The European Parliament’s international trade committee held a very lively discussion on the EU-Canada free-trade agreement (CETA) on Wednesday 31 August. It is likely to be put to Parliament for ratification in the autumn after its expected signing at the EU-Canada summit at the end of October and ahead of provisional implementation at the start of 2017.
Rapporteur Artis Pabriks (EPP, Latvia) said that the CETA was, “as a whole”, a “balanced” agreement, fully in line with Parliament’s previously stated requirements.
Pabriks argued that the deal would help the European economy, and in particular SMEs. The CETA would initially save European exporters €12 billion in customs duties, he pointed out, stressing that Canada offered more trade prospects for the EU than any other partner, in particular, its neighbour the United States.
The CETA would remove all customs duties on goods, apart from sensitive agricultural products which will be subject to quotas and for which the compromise reached is “good for both parties”, he assured. For services, the EU will enjoy increased market access, especially in the telecoms sector where it is the market leader.
Pabriks highlighted, too, the key gains on public procurement, with Canada having pledged to open its public contracts to European companies more than for any other of its partners and at all levels (federal, provincial and municipal), and in agriculture where 140 geographical indications will be given protection in Canada.
Pabriks noted that the agreement excluded public services – health, education, social services, water distribution, audiovisual services and some air services.
He pointed out, too, that the CETA provided arrangements for investment protection on the basis of the new EU approach on an investment court which strengthens the right of states to make regulations in the interest of citizens and the overall aim of which is an international court responsible for settling investment disputes.
Lastly, Pabriks urged that the opportunity to ratify this agreement should not be lost, lest the EU lose all credibility in trade negotiations.
On behalf of the S&D Group, David Martin (UK) acknowledged the advantages of the CETA, in particular the opening up of public markets, protection of geographical indications, new opportunities for the EU in services, and hailed the opening up of the Canadian cheese market at a time when the European agricultural sector is experiencing great difficulty.
Martin, however, questioned how “progressive” the agreement is, stressing the need for it to guarantee “real progress” on labour law, while welcoming the signing by Canada of six of the eight ILO fundamental conventions in this area.
He demanded “clarification” on the protection of investments, a chapter on which he said he felt that not all his group’s criticisms had been addressed.
On public services, Martin said he wanted to “make sure that nothing in the CETA will prevent countries from ruling out privatisation”.
His S&D colleague Marie Arena (Belgium) was much more critical, deeming useless an investment arbitration mechanism that is to be paid for by taxpayers and criticising the use of “negative lists” for the liberalisation of services, the “stand still” clauses of which will not allow services that have been privatised to be returned to the public sector.
David Campbell Bannerman, speaking for the ECR Group, said he supported the CETA, underlining its substantial benefits on tariff liberalisation and welcoming that the agreement was “mixed” and thus more democratically legitimate. He called for provisional implementation, once Parliament had given it approval, not to be delayed.
Marietje Schaake (Netherlands), on behalf of the ALDE Group, welcomed a “progressive agreement” – highlighting that the Canadian government of Liberal Justin Trudeau had accepted the investment protection reform proposed by the EU – the benefits of which would be “tangible” for both economies. “If this agreement is derailed, the EU will no longer be a credible negotiator”, she warned.
For the GUE/NGL Group, Anne Marie Mineur (Netherlands) urged that the CETA should not come into provisional effect before it is ratified by national parliaments.
The strongest criticism came from Yannick Jadot (France) who, speaking for the Greens/EFA Group, railed against the cost of the CETA to EU agriculture, especially the beef sector.
Jadot also slammed the inclusion of an investment protection mechanism. “I can’t find any evidence of a single European company that has had problems with the Canadian justice system and yet you are going to put in place an agreement that will give significant powers to Canadian companies and subsidiaries of American firms based in Canada”, he said.
The CETA, he said, would, in future, prevent the countries of the EU from favouring its companies when awarding public contracts. “I’d like a Buy European, a European Small Business Act – but with the CETA we will never be able to do that”, he railed.
Lastly, Fabio Castaldo (Italy) spoke of the “suspicions” of the EFDD Group with regard to the CETA “which is a small TTIP but which is no less dangerous because it contains the same traps and gifts to the market and to multinationals”. “The CETA will make it easier to authorise GMOs and will allow the privatisation of services and make it impossible for them to be returned to state control. It provides for a supranational court that will allow investors to lodge actions against states for loss of profits”, he stated. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)