Brussels, 06/02/2012 (Agence Europe) - More than 70 European and Canadian charities and NGOs do not want a chapter on the protection of foreign investment and a disproportionate mechanism for settling disputes to be included in the future economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada.
In a declaration published on 5 February, civil society representatives from the EU (including the European trade union federations EPSU, ETUC and ITUC), Canada and Quebec expressed concern about “excessive corporate rights in the Canada-EU Trade Deal”.
The signatories to the declaration accuse the investor-state dispute settlement process in the future agreement of undermining democracy and setting up a parallel legal system “for multinational corporations and private investors, who are using them increasingly to challenge environmental, public health and other government policies, decisions, laws and measures that interfere in some way with the 'right' to make a profit”. The European and Canadian civil society groups and NGOs also said that “the EU and Canadian legal system is already have the necessary tools to tackle disputes between investors and governments impartially in the event of force majeure or breach of contract”. They believe that the investor-state dispute mechanism forces taxpayers to pick up the bill when their governments adopt public or environmental health protection measures. They also accuse the arbitration panels set up during investor-state appeals of not being governed by the principle of accountability and their decisions of favouring the compannies. They are therefore calling on the EU and Canada to follow the example of Australia whose government decided in 2011 not to include these mechanisms in its trade agreements.
On Wednesday 6 February, Karel De Gucht, was due to visit Ottawa for talks with the Canadian authorities, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Trade Minister Ed Fast, on the final arbitration needed to complete free trade negotiations. On Wednesday, certain media pundits were indicating, however, that the agreement could possibly be postponed due to significant differences, particularly in the agricultural domain. (EH/transl.fl)