Federal Government is Weak-Minded on CETA Deal
The National Farmers Union wonders whether the
Federal Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries
promoting the Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement across Canada today have actually read
the text of the agreement? Or did they simply
memorize pre-digested talking points? The devil is in
the details. Canadians want to know the actual
content and implications of this agreement, which is
being negotiated behind closed doors. Instead we are
being sold a load of weak-minded hype.
The NFU has obtained leaked copies of the draft CETA
text at several stages of the negotiations and has
analyzed each one from the point of view of
agriculture, food and farmers. It has become clear
that CETA is not so much about removing trade
barriers – few exist between Canada and Europe – but
more about limiting the power of elected
governments to prevent them from making laws that
would restrict global corporations, and to ensure that
these corporations will have permanent economic and
legal advantages over individual citizens and
independent businesses. We know that CETA is not
necessary and that trade with Europe will certainly
continue without the deal.
In a press conference today, NFU President Terry
Boehm, outlined a few of our key concerns, and
stated:
CETA is the first international “trade deal” that would
require provincial and local governments to comply
with its conditions. In public procurement contracts
above specific (fairly low) minimums CETA would
prohibit cities, towns, villages, schools, universities
and hospitals from giving preferential treatment to
local businesses for the supply of goods and services
and for construction projects. The very people whose
tax dollars will be spent on public procurement will
thus be forced to compete with large European
corporations for their own town or city’s business.
Local food programs would also be jeopardized as a
result of this condition, destroying an important
economic opportunity for farmers, especially young
and new farmers.
CETA will not automatically open up European
markets for products such as genetically modified
canola. The Annexes to CETA show that European
countries can still exclude GM crops under CETA, and
in any case, European consumers are not interested in
buying GM food. The EU is pushing Canada to change
our dairy import rules, a key component of supply
management, in return for more access to its beef
and pork markets. But it is doubtful that there would
be any significant increase in Canadian sales of
hormone-free beef and antibiotic-free pork, given
that Europe is already one of the world’s largest
exporters of pork and it obtains nearly all its
imported beef from Brazil and Argentina, countries
that have a competitive advantage over Canada due
to low labour costs and year-round production
capacity.
CETA’s investor protection measures eliminate
government’s ability to restrict the movement of
capital, so that Canada would not be able to restrict
foreign ownership, and could no longer address
balance of payments issues – a key tool in monetary
policy.
CETA includes draconian measures to enforce
intellectual property rights, such as plant breeders’
rights and seed patents. If a seed company such as
Bayer or Monsanto suspected a farmer of violating a
seed patent, it could get the courts to seize the
farmer’s seed, land, equipment and bank accounts
before any wrong-doing was proven. Third parties
that were suspected of helping the farmer in his or
her alleged breach would also be subject to the same
precautionary seizure measures. Stripped of their
assets, the accused would then have no means to
defend themselves. In addition, CETA calls for prison
terms for people found violating certain intellectual
property rights.
The National Farmers Union is calling upon the
federal government to publicly release its negotiating
text in full to permit a broad and open discussion.
Canadians can then decide whether CETA will really
benefit us as citizens or if it merely allows
corporations to tie the hands of our elected
governments to prevent them from passing laws in
the public interest.
The National Farmers Union wonders whether the
Federal Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries
promoting the Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement across Canada today have actually read
the text of the agreement? Or did they simply
memorize pre-digested talking points? The devil is in
the details. Canadians want to know the actual
content and implications of this agreement, which is
being negotiated behind closed doors. Instead we are
being sold a load of weak-minded hype.
The NFU has obtained leaked copies of the draft CETA
text at several stages of the negotiations and has
analyzed each one from the point of view of
agriculture, food and farmers. It has become clear
that CETA is not so much about removing trade
barriers – few exist between Canada and Europe – but
more about limiting the power of elected
governments to prevent them from making laws that
would restrict global corporations, and to ensure that
these corporations will have permanent economic and
legal advantages over individual citizens and
independent businesses. We know that CETA is not
necessary and that trade with Europe will certainly
continue without the deal.
In a press conference today, NFU President Terry
Boehm, outlined a few of our key concerns, and
stated:
CETA is the first international “trade deal” that would
require provincial and local governments to comply
with its conditions. In public procurement contracts
above specific (fairly low) minimums CETA would
prohibit cities, towns, villages, schools, universities
and hospitals from giving preferential treatment to
local businesses for the supply of goods and services
and for construction projects. The very people whose
tax dollars will be spent on public procurement will
thus be forced to compete with large European
corporations for their own town or city’s business.
Local food programs would also be jeopardized as a
result of this condition, destroying an important
economic opportunity for farmers, especially young
and new farmers.
CETA will not automatically open up European
markets for products such as genetically modified
canola. The Annexes to CETA show that European
countries can still exclude GM crops under CETA, and
in any case, European consumers are not interested in
buying GM food. The EU is pushing Canada to change
our dairy import rules, a key component of supply
management, in return for more access to its beef
and pork markets. But it is doubtful that there would
be any significant increase in Canadian sales of
hormone-free beef and antibiotic-free pork, given
that Europe is already one of the world’s largest
exporters of pork and it obtains nearly all its
imported beef from Brazil and Argentina, countries
that have a competitive advantage over Canada due
to low labour costs and year-round production
capacity.
CETA’s investor protection measures eliminate
government’s ability to restrict the movement of
capital, so that Canada would not be able to restrict
foreign ownership, and could no longer address
balance of payments issues – a key tool in monetary
policy.
CETA includes draconian measures to enforce
intellectual property rights, such as plant breeders’
rights and seed patents. If a seed company such as
Bayer or Monsanto suspected a farmer of violating a
seed patent, it could get the courts to seize the
farmer’s seed, land, equipment and bank accounts
before any wrong-doing was proven. Third parties
that were suspected of helping the farmer in his or
her alleged breach would also be subject to the same
precautionary seizure measures. Stripped of their
assets, the accused would then have no means to
defend themselves. In addition, CETA calls for prison
terms for people found violating certain intellectual
property rights.
The National Farmers Union is calling upon the
federal government to publicly release its negotiating
text in full to permit a broad and open discussion.
Canadians can then decide whether CETA will really
benefit us as citizens or if it merely allows
corporations to tie the hands of our elected
governments to prevent them from passing laws in
the public interest.
Comment