NEW: Power Point on Corporate Power, TPP & ISDS

[Oscar]

TPP Power Point on Corporate Power, Free Trade and Negative Impacts of TPP & ISDS

[ http://www.commonfrontiers.ca/Single_Pa ... AL-PPT.pdf ]

TPP Power Point Presentation on "Corporate Globalization, Corporate Power, Free Trade, Mega Trade Agreements and the Negative Impacts of TPP"

by Janet M Eaton, PhD January 2016

This 60-slide educational power point presentation with photos, quotes, and references was created to provide background knowledge on Corporate Globalization, corporate power, and free trade agreements as context for understanding the mega-trade agreements like TPP, TTIP, CETA and TISA. It also provides specific knowledge on the nature and negative impacts of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The power point concludes with information on the Canadian government’s promises to consult citizens and groups before signing the TPP and makes recommendations for influencing government and becoming engaged in government consultations on the TPP.

Clickable links to video clips provide current audiovisual analysis of subjects covered in the presentation as well.

Audiovisual Links include:

Video on Corporate Power:
Professor Susan George speaking on Shadow Sovereigns : How global Corporations are Seizing Power
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOrJqWMzpXM ] [5.4 min]

Videos on Free Trade Agreements and Corporate Power
Free Trade 101 video from Common Frontiers [3 Min]
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvdhZ04ElmY ]
Explanation of free trade and investor state agreements from perspective of a business executive –satirical

TheRealNews Days of Revolt: The Most Brazen Corporate Power Grab in American History With Chris Hedges
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tRIFmh ... e=youtu.be ]
In this episode of Days of Revolt, Chris Hedges and organizer Kevin Zeese break down the terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after discussing corporate power.

Videos on TPP explained;
What is the TPP? (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Sierra Club US
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYm6nGCF46I ]

The TPP The Dirtiest Deal you've never heard of. [3 Min]
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ZFDpuiFUs ]
Australian perspective

Videos on ISDS
German TV documentary on ISDS Konzerne klagen - wir zahlen [Eng subtitles] 0-2 Min Intro / 2:00 - :11:00 min] Digby Neck ISDS case explained
[ https://youtu.be/YV2NZ9MQh0w?t=12m22s ] [12 min to 18 min]

Dutch Documentary on ISDS: TTIP: Might is Right (VPRO Backlight) [49:16 Min ]
[ https://youtu.be/j0LOwmwgkdA?t=14s ] Intro Gus
[ https://youtu.be/j0LOwmwgkdA?t=18m46s BITs whats w

Both Documentaries provide in-depth interviews with Canadian International Investment Law Professor, Gus Van Harten, in unpacking the ISDS. The German film highlights the Nova Scotia, Digby Neck Quarry Bilcon case while the Dutch film highlights the Lone Pine Resources case against the Quebec decision to ban fracking among others.



PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THE ABOVE INFORMATION AND LINK TO THIS POWER POINT AND TAKE ACTION IF POSSIBLE AS PER THE SECOND LAST SLIDE IN THE PRESENTATION.


= = = = = = =



New NAFTA lawsuits reveal disturbing, dangerous trend

[ http://theindependent.ca/2016/01/14/new ... ous-trend/ ]

By: Marilyn Reid | January 14, 2016

If corporate interests keep suing Canada and other countries under trade agreements like NAFTA, state sovereignty might soon be a thing of the past.

Abitibi Bowater is at it again.

In 2010 the company squeezed $130 million out of Canadian taxpayers after the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador expropriated Abitibi’s hydroelectric assets in Grand Falls-Windsor and took back water and timber rights.

The company threatened to sue Canada under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), prompting the Harper administration to settle out of court.
This all went down after Abitibi chose to pull out of the province and used the excuse of imminent bankruptcy to give minimum compensation to workers and pensioners, while paying nothing toward cleaning up the environmental damage it had caused.

The company never did go out of business; after emerging from bankruptcy proceedings under a new name, Resolute Forest Products, it was business as usual on the mainland.
This time the company closed down a mill in Shawinigan, Que., and is again suing under NAFTA because, it claims, a competing mill in Port Hawkesbury, N.S. was given an unfair trade advantage when it was subsidized by the Government of Nova Scotia.

The Port Hawkesbury mill closed in 2011 but was purchased by Pacific West Commercial for $33 million and reopened one year later with the guarantee of provincial government aid of approximately $12 million a year over a 10-year period. Today more than 1,000 people in Cape Breton are employed by Port Hawkesbury Paper.

In addition to claiming direct losses of around $70 million, Resolute Forest Products [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot ... -1.3385420 ] is seeking unspecified consequential damages that could ultimately mean much higher compensation.

What’s wrong with this lawsuit?

At first glance, this lawsuit might appear reasonable to some. That is, until one considers two important points.

First, the original argument for including an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in NAFTA was to prevent governments from discriminating against foreign corporations in favour of local businesses. There is a loophole in NAFTA, however, which allows Canadian corporations to register in the United States and then claim they are American for the purpose of suing Canada. This can be done as a mail box company in the state of Delaware, for instance.
[ http://corporateeurope.org/internationa ... s-eu-trade ]

Resolute Forest Products’ head office is in Montreal [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_Forest_Products ] and, according to the company’s website, the “vast majority” of the forests where it harvests trees are in Canada. Doesn’t this suggest that Resolute—like Calgary-based Lone Pine Resources, which is currently suing Canada for $118.9 million USD as a result of Quebec’s decision to ban fracking in the interest of protecting the natural environment—is really a Canadian company in American disguise?
[ http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-ag ... x?lang=eng ]

Secondly, the Resolute Forest Products lawsuit could be a ‘back door’ challenge to the whole idea of subsidies. This is a new, and very significant, twist because trade agreements generally don’t attempt to eliminate government’s right to use subsidies to stimulate local economies. Even wildly pro-free trade governments haven’t argued for that.

For example, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) did not in any way address the huge subsidies European countries give to their fishing industries. This is why Newfoundland and Labrador’s acquiescence to the elimination of its minimum processing requirements (MPRs) that former governments had designed to protect local communities and local workers was very shortsighted, even with the $280 million MPR federal compensation fund.

What the Resolute Forest Products lawsuit suggests is that we now have very limited options when it comes to leveling the very uneven playing field that exists in the international fisheries. We can apparently forget the concept of provincial subsidies or bailouts to help local producers and local jobs, as they can be challenged by industry players in other provinces who happen to have European affiliates or have registered in the United States.

The Resolute Forest Product lawsuit shows how trade agreements can generate far-reaching consequences that governments never anticipated. Canada, in particular, has not been very smart in its pursuit of trade agreements. Just our NAFTA lawsuits alone have gained us the dubious distinction of being the most sued developed country in the world. The United States, by contrast, has yet to lose a NAFTA lawsuit.

MORE:

[ http://theindependent.ca/2016/01/14/new ... ous-trend/ ]