Do Canadians need the Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement?

| August 16, 2012 | 0 Comments

Conservatives want Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement but should we?

Bruce Stewart

Photo: Bruce A. Stewart

By Bruce A Stewart    

The Harper Government is often accused of having no vision. The Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement that the government is avidly trying to conclude puts the lie to that.

What’s less clear is whether the country and its citizens need the Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement quite as much as the government does.

Harper’s view of Canada is as the free trade crossroads of the world. We would have agreements in place with all the major trading blocs on the globe — and use our position bordering three oceans to act as a connector between them.

Since the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement in 1988, and its successor, NAFTA, we’ve done a few one-on-one deals, but none with the major players. Until and unless the Canada-EU Free Trade Agreement goes into place.

 

Please help us serve you better by filling out this brief survey form. We thank you for your feedback and your commitment to local online news.

 

This explains why Harper is busy this week twisting German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s arm on her visit to this country.

Spanning the world (to borrow Canadian Pacific’s old slogan from the days when it ran ships across the Atlantic and Pacific promising to move goods between Europe and Asia via Canada) means getting the Asian players on side. To do that, the link to Europe has to be in place.

But it’s a curious deal that’s being quietly negotiated.

Europe, for instance, wants Canadian municipalities to be wide open to European utility companies. No more reserving water systems, for instance, to be a part of the public sector.

Mind you, in Europe, municipalities are pulling their privatised systems back into public ownership and control. Were there Canadian utility giants, they’d be as locked out of that business as is the European sector. But our towns and cities, on the other hand, must be wide open to the Europlayers.

Doing business with Europe often comes with a multitude of costs. Formal entry to the European Union requires that countries adopt what’s called the acquis communitaire — the entire body of laws and regulations that make up the Union’s social and economic base — prior to admission. Trading partners (ask the Norwegians or the Swiss) end up having to do almost all of the same, but with no say as to the contents — and you pass the new ones as Brussels puts them forward.

Meanwhile, what’s apparently (our government is in its typically secretive mode over this negotiation) not on the table is inclusion of the Single European Act provisions. That’s the European law that requires each country to see each other’s nationals as “locals” — live where you like, go to school where you like, work where you like.

Labour mobility is probably the single biggest benefit Canada could gain — both ways. We’d be able to move to Europe to seek opportunities without paperwork or restrictions. We’d get the same from Europe — lots of skilled people seeking opportunities here.

But, as with the other agreements we’ve signed, opening doors for our citizens isn’t what’s on the table. Making life safe for corporate giants to plunder Canada, on the other hand, might well be.

Canadian exports are (sadly) mostly resources. Those are going to sell whether there are free trade agreements or not. Europe has practically no oil — not that we’ve bothered to build infrastructure that would go to Atlantic ports — it doesn’t have most of our minerals, and it’s not going to buy wood (they compete with us using Scandinavian forests all over the globe). We won’t move a drop or boatload more of any of that with this deal, and not a gram less without it.

Right now we can maintain fishery rebuilding on our East Coast, limiting the EU to French territorial waters off St-Pierre & Miquélon (south coast of Newfoundland) and east of the dividing line between Canada and Greenland (Denmark’s territory). One of the reasons Iceland won’t deal with the EU is that Europe always wants unrestricted fishing rights with its “partners.” Do we really want them to vacuum up what’s left in our Atlantic — Arctic — and Pacific waters?

It’s time Canadians woke up and demanded answers — before our “friends” in Ottawa give the store away. Again.

Bruce Stewart is a national columnist and management consultant currently located in Toronto.

 

 
Related Posts SliderRelated Stories
Canada needs even more free trade agreements
An agreement with Japan is next Troy Media - by Norman Leach On a trip to Japan last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced that Canada ...
Read More
Canada and Japan Trade Agreement will be good for Alberta
The upside to an agreement makes it well worth pursuing Troy Media - by Jason Brisbois The recent announcement between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda launching Canada-Japan ...
Read More
The flaw in Canada’s pursuit of free-trade deals
Troy Media - by Gus Van Harten One purpose for the federal government’s pursuit of free trade deals with other nations is to protect Canadian investors from mistreatment in foreign countries. In ...
Read More
Canada-India free trade: Alberta’s greatest opportunity
Canada-India free trade talks are well advanced Troy Media - by Satya Das Canada’s free trade arrangement with India may be Alberta’s most significant opportunity to expand its opportunities beyond the limits ...
Read More
“Ethical oil” is not anti-free trade
Troy Media - by Mark Milke The “ethical oil” moniker popularized by television host and author Ezra Levant​ is usually criticized by those who cannot stand oil extraction on principle, or ...
Read More
Alberta trade with Japan offers limited trade opportunities
But every little bit helps! Troy Media When thinking about Asia and Canada’s global trade position, most people’s first thought is our exports to China, or maybe India. But an oft-forgotten giant ...
Read More
Labeling Law for beef and pork impeding Canada-U.S. trade
Provides no consumer benefits A simplified "Product of Canada and the USA" labeling system should apply to beef and pork as well as livestock raised, processed, and traded between Canada and ...
Read More
Ag and food groups applaud Canada’s participation in TPP trade talks
Trans Pacific Partnership could be big boost to Canada's economy Troy Media - by Alan MacKenzie Canada’s agriculture and meat industries are praising Tuesday’s announcement that Canada has been invited into the ...
Read More
Canada needs even more free trade agreements
Canada and Japan Trade Agreement will be good
The flaw in Canada’s pursuit of free-trade deals
Canada-India free trade: Alberta’s greatest opportunity
“Ethical oil” is not anti-free trade
Alberta trade with Japan offers limited trade opportunities
Labeling Law for beef and pork impeding Canada-U.S.
Ag and food groups applaud Canada’s participation in

Category: Opinion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>