hold themselves as equals or superiors of nations rather than the subjects of nations that they should be.
ReplyDeleteThis establishes a dangerous trend toward a new feudalism by which:
• Capital replaces land as the feu;
• Non-territorial international corporations replace kingdoms as the fundamental holders of the feu with power to delegate that feu;
• Corporate CEOs replace kings as the authorities by which the feu gets distributed and to whom loyal attachment must return;
• Major corporate internal divisions and subsidiaries replace baronies, earldoms, dukedoms, counties, etc. as subordinate holders of the feu;
• Corporate vice presidents, very senior managers, and subsidiary CEOs replace the various Lords of the Realm;
• Corporate managers and highly skilled technical professionals replace knights; and
• Ordinary common working people are reduced to the new serfs;
• All while the role of sovereign nations and democratic decision making diminishes into insignificance.
This trend must not be permitted to develop.
Edwin M. Hopkins, a "new feudalism" is a very interesting perspective on what to avoid. It suggests that how to avoid it may be informed by understanding how societies evolved from feudalism.
ReplyDeleteI agree the ISDS provision is the key one in the whole web of transnational investor agreements now being spun around the globe. The creative challenge is to address it. I think another key is transnational communications and coherence in social and environmental matters, to complement and balance the coherent forces of transnational monetary investment.
Sector-by-sector economic concerns in these corporate-led agreements matter, for sure.
But the nasty disruptor in all of them is the ISDS that strips sovereignty from voters and gives it to investors. Minister Freeland and Mr. Trudeau's cabinet cannot truly be surprised the EU has brought this forward as a concern with CETA.
Governments who sign on to the ISDS erode our democratic control of our own lives and surroundings. ISDS empowers unaccountable transnational investors to trump what everyone needs as citizens of our own parts of the Earth: environmental regeneration, human rights advances, better local determination of how to spend locally-raised taxes for local well-being.
The priority now for government and civil society is to sketch and promote a better model for trade and investment agreements,(while opposing the particular ISDS in CETA and the TTIP).
How does this sound? The better model will
• lead to transnational agreements that promote social and environmental goals and principles at the same time as they facilitate transnational investment and trade.
• link the provisions and decision bodies of international investment agreements to those of international social and environmental conventions and law - in what they consider, and in decision-making they empower.
• retain national legislatures, courts, and diplomacy as the ultimate arbiters to resolve international investment disputes, while further empowering the transnational voices of global finance and investment within these forums as needed.
Tim
Thank you Tim. International courts should always function on a sovereign nation versus sovereign nations basis, with subjects of nations involved only through their home nation governments.
DeleteEdwin Hopkins, your "new feudalism" image is an interesting way to show what we're trying to avoid. So, how to avoid it?
ReplyDeleteThe creative challenge is to address the whole web of transnational investor agreements now being spun around the globe.
I agree the increasingly notorious ISDS mechanism is key. It's a nasty disruptor, a new structural device that strips sovereignty from voters and gives it to investors. Minister Freeland and Mr. Trudeau's cabinet cannot truly be surprised the EU has brought this objection forward in the context of CETA and TTIP.
Governments who sign on to the ISDS erode our democratic control of our own lives and surroundings. ISDS empowers unaccountable transnational investors to trump what everyone needs as citizens of our own parts of the Earth: environmental regeneration, human rights advances, better local determination of how to spend locally-raised taxes for local well-being.
The priority now for democratic governments and for civil society is to sketch a better model for trade and investment agreements, and promote it (meanwhile refusing the particular ISDS provisions in the CETA and the TPP).
How does this sound as a start: The better model will
• lead to transnational agreements that promote social and environmental goals and principles at the same time as they facilitate transnational investment and trade.
• link the provisions and decision bodies of international investment agreements to those of international social and environmental conventions and law - in what they consider, and in decision-making they empower.
• retain national legislatures, courts, and diplomacy as the ultimate arbiters to resolve international investment disputes, while further empowering the transnational voices of global finance and investment within these forums as needed.
Tim Lash
Ottawa
Sounds good Tim,
DeleteThis would require opening the negotiation processes. Currently these so-called free trade treaties are negotiated in secret by trade representatives of the governments involved; in secret, except that representatives of international corporations with interest in international trade are granted privileged access to the negotiations while environmental organizations with interest in the effects of international trade, trade unions with interest in the effects of international trade, health and safety organizations with interest in the effects of international trade, etc. the many and varied others with interest in the effects of international trade are all excluded completely.
Sadly, my MP has not answered this message by February 4th and Canada has now signed TPP. Now attention must go to preventing ratification of both CITA and TPP while getting Canada out of TiSA and TTIP secret negotiations as long as they also include ISDS.
ReplyDeleteThe Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade is currently holding public hearings to assess the extent to which the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement would be in the best interests of Canadians. In a personal submission, I offered my thoughts, much as above, and encourage others to do so as well.
ReplyDelete