Michel O'Neill wrote:
>
> *** 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]
> **************************************************************************
There has been a recetn project undertaken to discover international
best practices in Heart Health.  A framework has been developed to
screen interventions into various streams based on the quality and
quantity of evidence available.  Contact Nicky McDermott at the Heart
Health Resource Centre (416-367-3313 ext 29) or Rosemary Walker at the
University of Waterloo (519-888-4567 ext. 12924).  Hope this is of some
help -

Nancy Dubois
Project Consultant, Physical Activity Unit
Health Promotion Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health