We believe that the process should be transparent. This agreement has been negotiated behind closed doors with a level of secrecy that is completely unacceptable in a democratic society.

The Right to Set Our Own Laws

The governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand traditionally have the right to set down their own laws for the good of public health, consumers, workers and the environment.

Leaked details of the TPPA reveal that, foreign investors and firms could sue Canada or New Zealand in a private international tribunal if their parliaments or local councils pass laws that reduce their profits or adversely affect their businesses. This could include laws such as:

• a requirement for large graphic warnings or plain packaging of cigarettes and other tobacco products (such as in Canada and Australia, and forthcoming in NZ);
• laws requiring labelling of genetically-modified food and drink (NZ); and
• retention of agricultural regulations such as Canada’s supply management system for dairy, which aims to preserve farmers’ livelihoods.

The Australian government has indicated it will not agree to these clauses intended to protect multinational businesses from the impact of policy decisions, but New Zealand and Canada’s leaders refuse to do the same (even after Canada was on the receiving end of costly lawsuits under NAFTA).

The End of a Free Internet

We believe the TPPA is being used to sneak in measures to bind its member countries to extensive and harsh laws on Internet use that wouldn’t be acceptable at the domestic level – including harsher criminal penalties for minor, non-commercial copyright infringements, a ‘take-down and ask questions later’ approach to pages and content alleged to breach copyright, and the possibility of Internet providers having to disclose personal information to authorities without safeguards for privacy. The European Parliament voted 478-39 against the international ACTA treaty, which was trying to create similar standards. Now, the same type of regulation is being attempted under the TPPA.

More IP Rights for the Big Players

The Intellectual Property Rights chapter of the TPPA was leaked in draft form in February 2011. We anticipate that unless a more moderate and balanced version is adopted, NZ, Canada and Australia’s shoppers, schools and libraries would end up paying more for their books and DVD’s  because it would let copyright holders veto parallel importing. Small and medium-sized software and IT businesses would have their innovative visions stifled by constraining patent laws. Finally, large pharmaceutical companies could use the legislation to deny state drug-buying agencies like those in Australia and NZ access to reliable, low cost medicines.

Behind Closed Doors

Almost everything we have learnt about the TPPA’s contents comes from leaked documents that the negotiators didn’t want the public to see. No agreement this important should be finalised without the informed input of the ordinary people it will affect.

Yet while representatives of AT&T, Verizon, Cisco, major pharmaceutical companies and the Motion Picture Association of America have access to the text, democratically elected members of parliament, advocacy organisations for healthcare and the environment and ordinary citizens are being left out in the cold.

Governments, including the US, have opened up to the public in the past by releasing the draft text of agreements. In 2001, all nine chapters of the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement were released. At the time, this was called an ‘important step’ that would make the trade negotiation process ‘more transparent and accessible’. If this was the standard for public accountability in 2001, it is disconcerting that similar standards are not in play in 2012.

Together, we Green Parties are declaring that we will only support a fair, genuinely progressive trade agreement that promotes sustainable development and the creation of new jobs alongside the protection of the environment and human rights (including freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining). We call on our current governments to remove the veil of secrecy surrounding this agreement and to open these negotiations to public input and comment.

The post Joint Statement on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I  submitted amendments to redress the changes, as did Liberal and NDP MPs, but, there was no willingness on the part of the Harper Conservatives to reconsider food safety and controls on prescription drugs.  No surprise.  As we all know, the 425 page bill passed into law at break-neck speed without a single amendment at committee or report stage.

The buzz-words stayed the same as Bill C-38 waded into reducing consumer access to information, and potentially reducing the safety of our foods and drugs.

The changes are to “streamline” the approval of new food additives, ingredients and food modifications.  The industry leaders in food retailing heralded the changes.  According to the industry association, Food and Consumer Products of Canada, Canada has been lagging behind other countries due to our onerous regulations.  What dire negative impact is there as a result of undue regulation of food safety?  Apparently, Canadians have been suffering as regulations have been “seriously limiting consumer choice in the marketplace.” I wonder if these guys have been in the “marketplace” lately.  The array of consumer choice for everything from toothpaste to olive oil is dizzying.  But apparently, Canadians are deprived of “choice.”

So thanks to C-38, a range of decisions that used to run the normal course of regulation-making will no longer receive the public and Parliamentary oversight implicit in promulgating regulations.  Decisions are reduced to non-regulatory lists and the minister of health can approve new food products, as long as a previous assessment of the additive was made for other products. “Interim marketing authorizations” can be granted without moving through regulation.  And unlike the previous law, the interim authorization could remain in place indefinitely.

Meanwhile, regulations of food safety with regard to contamination with hazardous substances have been relaxed. The requirement that the Minister had to conclude that “the food would not be harmful to the health of the purchaser or consumer” has been removed.  This will allow the minister to allow the sale of products with levels of pesticides, veterinary drugs or food additives without determining first that the food would not be harmful.  There was no explanation for removing this protection.

In the area of prescription drugs, regulations were also removed.  The minister will no longer have to post proposed new prescription drugs to the Canada Gazette.  The minister will establish a “list that sets out prescription drugs, classes of prescription drugs or both.” And the list is “not a regulation within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.”  More great streamlining for Big Pharma.

What Canadian consumers really want is more product information.  Canadians want labels to allow us to differentiate between products containing genetically modified organisms and those without.  We want the label information to tell us more clearly what parts of prepared food products are locally grown, or at least grown in Canada.

These areas require attention.  Meanwhile, the Harper Conservatives are relaxing food and drug safety regulation in the interest of rushing new food and pharmaceutical products to, what they apparently conceive, as a barren and lonely marketplace, where Canadians yearn for the next new clean-minty-whitening-with green swirls-stand up by itself tube of toothpaste.

Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada.
Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Canadians want more product labeling, not reductions in food and drug regulations appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As one mom speaking to another mom, could the member tell me what consumers or moms are supposed to do when the information they might want can be found on the Internet but not on the product?

Ruth Ellen Brosseau: Mr. Speaker, in my rural riding, having access to the Internet does not always happen. It is very expensive. I heard that it is about $150 in some places and it is not even high speed. To say that Canadians have to go online to check what is in their foods is absolutely absurd. It is not right. It is 2012 but we are not there yet. It seems to have a snowball effect. We will have another tragedy and lives will be lost. What is it going to take? How many lives have to be lost?

The post Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Seconded by Elizabeth May on March 14, 2012.

Click here for the full document.

The post Bill C-408 An Act to ensure that warning labels are affixed to products containing toxic substances appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Standing Committee on Health (HESA) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post 1.16 Genetically engineered organisms appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Seconded by Elizabeth May February 1, 2012

Click here for the full document.

The post Bill C-257 An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.