EU Concerns about CETA/leaked documents . . .

[Oscar]

EU concerns about investment in Canada trade deal: More reason to include leaked CETA text in review of investor-state dispute settlement


[ http://www.canadians.org/media/eu-conce ... ext-review ]

Press Release - PowerShift (Germany) / The Council of Canadians (Canada)

Brussels, 14 March 2014

New analysis of a controversial leaked investment chapter from the ongoing Canada-EU trade negotiations has prompted the European Commission to rethink key investor rights language in the treaty. German and Canadian civil society groups say this proves the need for the Commission to be completely transparent in its consultation on including investment protection in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

“The Commission is either completely disingenuous when it says it wants to protect the right to regulate in its trade deals with Canada and the U.S. or it is willfully misleading us,” says Peter Fuchs of PowerShift Germany, one of several European, Canadian and U.S. groups that leaked key CETA and TTIP investment texts this month at the website [ http://eu-secretdeals.info ]. “We have hard proof in these leaked texts that the reforms the EU says will make it more difficult for investors to sue governments are just a smokescreen to confuse the public while CETA and likely the TTIP would actually make governments more vulnerable to corporate lawsuits against legitimate public interest regulation and legislation.”

According to Rupert Schlegelmilch, director of services, investment and procurement at DG Trade, speaking on behalf of the Commission at a public debate yesterday on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and the TTIP, the EU is rethinking a “Most Favoured Nation” (MFN) article in the CETA investment chapter that new analysis suggests undermines much of the more careful language in the treaty relating to a government's ability to regulate. As written, the MFN article would let Canadian and EU investors ignore the definitions of “fair and equitable treatment” or “indirect expropriation” in CETA and take other more investor-friendly language from past agreements signed by either party.

“What other mistakes have the Commission and Canadian government made in CETA that compromise the ability of governments to make environmental, public health and consumer protection policies without worrying they will be sued in private arbitration, behind closed doors?” asks Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, who participated in yesterday's debate with the Commission, which was organized by Friends of the Earth Europe.

“We think the CETA negotiations should be put on hold and the CETA investment chapter included in the Commission's upcoming consultation on ISDS. That way we can be sure that if Europe rejects these corporate rights in one deal it must reject them in both.”

Around the world, ISDS is criticized for giving corporations too many rights to challenge government regulations and decisions made in the public interest, and to have those challenges heard by corporate lawyers without any of the judicial oversight we expect from legal courts. Resistance to ISDS is strong and growing in Europe, with some governments like Germany and France appearing to reverse their initial support for a strong investor rights chapter in TTIP. The [ http://eu-secretdeals.info ] website was launched this month to expand the public debate on investment as widely as possible, and to provide people with information exposing the Commission's propaganda campaign in support of ISDS despite the overwhelming evidence against it.

More information/contact:

Stuart Trew, The Council of Canadians, mobile (in Europe): 32 488 41 61 61 or strew@canadians.org

Dylan Penner, The Council of Canadians: (613) 795-8685 or dpenner@canadians.org

Peter Fuchs, PowerShift: 49 30 234 897 05, Peter.Fuchs@power-shift.de

[Oscar]

Don't stop the pressure on the First Nations Education Act

[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela- ... cation-act ]

By Pamela Palmater | May 9, 2014

On Monday, only three days after Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn Atleo resigned, Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government has made its move. Contrary to Harper's usual backroom politics and secret meetings with the National Chief, Harper has switched it up. He has decided to play this political game out in the open for all to see. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) Minister Bernard Valcourt offered a statement to the press today saying that it will put consideration of Bill C-33 First Nation Control of First Nation Education Act on hold until the AFN clarifies their position.

With the support of the Assembly of First Nations, our Government introduced historic legislation, the First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act (Bill C-33) in April. However, given the recent resignation of the National Chief, following today's second reading vote, any further consideration of this legislation will be put on hold until the AFN clarifies its position.

Our Government firmly believes that First Nations students deserve a quality education, like every other Canadian.

The First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act provides the structures and supports necessary to help First Nations students reach their potential and become full participants in the Canadian economy. It would entrench in law the five conditions for success identified by the Chiefs in Assembly last December.

This is a very calculated move on the part of Harper's government and serves a three-fold purpose. Firstly, this move serves as an indication to the AFN that Harper will give it another chance to get back in line. The carrot being offered is the promised funding attached to the bill (post-conservative-election funding). If the AFN confirms their support of the bill, they'll all kiss, make up and move on as they were pre-Atleo. Atleo's resignation would go down as a minor hiccup for Harper.

Secondly, this move could serve to cause internal chaos at AFN. Harper is essentially casting his line to see which member of the AFN executive will take the bait -- that is, who will step up to replace Atleo and maintain the status quo relationship between the AFN and Harper government. Saskatchewan Regional Chief Perry Bellegarde has been front and centre in the media supporting the Atleo-Harper education deal -- at least until Atleo's resignation. Then, there's always New Brunswick Regional Chief Roger Augustine, who recently wrote an open letter trying to convince Chiefs to support Bill C-33 -- so maybe it will be him? It's hard to say at this point.

MORE:

[ http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela- ... cation-act ]

- - - -

Indigenous Nationhood

Dr. Pamela D. Palmater is a Mi'kmaw lawyer and member of the Eel River Bar First Nation in New Brunswick. She teaches Indigenous law, politics and governance at Ryerson University and heads their Centre for Indigenous Governance

[Oscar]

Report: Germany to reject EU-Canada trade deal

[ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e19795900/ ]

BERLIN — Reuters

Published Saturday, Jul. 26 2014, 8:17 AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Jul. 26 2014, 8:18 AM EDT

Germany is to reject a multi-billion free trade deal between the European Union and Canada which is widely seen as a template for a bigger agreement with the United States, a leading German paper reported on Saturday.

Citing diplomats in Brussels, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported that Berlin objects to clauses outlining the legal protection offered to firms investing in the 28-member bloc. Critics say they could allow investors to stop or reverse laws.

The German government could not sign the agreement with Canada “as it has been negotiated now”, reported the paper quoting German diplomats in Brussels.

It also said that the clauses in the Canada deal were similar to those in the U.S. agreement which is still under negotiation.

“The free trade treaty with Canada is a test for the agreement with the United States,” said one senior official at the Commission in Brussels, according to the paper.

If the deal with Canada is rejected “then the one with the United States is also dead”, added the official.

Asked about the report, a spokesman for Germany’s Economy Ministry referred to correspondence which outlined Germany’s concerns about investor protection in talks with both countries.

“The German government does not view as necessary stipulations on investor protection, including on arbitration cases between investors and the state with states that guarantee a resilient legal system and sufficient legal protection from independent national courts,” Deputy Economy Minister Stefan Kapferer wrote in response to an enquiry from a Greens lawmaker.

In the letter, dated June 26, Kapferer took a similar position on investor protection in the still-to-be-agreed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the United States.

Brussels argues that without these clauses companies from Canada will not invest in Europe.

MORE:

[ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... e19795900/ ]

[Oscar]

CETA "Oil industry's influence weakens safeguards for E.U. citizens" - The Parliament Magazine

[ https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/ar ... u-citizens ]

July 31, 2014

The influx of tar sands from North America will 'pollute Europe's fuel supply' and hamper 'climate ambitions', writes Fabian Flues.

In late June this year, the oil tanker Aleksey Kosygin docked in Bilbao, Spain, carrying a novel cargo of crude oil from Albertan tar sands. It was the first to be shipped to Europe. This delivery marks a victory for an oil lobby eager to find new markets for the world's most climate-polluting fuel.

Worse may be yet to come. The ongoing transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP) negotiations between the EU and the US and the EU and Canada's comprehensive trade and economic agreement (CETA) are being used by the oil lobby, with the support of the US and Canadian governments, to push more tar sands into the EU and undermine its climate policy.

Tar sands oil, mainly produced in the Canadian province of Alberta, is among the most highly-polluting fuels in commercial production. The process of converting tar sands into fuel releases three to five times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional oil, and global supplies of tar sands oil alone contain enough carbon to exceed the global 'carbon budget' resulting in catastrophic, runaway global warming. Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen has described them as a 'climate bomb'.

It appears that the coalition of Canadian and US trade negotiators and corporate oil lobbyists now has European climate policy in its sights, and is ready to detonate it.

As tar sands oil arrived in Spain, the EU was discussing the implementation of its fuel quality directive (FQD), designed to lower the climate impact of European transport fuels. Adopted in 2009, it remains to be implemented.

The oil industry, backed by the US and Canadian governments, has lobbied the EU for years to weaken the FQD so it would not take into account the much higher greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil.

While the unprecedented lobby campaign by the Canadian government, which included threats to use the WTO to bring down the EU climate regulation, started with the adoption of the FQD, the US government has recently stepped up its own lobbying efforts.

After being pushed by the oil industry to bring the FQD into the TTIP negotiations, US trade negotiators have started to attack the legislation. The US government, despite official denials, objected specifically to the classification of tar sands as highly climate polluting, following the oil industry's line of arguments against the FQD.

"The TTIP and CETA trade talks already threaten to introduce a regulatory race to the bottom, new avenues for corporate influence to weaken safeguards for consumers, workers and the environment" Unfortunately, it appears that the pressure has paid off. The five-year delay meant there was no legislation in place to discourage tar sands oil from arriving in Spain, and now a leaked version of the new FQD implementation proposal shows the EU backing down and failing to ensure that tar sands emissions are effectively taken into account.

The same talks are being used as a battering ram to prevent Europe's climate policy doing what it is supposed to do - protect the climate. Should the oil industry retain its grip on the trade talks, it may well be that Europe's fuel supply, and its climate ambitions, will be polluted by an influx of tar sands.

- - - - -

About the author - Fabian Flues is tar sands campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe

= = = = =

Tar sands oil arrives in Spain, more expected with the Energy East pipeline

[ http://www.canadians.org/blog/tar-sands ... t-pipeline ]

May 29, 2014 - 8:44am

Friends of the Earth Europe tells us, "The first shipment of highly polluting Canadian tar sands oil to Europe is due to arrive in Spain today. ...The 600,000 barrels of oil will arrive in Bilbao and have been purchased by Spain-based multinational Repsol. It is the first major shipment of tar sands oil to the EU." [ http://www.foeeurope.org/first-delivery ... ope-290514 ]

Research by the Natural Resources Defense Council released by Transport and Environment, Greenpeace EU and Friends of the Earth Europe warns that European imports of tar sands could increase to about 700,000 barrels per day in 2020 (up from 4,000 bpd in 2012).
[ http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/Globa ... 202014.pdf ]

Their briefing note states, "New pipelines planned or under construction in North America, in combination with refinery developments in Europe, could turn Europe into a significant market for Canadian tar sands oil. ...For example, TransCanada’s current Energy East tar sands pipeline could bring 1.1 million bpd from Alberta to eastern Canadian ports. It has Europe as one of the main intended destinations for the crude oil."
[ http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/Globa ... report.pdf ]

They add, "This pipeline, recently proposed by TransCanada, would link tar sands production in Alberta with the ports on the Canadian East Coast. It would be able to transport 1.1 million bpd of tar sands crudes. It is clear that the Energy East pipeline project is an export pipeline and oil company executives have mentioned Europe (and in particular Spain) as a priority destination. The oil exported would be crudes, either heavy diluted bitumen or light synthetic crude oil. A number of refineries in Spain can process heavy crudes, including diluted bitumen. In addition, the Spanish oil company Repsol has existing ties with TransCanada’s key partner Irving oil."

The groups conclude, "The growth of Canada’s tar sands industry in the coming decades depends crucially on the market access. Building new pipelines and getting access to premium markets, such as Europe, will have a major impact on investments in tar sands projects and on global GHG emissions related to the expansion of high carbon unconventional oil. ...The Fuel Quality Directive [which obliges fuel suppliers to reduce the lifecycle greenhouse gas intensity of transport fuel by 6% by 2020, compared with 2010] is one of the key instruments to reduce future demand for tar sands and drive the fuel market in a cleaner direction."

And they warn, "Oil from Canadian tar sands could reach up to 6.7% of the EU transport fuels consumption in 2020, which would increase the greenhouse gas intensity of European transport fuels by around 1.5%. This represents a quarter of the 6% reduction target and is equivalent to adding around 6 million cars on European roads by 2020."

The Council of Canadians opposes the Energy East pipeline and supports the Fuel Quality Directive. Our interventions in support of the FQD have included releasing a legal opinion highlighting how the Harper government could use the Canada-European Union 'free trade' agreement to attack the FQD [ http://canadians.org/trade/documents/CE ... rsands.pdf ] ; issuing an open letter calling on the Harper government to stop its lobbying against the FQD in Europe [ http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/20 ... pr-11.html ] ;
sending a letter to all Members of the European Parliament urging them to support the FQD [ http://www.canadians.org/media/trade/20 ... ct-11.html ] ; supporting newspaper ads in the UK, Netherlands and France backing the FQD [ http://www.canadians.org/node/4025 ]; lobbying EU embassies in Ottawa [ http://www.canadians.org/media/energy/2 ... eb-12.html ]; and meeting with government representatives in Paris, The Hague, London and Berlin [ http://www.canadians.org/node/8367 ] .

Further reading

Will Energy East take the tar sands to Italy?
[ http://www.canadians.org/blog/will-ener ... ands-italy ]

UK signals support for EU to import tar sands oil
[ http://www.canadians.org/node/9531 ]

TransCanada East Coast pipeline eyes tar sands exports to China, India and Europe [ http://www.canadians.org/node/8783 ]
- - - - - -
Brent Patterson's blog

= = = = = = = = =

First delivery of devastating tar sands arrives in Europe

[ http://www.canadians.org/blog/tar-sands ... t-pipeline ]

29 May 2014

The first shipment of highly polluting Canadian tar sands oil to Europe is due to arrive in Spain today. Environment groups Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment and Greenpeace warn that this delivery provides a snapshot of Europe's energy future – a continued addiction to ever-dirtier oil.

The 600,000 barrels of oil will arrive in Bilbao and have been purchased by Spain-based multinational Repsol [1]. It is the first major shipment of tar sands oil to the EU.

Tar sands oil is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels in commercial production today and produces three to five times more climate changing emissions than conventional crude oil. Described as "the biggest carbon bomb on the planet" by leading climate change scientist James Hansen the extraction of tar sands causes pollution and deforestation, kills wildlife and threatens indigenous Canadian communities. Tar sands are currently only exploited on a large scale in Canada.

The environmental groups declared the arrival of the tanker an indictment of the European Union's climate action and called for urgent action to keep tar sands out of Europe.

"Tar sands are deadly for our climate and must be kept in the ground and out of Europe. To give a lifeline to this dangerous industry is to set us up for climate disaster," said Colin Roche of Friends of the Earth Europe.

In 2009 the European Union agreed to reduce emissions from transport fuels through a law known as the Fuel Quality Directive. This directive was due to enter into force in 2010. Due to the European Commission's inaction, it still hasn't been implemented [2]. The Canadian government has undertaken an aggressive lobbying effort to stop the law.

"The landing of massive amounts of dirty tar sands to our shores runs counter to Europe's stated aspirations to decarbonise transport and curtail its addiction to oil. European drivers will be forced to fill up their tanks with tar sands that will raise emissions – not lower them – and push up the costs of decarbonisation by billions of euros," added Laura Buffet of Transport & Environment.

A report by the US-based Natural Resource Defense Council shows that tar sands imports could skyrocket from about 4,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2012 to over 700,000 bpd in 2020 as a result of pipelines that are planned or under construction in the US and Canada. These imports would undermine the Fuel Quality Directive's aim to reduce fuels emissions by 6%. [3]

"This shipment could open the door to more imports of dirty tar sands. Europe can't be both a climate champion and a market for climate-wrecking tar sands. The EU must uphold its environmental credentials and stand up to the intense lobbying by the oil industry and the Canadian government," said Franziska Achterberg of Greenpeace.

Friends of the Earth Europe, Transport & Environment and Greenpeace are calling on the European Commission to finally implement a strong Fuel Quality Directive to keep the most polluting fuels out of Europe.

---

Notes

[1] [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/ ... 5720110829 ]

[2] In October 2011, the European Commission published a proposal to implement the FQD. In February 2012, Member States voted, but the proposal was neither approved nor rejected. This means the Commission now has to submit its proposal to the Council of Ministers. The Commission finalised an impact assessment study in 2013 but the proposal is yet to be released.

[3] [ www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2014 ... ds--study/ ]