Re: Trudeau returns from China with few victories, Sept. 7

Re: CETA undermines our democracy, Opinion Sept. 1

Trudeau returns from China with few victories, Sept. 7

It seems if we look behind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ‎”sunny ways” persona, we find he is perpetuating the agenda of the Harper government.

The hearings and meetings being held across the country are a sham, as the PM’s G20 remarks on European trade and the Trans Pacific Partnership ‎show the Liberal government is right in line with the Harper regime, promoting flawed so-called trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Consultation with Canadians on the TPP has consistently raised concerns and objections over the same issue that concerns Europeans – the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses that give corporations power above that of the federal government and bypass our judicial court system‎.

The PM states that Canadians are largely supportive of international trade, but, like Stephen Harper’s omnibus bills that contained lots of hidden, usually objectionable, legislation, the TPP is only partly concerned with trade.

Justin Trudeau seems intent on ignoring Canadians concerns over increased corporate powers as well as the relatively toothless and unequal protections the TPP offers for workers’ rights and the environment‎.

He misleads Canadians by characterizing those who are opposed to the “hidden” aspects of the TPP (and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA) as being “anti-trade.”

In this respect, he is simply following in Stephen Harper’s shoes, albeit with a sunnier disposition, placing corporate interests above those of the Canadian people.

Terry Kushnier, Scarborough

What is missing in this news report is that most people, in fact most Americans as well as Canadians, are not against the enhancement of international trade. They are against the dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) that is included in most trade agreements, which requires dispute settlement by non-governmental arbitration panels.

Historically these are loaded toward corporations that sue sovereign governments, which are legislating on behalf of their citizens. Abuse of this system abounds, for example tobacco companies suing Uruguay for loss of income due to anti-smoking campaigns. They lost that one in the end but the inhibition of social (and environmental and labour) programs, and the cost to governments in worrying about and fighting such “disputes” so that corporations can do international business unfettered, is inexcusable. Much of the opposition to recent draft trade agreements such as CETA by social democratic countries in Europe is for this reason.

Roger H. Green, Brighton

CETA undermines our democracy, Opinion Sept. 1

All Canadians must pay attention to Linda McQuaig’s warning: A “golden straightjacket” is what Thomas Friedman calls trade agreements – golden because of the economic potential and a straightjacket, because it narrows the political and economic policy choices of those in power to relatively tight parameters. In other words they undermine democracy.

Canada faces a tremendous challenge to meet our commitments to reduce global warming. A commitment that requires the full cooperation of the federal and provincial governments, it is certain that this task will be difficult.

We do not know what type of regulations and laws we might want to implement in future years as we battle global warming. It is therefore essential that we do not allow our democratic freedoms to be hampered by a trade agreement with greedy corporations that have no social conscience and a total commitment to profit.

Canadians must make sure that Prime Minister Trudeau understands that “sunny ways” do not include a “golden straightjacket.”

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

Apparently, Justin Trudeau is going to continue the foolish initiative of Stephen Harper and grant investor protection rights to powerful corporations in order to sign CETA, the Canada-Europe trade deal. These rights would allow foreign companies to sue the Canadian taxpayers for billions of dollars if our elected Parliament passes laws regarding, for example, the environment, health or financial regulations, that adversely effect their bottom lines.

What twisted ideology would inspire any thoughtful politician to undermine our democracy in this way? That Justin would even consider this trade-off is proof that corporations already possess too much power. And these are the same corporations that protect billions of dollars through tax avoidance and evasion.

Stop this madness. Mr. Trudeau, please refuse to sign any trade deal that would erode our sovereign rights.

Cliff Lelievre, Burlington

I agree with many of the criticisms made in Linda McQuaig’s column. There are potentially three issues involved: 1. the nature of the protection of investors; 2. the mechanism for resolving disputes when that protection is allegedly violated; and 3. the method of calculating compensation.

Under older style trade agreements such as the Marrakesh Agreement of the World Trade Organization disputes are brought by one state against another. Under more modern style agreements such as the NAFTA investors are allowed to directly sue a state.

The great majority of EU countries have modern legal systems with a strong respect for the rule of law and international norms. Certainly, Germany, France and the Netherlands fall into that category. For those countries state-to-state dispute settlement should be adequate.

Although some more recent EU members may not comply with those standards, there will be strong pressure on them from their EU partners and EU institutions to modernize their laws and practices.

Bruce Couchman, Ottawa

Read more about: