Toronto Star

Walkom: Belgium support does Canada no favours,

- Thomas Walkom

A Belgian region’s decision to let the Canada-European Union trade deal go forward is being portrayed as a victory for Canada. It is not.

The so-called Comprehens­ive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the 28-member EU was flawed before it ran into opposition from Belgium’s francophon­e region of Wallonia. It is more so now.

In particular, the deal as written contains a fundamenta­l imbalance. European firms would be able to challenge, at special investment courts, Canadian laws and regulation­s that interfere with profit-making.

But Canadian firms would have the same rights only in those EU countries that specifical­ly allow such challenges. That’s because the EU treats the proposed Investment Court System as a matter of national, rather than PanEuropea­n, concern.

In Canada, on the other hand, investment courts need only the imprimatur of the federal government to come into effect.

As Osgoode Hall law professor and trade expert Gus Van Harten notes, this is not a trivial matter. Many Europeans are wary of allowing foreign corporatio­ns to override domestic laws. Any proposal to set up investment courts is sure to run into tough opposition in European legislatur­es.

Such opposition was one of the reasons behind Wallonia’s initial decision to veto CETA. Under EU rules, the unanimous consent of all 28 member government­s — including Belgium’s — is needed to ratify the deal.

Under Belgian rules, the consent of the country’s regions — including Wallonia — is needed to sign any internatio­nal pact. When tiny Wallonia (its population is 3.5 million) used those rules to hold up CETA, Ottawa was taken aback.

The Walloon move scuppered a carefully choreograp­hed plan to have Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fly to Brussels to sign the agreement.

Theoretica­lly, that signing can now go ahead. But as Van Harten points out, Ottawa may want to put the investment court portion of the deal on ice until the EU nations decide which of them will agree to it.

The Guardian reports that as part of its deal with Wallonia, Belgium has agreed to ask the European Court of Justice whether the investment court dispute settlement proposal is even legal.

It is possible that, in the end, the controvers­ial dispute settlement system will be scrapped entirely.

If so, that would remove one of the worst elements of CETA. A similar dispute settlement system in the North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed foreign firms to override domestic environmen­tal laws.

But even if the investor courts are scrapped, much else is wrong with CETA.

A 2010 study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternativ­es estimated that removing tariffs on European cars and trucks would cost the Canadian auto industry between 28,000 and 150,000 jobs.

According to one 2013 estimate, drug patent rules envisioned by the treaty would end up costing both individual consumers and provincial government­s up to $1.6 billion each year, making it even more difficult to set up a national pharmacare plan.

Canadian dairy farmers would be hurt as would fish processors. Canadian beef and pork producers would probably benefit from exporting more to Europe — although the scale of this has been called into question.

The government says the deal will create 80,000 net new jobs in Canada. But as economist Jim Stanford has pointed out, this number is based on the dubious assumption that no worker can ever be unemployed.

The main economic benefit of CETA may be that it would allow Canadians to buy European luxury goods at marginally cheaper prices.

Otherwise, this never was a compelling deal. Even without CETA, the EU is already Canada’s second-largest trading partner.

Canada began negotiatio­ns with Europe seven years ago, largely to avoid being sidelined by any future EU trade and investment pact with the United States. Such a pact now seems most unlikely.

In short, the Walloons may not have done Canada any favours by deciding to reverse course and support CETA. Their consistent opposition could have allowed this flawed agreement to die a well-deserved and quiet death.

Canada’s proposed pact with EU was flawed before it ran into opposition from Belgium’s francophon­e region of Wallonia. Sadly, it is more so now

Thomas Walkom’s column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

 ?? YVES HERMAN/REUTERS ?? Wallonia leader Paul Magnette speaks on CETA, a planned EU-Canada free trade agreement, in Brussels on Thursday. The Walloons may not have helped Canada by deciding to reverse course and support CETA, Thomas Walkom says.
YVES HERMAN/REUTERS Wallonia leader Paul Magnette speaks on CETA, a planned EU-Canada free trade agreement, in Brussels on Thursday. The Walloons may not have helped Canada by deciding to reverse course and support CETA, Thomas Walkom says.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada