BC Politics with Hubert Beyer

MAI --THE MULTINATIONALS’ CHARTER OF RIGHTS

Details

Hits: 2597

VICTORIA -- A couple of weeks back, I wrote a piece on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, and how it could be that Canada, along with 28 other nations, has been negotiating, in total secrecy, what could well spell an end to Canadian sovereignty as we know it.

Sterling Newspapers, which runs my column in a dozen or so of its papers, posted the piece on the Internet, and an extraordinary thing happened: within days, my electronic mailbox was jammed with response to my column, not just from British Columbians, but from people around the world.

Day after day, there I received between 15 and 20 messages from readers in British Columbia, the rest of Canada and the U.S., and as far away as Norway, Italy, Germany and Great Britain.

The central theme of all these responses was great unease, not just about the proposed agreement, but the fact that the negotiations have been conducted in utter secrecy, without any public consultation. And considering the scope of the proposed agreement, that’s cause for worry.

In a nutshell, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, or MAI for short, is to facilitate the free flow of investment among member nations. One of he more alarming aspects of the agreement is a clause that would forbid any government to attach conditions to investments.

In practical terms, that would mean no government, federal or provincial, could tell potential investors that they have to create jobs. Premier Glen Clark’s Jobs and Timber Accord, which will compel the forest industry to create jobs in return for receiving tree-cutting rights, would not be permissible, once the agreement is in effect.

I’m not the only one who is worried. From the Boston Cambridge Alliance for Democracy came this message: "At a time when more responsibility is being shifted to state and local government to deal with social needs, new laws are being drafted at the international level which will restrict the power of state and local government to affect economic development, environmental or labor standards, and the retention of domestic industries."

George Monbiot, one of the UK’s leading environmentalists, lambasted the British media for having so vocally defended the cause of democracy during the recent elections, while completely ignoring a serious threat to national sovereignty.

"The real future of Britain is being discussed not here, but elsewhere, and in the utmost secrecy. The columnists who have so shrilly defended the sovereignty of Parliament from the technocrats in Brussels (headquarters of the European Union), have so far failed to devote a single column inch to the shady deliberations of the EU’s bigger brother."

The UK media aren’t the only ones who have virtually ignored the MAI. One of the few Canadian newspapers that did touch on the issue was the Telegraph-Journal in New Brunswick.

"Looking for an election issue to raise when federal candidates come knocking during this election campaign? Try the MAI on for size. Never heard of it? Join the club, the TJ said in its April 30 editorial.

"The premise of the MAI is that global investors want legal protection r their money when they choose to invest in a foreign country. Against what must it be protected? Any obligations a host country may wish to impose on that foreign investment.

"The MAI would prohibit any level of government from imposing job creation requirements, local hiring quotas or procurement rules, requirements to reinvest profits into research and development, or special taxation rules to capture a are of exported profits – in short, anything that would restrict profit-making or taking on foreign companies investing in, say, Canada."

Well, the MAI didn’t become an election issue. The Liberals avoided it like the plague, the Tories and Reform presumably like the agreement, and Alexa McDonough didn’t have a clue when it was first raised.

In my books, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment is a "Charter of Rights" for multinational corporations, and if we’re nor careful, it will make minced meat out of our own Charter of Rights.

CLARK DECLARES SALMON WAR

Details

Hits: 1553

VICTORIA – The B.C. mouse roared and the U.S. elephant took notice.

In an unprecedented step, British Columbia has told the United States to get the hell out of the missile test range at Nanoose Bay on Vancouver Island. I didn’t think Premier Glen Clark had the guts to do it, but he did.

The surprise move comes on the heels of the collapse of the Pacific Salmon Treaty talks which, according to Clark, were marked by an "unfriendly and uncooperative approach taken by the Americans."

The talks broke off when Canadian negotiators learned that their American counterparts had no mandate to cut a deal.

No sooner had Clark pulled the plug on the Yankee’s missile playground, than U.S. State Secretary Madeleine Albright hinted that she was willing to get the negotiations going again.

And what do know, next day word came down from south of the border that the talks would resume and this time, U.S. negotiators would have authorization to shake hands on a deal. For good measure, Clark took a quick trip to Washington State to tell his counterpart that B.C. is serious about protecting its salmon stock.

Mind you, the talks were off again when Ottawa started arresting American fishing vessels, but you can expect that problem to be solved quickly.

For the past three years, there has been no treaty has been no treaty to divvy up the annual salmon catch, and British Columbia has complained bitterly that Alaska and Oregon fishermen take too many salmon returning to B.C. waters to spawn, thereby endangering stocks.

The salmon fishery will begin in British Columbia waters by mid-June, and B.C.-bound fish are already in Alaskan waters. And unless there’s a new treaty in place, the U.S. salmon harvest could seriously threaten the province’s conservation efforts.

Clark had a number of options to draw the Americans’ attention to the urgency of the issue. He could have imposed stiff fees on fishing vessels going through Canadian waters. He could have held up U.S. truck transport at the border. In fact, he may still resort to these measures.

But interfering with a U.S. military installation was bound to make U.S. President Bill Clinton’s head snap around.

Meanwhile, Ottawa is trying to play down B.C.’s role in getting the talks going again. Rather than taking decisive action himself, federal Fisheries Minister Fred Mifflin muttered something about co-operation being better than confrontation.

His stance was repeated by Transport Minister David Anderson, who also said Clark’s approach wasn’t the right one. Guess what, Dave, Clark got results, your government didn’t.

The premier’s tough stance also brought about a rare spectacle in British Columbia politics. All opposition parties agreed that Clark had taken the right approach.

Fishermen also hailed Clark’s move. "It’s a treat for me to have somebody go to the efforts he does," said Al Brown, who has been fishing in B.C. waters for more than 50 years, and who was present when the premier made the announcement.

The showdown is one more example of the gradual shift in jurisdiction over fisheries from what was once solely a federal responsibility to the province. Fisheries Renewal B.C., modelled after Forest Renewal, will be charged with the protection and enhancement of fish stock.

Not unexpectedly, Clark’s success in overcoming U.S. obstinacy, was immediately exploited for election campaign purposes by the federal New Democrats. Radio spots, pointing out that it was the decisive action taken by a provincial NDP government that promises to bring about a new salmon treaty, were on the air a couple of days later.

But hey, in an election campaign, you don’t look a good-news horse in the mouth.

TAKE YOUR LUMPS, DAVID

Details

Hits: 1450

VICTORIA – Driving along the scenic Pat Bay Highway, leading from Victoria to the Swartz Bay ferry terminal, you can’ help but be jarred by the huge billboard.

There’s David Anderson, federal minister of transport and British Columbia’s fearless defender of all things British Columbian in Ottawa, larger than life, looking down from the billboard on unsuspecting motorists.

As signs at election time go, it’s a big one. Alas, Anderson shares the billboard space with the pictures of three of Canada’s most notorious killers, including mass murderer Clifford Olson.

The caption says: "David Anderson voted to give these killers and early chance at early parole – On June 2^nd it’s Your turn to vote." The sign is sponsored and paid for by the Canadian Police Association. Similar signs, aimed at MPs who voted against a private member’s bill to repeal the so-called faint-hope clause, allowing killers to apply for parole after having served 15 years, are springing up on the Lower Mainland.

Tasteless? Yes. Cheap shot? That, too. But the frustration by police at what they see as an ever-increasing trend to protect the rights of criminals, while forgetting about the victims is understandable.

Just last week, a killer’s conviction was overturned and the man set free because the search warrant that produced the evidence on which he was convicted was declare unconstitutional. The Crown will probably not ask for a new trial because the evidence will be inadmissible.

No doubt about the man’s guilt, but he went free anyway. The judge said that was the price society must pay to protect its rights to privacy. Small wonder cops are ticked off.

Here’s also the question of pay. While their work load and, therefore, the danger to their lives increases, RCMP haven’t seen a pay a raise in several years.

And while violent crimes go unsolved because of a shortage of manpower, resources and laws with teeth, police have to spend their time on silly offences. The latest plan by Ottawa is to go after health food stores selling cayenne pepper pills.

Presumably, Ottawa’s buddies, the big drug companies, have their own expensive versions of the stuff.

I can hear it now at morning briefings in police stations and RCMP detachments across Canada: "We’re going to nail these pepper pill perps. Zero tolerance. Hundreds of judges are standing by, in case you need search warrants. Be careful out there."

Naturally, Anderson feels offended by the billboard. Who wouldn’t. But hell, he did voted against the bill, initiated by John Nunziata, to scrap the faint-hope clause and strip convicted killers of their chance to apply for early parole.

Anderson says the bill wouldn’t have stood up to a constitutional challenge. May be it wouldn’t, but that’s conjecture. The test should have been left up to the courts, not to the interpretations of politicians.

Anderson also points out, and rightly so, that the faint-hope clause is a hurdle convicted murders will find almost impossible to overcome.

First, only those convicted of a single murder will now be able to apply to a judge to have their application for early parole heard by a jury. They will then have to convince every member of the jury to let them out early. Even before the faint-hope clause was made even fainter, Clifford Olson would have had to convince two-thirds of a jury.

What Anderson ignores is that most Canadians don’t want killers to even have to right to apply for early parole. They want 25 years to mean 25 years. They want murderers serving a life sentence to die in prison, period.

The political arena is a rough place, far removed from the world of academia Anderson is used to. Instead of whining about the unfair treatment he believes he’s receiving at the hands of the police association, he take his lumps and listen to what a lot of ordinary Canadians consider common sense.