BLOG

As can be seen in the article below, resistance to CETA continues throughout Europe and elsewhere.

Paul Magnette, Minister-President of Wallonia, whose Parliament led others of Belgium to stand alone against CETA in the face of immense pressure from the agreement’s government and corporate supporters, spoke this Friday, 2/6/17 in Montreal at an event sponsored by the Conference on Foreign Relations.

Mr. Magnette reiterated that CETA’s raison d’être is not, as many suppose, about reducing tariffs, as these largely disappeared 20 years ago, in a previous trade agreement.

Tariffs amount on average to 3% overall and are no barrier to trade.

The issues are “non-tariff barriers”, and the real reason for the deal’s existence lays more with the extension of monopoly patents on such things as drugs or establishing corporate courts that can sue governments for perceived loss of profit but not vice-versa.

CETA becomes thus more understandable as a “protection racket”, whereby more guaranteed profit is extracted from the populace with little or no expenditure of resource or effort by the usually large and powerful beneficiaries of the deal, and the supposed benefit of greater access to foreign markets to small and medium-sized enterprises, largely unsought (particularly in light of the market access granted to large foreign players) is mostly used as an excuse.

Among these globally small, but significant gains, as seen in CETA’s Maritime Transport Chapter, are the Maritime Cabotage Rights granted to low wage European vessels ( largely but not solely at Article 14-3.2) and only  temporarily, flimsily and apparently, limited by Reservation II-C-14 to the Halifax-Montreal Corridor and other less eye-catching concessions.

To the world’s Flag of Convenience Maritime Shipping Companies ( many based in Denmark), it is easy to see that Canada’s national Flag vessels would constitute quite a prize ( which could be a stepping stone to managing what is now the U.S. Merchant Marine.).

Much of the Canadian Merchant Marine could be considered to be constituted of the 150 or so vessels of over 1,000 tons currently under the Canadian flag. Imagine the cost difference (as seen by foreign, or even local, ship managers and accountants) if they were crewed by standard Flag of Convenience crews.

Even with Reservation II-C-14 still in place, someone’s boot is truly on the neck of all Canadian sailors: The degree to which Canadian crew costs can be driven down , thanks to CETA, are quite considerable, as can be witnessed by the C.S.L. Self-Unloaders contract proposal and others likely this year.

With the Dutch minority government having collapsed the same day Royal Assent was given to Bill C-30 and CETA, elections and  a referendum on CETA are coming ( the same kind the Dutch used to cancel the Free-Trade Agreement between Holland and Ukraine a short while ago).

Mr. Magnette’s government has requested the European Court of Justice to issue a Legal Opinion on the compatibility of CETA with European law: Already, the German Constitutional Court has reservations about the Investor Dispute Settlement Mechanism, as well as the French Constitutional Court on that and other parts’ compatibility with French Constitutional protections for Equality before the law.

With CETA quite likely not to last more than a year, now would not be the time to sign crewing agreements that will last at least 6; Therefore, it is likely in the interests of all to delay such undertakings.

Because a strike is likely harmful to all ( ship-operators included), that maritime shipping is a significantly seasonal trade (and members with families can ill afford such action), this could be avoided, by permitting those who wish to do so, to continue to work at likely lesser conditions, if necessary, until CETA is known to remain or perish.

Should ship-operators be un amenable to this, it would be their prerogative to lock seafarers out, in which case members would at least be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, which would not be the case with a strike.

There have been no notable strikes by Canadian seafarers since 1966. It has required a lot to bring us to the necessity of considering such action.

The means by which benefits are likely to accrue to those who have planned CETA’s Advent have not gone unconsidered by them.

It behooves us, in our inability to stop this great misfortune to Canadians and Europeans much earlier, to not grant more than a few months benefit to those who would happily draw them forever orif only for 6 years should their plans not come to fruition and we act as they would hope.

Sincerely,

Marc de Villers,
D-1289.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/59341d34c36188a00a8b4599/amp

At the last Union meeting in Montreal on 5/3/17, you told members that Canadian seafarers would be employed on European ships going between Montreal and Halifax, under CETA, at Canadian wage rates and that foreign seafarers on those ships would also benefit from those rates.

However, European ship-owners have been exempted from doing so on international cargo, which is essentially all of it.

In testifying before the Committee, you told Senators “Foreign crew-members on board will have to obtain temporary foreign worker permits”, though we know that, due to the exemptions, this will almost never be the case.

The Senate has the power to amend Legislation.

Will you inform the Senators of the exemptions, in order that they can amend Bill C-30 so that Canadian sailors can work on European ships as you told us?

Sincerely,

Marc de Villers.

J’accepte l’invitation du Comité de comparaître devant lui Jeudi, le 13 Avril, 2017.

Je lirai les consignes fournis avec attention et vous adresserai toute question que je pourrais avoir par la suite.

Bien à Vous,

Marc de Villers.

Apparently Canadian Senators on a relevant Committee wish to study CETA more completely and wish to hear testimony from witnesses.

Mrs. Marie-Eve Belzile at 613-998-0424 may be able to schedule such a possibility.Arrangements may also be made at

aefa@sen.parl.gc.ca

Marc de Villers,
D-1289.

Marc,

I just wanted to mention to you that CETA seems to be stalled in the Senate, in this committee: http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteebusiness/CommitteeHome.aspx?comm_id=1008&Parl=42&Ses=1&Language=E

Any thing that you could do to have seafarers contact the senators would be great.  They aren’t opposed to Senate, but they don’t think we have worked on it enough.  The Quebec dairy people are also meeting them.

Hello, Melanie:

Sorry for bothering you at this doubtless busy time for you.

Madame Ramsey probably already knows this, however:

C.E.T.A.’s proponents may claim, in regard to it’s effects on the Canadian Merchant Marine and Maritime Transport Industry in general, that the agreement’s sole intent and effect is to permit the Transport of empty containers on a non-revenue basis between Montreal and Halifax.

This may be technically correct and be intended to allay the fears of those concerned that C.E.T.A’s effects on  Maritime Transport in Canada would be much broader.

Effectively, the Maritime Transport Chapter appears to grant to European interests the right to transfer empty containers :

• Not only between Montreal and Halifax, but all ports in Canada ( Article 14-3, sub-paragraph 1.)

• The right to operate feeder services for cargoes on International legs ( Article 14-3, sub-paragraph 2).

However, this grant is withdrawn entirely in Reservation II-C-14, pages 1209 and 1210 of the consolidated text of C.E.T.A., except for the rights concerning empty containers between Montreal and Halifax.

Once C.E.T.A. is  approved, the agreement could be amended to remove Reservation II-C-14, in which case the far broader rights accorded in Article 14-3 ( Obligations) sub-paragraphs 1 and 2, augmented by the broad definition of ” feeder service” in Article 14-1 ( Definitions), would restore to European Interests:

The right to transport all manner of cargo  between any port in Canada to European ships.

I need not remind you, of course, that European registered ships are generally operated by low wage, Flag of Convenience crews.

A study conducted for the Saint-Lawrence Ship-operators by Ernst & Young and Maritime Innovation in 2015 concluded that crewing costs for European registered ships operating in Canada’s Cabotage waters would be about 30%  those of Canadian ones.

Great Lakes  bulk carriers transport something like 70% of Canada’s value of maritime goods.

Regarded as engaged in a feeder service for cargo on an International leg while engaged in carrying, for example, grain from Thunder Bay, Ontario to Baie Comeau, Quebec:

Great Lakes bulk carriers could be reregistered as European vessels and their Canadian crews replaced with Flag of Convenience crews.

Similarly, Ferry services throughout Canada, notably in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, because of rights to bid on the provision of Government services accorded to European Interests under C.E.T.A. could, upon conclusion of existing crew contracts:

See the ships engaged in providing ferry services in Canada reregistered as European ships, their Canadian crews dismissed and Flag of Convenience crews hired.

You may agree that, in the same way European nations lost their own Merchant Marine national crews, Canadians and particularly sailors may see the Canadian Merchant Marine and it’s thousands of seafaring jobs disappear before they realise it.

       Marc de Villers,
       CDN63142X,
       Wheelsman,
      ” Camilla Desgagnes.”