Public hearings

[umne...@cc.umanitoba.ca]

Hi all,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the one of the thrusts of our campaign
against the MAI is to get the government to hold public hearings on the
MAI. It has occured to me that our requests may not be specific enough.

Calling for the standing committee on international trade to hold public
hearings, may mean that they will only hold these hearings once the
agreement has been completed and is in the process of being debated in
Parliament. Unfortunately, by this time, other countries may have already
signed the MAI, and the bill could be passed (no matter what the public
says) for the sole reason that "Canada cannot be left behind."

What I suggest is that we call for the government to immediately suspend
all talks on the MAI until public hearings are held. This may seem like a
bit of an extreme request, but it really isn't.

Afterall, the business interests have had there say for almost two years
while the public has not been alowed to input their opinions on the MAI at
all. Given the fact that business interests only represent a small
portion of society, it seems both fair and reasonable that the general
public should be allowed to have some input before the agreement is
completed.

Of course, the government will argue that the agreement isn't finished
yet, so public hearings wouldn't accomplish anything. We need to convince
MP's that this is a ludicrous way of thinking.

The fact that the agreement isn't finished hasn't stoped the government
from soliciting the views of the business interests, so why should it
stop them from getting our (the public's) viewpoint.

What does everyone else think?

__________________________
Jeremy Nelson ph: (204) 474-6535
News Editor, The Manitoban fax: (204) 474-7651

'Freedom: An occupied space which must be reoccupied every day.' J.R. Saul
--
For MAI-not subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other MAI sites please see http://www.flora.org/mai-not/

[David A. Davidson]

I would think that this would be a great thing. Only drawback I can see is
that so far the general public is not aware of MAI as there has been little
or no public information given by any newspapers. I will admit that Macleans
Magazine Sept 1 issue did have a write up on MAI, but how many people would
see this. What is really needed is someone on TV giving the facts. Perhaps
someone on Pamela Wallen Live or some show of this type. When you think
about it there is no hype about this, only on the net. Has there been any
politician discuss this in any depth? Any feed back I have received have
been mostly platitudes and the usual political double talk. Thank you.

David A Davidson
Calgary, Alberta

[Bob and/or Diane Calhoun]

I think Jeremy is right; on both counts.

My own take is that we need to pressure our MP's to inform their
constituents of the MAI. Writing sappy letters to us is not enough; they
have to come out of their holes.

I sent a letter to my MP, Mike Scott, asking him why he hasn't informed us
about the MAI. I have not had a reply. I think his office sends all
tricky questions up the line to an official answerer.

It is not enough for us to write to our MP's. As we have seen, they can
deflect us easily. I think we are going to have to ask embarrassing
questions each and every time these guys pop their heads out in public.
And the question they must answer most is, "Why haven't you informed your
constituents about the MAI?"

Any thoughts?

Regards

Bob

[Terry Cottam]

At 09:04 AM 9/14/97 -0700, Bob and/or Diane Calhoun wrote:
>My own take is that we need to pressure our MP's to inform their
>constituents of the MAI. Writing sappy letters to us is not enough; they
>have to come out of their holes.

How about starting with a concerted program of local, grassroots public
education? The national groups would be happy to assist us by providing
materials, other local contacts etc. that might round out the MAI resource
kit that Jim prooduced. The article Ed faxed me, from the Toronto Star in
1985, revealed that the biggest allie the Tories counted on to push through
the FTA was public ignorance. We can consider ourselves forewarned!

What really motivates MPs are the "big" issues. As soon as they get letters
from more than half-a-dozen voters, they probably start expressing their
personal discomfort to their leaders. Same goes for the press, as someone
else here said -- more than a few letters to the editor and it joins the
hot-list of news items. In both cases, the spin doctors come in, which is
fine -- it just means we move on to campaign stage two, refuting the
propaganda and more mobilizing.

>It is not enough for us to write to our MP's. As we have seen, they can
>deflect us easily. I think we are going to have to ask embarrassing
>questions each and every time these guys pop their heads out in public.
>And the question they must answer most is, "Why haven't you informed your
>constituents about the MAI?"

Yes, but also "have you informed yourself?" If they haven't, then their
competence comes into question. Nobody likes their competence questioned,
it's very embarrassing -- especially, I would think, from their own
constituents.

Terry

[National Centre for Sustainability (Yves Bajard)]

At 07:19 AM 9/14/97 -0600, David A.Davidson wrote:
>I would think that this would be a great thing. Only drawback I can see is
>that so far the general public is not aware of MAI as there has been little
>or no public information given by any newspapers

YB:14/9/97 (or radio or TV)

YB 14/9.97: why do you think this is so? Do you still believe that the goal
of the media is to inform the public? I don't.

Without even thinking that there may be an effective direct censorship, the
fear by journalistrs of writing or speaking about something that might
displease their Board of Editors, and in turn, the fear, among the members
of the Board of Editors to displease the owner, prevents real information
from being published anyway. Also, the need for the media to have a steady
(and if posible growing) advertising support from the commercial sector
further distorts the choice of what is published: you miust not displease
the advertisers, who perhaps are owned by colleagues of the owners of the
media or more directly by the media owners themselves. We must also remember
that a newspaper, a radio or a TV show must sell. The journalists therefore
have to please their public. This further restricts the range of wnat can
be published or aired to what is sensational, reasonably dirty, and
**capable of diverting the attention of the reader, listener or viewer away
from what is likely to disturb the socio-eonomic or political game in his or
her direct context**. Finally, thanks to the bombardment of TV ten-second
spots and the growing illiteracy of the public, the capacity of attention of
people has been fragmented, and this does not imporve the overall situation
of public information

DD: I will admit that Macleans Magazine Sept 1 issue did have a write up on

MAI, but how many people would see this. What is really needed is someone on
TV giving the facts. Perhaps
someone on Pamela Wallen Live or some show of this type.

YB 15/9/97: An article in MacLeans is a very good thing, if the contents
were OK. I do not think that creating a panic among TV viewers would be
constructive. It would be preferable to alert as many people as we can who
are already tuned to civic responsibility in as many communities of Canada,
the USA and other countries as we can and get them the information upon
which they can from the position of local consideration and respect they
probably enjoy, to inform their commuinity as rapikdly and as credibly as
they can. Then a movement can start among them to inform their elected
representatives of their concerns, and off the movement goes.
Simultaneouoly, we can from the Net, ask our elected representatives if they
are fully informed about the MAI, and ask them (1) to examine the issue with
their constitutents, and (2) to ask their caucus to take a positon,
preferably in the direction of public consultation and opening of as
thorough a debate as possible (given the fact that what wse call democracy
is by far not democratic)

DD: When you think

about it there is no hype about this, only on the net. Has there been any
politician discuss this in any depth?

YB 15/9/97: Yes, there has been several. In particular there was one rather
well documented and focused discussion of the MAi in the Legislative
Assembly of British Columbia earlier this summer, and the BC governement
took postion against the MAI (although their powers are limited at federal
level). Two senior civil servants of thr BC governments exposed the
provincial government's concerns at a meeting organized in Victoria by the
Council of Canada (Victoria Chapter). Thre probably ahve been similar ations
elsewhere.

Also, since the first draft of the MAI was leaked in April 1997, the OECD
has constructed on its Web site (http://www.oecd.org/daf/cmis/mai an
impressive assembly of documents about the MAI...

DD: Any feed back I have received have

been mostly platitudes and the usual political double talk.

YB 15/9/97: The number of responses I have seen is too small to be
considered as representative. The only thing I would propose to do is to
respond to these platitudes bny insisting that the author of these
platitudes really examine the issue and stop mistaking their constituents
for fools. They must, if they respond in that arrogant manner, be placed in
their real position, that of servantds of their eletorate, fully responsible
and anwerable to them.

(This may seem an internal contradction with the points I made in my
discussion with Terry Cottam about public accountability and the readiness
of MPs and other elected representaives to receive such warnings unprepared,
but it is not: Once an elected representatvie shows his/her contempts for
the voters by answering platitudes to an important question, it is fair game
to remind them who they are an who put them where they are, with cc to the
media. This should get them in real motion)

Hope that this is useful,

Best regards

Yves Bajard

PS: Please note that all I am proposing here is sharing of inforamtion and
public debate. Whatever my eprsonal opinion is, I do not want to take
position about the contents of the MAI until this public process is initiated.
For details on education toward sustainability, visit our Website:
http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/ncfs/ (Last update, June 16, 1997)