We can thank Walloons for seeing CETA’s naked truth
Re Trade deal with Europe should be salvaged: Editorial, Oct. 25 The reporting on CETA dwelled too much on the 11th-hour disappointment of its proponents. Perhaps, instead, we should have acknowledged the vital role of a few Belgians in forcing a pause for sober reconsideration of its consequences.
The history of trade agreements is littered with exaggerated claims of benefit and glossed-over reports of harm. As our government rushes heedlessly to subordinate itself to multinational corporate interests, Wallonia may well be seen as the child who, alone, observed the emperor’s nakedness. Paul Collier, Toronto The Star was absolutely correct in saying that CETA is a deal worth saving. Who can argue with something that provides more opportunities for our goods and services and gives Canadian consumers access to European goods at a reduced cost.
But the editorial completely missed the boat when it didn’t indicate what changes to CETA were needed in order to make it more acceptable to all participants and by glossing over the main sticking point, namely the ISDS provisions.
ISDS stands for Investor State Dispute Settlement. In a nutshell, ISDS is a process whereby a foreign corporation (not a domestic company) can sue a government (federal, provincial or municipal) when it feels that a regulation adversely affects its potential profit. The process completely bypasses the court system of the country being sued and the decisions (made by a tribunal of corporate lawyers instead of impartial judges) are final and cannot be overturned.
ISDS is an affront to the sovereignty of any country and should be eliminated from all trade agreements, particularly those involving countries with well-established and independent court systems.
Can CETA be improved? Yes, by eliminating all sections that provide a clear and significant advantage to multinational corporations, starting with ISDS. Dennis Choptiany, Markham I totally agreed with the people of Wallonia. CETA is less a free-trade agreement and more about investor protection. How many times has Canada been sued under NAFTA by corporations for loss of future profits? How long does it take us to learn?
If we had a referendum in Canada and if we really understood what was in this secretly-negotiated trade deal, I’ll bet we would have voted against it, too.
Thank you Wallonia! Eileen Watson, Toronto “We know that trade is good,” says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Do we? What kind of trade? Fair trade or laissez-faire trade? Trade that allows sub-standard or toxic goods into our nation or trade that has enforced safety standards?
Trade that allows incoming goods made by indentured workers or trade that permits only goods made by workers treated fairly under safe working conditions?
A deal that ignores the subsidies other countries use to dump products into Canada, destroying our industries and farms, or a deal with a level playing field?
A deal that benefits only the very largest global corporations, or a quid-pro-quo deal that benefits all?
The devil is in the details. D. Scott Barclay, Georgetown I find it astounding that people are surprised that the people of Wallonia, who were informed about CETA’s contents and had the power to stop it initially, did so. I have met zero people who have gone to meetings about CETA or the TPP and felt they were in our best interests.
Harper sold the wheat board to foreign investors, while Wynne sold the well that a town wanted for drinking water to Nestlé to be bottled — both showing government favours profit over public interests.
Just wait until corporations have even more power, which is the real purpose of trade agreements.
Send email to lettertoed@thestar.ca; via Web at thestar.ca/letters. Include full name, address, phone numbers of sender; only name and city will be published. Letter writers should disclose any personal interest they have in the subject matter. We reserve the right to edit letters, which run 50-150 words.
What we need are deals that can be discussed with, and supported by, the public. Trudeau promised transparency but is just finishing what Harper started, still behind closed doors.
Well done Wallonia! Stephen Albrecht, Toronto
“Canadians should heave a sigh of relief and maybe even cheer a bit that the Walloons have said no to handing sovereign powers to foreign corporations.” BRUCE ROGERS LINDSAY
I fear your editorial bad mouthing the EU is unfair. And so is Freeland’s toughguy take-it-or-leave-it attitude.
The investor state dispute settlement mechanism has been problematic for many Canadians and clearly is for Europeans. Your editorial states that’s all been taken care of, but a recent column by Thomas Walkom says the renegotiated arrangement is “non-binding.”
Which is correct? Clear explanation of this has been fairly thin in Canadian media. But the Europeans are communicating quite openly and I feel their concerns about a Trojan horse of multinational corporate interests using “nice” old Canada to take advantage of the deal should be taken seriously. Ken Pyette, Toronto Thank goodness that someone in Europe had the fortitude to stand up to the free-trade bulldozer. The pity is that it was the tiny region of Wollonia, which seemed to understand the dramatic effect CETA will have on its minuscule population. Unfortunately, Wollonian politicians were most likely bought out in a back-room deal and the bulldozer will continue it’s inexorable course.
It is really worrisome that Canadians don’t seem to understand the full implications of CETA. They will, in the end, be much worse off, as nearly all the benefits will accrue to multinationals that have no intention of passing on the savings.
As for jobs, if a 30-per-cent drop in the dollar can’t revive manufacturing, then what will? CETA will result in a net loss of jobs for Canadians, as will the similarly misguided TPP.
The net result for Canadians will be an economy controlled even more tightly by foreign private interests with even more dividends and head-office jobs siphoned off to foreign shores. Don Buchanan, Etobicoke Re Clinton has to be an agent of change (Oct. 22) David Olive’s column focuses on Hillary Clinton’s ambiguous attitude toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, which he describes as “al- ready unprecedented in the comprehensiveness of its labour, environmental and intellectual property protections.”
I am among the millions of North Americans who believe that, with its investor-state dispute settlement clause in place, the main thing the TPP protects is multi-national corporate rights to maximize their already obscene wealth with total disregard for the rest of us.
Any trade deal that puts private profit ahead of public health and environmental protection is a bad deal for humanity, as both Olive and Clinton must surely know. Terry O’Connor, Toronto Canadians should heave a sigh of relief and maybe even cheer a bit that the Walloons initially said no to handing sovereign powers to foreign corporations in a trade deal that would limit the power and authority of local governments.
The Canadian minister, apparently an enthusiast for free trade, appears not to be concerned even though Canadian experience with NAFTA should be ample warning.
Trade deals may at times have opportunities built in but surely the cost is too high if we find they serve to enhance corporate profit while limiting our ability to determine our own priorities. Bruce Rogers, Lindsay, Ont. Our elites told us that free trade agreements would guarantee prosperity and jobs, jobs, jobs.
What we got were massive job losses, declining wages, precarious employment, soaring trade deficits, millions in fines paid by Ottawa to foreign corporations as “investor protection,” huge compensation packages for corporate executives, and rising inequality.
Thank you Wallonia for speaking truth to power regarding the Canada-EU trade deal. These corporate rights deals are not in the interests of average people in any country. David Gracey, Toronto Since the Liberals initially dropped the ball on the EU trade deal, I guess a similar fate awaits the TPP negotiations.
In order to fund their costly (and ineffective) social programs, the government will again dip into the pocket of taxpayers. The middle class will bear the brunt of these new taxes, as the wealthiest among us will continue to shield their assets by employing a legion of tax lawyers and accountants. Kenneth Price, Oakville I was shocked and miffed that it took just one voting area in Belgium to initially prevent the passage of an important Canada and EU trade agreement. This is a serious issue and, as Canadians, we must not be submissive.
In retaliation, we must fight back. Belgian chocolate imports must be halted, as should be the distribution of Jean Claude Van Damme movies. Any books or comics featuring Hercule Poirot or Tin Tin should be banned from shops and libraries
The popular green vegetable should now be renamed “Freedom Sprouts.”
Travel from Canada to Belgium should be banned. Exceptions could be made for those intending to visit gravesites. Many Canadians died there. In both wars they were, in part, fighting for Belgian sovereignty. Nicholas Mitchell, Toronto