Dear Mr. De Villers,
Thank you for keeping me updated. I congratulate you for looking diligently at these details. The CETA is a massive agreement and difficult to access and analyze.
I have not looked closely enough at the maritime cabotage provisions to offer more than a tentative comment, but your analysis appears reliable to me based on a quick review. I am also not surprised that non-reciprocal concessions were made in this area and agree that you and others should be wary of the expansion of such concessions under the CETA and other trade agreements.
For ordinary Canadians, there are always devils in the details of these agreements. They are not really about free trade anymore, as most of us think of it, but rather about accelerating a race to the bottom for workers, giving multinationals special protections against the costs of regulation, and helping to shift wealth upwards. The CETA has various provisions that show how rules of the global economy are being re-written to favour the biggest and wealthiest players at the expense of the rest of us.
From what I have examined closely, the CETA was very badly negotiated by the Harper government and then more or less rubber stamped by the Liberal government (outside of the investment chapter, where the Liberals accepted changes that the Europeans wanted), which falsely re-branded the deal as “progressive”. Unfortunately, our parliamentary trade committees appear more focused on doing the government’s bidding and looking out for business interests of exporters and multinationals in Canada, rather than the wider national interest. I have seen little good come from these committees in contrast to other legislative processes in Europe and the U.S.
For those who may feel dispirited about how the present and previous government have handled the CETA or other trade deals, I suggest a simple step is always to vote for someone other than a Liberal or Conservative. I say so having in the past financially supported various political parties including Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. Of course, you will have thought of this option and are rightly looking at other ways to influence governments. We have a long road to walk.
You are welcome to share this message or my earlier one, as you prefer.
best wishes,
Gus
E-Mail Correspondence with e-mail from Professor van Harten of Osgoode Law School, University of Toronto
Dear Maitre van Harten:
As a professional seafarer who’s worked on Canadian ships over 40 years, I was invited on 4/4/17 to testify on Thursday, 13/4.17 at 1130 am before the Senate-Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade Inquiry into Bill C-30, on the effects of C.E.T.A.’s Maritime Provisions on the ships and sailors of Canada’s Merchant Marine.
A day after providing a written copy of my intended testimony (10/4/17, see below), the Invitation was withdrawn.
Should you feel inclined, could you tell me, though I have no legal training, whether:
1. Article 3, subparagraph 2 of the Maritime Transport Chapter of C.E.T.A. (14-3.2?) gives European ships Cabotage Rights to any port in Canada.
2. Reservation II-C-14 suspends most of those Rights, leaving the transport of international cargo between Montreal and Halifax only ( besides dredging and carrying empty containers to any Canadian port).
3. That Reservation II-C-14 is not only revocable but by it’s legal nature it is the easiest type of Clause to revoke, as it is unilaterally included in a Treaty and needs not the consent of other Parties to be removed.
4. That the threat of this revocability will hang over the heads of Canadian seafarers, if not shipping companies alike (as the former may fear rejecting whatever is offered by the last could trigger such a withdrawal).
Should any of these concerns be correct, as a sailor and thousands of my colleagues, we may be shortly faced with threats that were not touched upon by any of the Maritime panelists.
Sincerely,
Marc de Villers,
Helmsman, M.V. “Camilla Desgagnes”,
CDN63142X,
Dear Professor Van Harten:
By now, you have probably heard that the Senate-Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, inquiring into Bill C-30, passed it without amendments on 10/5/17 with a 2 page list of “Observations” (not “Recommendations”), where Maritime considerations were foremost (observation 7 was mentioned) with the Chair saying that amendments would have to be made (video capture on sen.vu on the Senate-Committee government site, 10/5/17, 30 minutes long) attached and that the Bill was passed the very next day by the Senate, without amendments.
Though the Senate-Committee was told that:
1. Reservation II-C-14 in CETA would restore, should it be revoked, Maritime Cabotage Rights to Low wage, Flag of Convenience operated European ships to all ports in Canada (in Intended testimony before the Committee withdrew it’s Invitation, and in a written Brief submitted to the Committee Wednesday, 3/5/17).
Should Reservation II-C-14 be revoked, Canadian ships and their Canadian crews will not be able to compete with these low wage (and, in many cases, low standard) ships, may be reflagged (with Canadian crews dismissed and Flag of Convenience ones retained) or disappear along with their thousands of Canadian seafaring jobs.
Otherwise, the threat of possible withdrawal of Reservation II-C-14 will hang over the heads of Canadian sailors, pushing them to accept low offers from Canadian ship-operators such as the one from C.S.L. Self-Unloaders voted on last week,mere days after Royal Assent of Bill C-30 and CETA was proclaimed 16/5/17 and will seem to be the norm for seafarer employment contracts from Canada’s 3 largest Maritime Shipping companies ( Canada Steamship Lines, Algoma Central Marine and Desgagnes Transport) voted on over the rest of the year.
Canadian seafarers have not had a notable strike since 1966 and talk is that if the contract is rejected, a 72 hour strike could follow.
2. Clause 92, sections 2.3 and 2.4 of Bill C-30, which grant exemptions to European ship-owners from complying with the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program ( which would grant median Canadian wages to foreign seafarers) while engaged on Maritime Cabotage in Canada on Routes granted under CETA (Halifax-Montreal Corridor with International Cargo and any Canadian port transporting empty containers) were not mentioned by James Givens, President of the S.I.U. of Canada, or any of the other Maritime representatives on the Panel, leaving the Senators with the mistaken impression that foreign seafarers on such ships would be paid Canadian wages ( pointed out in a written Brief submitted to The Committee 3/5/17 and again to all 15 Individual Members on 1/5/17 and 5/5/17).
Since the Committee refused to recommend that the Senate consider withholding approval of Bill C-30 until weaknesses in CETA are revised or withdrawn and that its’ “Observations” were disregarded by the Senate the following day, Canadian sailors are greatly at risk from CETA (90% or more potential damage here) and Bill C-30:
I request posting your 1st e-mail to me, as well as my initial e-mail with queries on the subject on the CETA sinks ships” website and in public forums (social media).
Efforts from many continue to attempt to inform the Canadian Public and affected groups, here and elsewhere, of CETAs’ unpublicized likely effects, as do yours.
My 2e-mails to Mme. Cobb at Unifor went unresponded to.
Sincerely,
Marc de Villers,
Wheelsman, M.V. “Camilla Desgagnes”,
CDN63142X,