Obstructing the Canada-EU Trade Deal: A Diary

As Canada and the EU sit down to hammer out the details of the CETA in Brussels, not everyone is onside.

Larry Brown reports from Brussels on the ongoing free trade agreement negotiations between Canada and the EU and those who would stop the deal.

Day Three from Brussels

Our last day in Brussels with the full team. We try to pack the day full, get the most out of our remaining time.

We meet with a reporter for a major media outlet, and present a condensed version of our points. It’s a side of the free trade debate that doesn’t get enough attention. We don’t expect that we will get a free ride from this interview, but we do think that we have registered the need for a serious look at the questions we have raised.

Then it’s to the European Parliament building for a mini-marathon. Fueled by coffee and strong interest in what we’re saying, we meet with members of Parliament, political staff, party advisors, and trade experts. Some of them are already partially aware of the proposed new NAFTA plus trade deal between Canada and the EU and have their own reservations about the negotiations. All want to know more about our perspective, and to understand our concerns more deeply.

We continue to encounter surprise when we tell our European colleagues that the proposed deal would allow individual companies to challenge the democratic decisions of governments; when we tell them that under that same provision in NAFTA, Dow chemical is challenging the Quebec government’s ban on the use of cosmetic chemicals on lawns. Dow claims that is an infringement on their right to trade.

We also encounter frustration that the details of the proposed agreement are hard to come by, even for parliamentarians and their staff. How can this be a decision freely taken in a democracy when the people’s representatives are kept in the dark about what’s happening?

We learn that serious doubt about the kind of provisions being negotiated isn’t limited to one political group or perspective within the EU Parliament. We meet with members from several different groupings and all express some concern over the issues we are raising.

We realize we could have included a cast of thousands in our delegation, the proposed agreement is so sweeping. When we are asked about the potential effect on agriculture and internet access, we do our best to answer. And we learn; an EU expert tells us that the proposals would severely hamper the free movement of information on the internet. Could this be the Achilles heel of the negotiations, an affront to the internet set?

More than once we are faced with a fascinating question: given that most of the trade between Canada and the EU is already, to all intents and purposes, free of real tariff barriers (the average tariff is already down to about 2 per cent), what is Canada hoping to achieve by entering into such a problematic agreement?

Part of the answer we offer is that for the Canadian government, the pursuit of freer trade is not based on fact, but is the expression of a belief system: freer trade is good, restraints on trade are bad. How do you argue with a true believer? We have for years asked for some research data, some analysis, some facts that would validate the popular political belief in the absolute goodness of free trade, but we have never been provided with any.

Another part of the answer has to do with optics and politics: we are tied to the U.S. under NAFTA, but the U.S. economy remains in crisis, so we need the illusion of freer trade with Europe to provide the political “notion of motion.”

Still another part of the answer is that the proposed deal would mainly target regulations, rules adopted by democratic governments that are seen as irritants by business. The agreement would fundamentally be about limiting the right of government to limit business. For our government, that is a good thing.

Our last meeting of the day with several senior staff and party experts comes with a surprise; some folks from the Canadian mission to the EU have decided they will join us as observers. Apparently we have been noticed! The meeting goes well, and our monitors take careful notes, but it is all very relaxed and friendly; at one point we ask for their help in clarifying a point. We’re comfortable; we have said nothing in Brussels that we haven’t already said at home.

At the end of the day we feel very positive. A bonus: while we were inside, the oppressive heat was finally blown away by a short but fierce downpour.

Another bonus: one neutral observer has told us that we have created an activist movement within the European Parliament in opposition to the proposed agreement. We’re pleased with that assessment.

But we did not come here to move mountains. We came here to help foster the conditions under which the mountains might move themselves, and we have made a strong start.

We know perfectly well that we, as Canadians, have to battle this deal in Canada; we will not be rescued by the European Parliament. But as we fight on at home, we will know that our fight is being echoed in Brussels. That is accomplishment enough. For now.