Strasbourg, 20/04/2010 (Agence Europe) - With the forthcoming EU Canada Summit on 5 May in Brussels, MEPs emphasised, during a debate on Tuesday 20 April, the historic importance of the relationship between the two partners. Whilst calling for these relations to be strengthened, they urged European leaders not to attempt to avoid any contentious issues: visas, seal hunting and oil shale. Trade questions are causing real concern.
This summit provides a particular opportunity for preparing the G8/G20 summit at the end of June, explained the EU High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton. She also indicated that they should send out a very clear signal explaining that the EU and Canada are against protectionism, in the hope of modernising bilateral trade relations. Negotiations for a comprehensive agreement on the economy and trade (CETA) are currently continuing.
Visas. CDU MEP, Elisabeth Jeggle, said that she hoped that the question of visas would be rapidly resolved. Her Romanian colleague Ioan Enciu (S&D) also called on the principle of equal treatment for all EU citizens to be respected, as did his fellow Romanian Christian Dan Preda from the EPP. Preda underlined the fact that the previous EU/Canada declaration (in May 2009) aimed to set up a visa waiver system. He deplored the fact that a year later, Romanian and Bulgarian citizens still needed a visa and that the procedure had subsequently been reintroduced for Czech citizens. He insisted that there was still a problem of coherency and said, “we will no longer be happy with the declaration of principle … these are unfair measures for EU citizens”. At the end of the discussion, Ms Ashton said that the frustration of those who had spoken about the question of visas was understandable and although Canada intended to put in place legislation that would resolve these problems, they still needed to talk about them.
Environmental aspects. Reinhard Bütikofer exclaimed, “we ought to be tackling EU/Canada relations more seriously than with the resolution presented to us today” (and which will not be voted on until the next plenary). He believes that common challenges must be taken into account. The German Green MEP said that, “it is absurd that problems that still persist and not being mentioned”, particularly with regard to the fact that Canada failed to play a decisive role at Copenhagen and that the visa issue had still not been resolved. Echoing the sentiments of Mr Bütikofer, Fiona Hall (ALDE, United Kingdom) also regretted the poor results achieved by Canada in the context of climate change. Taking up the observation made by Kriton Arsenis (S&D, Greece), who had underlined incoherency of extracting oil share, all three MEPs emphasised that they wanted this issue to be mentioned in the EP resolution. Philip Bradbourn (ECR, United Kingdom), the chairman of the delegation in charge of relations with Canada, however, welcomed the concise nature of the resolution. The High Representative and vice president of the Commission explained that Canada belonged to a group of countries that had not wanted to go far enough at Copenhagen but does appear willing to shift. According to Ashton, they had heard Canada declare that it was prepared to go further than at Copenhagen and that they were encouraging the country to reach its mitigation targets by 2020.
Trade. German Liberal, Wolf Klinz, said that he hoped that Europeans and Canadians would act together to strengthen financial regulation and urged the G20 to keep its promises at Toronto. He insisted that, “we need a trade agreement”. Several of his colleagues, however, expressed doubts about the final result of the current negotiations. Joe Higgins (GUE-NGL, Ireland) complained that they had not evaluated the economic, social and environmental implications of a trade agreement with Canada. He pointed out that the unions were concerned by the prospect of such an agreement that would go in the direction of big business in Canada and Europe but not in the direction of social justice (for the unions' response, see yesterday's edition of EUROPE). Criticising this emphasis on maximising profits, Higgins said that an agreement with the EU would be a way for Canada to be able to impose privatisation in the water, electricity and other public services. He called on European and Canadian unions to launch a campaign in support of state ownership for these kinds of public services. “Why do I always get the impression that the Commission does not want to reach common ground with the EP on certain elements?” asked Jörg Leichtfried (S&D, Austria). He also asserted that, “trade agreements are a good thing when they are good for the general interest and not when they are in support of the interests of the big multinationals”. Leichtfried asserted that if education or public health had to be the subject of deregulation or privatisation agreements, he believed that this could be to the benefit of just a few and to the detriment of many others. Ms Ashton said that they had to aim for an ambitious trade agreement, which could not be won in advance. She said that she agreed that the EP should be kept informed of any developments in the talks and pointed out that there would be an impact study on which they were already working and on which the EP would obviously have a role to play in deciding whether or not to authorise the trade agreement. (A.B.)