Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me address the hearing.
I would also like to speak about what I and the others believe is a one-sided legal and governance framework stipulated by this agreement, namely the ISDS.
Large corporations have shown a willingness to bring countries to court for taking steps to protect their populations from such well-known, long-since-proven dangers as tobacco use or to curb damage done to the environment by mining, the use of certain pesticides, and so on.
Thailand, Australia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, and countries of the European Union have all been brought to court. Canada has been brought to court numerous times, namely when a moratorium was established on fracking in Quebec. Just recently a French corporation brought the Egyptian government to court for having raised their minimum wage.
I'm asking what guarantees we have that the additional leverage this trade deal gives corporations through the investor state dispute settlement will allow us to take measures to protect ourselves. What does it mean to our national sovereignty that we even have to ask whether the treaty will allow us to collectively take measures through our governments? Will our governments even be sovereign, or will they be merely managers of jurisdictions working within the guidelines of the largest corporations on the planet?
I'm not against development. I enjoy the benefits. I'm not against facilitating trade. However, this trade deal is entirely focused on protecting the profits and intellectual property of the very largest corporations, and it does not give a fraction as much protection to citizens' well-being, to their health, and to their living standards.
Thank you.