STOP #CETA: Lessons from Canada

Canadians are not clamouring for CETA.  My fingers are crossed; I’m one nice patient Canadian who hopes Belgium will hold fast and continue to refuse to sign the CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement).

I really don’t get why our Government is pursuing this Trade Agreement sought by the Harper Conservative Government.  Because the fact is, Canada has indeed suffered from “free trade” agreements, as pointed out in the Council of Canadians video below. I cannot comprehend why Canadian Governments are so willing to sign these things. Investor State Dispute Settlements are not good for democracy.

The Economist says:

IF YOU wanted to convince the public that international trade agreements are a way to let multinational companies get rich at the expense of ordinary people, this is what you would do: give foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever a government passes a law to, say, discourage smoking, protect the environment or prevent a nuclear catastrophe. Yet that is precisely what thousands of trade and investment treaties over the past half century have done, through a process known as “investor-state dispute settlement”, or ISDS.

— The Economist Investor-state dispute settlement: The arbitration game

There is a lot more information about why CETA as it stands in a letter written by a group of Canadian academics”


“To the Parliament of Wallonia and Belgian voters:

“We are Canadian academics with extensive collective expertise in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and related issues under Canada’s trade and investment agreements. We are also among a small group of Canadian experts in this field who do not work in law firms or government as ISDS lawyers/ arbitrators.

img_5503“We write after reading news reports this past weekend about the scare tactics employed by Canadian politicians and business representatives in an effort to influence your legislative and government processes. We do not think that these voices represent accurately Canada’s experience under the foreign investor protection system that the CETA would expand. We are aware that many Canadians have expressed deep concern about this foreign investor protection system due to Canada’s experience with a similar system under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and in debates about the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), among other agreements.

“While we focus here on adverse consequences of the foreign investor protections in the CETA, we are also aware that the agreement will impose new constraints in many other areas of public policy beyond what we discuss. They include but are not limited to pharmaceutical regulation, public health, agriculture, government procurement, public services, labour rights, and market access. We note that other academics have raised significant concerns about the CETA in these areas.

“Since the NAFTA came into effect in 1994, Canada has been and remains the only Western developed country that has agreed to ISDS on a comprehensive basis while in the more vulnerable capital-importing position. In the case of NAFTA, Canada agreed to ISDS on this basis with the U.S. and Canada has since faced more foreign investor claims than all but a handful of countries, has paid compensation in response to numerous claims, and has altered government decisions or decision-making processes in order to accommodate foreign investor interests and to reduce risks of potentially massive liability.

“Business spokespersons who have defended these concessions of Canadian democracy and sovereignty often represent foreign companies in Canada or Canadian companies that may own companies abroad and be interested in bringing claims against Canada. It is perhaps understandable, though still very regrettable, that large businesses are keen to acquire special rights and special access to public money through ISDS.

“Reforms to ISDS in the CETA, relied on by Canadian officials to describe the CETA misleadingly as “progressive”, are inadequate to address major concerns about the CETA. The major concerns
include the undermining of democratic regulation, the special privileging of foreign investors, the lack of judicial independence and procedural fairness in the adjudicative process, and the lack of respect for domestic courts and domestic institutions. In particular, the “Investment Court System” (ICS) in the CETA does not remove the financial threat posed by foreign investor claims to democratic regulation, does not alter the unjustified and gross favouring of foreign investors over anyone else who has a conflicting right or interest, and does not establish a proper court with the usual safeguards of independence and fairness.

“These problems with the CETA’s foreign investor protections remain outstanding, despite the recent Joint Interpretive Declaration issued by Canada and the EU (in all of the various forms in which that Declaration became public).

“We are heartened that your democratic processes in Wallonia have allowed for close and careful consideration of the CETA’s flaws as part of a genuine and thoughtful debate. We wish Canadians had been permitted to have a similar debate based on a vote in Canada’s Parliament and provincial legislatures, but that has not been the case under the Harper government or the Trudeau government. In contrast to the views expressed undiplomatically by some Canadian politicians and business representatives, it appears to us that Belgian democracy has been exercised responsibly, as it should be, to allow parliamentary votes on the quasi-constitutional structures created by foreign investor protection agreements like the CETA.

“In Canada, our democracy has suffered because the federal government has insisted on pushing through agreements like the NAFTA and the CETA without legislative votes at the federal and provincial levels. As a result, and without the corresponding endorsements by our elected representatives, we have been left with a foreign investor protection system that binds all levels of government and that will bind all future elected governments in Canada for a very long time. Our experience hints at the dangers faced by European democracy in the case of the CETA. Whatever decisions you take, we urge you not to succumb to the same types of tactics used to mislead and scare Canadians into undermining our democracy on behalf of foreign investors. Canada and the European Commission have been aware for years that the CETA faced significant public and academic opposition due to its foreign investor protections. Yet they declined to remove these non-trade elements from the CETA.

“In a context where there is no credible justification for including ISDS or ICS in the CETA – given the greater reliability, independence, and fairness of Canadian and European democratic and judicial processes – it still surprises us how big business groups and governments acting on their behalf ferociously cling to such a deeply flawed and undemocratic model. In case they are of interest, we have noted below a few additional documents indicating concerns with the foreign investor protection system. We have also listed a larger sample of relevant publications by the signatories.

“From what we can see, you have shown great courage in opposing the CETA and, based on our observations of how the foreign investor protection system has been pushed on Canadians over the years, we wish to express our support for your democratic choices.”

The original letter including the complete list of signatories and links to supporting documents can be found in this PDF

Michael Geist talks about TPP at CIGIOn the European side you need look no further than the FFII blog, whose most recent article is, “A deceitful attempt to get CETA signed”

If all of this is too highbrow to grasp in one sitting, check out BUZZ FEED: The Court That Rules The World

The point is really that CETA is a bad deal for citizens on both sides of the pond.

Michael Geist has been talking about (and highlighting the flaws in) “trade deals” like CETA for years, so I’ll leave the last word to him: CETA Failure Reflects Public Rejection of Sweeping Trade Deals: Don’t blame EU unreasonableness for saying no to bad agreement with Canada.



Fair Vote Canada WRC presents @JimHarris on Robocalls

Fair Vote Canada Waterloo Region Chapter

Transcript of FairVoteWRC Live Blog

“Robocalls: The Story So Far” panel discussion 7pm tonight at Duke of Wellington, 33 Erb St. E. !fairvote !YKF

Sharon Sommerville of @FairvoteWRC making introductions #Robocall

Simon Rowland not able to make it tonight, @JimHarris flying solo #Robocall

Q: Why is this issue important? @JimHarris: Since @PMHarper won his seat by 6000 votes, makes difference with #FPTP, #Robocall influence

Correction: @PMHarper won his *majority* by 6000 votes (not his seat) #Robocall

Elections Canada investigations are completely secret, unless someone is convicted; story broken by Post Media #Robocall

#Robocall is not just “dirty tricks”, it is Election Fraud

Guelph Green Party candidate’s wife received a #Robocall, sent volunteers to direct people back to correct polling station

@JimHarris’s article on #Robocall was most popular item on HuffPo for over a month

Typical commercial #Robocall gets maybe 3 complaints for 25,000 messages sent

@JimHarris finds it interesting that a “right-wing” paper like National Post would push back at Conservatives like this #Robocall

@JimHarris says: Considering the power of the PMO’s office, the #Robocall campaign had to be strategic, systemic, planned and orchestrated

“In and Out Scheme” was designed to circumvent election spending rules; move money to riding associations to obscure funding in 70 ridings

@JimHarris: There is no consequence to breaking the law #Robocall

To falsely pose as an official of Elections Canada is illegal, so no need to prove that people were prevented from voting #Robocall

Gentleman in the audience lives in Guelph, received #Robocall, looked out his window to see if the polling station was still open (it was)

Judicial Inquiry is public, has jail sentences. Elections Canada investigation is secret. We need a Judicial Inquiry on #Robocall

Four out of five parties want to get to the bottom of the #Robocall investigation, one party does not.

@JimHarris: The #Robocall rabbit hole goes very deep

Q: How do we keep the #Robocall issue alive? @JimHarris says: I have faith in Elections Canada and Canadians, but we need to keep pushing

@CouncilofCDNs launched a case for 7 ridings with fraudulent calls; but Government needed to launch independent Judicial Inquiry #Robocall

Q: Who is the individual that acted as false Elections Canada official? #Robocall company? Person who speaks the message? Person who pays?

It wasn’t only #Robocall messages, there were also telemarketers with live calls.

There were also harrassing calls, eg.calls made to Jewish districts on the Sabbath #Robocalls

You can win issues not on fact but how the debate is framed. Conservatives frame by saying few people affected, no adverse results #Robocall

How can we lobby for a Judicial Inquiry or making the Elections Canada investigation public? Petitions are only the first step #Robocall

Q: Who can be prosecuted? Elections Canada could prosecute anyone, anybody involved in the entire chain of events #Robocall

RCMP are also involved in the Elections Canada investigation. #Robocall

@CouncilofCDNs case is keeping this issue in the news; also FOI requests by journalists #Robocall

@JimHarris says: “Being here tonight lifts my spirits, and fuels my hope for democracy” #Robocall

@FairVoteWRC‘s #Robocall presentation with @JimHarris was live-microblogged by @BobJonkman
All content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.

[Editing note: To improve readability, the posts are displayed chronologically here. Also, I deleted two near duplicate posts (which were repeated due to missing #robocall hashtag) and included a factual correction made after the presentation directly following the post made in error.]
a horizontal border of red graphic maple leaves