*** Sorry for cross-postings and re-posting (I know this letter has been
forwarded by Dennis Raphael to either the CLICK4HP or the Health promotion
listservs but I cant remeber which one) but this is probably one of the
most exciting thing currently going on to do health promotion at the global
level. Some very interesting comments had been posted (notably by Larry
Green) when this inititative had been announced by Ron a few months ago; so
let us hope that in the new year, equally interesting developments will
occur, especially from the IUHPE which, whith CPHA, was one of the
associations Ron was hoping to rally to this undertaking.

Bonne année 1998 !  Michel O'Neill ****

>Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:20:50 -0500 (EST)
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>From: Ronald Labonte <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Here it is: MAI Letter
>Status: U
>
>Below is a copy of the letter sent by the Canadian Public Health Association
>on the Multilateral Agreement on Investments and the World Trade
>Organization.  I forward it to you for interest in your own work.
>
>
>>Distribution list generally: Jean Chretien (Prime Minister), Allan Rock
>(Health Minister), Lloyd Axworthy >(Foreign Affairs), Sergio Marchi
>(International Trade),Christine Stewart >(Environment), all members of the
>Commons Standing Committee on Foreign >Affairs and International Trade, Beth
>Phinney (Chair,Standing Committee on >Health).
>
>>Also to the Leaders of the Federal Opposition Parties and the Federal
>>Party Critics for Health, Environment, Foreign Affairs and International
>>Trade.
>>
>>>December 4, 1997
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear :
>>>
>>>On behalf of Dr. John Hastings, President of the Canadian Public Health
>>>Association (CPHA), and the membership of the Association, I am writing to
>>>you to express the Association's concerns that if Canada signs the proposed
>>>Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI), at least as currently drafted,
>>>the health and well-being of Canadians may be seriously jeopardized.
>>>Specifically, CPHA is concerned about the content of the draft MAI as well
>>>as the current process of discussion in Canada in relation to this topic.
>>>
>>>At the Canadian Public Health Association's Annual General Meeting held in
>>>Halifax, July 1997, the members of the Association approved a resolution on
>>>Promoting Health in an Era of Global Free Trade (copy enclosed with this
>>>letter).  At the CPHA Board of Directors Meeting held in October 1997, the
>>>Board discussed what action CPHA should take with regard to World Trade and
>>>the draft MAI.  The Board agreed to undertake action that would inform
>>>political leaders of the Association's concerns about World Trade and draft
>>>MAI, and contribute to an ongoing awareness program for the general public
>>>and membership through a commentary to be published in the Canadian Journal
>>>of Public Health. This commentary is being prepared by Dr. Ron Labonte,
>>>CPHA Board Member-at-Large responsible for the strategic area of health
>>>promotion.
>>>
>>>While CPHA supports, in principle, the establishment of international legal
>>>frameworks for investment and trade, we are concerned that these
>>>agreements, including the draft MAI, presently favour the rights of
>>>investors and corporations over those of individual citizens and the larger
>>>public.  We urge the government not to proceed further with negotiations on
>>>the draft MAI until the agreement has been subject to more rigorous
>>>analyses in terms of health, environmental and social equity impacts, and
>>>broad-based public hearings have been conducted.  I would like to take this
>>>opportunity to detail some of the Association's concerns.
>>>
>>>The CPHA position on the draft MAI and other trade/investment agreements is
>>>founded on the following four points:
>>>
>>>1.      Strong research evidence that relative equality in wealth or income
>>>distribution within nations is the strongest predictor of overall public,
>>>or population, health.  Some of this research was commissioned by the
>>>Government of Canada and was presented earlier this year to the Canadian
>>>Parliament in the Final Report of the National Forum on Health.
>>>
>>>2.      Strong research evidence that the ecological effects of economic
>>>growth, including greenhouse gas emissions/climate change, deforestation,
>>>loss of agricultural land, depletion of food resources, desertification and
>>>toxic emissions, will have profound and devastating effects on human
>>>health.
>>>
>>>3.      Historical evidence that legislative and policy interventions by
>>>national and sub-national governments, whether in the form of restrictions
>>>or incentives, are necessary to balance market forces so that goals related
>>>to social equity and environmental sustainability can be achieved.
>>>
>>>4.      The importance, both on public health and democratic principles, of
>>>open, transparent and participatory approaches to the resolution of complex
>>>policy issues in which social equity and environmental sustainability goals
>>>may conflict with economic development goals.
>>>
>>>CPHA is concerned that current trade and investment agreements, such as
>>>NAFTA and the draft MAI, may weaken the ability of national and
>>>sub-national governments' to pursue social equity and environmental
>>>sustainability, and that they have been negotiated with limited public
>>>input and that they create undemocratic dispute resolution processes.
>>>
>>>CPHA has three specific concerns with the draft MAI:
>>>
>>>1.      Compensatory Rights of Private Investors and Corporations
>>>
>>>        The draft MAI, like NAFTA, gives private corporations the right to
>>>claim compensation from sovereign states for existing and future laws that
>>>have the "effect" of expropriating their existing and future profits.  This
>>>could cost governments enormous amounts in preparing arguments against such
>>>suits, further eroding the capital base available for programs aimed at
>>>increasing social equity or environmental protection.  It could also
>>>establish a climate in which governments will be less likely to pursue such
>>>objectives for fear of potential corporate compensatory claims.  While
>>>individuals, including individual investors, should be protected from
>>>investor-government legal standing, the provisions of the draft MAI, and
>>>NAFTA, appear to go beyond this protection by creating conditions in which
>>>investors, based on private economic interests, can override legislation
>>>based on common good concerns.  Canadian negotiators should insist that
>>>investor-government legal standing provisions not be in the draft MAI until
>>>the following conditions are met:
>>>
>>>        -       There is clear language that private economic interests
>>>cannot override or challenge social and economic policies enacted by
>>>democratic governments to increase social equity and environmental
>>>sustainability.
>>>
>>>        -       Proponents of investor-government legal standing provisions
>>>demonstrate how existing national law and jurisprudence fail to protect
>>>investors from capricious or undemocratic expropriation.
>>>
>>>2.      Undemocratic Dispute Resolution Process
>>>
>>>        In 1996, CPHA released an Action Statement on Health Promotion in
>>>Canada, based on the concerns of public health workers and their
>>>constituent communities across the country.  This statement contains a
>>>number of democratic, ethical principles, including the following two that
>>>bear directly on the draft MAI:
>>>
>>>        -       Individual liberties are respected, but priority is given
>>>to the common good when conflict arises.
>>>
>>>        -       Participation is supported in policy decision-making to
>>>identify what constitutes the common good.
>>>
>>>        We recognize that, while it is fundamental to human health that
>>>governments attain social equity and environmental sustainability goals,
>>>the more specific policy objectives to achieve these goals require
>>>participation and careful deliberation.  Canada enjoys a long history of
>>>openness and transparency in such deliberations.  Various public programs
>>>have also supported, directly or indirectly, the participation of less
>>>powerful social groups in consultations and discussions on public policy.
>>>Openness, transparency and accountability by institutions are the only
>>>means by which we can claim to be a democratic society.  Yet these are
>>>precisely what are absent in the dispute-resolution measures of global
>>>trade and investment agreements. Moreover, the draft MAI, until very
>>>recently, was negotiated without broad public consultation or input.
>>>
>>>        CPHA is suggesting that Canadian negotiators ensure that the draft
>>>MAI's dispute-resolution process, whether government-government or
>>>investor-government, is transparent and open to participation from citizens
>>>and civil society groups.  However, before Canada engages in any further
>>>negotiations on the draft MAI, broad public consultations on the intent and
>>>specific mechanisms of the MAI should be undertaken.  The Government of
>>>Canada should also initiate steps to ensure that transparency and public
>>>participation are extended to dispute-resolution procedures in existing
>>>agreements, such as the WTO and NAFTA.
>>>
>>>3.      Threats to Existing Social Equity and Environmental Sustainability
>>>Policies
>>>
>>>        The draft MAI fails to protect existing policies on social equity
>>>and environmental sustainability, in two ways.
>>>
>>>        First, many social and environmental policies are now under the
>>>jurisdiction of provinces and municipalities.  It is also at these levels
>>>that social and environmental performance requirements on investment are
>>>most likely to be found, and to be enforced.  The U.S. federal government,
>>>concerned that the draft MAI would infringe on state and local government
>>>sovereignty, has filed reservations that would exempt their laws from MAI
>>>obligations.  To our knowledge, as of this date, the Canadian government
>>>has not done this, nor have provincial or local governments been engaged in
>>>debates or decision-making about the draft MAI.
>>>
>>>        Until provincial and local governments become fully engaged in MAI
>>>debates, including negotiations of the Government of Canada's position on
>>>the draft MAI, Canadian negotiators should ensure that these levels of
>>>government are exempted from MAI obligations.
>>>
>>>        Second, the draft MAI contains no provisions allowing other
>>>multilateral agreements on environment, health, labour, and human rights to
>>>take precedence when conflict arises.  NAFTA, at least, allows seven
>>>international environment-related agreements to take precedence.  The draft
>>>MAI allows governments, "notwithstanding" any other MAI obligations, to
>>>take "prudential measures" to protect the interests of investors and
>>>depositors in financial services, but no similar "notwithstanding" clauses
>>>are granted for the protection of ecosystem integrity and stability, or
>>>movement in the direction of social equity.
>>>
>>>At a minimum, Canadian negotiators should ensure that the draft MAI contain
>>>"notwithstanding" clauses for social equity and environmental stability,
>>>specifically exempting governments from MAI obligations if these
>>>obligations imperil social policies and programs that improve social
>>>equity.
>>>
>>>The latter point raises a contradiction in Canada's (and most other
>>>nations') current approach to multilateral agreements that we find
>>>ethically untenable.  Canada, like many other nations, is signatory to
>>>numerous international and multilateral agreements on environmental
>>>protection and sustainability (e.g., the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21), human
>>>rights (e.g., the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International
>>>Labour Code) and public health (e.g., the Alma Ata Declaration, the World
>>>Health Assembly Declaration on Health For All). These "common good" accords
>>>represent agreements about what is important to promote and protect if
>>>people are to have a decent quality of life. None of these agreements have
>>>enforcement mechanisms.  Moreover, despite the effectiveness of the threat
>>>of trade sanction penalties in the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting
>>>Substances in gaining rapid national compliance, Canada's current position
>>>on the Kyoto climate-change negotiations are that trade sanctions or fines
>>>should not be used as a compliance measure.
>>>
>>>In contrast to these "common good" agreements, the draft MAI, the WTO and
>>>NAFTA, which extend the rights of private investors and producers even when
>>>they conflict with the "common good", all have enforcement measures. We see
>>>no ethical justification for this.   We do not believe the Government of
>>>Canada should sign agreements that enforce economic practices that benefit
>>>the few without also insisting that reciprocating agreements for the common
>>>good become enforceable.
>>>
>>>One proposal gaining support among international development and public
>>>interest groups globally, and which we support, is the gradual inclusion of
>>>multilateral "common good" agreements, such as Agenda 21 and the
>>>International Labour Code, as "social clauses" within trade and investment
>>>agreements.  While UN agencies currently responsible for monitoring such
>>>agreements would continue in that role, they would have at their disposal
>>>the trade sanction and other enforcement mechanisms of WTO and other
>>>multilateral trade and investment agreements.  There is agreement among
>>>those concerned with this issue that there are problems with the simplistic
>>>adoption of "social clauses" within such agreements, particularly how to
>>>prevent these clauses from becoming first world protectionism against
>>>exports from low-wage, poorer countries, but these are technical problems
>>>that we believe can be resolved.  The gradual inclusion of "social clauses"
>>>in trade/investment agreements, alongside other progressive international
>>>accords, is essential to ensuring the health and well-being of Canadians,
>>>as well as that of other people around the globe.
>>>
>>>CPHA is a national, voluntary organization representing public health in
>>>Canada with strong links to the international public health community.
>>>CPHA's multidisciplinary membership believe in universal and equitable
>>>access to the basic conditions which are necessary to achieve health for
>>>all Canadians.  Representatives from this Association would welcome the
>>>opportunity to participate in meetings with you or your representatives to
>>>discuss how governments and NGOs could explore the "social clause"
>>>initiative in further detail. In addition, CPHA is prepared to discuss
>>>providing support to the Government of Canada in establishing a position on
>>>future trade and investment negotiations that accommodates the need for
>>>reciprocating and enforceable health, environment, and human rights
>>>accords.
>>>
>>>I look forward to your response on this important issue of promoting health
>>>in an era of global free trade.
>>>
>>>Yours sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>>Gerald H. Dafoe
>>>Chief Executive Officer
>>>
>>
>>Janet MacLachlan
>>Assistant Executive Director Management
>>Canadian Public Health Association
>>PH: (613) 725-3769 FAX: (613) 725-9826
>>Email: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>______________________________________
>
>Ronald Labonte, PhD
>Communitas Consulting
>29 Jorene Drive
>Kingston, Ontario, Canada  K7M 3X5
>(voice):  613-634-7396
>(fax):    613-634-2384
>e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
>______________________________________
>


Une tres bonne journee.

Michel O'Neill, Ph.D.

**************************************************************************
Professeur titulaire et Codirecteur, Groupe de recherche et d'intervention
en promotion de la sante (GRIPSUL), Faculte des Sciences infirmieres,
4108-J Pavillon Comtois, Universite Laval, Quebec, Qc, Canada, G1K 7P4.
tel: +1-(418)-656-2131 #7431; telecopieur: +1-(418)-656-7747
Courrier electronique: [log in to unmask]

Codirecteur, Centre quebecois collaborateur de l'OMS pour le developpement
de villes et villages en sante / Quebec WHO Collaborating Center for the
development of healthy cities and towns,
2400 D'estimauville, Beauport, Qc, Canada, G1E 7G9.
tel: +1-(418)-666-7000 #461; telecopieur: +1-(418)-666-2776
Courrier electronique:[log in to unmask]
**************************************************************************