Skip to content

The Council denied access to NAFTA chapter proposed by the Trudeau government

Excerpt of letter from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. The paragraph it refers to states: 21 (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains (c) positions or plans developed for the purpose of negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Government of Canada and considerations relating thereto…


The Council of Canadians – and by extension Indigenous peoples as well as the broader public – has been denied access to a proposed chapter for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).


In November 2017, Global News reported, “Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Tuesday [November 21] that Canada has tabled their proposed Indigenous rights chapter in the ongoing NAFTA renegotiation talks.” Yesterday, the Canadian Press reported, “[Freeland] said the Indigenous chapter would be discussed for the first time in Montreal [during the 6th round of talks].”


Furthermore, the Canadian Press reported today, “Canada put most of its text on the tables by the end of the second round [September 5, 2017], and all of it by the third [September 27, 2017], officials said. The so-called American poison pills on autos, dispute resolution and the sunset clause were tabled after that. That makes them counter-proposals as far as Canada is concerned, they added.”


But those texts proposed by the Trudeau government have not been made available for public scrutiny – four months after they were tabled.


After we saw the news report about the Indigenous rights chapter having been proposed in November (it was not reported at that time that the other chapters had been tabled too), we filed an Access to Information Act request to see that chapter (to be able to share it, analyze it, promote public discussion on it).


We wanted to spur public debate with questions including: Does the chapter fully respect and implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), notably its provision on the right to free, prior and informed consent? Does the Indigenous rights chapter supersede the powers given to transnational corporations in the Chapter 11 investor-state dispute settlement provision?


But today we received a formal response that the proposed text cannot be released to us. Why the secrecy? Where’s the promised transparency?


On October 5, 2015, just two weeks before the last election, Justin Trudeau responded with this statement to the Harper government’s announcement that it had reached agreement with eleven other countries on a Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.


He said, “The Harper Conservatives have failed to be transparent through the entirety of the negotiations – especially in regards to what Canada is conceding in order to be accepted into this partnership. The government has an obligation to be open and honest about the negotiation process, and immediately share all the details of any agreement. …If the Liberal Party of Canada earns the honour of forming a government after October 19th, we will hold a full and open public debate in Parliament to ensure Canadians are consulted on this historic trade agreement.”


While Trudeau was talking about the TPP, that pledge of transparency “through the entirety of the negotiations” should equally apply to NAFTA.


There is also concern – expressed by Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom here – that the Trudeau government could be on the verge on making concessions to the United States on NAFTA. Again, Trudeau’s pre-election pledge to be transparent “especially in regards to what Canada is conceding” should apply to the NAFTA talks.


The Canadian Press reported today, “All four tenets of Canada’s progressive agenda — gender, labour, environment and Indigenous issues — are on the agenda for talks this week [Jan. 21-29], officials said.”


We are now left to ask: When will these texts be released? Will people be able to see them to make their own determination if they are in their best interest? Which corporations have seen these texts? What influence did they have in the development of them in relation to their interests vs the public good?

Tags: