Trudeau Town Halls: Baubles Of Distraction, Not Questions Of Substance

Prime-Minister-For-A-Day Kim Campbell is probably best remembered for saying, “An election is no time to discuss serious issues.” She might just as well have been talking about town halls, particularly the kind our Prime Minister is currently in the midst of.

Justin Trudeau's meet-and-greet will undoubtedly constitute a public-relations success. That success, however, will be thanks to two things: Trudeau's ease in front of large crowds, and the profound colloquialism and ignorance of the people attending these sessions. It is the latter I wish to address today.

In theory, town halls, being somewhat unscripted, are an opportunity to put the convener on the hot seat. Unfortunately, the topics thus far brought up have been tritely predictable and easily defused, no doubt because they are exactly what the PMO has prepared Mr. Trudeau for. Consider, for example, what was asked at his Sackville gathering. While the questions may be important to the posers, they lack, shall I say, a certain concern for national and international issues that the government is, in my view, badly fumbling. Here are two examples:

Abdoul Abdi’s sister Fatouma Alyaan asked ‘Why are you deporting my brother?...My question to you is if it was your son, would you do anything to stop this?’

And this one:

Why do we have medical doctors who come here from different countries who are unable to integrate into the system?

To be sure, he was also asked about his visit to the Aga Khan's private island retreat, for which Trudeau has been rebuked by outgoing ethics watchdog Mary Dawson, but again, this was a predictable and easily-handled question for which I am sure the Prime Minster was well-prepared.

The questions at yesterday's session in Hamilton were similarly trite and predicable:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a woman heckling him about Omar Khadr during a town hall in Hamilton that he, too, is angry about the multimillion-dollar settlement the former Guantanamo Bay inmate received from the government.

“The anger that some people feel, and that a lot of people feel about the payment the government made to Omar Khadr is real and quite frankly — this might surprise you — but I share that anger and frustration,” he said.

Score another one for good preparation.

Yet I can't help but wonder how Mr. Trudeau would respond if truly important questions were asked of him. Questions like the following:

Why does your government insist on protecting the rights of multi-nationals to sue our government over legislation that might interfere with their profits?

Known as investor-state dispute settlement, it is a mainstay of NAFTA and eagerly sought for the TPP. So far, Canada has been sued five times under NAFTA provisions for trying to protect the environment.

Another question well-worth posing would pertain to the government's continuing support for the immoral Saudi arms deal, arms that have been shown, in contravention of the deal, to have been used against Saudi citizens.

In July, after The Globe and Mail's reporting of conflict in Awamiyah, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland issued a statement saying she was "deeply concerned" and announced a probe of the incident.

The Trudeau government has never released the results of this investigation nor has it explained to Canadians what happened.

These are the questions I would ask on this issue:

Why have you refused to release the report, and why is your government now trying to quash the most recent legal challenge to the deal, an attempt that a federal court judge has rejected?

Finally, I would ask about the Trudeau government' attitude toward tax cheats using offshore havens:

A dozen governments around the world say they've recovered a combined $500 million in unpaid taxes so far thanks to the Panama Papers leak of tax-haven financial records in 2016.

But not a penny of that is destined for Canadian government coffers. The Canada Revenue Agency maintains it will be at least another 2½ years before it will have an idea of how much it might recoup.

When other governments are enjoying considerable success in recovering tax money thanks to the Panama and Paradise papers, why is your government and the Canada Revenue Agency so reluctant to aggressively pursue them?

So those are some of the questions that will likely not be asked at the town halls. God forbid that this government should actually have to make an honest accounting of itself to the Canadian people.

Slouching Toward A City Near You

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
- W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming



The man pictured above is Nick Shcherban, a Toronto resident who was arrested, hauled off to jail and is now awaiting a bail hearing for reasons I will explain later in this post. For now, it might be useful to think of him as a David who has just lost his battle with Goliath. Kind of like the battle we all seem to have lost to the forces of neoliberalism.

A curious term, neoliberalism, one that sounds innocent enough and is fondly embraced by politicians of all stripes, including the much-photographed Justin Trudeau. But what does it really mean?

Probably the best definition I have read is one offered by Naomi Klein in her latest book, No Is Not Enough:

Neoliberalism is shorthand for an economic project that vilifies the public sphere and anything that's not either the workings of the market or the decisions of individual consumers. ... governments exist in order to create the optimal conditions for private interests to maximize their profits and wealth, based on the theory that the profits and economic growth that follow will benefit everyone in the trickle down from the top - eventually.

The primary tools of this project are all too familiar: privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sphere, and low taxes paid for by cuts to public services, and all of this locked in under corporate friendly trade deals. [Think, for example, of Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions in NAFTA and CETA.]

For anyone paying attention, there can be little doubt that the forces of neoliberalism are in the driver's seat, despite growing recognition of how destructive it is to the common good.

The latest example is to be found in Amazon's search for a second headquarters. In my mind, it represents the ultimate expression of neoliberalism, one in which a very powerful and extremely profitable corporate entity is demanding massive subsidization by the taxpayer in exchange for bestowing jobs. All of this from a company that has already received well over $1 billion in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.

Consider some of the telling elements of its Request For Proposals, one that leaves little doubt that the more taxpayer-funded 'freebies' a jurisdiction offers Amazon, the more kindly disposed it will be to locating there.

Please read the following carefully for both the explicit and the implied expectations of the jurisdiction that 'wins' their approval.

Incentives – Identify incentive programs available for the Project at the state/province and local levels. Outline the type of incentive (i.e. land, site preparation, tax credits/exemptions, relocation grants, workforce grants, utility incentives/grants, permitting, and fee reductions) and the amount.The initial cost and ongoing cost of doing business are critical decision drivers.[Italics mine]

Please provide a summary of total incentives offered for the Project by the state/province and local community. In this summary, please provide a brief description of the incentive item, the timing of incentive payment/realization, and a calculation of the incentive amount. Please describe any specific or unique eligibility requirements mandated by each incentive item. With respect to tax credits, please indicate whether credits are refundable, transferable, or may be carried forward for a specific period of time. If the incentive includes free or reduced land costs, include the mechanism and approvals that will be required. Please also include all timelines associated with the approvals of each incentive. We acknowledge a Project of this magnitude may require special incentive legislation in order for the state/province to achieve a competitive incentive proposal. [Italics mine] As such, please indicate if any incentives or programs will require legislation or other approval methods. Ideally, your submittal includes a total value of incentives, including the specified benefit time period.

I think we can see where this may be going. It is hard not to imagine a day in the very near future when mega corporations will demand to be relieved of all taxation in exchange for the jobs they provide. A kind of corporate, neoliberal extortion disguised as munifescence, no?

So where does Nick Shcherban fit into this picture? Well, Nick was taught a lesson on Monday about who really rules the world, and that includes the 'world-class' city of Toronto. Tired of the almost non-stop use of a neighbouring house for filming purposes, he decided to take some action:

Two speakers and an amplifier was [sic] set up in his backyard where a radio was blasting in the direction of 450 Pape Ave. during the production of the HBO movie Fahrenheit 451, starring Michael B. Jordan and Scarborough-born YouTube star Lilly Singh.

Shcherban said in an interview earlier on Monday that 450 Pape is exclusively and constantly used for filming movies, commercials, and having photo shoots, causing disruptions like excessive noise and blocking access to a TTC bus stop.

His act of resistance did not go unnoticed:

When Shcherban concluded his interview with the Star, a police officer approached him to discuss a noise complaint against him. Shcherban told the officer that they would need a warrant to do anything about it, and within 30 minutes, three [italics mine] detectives appeared at his door, warrant in hand.

It took more than 15 minutes for Shcherban to respond to the detectives after receiving multiple warnings that his door would be broken down if necessary.

He was escorted out of his home and into a police car, as the film crew watched the dramatic scene.

Perhaps most indicative of the mindset that corporate behemoths like HBO deserve unqualified obeisance, a film crew member had this to say about
Shcherban's arrest:

“Serves him right ... We’ve put billions into the Toronto film industry in the last decade.”

Some may say that Nick Sahcherban is getting exactly what he deserves. After all, who is he to try to interfere in something that is providing much-needed jobs and other economic boosts, just because his personal peace is compromised? And, I guess, that is exactly my point in this post. We have become so used to accepting orts from the corporate table that we have reached the point where the public's well-being is only a secondary consideration, if, indeed, it is considered at all, in the greater scheme of things.

Not nearly good enough, in my book.

UPDATED: A Timely Message

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland continues to treat the Canadian public as children, revealing nothing as to what our country's goals are in the upcoming NAFTA renegotiations. The only peek behind the curtain she is allowing is that they are striving for

provisions to strengthen protections for labour and the environment [and] language that sets out ambitions around gender equality...

While those may be laudable goals, notably absent is the promise to do anything about the horribly flawed Chapter 11 Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions that The Council of Canadians reminds us

grant private investors from one country the right to sue the government of another country if it introduces new laws, regulations or practices – be they environmental, health or human rights – that cause corporations’ investments to lose money.

Those provisions

- Protect foreign investors, but no one else. Domestic corporations, civil society, unions or governments do not have the same rights to challenge government decisions.
- Cost $4 million on average to defend a case. Chapter 11 cases are heard by three arbitrators, an elite group of investment lawyers who only look at investment issues, behind closed doors.
- Create a public “chill” that may dissuade governments from enacting policy. An in-depth study showed that policymakers will delay or shelve decisions because of the threat of potential ISDS lawsuits.

Canada has faced 38 Chapter 11 ISDS lawsuits – the most amongst the three NAFTA countries. At the moment, Canada faces ISDS lawsuits claiming $2.6 billion in damages. Canada is the most sued country in the developed world because of NAFTA. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, two-thirds of the ISDS lawsuits against Canada are over environmental policies.

Now would seem to be a good time to be reminded of how anti-democratic those provisions are, and how all of Freelands talk about improved environmental standards is just that - talk.



UPDATE: According to CTV News, Freeland has announced that Canada wants improvements to Chapter 11:

Specifically, Freeland referred to Chapter 11 -- which involves companies suing governments. She said she wants reforms so that "governments have an unassailable right to regulate in the public interest." This is not to be confused with Chapter 19, which regulates disputes between companies over dumping, in cases like softwood lumber, and which the U.S. administration might seek to eliminate.

I am heartened to hear this, but will withhold any celebration, as it may only be a motherhood statement that will disappear early in the negotiations.

Star Readers Speak Out On CETA

Recently, my newspaper of record, The Toronto Star, wrote what I felt was an uncritical endorsement of CETA. The part that especially disturbed me was this:

In the case of CETA, the demonization focuses on one part of the agreement, involving a process for resolving disputes between investors and governments. The so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement system would allow foreign firms to challenge European laws if they felt they were being unfairly discriminated against.

The critics portrayed this as a way for corporate interests to ride roughshod over local concerns. So the EU amended the deal early this year, with the Trudeau government happy to go along.

They changed the system for resolving disputes, proposing a permanent system closer to a permanent trade court. They added measures aimed at making arbitrators act impartially. And they affirmed the right of governments to regulate to achieve “legitimate policy objectives” in such areas as the environment, labour, health and culture – even if that damages investors’ expectations of profit. In other words, they made efforts to tip the balance away from corporations in favour of the broader public interest.

What the paper failed to acknowledge was that most of the above is more aspirational and cosmetic than it is legally binding.

As usual, Star readers are voicing their views strongly and unequivocally. Each letter is worth reading, but I am reproducing just a few of them below:

Re: Trade deal with Europe should be salvaged: Editorial, Oct. 25

The Star was absolutely correct in saying that CETA is a deal worth saving. Who can argue with something that provides more opportunities for our goods and services and gives Canadian consumers access to European goods at a reduced cost.

But the editorial completely missed the boat when it didn’t indicate what changes to CETA were needed in order to make it more acceptable to all participants and by glossing over the main sticking point, namely the ISDS provisions.

ISDS stands for Investor State Dispute Settlement. In a nutshell, ISDS is a process whereby a foreign corporation (not a domestic company) can sue a government (federal, provincial or municipal) when it feels that a regulation adversely affects its potential profit. The process completely bypasses the court system of the country being sued and the decisions (made by a tribunal of corporate lawyers instead of impartial judges) are final and cannot be overturned.

ISDS is an affront to the sovereignty of any country and should be eliminated from all trade agreements, particularly those involving countries with well-established and independent court systems.

Can CETA be improved? Yes, by eliminating all sections that provide a clear and significant advantage to multinational corporations, starting with ISDS.

Dennis Choptiany, Markham

It’s hard to believe the Star’s editorial board would be lamenting the death of a trade deal like CETA. This is the same type of deal as all the rest. It has been negotiated for the benefit of large corporations and even the best arguments in favour of it are a joke.

Desmond Fisher, Ottawa

I find it astounding that people are surprised that the people of Wallonia, who were informed about CETA’s contents and had the power to stop it initially, did so. I have met zero people who have gone to meetings about CETA or the TPP and felt they were in our best interests.

Harper sold the wheat board to foreign investors, while Wynne sold the well that a town wanted for drinking water to Nestlé to be bottled — both showing government favours profit over public interests.

Just wait until corporations have even more power, which is the real purpose of trade agreements.

What we need are deals that can be discussed with, and supported by, the public. Trudeau promised transparency but is just finishing what Harper started, still behind closed doors.

Well done Wallonia!

Stephen Albrecht, Toronto

I fear your editorial bad mouthing the EU is unfair. And so is Freeland’s tough-guy take-it-or-leave-it attitude.

The investor state dispute settlement mechanism has been problematic for many Canadians and clearly is for Europeans. Your editorial states that’s all been taken care of, but a recent column by Thomas Walkom says the renegotiated arrangement is “non-binding.”

Which is correct? Clear explanation of this has been fairly thin in Canadian media. But the Europeans are communicating quite openly and I feel their concerns about a Trojan horse of multi-national corporate interests using “nice” old Canada to take advantage of the deal should be taken seriously.

Ken Pyette, Toronto

As I have written before, one of the foremost duties of citizenship is to be informed and knowledgeable. It is the only chance we have of holding our elected representatives to account. Anything less is a betrayal of us all.

Thomas Walkom on CETA

While it is disappointing to see that Wallonia has dropped its opposition to the CETA deal, thus paving the way for signing and ultimate ratification, all may not be lost, at least for the Europeans, according to Thomas Walkom. Morever, this imbroglio has brought forth some interesting facts, facts that again raise questions about Canada's underlying motivation in so aggressively pursuing the deal.

... the deal as written contains a fundamental imbalance. European firms would be able to challenge, at special investment courts, Canadian laws and regulations that interfere with profit-making.

But Canadian firms would have the same rights only in those EU countries that specifically allow such challenges. That’s because the EU treats the proposed Investment Court System as a matter of national, rather than Pan-European, concern.

In Canada, on the other hand, investment courts need only the imprimatur of the federal government to come into effect.

Think about that for a moment. The EU has structural protections built in to permit or exclude such challenges, while our own federal government raises not one objection to them. Indeed, you may recall how International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeladn has described CETA as "gold-plated," after tinkering around the edges of the investor state dispute settlement process, tinkering that was, for all intents and purposes, cosmetic.

Walkom cites Osgoode Hall law professor and trade expert Gus Van Harten, who says,

Ottawa may want to put the investment court portion of the deal on ice until the EU nations decide which of them will agree to it.

The Guardian reports that as part of its deal with Wallonia, Belgium has agreed to ask the European Court of Justice whether the investment court dispute settlement proposal is even legal.

However, investor rights are only the most egregious part of a very flawed deal:

A 2010 study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimated that removing tariffs on European cars and trucks would cost the Canadian auto industry between 28,000 and 150,000 jobs.

According to one 2013 estimate, drug patent rules envisioned by the treaty would end up costing both individual consumers and provincial governments up to $1.6 billion each year, making it even more difficult to set up a national pharmacare plan.

Canadian dairy farmers would be hurt as would fish processors. Canadian beef and pork producers would probably benefit from exporting more to Europe — although the scale of this has been called into question.

So what does the deal come down to for Canadians?

The main economic benefit of CETA may be that it would allow Canadians to buy European luxury goods at marginally cheaper prices.

Otherwise, this never was a compelling deal. Even without CETA, the EU is already Canada’s second-largest trading partner.

Ordinary Canadians have every right to demand an explanation for why Canada is so content with protecting the investor rights that will so hamper our sovereignty, as has been our experience with NAFTA.

Government rhetoric and neoliberal enthusiasms notwithstanding, we all deserve much, much better from the people we elected to protect and advance our interests.

UPDATED: CETA: The Real Deal

While it looks, unfortunately, like the Belgian opposition to CETA is dissolving, it is perhaps instructive to understand the core of Wallonia's concerns about it. While some of it revolves around the hit that some of its domestic industries will take if it is ratified, of much greater concern is the power it gives corporations through the investor state dispute settlement mechanism. They are objections that most reasonable Canadians, I believe, would share if they were more familiar with the 'trojan horse' that will compromise national sovereignty on a much wider scale than NAFTA already has.

Given that Canada has been sued many times under NAFTA, we should all be very, very wary of ensconcing those rights further, despite the unalloyed enthusiasm the Justin Trudeau government has for such deals.

1. RAGE AGAINST THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION
While the Walloons are worried their agriculture sector will suffer under the deal, they are increasingly concerned about the investor-state dispute settlement system (ISDS) as well. The region’s socialist government has adopted many of the concerns of the civil society groups that oppose the free trade deal: they say it gives multinational corporations too much power to sue governments if they make regulations that affect their ability to turn a profit.

2. TRANSPARENCY
The Walloons want changes to the ISDS provisions of the treaty, specifically the tribunals that would settle disputes. They want them to be more transparent to eliminate the possibility of bias or conflict of interests by the people appointed to adjudicate disputes.

3. CLOSING LOOPHOLES
The Walloons want to see loopholes closed that they say would allow U.S. multinationals with offices in Canada to use the treaty to sue governments in Europe, says Osgoode Hall law professor Gus Van Harten.

4. PRESERVING JURISDICTIONS OF DOMESTIC COURTS
Van Harten also says the Walloons want stronger language in the treaty that would preserve the jurisdiction of domestic courts in individual countries to hear disputes, instead of turning them over to the new tribunal system envisioned by the treaty.

5. ‘A CAT IN A BAG’
In a parliamentary debate last week, Wallonian President Paul Magnette used an interesting metaphor to describe what he says is the opaque nature of the tribunals. He said it was like buying “a cat in a bag.”

Magnette has also said that “we have to say no so we can negotiate” better labour, environmental and legal standards.

Some have said that the five-page “joint interpretative declaration” that is to be added to the CETA text could be given the force of law and could clarify some of what the Walloons view as objectionable in the treaty.

As they say, stay tuned for further developments, but in the meantime, all of us as Canadian citizens have an obligation to educate ourselves on these issues and decide on them for themselves, rather than placing unearned confidence in Mr. Trudeau and his sunny smile.

UPDATE: Former MP Craig Scott has a lacerating look at our government's support for CETA in The Tyee, support that mirrors the agenda pushed by the former Harper government:

Based on a European negotiator’s briefing to NDP MPs during CETA negotiations (the Harper government refused to brief MPs), it was Canada that insisted on some of the most regressive and dangerous provisions in CETA.

The provisions in question were — and still are — the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) procedures. This part of the treaty takes CETA’s interpretation and, ultimately, enforcement out of the hands of national courts and places it in the hands of arbitrators.

The Art Of The Deal: A Guest Post By John B.

In response to yesterday's post about free trade, John B. provided a detailed commentary that derves a separate posting. Below is what he wrote:

Are any Canadians asking?

I find the current tap dance we are witnessing reminiscent of the public displays of angst and pretense of desperation by Mulroney and Burney a generation ago over the possibility that the Canada-US deal was in peril because of American apprehension. I've always believed that we were the unwitting dupes of a ruse designed to seduce an uninformed public into assuming, without any further analysis and consideration of what it would occasion that, because a negotiating and simultaneously competing business partner had some reservations, the deal must certainly be much more beneficial to Canada than to its supposedly hesitant deal partner at whose expense the anticipated benefit was to be achieved.

On Saturday when I met up socially with a couple of old acquaintances, both university-educated persons, one of them initiated a discussion of the current CETA situation. They're not people who are generally uninformed: one has an honours degree in history; and the other is a retired police chief. Before I had said anything on the subject, one of them introduced a conversation expressing his displeasure that an insignificant region of a country that had been freed from oppression by Canadian efforts during the Second World War would dare to obstruct an enterprise beneficial to Canadian interests. As my grade eight history teacher would have said: "Shades of the CUSFTA." My pal had made the assumption, just as many other Canadians must have done when Mulroney submitted his star performance, that the other side was balking because the relative benefits of the deal were so heavily weighted in Canada's favour. (There must be a term that marketing specialists use for this baloney sales tactic. Maybe it's got its own chapter in "The Art of the Deal" or "Think and Grow Rich".) After listening to the others' comments, I interjected my opinions on the I-SDS and ICS factors, the enhanced corporate opportunity for achieving regulatory capture and the implications of transnational labour mobility, and briefly stated my view that an insignificant component of this and other "trade" deals actually has anything to do with trade and tariffs. Both of them looked at me as though they didn't speak English and then one of them said that he didn't remember whether he had ever even heard of the CETA prior to Friday. The other one then said that he thought he had heard the first mention of he could recall it earlier in the week.

Now consider what they've been putting on the TV regarding this subject since the hiccup in Belgium on broadcasts that purport to be political and economic analysis : Ed Fast lambasting the Liberals for possibly wrecking his deal when all they had to do was to get it signed; Kevin O'Leary, while Evan Solomon grins from the other side of the interview, ranting in full leadership campaign mode that, because of Freeland's apparent failure, we should now question the competence of all of Selfie-Boy Zoolander's cabinet choices; a private equity and derivatives exchange expert telling Michael Serapio that "trade deals are win-win deals" and that the uncertainty in Wallonia is "absolutely appalling"; and, as we should expect, no discussion dealing with the substance of the objections.

So what's my point? It's that there must certainly be some convergence of interests that has willed the Canadian public to be kept in the dark and cooked the pablum we are being served.

What has happened during the CETA negotiations under both political parties seems to have taken it all up a notch. How did Canada become the headwaiter to and chief water carrier for the global investor-rights business lobby? What additional net benefit are we expected to assume will accrue to the country's economy through the adoption of this irregular national policy as a standard practice? Have we become the go-to guy for the transnational commerce management industry? I'll leave it up to someone smarter and better informed to consider those questions. But I'll suggest that an investigation into some revolving doors and the subsequent career choices of former negotiators and political leaders might provide some possible answers. Maybe Dominic Barton could make some explanation that relates to what's happening now under the Sunny Ways Corps.

With respect to Mound's comment on the possibility of abuses in investor claims, it seems that another innovative market has already emerged from the vibrancy and dynamism of the I-SDS protection racket:

http://theindependent.ca/2015/02/10/ceta-what-government-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-isds-lawsuits/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/financial-speculation-corps-vis-lawsuits-isds-court-part-martin-jr-

Free Trade Is Never Free

While it is beginning to look like International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland's departure from CETA negotiations was more of a ploy than the end of talks, the hiatus at least gives Canadians the opportunity to once more reflect on its dangers, the same dangers that afflict other so-called free trade deals.

The fact is, free trade is never free. The surrender of sovereignty rights, about which I have written previously, is probably the most insidious aspect of such deals, given that corporations are granted the right to sue if national or subnational governments pass legislation that affects a corporation's right to make money. That includes legislation to protect the environment or mitigate climate change.

An analysis of the Trans Pacific Partnership yields this chilling truth:

"The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism included in the TPP investment chapter grants foreign investors access to a secret tribunal if they believe actions taken by a government will affect their future profits. This provision is a ticking time-bomb for climate policy, because many government policies needed to address global warming are subject to suits brought before international investment tribunals. ...Other TPP chapters like the one covering trade in goods can be the basis for state-to-state suits challenging climate policies."

Here in Ontario, citizens were recently reminded of the consequences of corporate displeasure via the NAFTA investor dispute settlement provisions. Opting for some sober second thoughts, the province decided to put a moratorium on offshore wind turbine development, a pause that did not sit well with Windstream Energy LLC, the American company that had signed a $5.2 billion deal with Ontario. A fine of $25 million has been imposed after Windstream invoked its investor rights that were granted under NAFTA, but the fine is a mere precursor to future action.

At the end of September, a panel convened by the Netherlands-based Permanent Court of Arbitration awarded $25.2-million in damages and almost $3-million in legal costs to Windstream, saying the province broke rules under the North American free-trade agreement when it put a moratorium on offshore wind developments in February, 2011, effectively scuttling the Windstream project.

The deal is still considered to be in force, and Windstream has every intention of making sure it comes to fruition:

“We have a contract here, and contracts don’t go away,” [Windstream director David] Mars said, even though the moratorium on offshore wind is still in effect.

In other words, taxpayers will have to brace themselves for further, much deeper compensation to the company in the future, unless Ontario gives in to the extortion NAFTA has made possible.

And despite free-trade cheerleader Freeland's ceaseless chatter about making the investor dispute settlement process more transparent, the unalterable fact is that the right of corporations to sue governments remains solidly intact.

I'll leave the final word to Noam Chomsky who, in this brief video, reminds us of some inconvenient truths we would do well to never, ever forget:

CETA - A Threat We Should All Be Aware Of

A recent post I wrote contrasted the apparent indifference/ignorance of Canadians toward CETA with the furious involvement of the Europeans, most recently the Germans, in open protest against the deal. It is a pact that will see even greater erosion of our ability to enact strong legislation to protect labour, the environment and a host of other realms thanks to the Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions that protect multinationals at the expense of citizens. It will further undermine our increasingly fragile sovereign rights.

And sadly, it is a deal the the Trudeau Liberals are avidly embracing.

Scott Sincleair and Stuart Trew write a trenchant reminder of CETA's dangers:

Much more than a trade deal, CETA is a sweeping constitution-style document that will restrict public policy options in areas as diverse as intellectual property rights, government procurement, food safety and environmental protection, financial regulation, the temporary movement of workers, and public services.

My previous post noted the weak language governing some of the above, including platitudes like commitments to cooperate, provisions encouraging Canada and the EU to continue developing our resources in a way that is environmentally sustainable, establishes shared commitments to promote trade in a way that contributes to the objectives of sustainable development in Canada and the EU, etc.

All part and parcel of what Liberal International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland calls "a gold-plated trade deal."

As Sincleair and Trew observe,

While CETA’s safeguards for labour and the environment are mainly voluntary and weak, the investor protections are strong and fully enforceable. Such an agreement could only be considered enlightened in an upside-down world.

The devolution of our sovereignty began long before CETA, however.

Canada’s experience with investor-state arbitration under NAFTA is pitiful. We are the most-sued NAFTA party despite our highly developed legal system and strong protections for private property. Many of these challenges involve environmental protection policies that were legally enacted, but which upset an investor’s plans or profits.

Just last year, Canada lost a disturbing NAFTA dispute over an environmental assessment that recommended against a massive quarry in an ecologically sensitive part of Nova Scotia. Canada currently faces a raft of claims as a result of progressive policies, such as banning natural gas fracking in the province of Quebec.

The pending deal promises more of the same, a source of puzzlement to European progressives:

European labour unions, environmentalists and human rights advocates question why Canada and the EU would want to expand this anti-democratic process through CETA. Despite being rebranded as an “investment court system” with pretenses to judicial independence, the substantive protections afforded to foreign investors remain largely intact. This will expose taxpayers in both Canada and the EU to huge financial liabilities and have a chilling effect on future progressive public policy.

European progressives are also asking important questions about the interplay between CETA and public services. CETA contains no clear protections for governments hoping to expand public services into areas where there is currently private sector competition, or to bring previously privatized services back under public control. Doing so can actually trigger foreign investor claims for compensation, effectively locking in privatization.

All the warning signs are there. Whether the vast majority of Canadians can rouse themselves enough to care is an open question.

UPDATED: Thank You, Germans, For Fighting What Should Also Be Our Battle

While Canadians by and large seem content to sleep through the entire CETA negotiations, uttering nary an objection to a deal that will severely compromise our sovereignty, ordinary Germans are turning out en masse to protest its dangers:

Demonstrators took to the streets of Berlin and six other German cities Saturday to voice their displeasure with pending trade deals, one between the European Union and Canada and another with the U.S.

The treaties they’re concerned with are the yet-to-be ratified EU pact with Canada, known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the EU’s Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) [the Canadian version is called the Trans Pacific Partnership, but carries essentially the same perils] deal with the U.S. that is still being negotiated.

While the deal between the EU and Canada has escaped the same scale of criticism and widespread outrage among the Canadian public, it continues to be a hot button political issue in Germany and one that protesters are hoping to stop from being ratified sometime in the fall.

In broad terms the critics say that CETA would give multinational corporations too much power within European Union markets and they object to a dispute resolution mechanism that has been proposed in the framework agreement.

This dispute resolution mechanism would allow companies to bypass national courts in both countries, allowing then to argue their cases in front of international arbitration panels instead.

Despite the fact that we have access to the same information about the dangers of these free-trade deals, few seem upset by the unbridled enthusiasm that both Justin Trudeau and his poodle Chrystia Freeland profess for them:





Despite Freeland's rhapsodic recitation of the improvements that have been made in the CETA deal, a quick check of the facts reveals something quite different, unless motherhood statements and feel-good empty rhetoric are your thing. I would encourage you to read about these 'improvements' yourself under the pertinent sections, but here are a few highlights:

Dispute Settlement

CETA includes a more robust voluntary mediation mechanism than has been included in Canada’s previous trade agreements. Mediation is a cost-effective and expeditious way to resolve disputes without the need for a third party to decide the outcome. When parties choose arbitration rather than mediation, CETA improves on the WTO dispute settlement mechanism by streamlining and shortening the process. In addition, CETA includes an accelerated arbitration procedure for cases requiring urgent resolution, such as those involving live animals and perishable or seasonal foods.

So in other words, the great improvements Freeland was extolling have nothing to do with changing what might come under dispute, such as environmental and labour laws, but only offers a faster and potentially cheaper way to resolve conflicts. There is nothing that protects our national sovereignty here, nothing that prevents the signatories from suing governments that enact legislation that may hamper the profits of corporations.

Similarly, the language dealing with labour, environment and sustainable development are peppered with platitudes like commitments to cooperate, provisions encouraging Canada and the EU to continue developing our resources in a way that is environmentally sustainable, establishes shared commitments to promote trade in a way that contributes to the objectives of sustainable development in Canada and the EU, etc.

All in all, empty language that enables the Trudeau government to lie to Canada's citizens. But at least our Prime Minister has a nice smile, perhaps something to dream about as we continue our long, collective snooze.

UPDATE: Be sure you read Owen's excellent post today on Investor State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms.

Joseph Stiglitz On The TPP

A very brief video, but a very important message about the dangers of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism that is a central part of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and something enthusiastically embraced, it would seem, by our 'new' government:

Elizabeth Warren On The Trans Pacific Partnership

Recently, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a woman I much admire, released a five-minute video that takes aim at the Trans Pacific Partnership, specifically denouncing the Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions that give corporate entities the right to impinge upon a country's sovereignty through lawsuits if legislation affects their ability to make a profit.

Even though it is aimed at an American audience, Canada is mentioned in the warning; all of us would be very wise to take what she says very seriously, given the enthusiasm our 'new' government has for globalized trade.



I look forward to the day when our 'leaders' explain to us why these investor rights are good for all of us.

For more information about why this deal is bad and dangerous, click here.