April 28, 2010

No More Mr Nice Guy

By Melvin J Howard

I had to laugh watching an online news story the other day focussed on the terrible conditions patients had to endure in the British Columbian hospitals, waiting long hours, sleeping in the halls, and receiving subpar medical treatment. After the initial laughter of the story subsided, I was saddened and one may say even angry over the situation. This does not need to be the fate of health care in British Columbia. Furthermore, the government agrees with me. In fact, less than one year ago, Kevin Falcon, the British Columbian Health Minister, is quoted in the National Post saying, “I think choice is a good thing and reducing it is not a good thing." (To read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1731220#ixzz0mQUN4pxG)

If choice is such a good thing, then why did the government stop me from building my hospital? From the very beginning I have had numerous of issues with the Province of British Columbia and the federal Government of Canada in trying to build my hospital, but the lies and corruption are really coming to light during the legal proceedings that have followed. Allow me to draw your attention to some of the issues I have encountered while trying to legally challenge the Government’s actions in the NAFTA Chapter 11 process.

In business, before any negotiations takes place, there is a tone to be set. The Government of Canada set a tone showing me how little respect I was being given and how low on the priority level I sat.

On January 22, 2009, I received a letter from the Government of Canada, requesting I meet with their representatives in Ottawa to try to settle the claim through negotiations and consultations. Under NAFTA Article 1118, this is protocol. I had received a similar request prior to this and denied it due to a belief that it would be a waste of time. However, on this particular occasion, I decided that it would be only fair to hear what they had to say and I agreed to meet with them.

The date, time and location were set, by the Government of Canada’s representatives. I cleared my schedule, flew to Ottawa, and was there, ready to meet with them. The only hitch in this plan was I was the only one who showed up. Yes, that is right, they stood me up. Ok, that is not exactly how it happened. Representatives of the Government showed up, but the lawyer acting on behalf of the Government of Canada, Ms. Sylvie Tabet, Deputy Director Trade Law Bureau, did not. Apparently, it is acceptable to expect me to drop everything and fly thousands of miles to meet them, but the key players in the case cannot be bothered to walk across the hall to meet with me. Needless to say, I was not impressed.

But wait, there’s more…

Ms Meg Kinnear was the original lawyer representing the Government of Canada in the proceedings between my companies and the Government of Canada. Over the course of these proceedings, she was granted the position of the Secretary General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). Ironically enough, in this position she is the appointing authority of these particular NAFTA proceedings. That means she decides who the arbitrators for my case, if there is a challenge.

To say I was not impressed with how the situation with Ms Kinnear was handled would be an understatement, but wait, there’s more…

Of the appointed arbitrators for the case, one was Mr Henri Alvarez. Mr Alvarez works for a very large and successful law firm, Fasken Martineau. It is a firm that has been known to take on high profile cases in a number of different fields. Prior to accepting his appointment, Mr Alvarez did a conflict of interest search on the parties involved in the case to ensure there was none. After performing the search, he claimed there was not conflict of interest.

One thing he forgot to mention was that his law firm was involved a lawsuit between Canadian Independent Medical Clinics Association, Cambie Surgeries Corporation, Delbrook Surgical Centre Inc., False Creek Surgical Centre Inc., Okanagan Health Surgical Centre Inc., and Ultima Medical Services Inc. as the Plaintiffs and Medical Services Commission of British Columbia, Minister of Health Services of British Columbia and Attorney General of British Columbia as the Defendants. It is true, Fasken Martineau is a large law firm, and it has offices all across Canada and in other countries in the world. It is reasonable to assume that if Mr Alvarez was from the Paris law office, perhaps he was unaware of this case within his firm. However, that is not the case in this instance. He works out of the Vancouver law office, the very same office that this case was represented from. I would like to see the results of a lie detector test when Mr Alvarez claimed he had no knowledge of such a case being tried from his office.

But wait there’s more…

After I was informed by one of my colleagues of this conflict of interest Mr Alvarez did not claim, I challenged his objectiveness to the case. In order to challenge his appointment, I was required to send a letter and $10,000 to the Secretary General of the ISCID, yes, Ms Kinnear. On the same day of receiving my challenge, not 24 hours later, Ms Tabet, writes a letter to Ms Kinnear, where she states “in order to avoid potentially unnecessary costs, Canada requests the Secretary General confirm receipt of the challenge and the required fee before establishing a schedule to receive submissions on what Canada believes to be a frivolous challenge to Mr Alvarez.”

Now, is it just me, or do you find it a bit unprofessional to write a letter to your previous boss (yes, before she was elected to Secretary General of the ISCID, she was Ms Tabet’s boss), suggesting how she handle a case that she used to be involved in, and providing judgement on how the challenge should be handled. To state that my claim is frivolous is not for her to determine, nor suggest to the person who is supposed to be determining the decision, whom you have a past professional relationship with.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

This should give you a little insight into the frustrations that I have had to deal with in this ‘judicial’ process. If you would like to follow up with any of this, official letters of correspondence can found at https://vip.soonr.com/share/Groupboss/Melvin-J.-Howard%2C-Centurion-Health-Corp.%2C-%26-Howard-Family-Trust-v.-Governmen

To end this post, I will leave you with a cartoon:

April 25, 2010


NAFTA Background

The Canadian government website describes the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as such:

In January 1994, Canada, the United States and Mexico launched the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and formed the world's largest free trade area. The Agreement has brought economic growth and rising standards of living for people in all three countries. In addition, NAFTA has established a strong foundation for future growth and has set a valuable example of the benefits of trade liberalization.

I would not go so far as to say this description is a blatant lie, but I do question who are the recipients of these so called benefits and what exactly are these benefits?

Supporters of trade liberalization often argue that the lowering of barriers allows for a greater ease of flow of goods and services. A true capitalist that strongly believes in the system of supply and demand, is a supporter of free trade. With open borders, competition is at its finest. The best prices for the market are determined and the best supplier of the product comes out on top.

Critics of NAFTA argue that is does not truly embody the idea of trade liberalization. While some of the largest arguments against free trade are the lowering of standards and loss of local jobs, the government action taken to skew the true meaning of free trade is where I would like to focus my attention. Tariffs, quotas, subsidies, and red tape barriers are among some of the tactics used by governments to maintain an air of protectionism in a free trade arena. The Canadian government used a number of these tactics against my company and myself while attempting to create a private health care facility in British Columbia.

NAFTA Chapter 11 Controversy

On January 8, 2009 in the National Post, a Canadian publication. Gus Van Harten wrote an article highlighting a NAFTA trade dispute between Newfoundland and Labrador and a US timber and water company Abitibi. I would like to highlight a very relevant and valid argument that Harten has made, criticizing the illegitimacy of the NAFTA Chapter 11 process:

NAFTA Chapter 11 is illegitimate because the arbitrators are not independent like judges. They do not have security of tenure. They are paid by the day. They may practice as lawyers while working as arbitrators while advising companies. They are part of a tiny clique, populated mostly from the world of commercial arbitration. Those who study this world refer to it as a club or a mafia.

My experience thus far with the NAFTA process only validates this statement. I have researched and discovered undisclosed conflicts of interest. I have had to challenge these conflicts out of my own pocket and at a hefty price. I have experienced delays and out right lies. The government is doing everything in its power to bully me out of continuing with this process, but I will not be bullied. I will not sit idly by as the Canadian government takes reprehensible measures, undermining its own legal system, all in an effort to play a game by its own unfair rules. Future posts will explain this point further, by specifically identifying tactics the government has employed and key players who have put them into effect.

NAFTA Chapter 11 Process

It is argued that the NAFTA Chapter 11 process was put into place in an effort to streamline investor disputes. International trade disputes have been known to be timely and costly undertakings and the Chapter 11 was created to confront those issues. However, currently, it takes approximately three years for the Final Award on Merits of an average NAFTA dispute, but can take longer for complicated cases, such as the Softwood lumber which has been ongoing for multiple decades. This average is approximately three times longer than the NAFTA timetables predict and two to three times as long as the World Trade Organization (“WTO”).

At times, Investors have been forced to resubmit claims to restart the process. There are a number of reasons that can cause this to happen, a few include an arbitrator can be removed or replaced, documentation can be lost, or witnesses have disappeared. Whether the fault of the investor or not, it is their responsibility to resubmit and pay for any further filings.

As a result of the underlying problems in the NAFTA investor-state dispute settlement system, investors are denied access to quick and efficient dispute settlement. Any investor would readily admit that “time is money”. Compared to the national treasuries of Canada, Mexico or the United States, virtually all private investors that might avail themselves of the NAFTA Chapter 11 protections would be considered poor. Unlike a NAFTA Party, a private investor does not have an unlimited budget and is not able to afford the luxury of pursuing a case purely to establish a precedent. The investor is there because of a claim and wants their money and needs to collect damages owed as a result of an alleged breach by the NAFTA Party. Does the Government of Canada rely on this imbalance to prolong the process, increase costs, and possibly even thwart justice, in the hopes the investor will, as a business decision, simply give up in the face of unending delays and mounting expenses? I would argue an emphatic yes, but there are ways to counter this strategy which I will not go into detail here.

Canada’s Loophole to Evading the International Rules

As of 2007, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) has been signed by 155 countries, of which 143 have proceeded to ratification. An investor can bring arbitration before ICSID only if the respondent state has also separately agreed to such arbitration. Such an agreement can be contained either in the contract between the investor and the state or, and this is most often the case, in a bilateral investment treaty between the respondent state and the investor’s home state. ICSID awards cannot be set aside before national courts and have to be treated by each member state as if they were a final judgment of its courts. Awards can, however, be set aside by so-called ICSID ad hoc committees. The number of ICSID arbitrations has increased exponentially in the last few years. In July 2007, ICSID had concluded a total of 125 cases, and had 111 pending cases.

However, Canada has not ratified the ICSID yet. Considering Canada has not ratified the ICSID, any recourse must be made to either the Additional Facility Rules of ICSID or the ad hoc United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) Rules. However, awards can be set aside under these instruments, meaning that until Canada’s ultimate ratification, NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration under the ICSID Convention remains unavailable to both Canadian investors in the United States and American investors in Canada.

If I were a unbiased risk manger, I would have to ask myself, why would I want to go to arbitration knowing that if we are to win, the award can be challenged in a formal court. By Canada not signing the ICSID treaty, I am at risk of that.


To focus on my case, one may argue that considering Canada has a public health care system, therefore it has no need for private health care companies. It may interest you to know that there 130 private health care companies in Canada, and more than 50 of those companies are located in British Columbia alone. It is also interesting to note that every single one of these companies are Canadian. I am not about to argue whether or not Canadian or American companies provide higher quality care than the other, but I do argue that we will never find out if the Canadian government puts up so many restrictions that American companies do not have the opportunity to compete.

I look forward to hearing your comments and keeping you updated on future proceedings. My next entry will highlight players and scenarios of conflicts of interest. Happy reading.

April 22, 2010

Removing the mask of NAFTA Chapter 11

By Melvin J. Howard

During the 1999 WTO negotiations in Seattle, many people were upset and distraught by the closed door proceedings of international trade negotiations. I have been, some would argue fortunate, some could argue unfortunate, enough to be a part of closed door international trade negotiations. Those protesters had a right to be outraged. My experience of the closed door negotiations is filled with controversy, undisclosed conflicts of interest and blatant lies.

Over the course of the next several entries I will attempt to reveal my complete experience of this NAFTA Chapter‭ ‬11‭ ‬process.‭ This experience is between Melvin J Howard, Centurion Health Corporation, and the Howard Family Trust as the Claimant and the Government of Canada as the Respondent. I will be candid and right to the point, transparent and open.‭ ‬Risk managers of companies will want to consider reading this prior to undertaking the NAFTA Chapter‭ ‬11‭ ‬process.

Caveat emptor!

April 15, 2010


Our Mission:

The Melvin J Howard Foundation (“the Foundation”) is responsible for bringing quality medical care to people caught in medical crisis, regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. Additionally, the Foundation is dedicated to providing mainstream scientific information, education, and solutions to root cause problems of child poverty.

The Foundation will achieve these purposes primarily by supporting the expansion of national and/or international collaborative projects, which contribute to the integration of providing high-quality care to patients and to improve health care outcomes, in addition to promoting the success of anti-poverty projects focused on youth.