Proposition 54K3086

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'Accord économique et commercial global (AECG) entre le Canada, d'une part, et l'Union européenne et ses Etats membres, d'autre part, fait à Bruxelles le 30 octobre 2016.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

May 8, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Canada European Union free-trade agreement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB VB

Abstained from voting

LE ∉ PP

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 18, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The report of our work is divided into two major parts.

The first consists of the report of the hearings of experts on this very important matter. If I wanted to report to the tribune, I would have to read them in their entirety in order to avoid making mistakes and to avoid – horresco referens – using them partially and betraying them.

The second part of the report consists traditionally of the resumption of the positions of the different political formations, which will undoubtedly be expressed at the tribune.

That is why I refer to my written report, informing you now that I will speak soon, in place of Mr. Flahaux, who has lost his voice.

There are quite a few speakers registered.

Mr Luykx is the first to speak.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, those of you who descend to Brussels weekly or even daily, still see in Wetstraat the stickers with the message "Stop CETA" on the stoplights glued. Well, today, in this House, we will give green light to that trade agreement. That green light is a powerful signal that despite all past excitement, sometimes some panic and some disappearance of recent years, we are still able to find a majority that clearly dares to choose free trade, economic interests and prosperity for the citizen. Our majority dares to choose multilateralism, for economic cooperation between countries. Nowadays, with all sorts of events and President Trump on stage, it cannot be sufficiently emphasized how important such trade agreements are to ensure our prosperity.

Fortunately, there is no such thing as bad advertising, because all the heights of the opposition may have made the eyes of our entrepreneurs open to the opportunities in Canada. This could be measured by the increase in exports to Canada, just in the quarter before the entry into force. The press dubbed it the CETA effect. The predecessor of this agreement is therefore already very positive.

We gave the priority for the ratification of that treaty to our colleagues in Flanders, who already made the right choice two weeks ago. We would also be surprised if Flanders, which accounted for approximately 90 % of the total Belgian-Canadian trade with as much as EUR 1.8 billion in 2016, had not taken that decision and had not validated and ratified that interest for Flanders.

The years of negotiations have been good. It has completely exhausted the debate and given everyone the opportunity to criticize and further study the dossier. What we are approving here today is a modern trade and investment protection agreement, the agreement of a new generation that will set the standard for other treaties. Not only we say this, because I hear from the opposition that good steps have been taken in the further elaboration of this treaty.

It is also important for us to have a balanced agreement. Not only for offensive but also for defensive reasons. We have had a lot of hearings in the Committee on Foreign Relations and although everyone should do some water with the wine, yet this is a win-win story for both parties, for Europe and Canada, and of course also for Flanders and Belgium. The opening of markets thanks to this agreement is of an unprecedented size. We will soon see the Japanese trade agreement, a step further, but this is still very important. The European Union estimates the new trade opportunities between Europe and Canada resulting from this agreement at EUR 22 billion annually. In our relations with Canada, there is still a large, under-exploited trade potential. With CETA, we hope to be able to unlock this. Think of removing barriers, both tariff and non-tariff, equalizing degrees, creating investments and opportunities for our SMEs, Canadian public procurement – think of the mills, previously stubbornly shielded from the free market – which will now be opened. These are opportunities, one by one, which we are sure will be seized by our innovative companies with both hands.

We repeat that this is not at the expense of our high European standards. There are no dumb images of chlorine chips that flood our market. It will improve the protection of intellectual property, specific agricultural products, consumers and environmental standards. There will be no action against regulations that protect health, the environment and consumers or improve working conditions. We say goodbye to the old arbitration system of the ISDS and draw the map of the ICS.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us no longer be fooled. We must give the green light to the path of CETA here today and our support. It’s the right path and we’ve all been waiting long enough for it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The PS is not opposed to trade, but which trade? Not any way. Not at any price! For you, unfortunately, it is often trade first, no matter the risks on social, environmental rights and no matter, ultimately, the impact on our fellow citizens. Obviously, when the PS says it, you quickly made to minimise: the PS makes ideology; the PS is against trade, blablabla. These are the usual rings.

In truth, I rather feel, Mr. Minister, that you sometimes seem to suffer from selective listening or amnesia.

Continue on, Madame Grovonius. Listen to Mrs. Grovonius.

Is our Red Devil, or rather Blue Devil, ready to listen? Therefore, Mr. Minister, I said that I sometimes have the feeling that you suffer from a form of listening somewhat variable geometry or a form of selective amnesia.

Indeed, too often you forget that the PS has always defended our trade with Canada. I have said it many times and I repeat it: Canada is a friendly country, an important partner of Belgium, the European Union and the Francophonie and we must do everything we can to keep it.

Then you also abstain from the criticisms issued by all the other actors. Indeed, the PS is not the only one to question various aspects of this treaty.

I will take an example, one of the people who was heard in the Committee on External Relations, Monique Goyens, general director of the European Bureau of Consumer Unions (BEUC). I know you will tell me that the BEUC is also an armed arm of the PS. We know the rengaine, but I think Mrs. Goyens cannot be suspicious in this matter.

What did Ms. Goyens say to us in the commission? First, she told us that this CETA presents shortcomings and risks, that there is no impact study and that only the interests of European and Canadian companies have been considered. The interests of consumers, and therefore of our fellow citizens, whether they are European or Canadian, have never been taken into account in the negotiations.

Ms. Goyens further says that with regard to the promised price drop, in the end, there is no evidence that a reduction in customs tariffs will ipso facto result in a decrease in consumer prices for the benefit of the consumer. In fact, companies can just as well decide that the potential gains will be used, for example, to increase the dividends of their shareholders.

Ms. Goyens also talked about this famous ISDS arbitration clause, which in the meantime became ICS. Regarding the risks associated with this famous arbitration clause, Ms. Goyens admits, like us, that the ICS was indeed an improvement compared to the ISDS. Unfortunately, this is insufficient to guarantee consumer protection. The ICS always allows an investor to be compensated if the entry into force of a legislation, which is of public interest, causes him a harm.

This, according to Ms. Goyens, is a significant gap.

She also returned to the case pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Ms. Goyens asks us why not wait for the judgment of this Court. Especially since it has already taken a decision in questioning the jurisdiction to interpret the rules of European law, granted to an arbitration court under another treaty, namely the Treaty between the Netherlands and Slovakia, this famous Achmea case for the initiates.

In the end, the PS does not say anything else. But it is easier to caricate our proposition than just to try to listen to what might question somewhat your orientation, which I might call obstinate. What matters is to move forward at any cost, even if a Damocles sword hangs above our heads and this treaty at the end, whose future will also depend on this opinion given by the CJEU.

So you’ll apologize, but I don’t think it’s protectionism to “promote legal certainty in the end,” Reynders said. Similarly, I do not think, Mr. Minister, that it is protectionism to simply demand the application of an agreement concluded between the different entities of this country. In my view, this is simply a matter of respect for our institutions and our fellow citizens. Indeed, thanks to the mobilization of citizens, the activism of civil society and the determination of a few political elected members, Wallonia has obtained a joint interpretative instrument having a binding legal force. This instrument is now part of the Treaty as such.

Of course, not everything is perfect. Nevertheless, let us acknowledge that this is an advance that should be welcomed. Otherwise, Mr. Minister, you do not prevent yourself from greeting her or even sometimes from appropriating her.

Despite the substance and advances achieved, there remains a major problem of form that justifies our opposition to the ratification of this treaty: the lack of loyalty of the federal government, both with regard to the spirit and the letter of this intravelge agreement. In fact, he torpedoes a text that he has yet to sign. First, it decided to ratify the treaty even before the ECJ had given its opinion on the compatibility of the ICS with European treaties.

Then, it also rejected our proposal for a resolution calling for the introduction of a mechanism for the assessment of the socio-economic and environmental effects of CETA, while it appeared black on white in the intra-Belgium agreement.

Likewise, he rejected our amendment, which, however, would have allowed to confer explicit legal force on the so-called "supplementary declarations" which are annexed to this treaty, as we were suggested during the hearings organized in the Committee on Foreign Relations.

All these initiatives unfortunately once again illustrate the principle of free trade of this majority, without any consideration for the impact on our socio-economic fabric, our farmers, our social security or even our environmental standards. The blindness seems total.

However, you still have a chance to catch up. The amendment that I have just discussed is attached to this plenary session. That said, I do not make myself much illusion and fear that he will suffer the same fate as the one that was inflicted on him in commission.

The federal government and the parliamentarians of this majority thus inscribe themselves in the renunciations and hypocrisy displayed by the new wallonese majority MR-cdH, whether it is CETA or other trade agreements.

I will conclude by highlighting the lack of political courage of this majority, which refuses to consider the possibility of rethinking, evaluating, or even simply daring to question the Belgian and European foreign trade policy. Dear colleagues, you are demonstrating once again that it is easier to accuse others of falling back on yourself, than to ask yourself the right questions and learn from the past.

For all these reasons, my group and myself will reject the ratification of CETA, as our PS MEPs at the European Parliament level have done consistently.

My political formation strongly supports this bill approving a ratification that paves the way for new economic prospects and also reaffirms the bond that unites us with Canada.

This new type of trade agreement goes far beyond any other agreement of this type, including considerations of social progress and environmental considerations. Furthermore, given the unstable geopolitical situation we are currently experiencing, we believe that CETA arrives at its right time, both economically and politically.

The MR, aware of the beneficial consequences of this treaty for Belgium, has been resolutely committed to it for a long time. Politically, Canada is one of the countries with which the signing of such an agreement seems the most natural. Economically, Belgium, as a member of the European Union, will gain considerably, as the first figures available to us since the provisional entry into force of the treaty already allow to predict. Numerous experts, including from the Walloon Agency for Foreign Export and Investment (AWEX), highlighted the increase in revenue and trade with Canada. Furthermore, environmental and social commitments and dispute resolution mechanisms are points that strengthen us in our analysis.

It is undoubted that Canada is, outside of Europe, one of our most loyal allies. This was ⁇ the case during the last century, during the two world wars. Today, 120,000 Belgians are settled in Canada and about 180,000 Canadians live in Canada. Canada is a strategic ally and one of the founding members of NATO.

In addition to this strong historical link, the current political development of our partner, under the impulse of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, also confirms us in our support. The latter was able to inspire a new dynamic on the economic level, while paying great attention to social, social and ecological issues.

His inclination for multilateralism also leads him to fight isolationism that is unfortunately in favor for the moment, especially in the United States, a direct neighbor of Canada. And also the temptations of identity reversal that appear in many countries.

On the social level, on the level of values, our convergence is total. Our political relations are strong and fruitful. As I recalled in commission, our societies share the same political, social values. Canada is a reliable partner on which we can rely. Our two countries have, on the other hand, made the choice of a living bilingualism (or even trilingualism, in Belgium), which also makes Belgium rich. We need to think collectively about this!

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Reynders, pointed out, if Belgium and the European Union were unable to ratify such a free trade agreement, we would then seriously have to ask ourselves the question – and I do not address directly to Mrs. Grovonius, to rest it – of which other country would we still be able to negotiate and ratify such a treaty?

Mr Miller, Mr Hellings wishes to intervene. You have the word, Mr. Hellings.

Thank you Mr. President. Mr. Miller, I will answer your question. Is CETA the enlargement of the European Union to Canada? and no!

and no! It is a specific mechanism, a trade treaty – as you said – of a new kind, which provides for specific mechanisms that are not the regulatory convergence as it is known within the EU.

This is reflected in the ongoing Brexit debate. We can see, by decal, the contributions of the European Union, which is a regulated market at the European level. That is, each member of the EU must comply with the rules to make the market that we have in common work.

The CETA agreement with Canada is exactly the opposite.

It does not aim to create a large market with common rules. But vice versa, it tends to establish a large market for large multinational structures on both sides of the Atlantic, with mechanisms such as the Special Court for Multinational Companies and the preliminary regulatory convergence aimed at deregulating the created transatlantic market. This is why this treaty is fundamentally different and many associations oppose the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), because it represents the denial of the European Union.

Mr Miller, if tomorrow we want to expand the European Union to extra-continental, extra-European states, let’s do it! But this enlargement will imply that Canada or any other non-European country integrates all the Community acquis, all directives, all regulations into its national law. However, Canada will not integrate European regulations and directives into its national law. We are talking about active directives in all matters, social, environmental, human rights, etc. Within a few months, a few years, a few decades, Canada and Canadian multinational corporations will be able to use the tools of the Treaty with the European Union to not prevent the European Union from legislating or abolishing European standards, but to discourage them from doing so. Indeed, still present, the Damocles sword of an appeal before a court of justice specifically dedicated to multinationals will deter states from legislating towards more social justice or more environment.

Mr. Hellings, we have already had many discussions on this subject in committee meetings. First, I am really happy to hear you say all the good you think about the rules of the European Single Market. This is a welcome volunteerism at the European Union level. Even if everything is not perfect within this intra-European market, mechanisms allow to develop and improve the current rules, how to organize the development of our economy and the redistribution of wealth within it.

Second point: I know that this bill does not propose the accession of Canada to the European Union. I’m not saying that the idea is totally crazy, or that it will not be possible to consider some day more distant agreements. I advocate the idea of further expanding to the south of the European Basin and beyond to Africa. Minister Reynders also addressed the issue of our relations with Russia. But, for now, we are here to discuss a bill concerning an agreement aiming, indeed, at the implementation of a large commercial market. This implementation satisfies us, but it is also because it allows the European social and environmental criteria to be ⁇ ined.

That is why we support this bill. If, politically, it marks our ties with our Canadian cousins more in the marble, it offers unique opportunities to our European economies and our European companies, Belgian, Flemish – as Mr. Lyukx pointed out – and Wallonian. I refer to the figures communicated by AWEX in commission.

Our interests are clearly defined. As the third most globalized country on the planet and one of the most open economies – we export more than 80% of our GDP. The slightest commercial changes or lack of visibility in this area would serve us. As such, the Brexit, which concerns our fourth trading partner, and the protectionist measures adopted by Donald Trump in the United States, our fifth partner, are, of course, source of uncertainty.

That is why we need a clear framework for moving our trade with Canada. Especially because, as some have announced, if a WTO reform really came to fruition, Europe could not alone bring these values to the WTO level. It will need secure allies who share the same values, principles and concerns as the European Union, namely a country like Canada. Trusted partners will be of great help.

In addition, this treaty would allow us to further diversify our exporting countries. When we know that more than 70% of our imports are made in the European Union countries, a development of trade relations with Canada, Mr. Hellings, can only be positive for our economy. Our ⁇ must be able to look for growth where it is.

In the global economic context, troubled by more than one title, these kinds of bilateral treaties are of particular importance. In this regard, it is shown that export-related jobs are often more stable and better paid than others. While our ratification is essential for the full effectiveness of CETA, the latter has, as you know, provisionally entered into force.

During the committee hearings, the figures that were transmitted to us illustrate the positive effects – even if they need to be relativized because the provisional operation period is short – for our country and for federated entities such as Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels. These first signs must encourage us to ratify without delay the treaty that is submitted to us.

Thus, CETA will benefit the Belgian economy but it also includes other aspects that make it a new generation agreement. CETA combines trade with social and environmental progress. It is exemplary on the protection of human rights, preserves the right of states to legislate in the public interest, to preserve their cultural industry, to protect labor standards or to promote the protection of the planet.

All these elements have been discussed by the European specialists who negotiated CETA, thanks to the popular mobilization that followed and the attention paid by the various Parliaments across the European Union.

These results are achieved.

Regarding the issue of dispute settlement, a notoriously sensitive point, we give our vigilant trust to the ICS. In contrast to the ISDS, which was criticized during the TTIP negotiations, this mechanism and, tomorrow, the Multilateral Investment Court will constitute an independent and neutral body designed to resolve disputes that will arise. We are not naive, but cautious and confident.

Some aspects still arouse debate today. It is true. I think of the weakness of impact studies. This is also the case of the form the regulatory cooperation will take. It will, let us remember, be of a voluntary nature. The way in which public authorities will help our companies to enter the Canadian market must also be monitored.

Finally, as was recalled in the committee, we will need to ensure – on this point, Mrs. Grovonius, I fully share your concern – that the gains for companies benefit well, at the end of the chain, the consumers.

If some aspects of the text deserve our full vigilance, it is a confident vigilance or vigilant confidence – it is as you want it – and benevolent that we grant to CETA. Follow-up of this Treaty after its entry into force will need to be seriously organized. We will look forward to using experts and extensive studies in this regard.

In short, we are moving in the right direction. This is also the opinion of our colleague Peter Luykx. This is the path that has been traced and also recalled by our Minister of Foreign Affairs in committee, when he summarized in four essential parts the pistes that emerge from this agreement.

First, this text offers us a starting point towards concluding an innovative and ambitious agreement. CETA is very ambitious in terms of market liberalization. You are right, Mrs. Grovonius, we want a free market economy, where people can live and trade freely and in peace. The treaty aims to remove 99% of customs barriers. It provides unparalleled access to public procurement. This is another progress that has been achieved following the negotiations.

We will also have access to Canadian public procurement, including sub-federal.

In addition, CETA creates the possibility of establishing a regulatory dialogue without limiting the rights of the regulated parties. This means that, afterwards, EU Member States will still be able to regulate what they wish to do in social, environmental, etc. matters.

Second, CETA is also a starting point towards the conclusion of progressive agreements. CETA uses Belgian values and standards as the basis for how Belgium, with its European partners, intends to actively shape international trade. This is a solid foundation for everything that can be negotiated in the future, especially – I hope – by our Foreign Minister.

It provides for important and strict provisions on sustainable development. These objectives will closely guide trade with Canada. In this regard, the agreement responds to a growing demand from citizens to further integrate social objectives in the way Belgian companies conduct their economic activities.

Third, this agreement is a starting point towards a fundamental reform of investment protection. Many of our debates have resulted in excellent questions. CETA will replace conventional private arbitration by a bilateral investment court. This is a key step in the political relief towards a genuine multilateralization of investment protection.

Finally, CETA constitutes the starting point for the conclusion of ambitious and balanced agreements due to the fact that at the level of its implementation it will be subject to monitoring – a very important element and to be remembered from everything that has been discussed and implemented to reach this bill – and to a rigorous evaluation that will allow for continuous adaptation, especially in terms of sustainable development but also, and above all, because this will allow to draw lessons in the negotiations of other future agreements. I think it has already been made reference to this tribune today to the trade negotiation with Japan.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, for all the reasons I have just mentioned, the Reform Movement will vote this text with enthusiasm.

We see it as the result of a long work, a long succession of debates over months, ⁇ even years, within our assemblies, whether in the federal entities or at the federal level.

We support this treaty that further seals the ties between Belgium and Canada and that will benefit our economy as a whole. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, in recent months we have often talked about different and sometimes worrying trends in the world, ranging from migration, trade policy to the situation in the Middle East. Again and again we have come to the same conclusion: we must take our future in our own hands more often with Europe and the EU; the EU must build bridges, unlike Trump, who breaks bridges; we must start from our own strength. Colleagues, with the present agreement, together with the agreement signed last week in Japan, we are indeed walking that way, the way that comes from our own strength, the way of building bridges.

We should be proud of CETA. The conclusion of trade agreements is not obvious today. CETA best illustrates the fact that Europe offers a counterweight to the protectionist tendency, that it is a strong trade partner and that it takes the lead in building global bridges in an increasingly complex world.

My group is convinced that regulated free trade is crucial not only for our prosperity, but also for our security. For an open economy like ours, a sustainable trade policy is crucial. No less than 571 000 jobs depend on exports outside Europe, a figure that will only increase in the future. Trade, growth, jobs, they are the basis of our prosperity.

CETA has, of course, led to discussions in recent years, including here in the hemisphere. It came so far that the credibility of our country was compromised and the international community and our European partners began to wonder what a mandate given by the Belgian government in 2009 and 2011, still means if the parties that previously supported the mandate, the subsequent agreement, which fully meets that mandate, no longer rely on the opposition banks. That was a wrong way of acting.

Various organizations and NGOs have rightly expressed a lot of concerns and objections. I am truly proud of that vibrant civil society in our country that brings such things to the surface. Not only our group, but also the government, the European Commission and the Canadian government, have taken these concerns seriously. During the negotiations, for example, many have expressed their concerns about the progress of the negotiation process, but this has shown that the European Commission has made significant steps forward in terms of transparency in the negotiations. That transparency has become greater than before.

Dear colleagues, the legally binding interpretative statement offers an answer to many of those concerns, in so far as that was not clear from the negotiated texts. CETA upholds the precautionary principle and does not change European standards. It also does not affect the legislative initiative of the European Union and its Member States to develop their own standards and regulations. It is important for our group to work with allies such as Canada, just to raise global standards and avoid a downward spiral in environmental or labour standards at all times. This regulatory cooperation can, of course, only take place on a voluntary basis, and the trade agreement, CETA, guarantees that.

In response to the numerous concerns of civil society, which we also expressed in the committee, the European Union decided to adapt the existing ISDS system and, at a late stage of the negotiations with Canada at the request of the EU, the Investment Court System, a public law system, was added to CETA for the legal protection of investments. CETA is pioneering in this sense, as such a multilateral investment court will only be able to judge disputes arising from the investment chapters.

The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Achmea case makes it clear that for treaties to which the EU is a party, international dispute resolution mechanisms should not make binding decisions on the interpretation and compliance of EU law.

Colleagues, during the debates, some questioned whether the agreement was necessary. Many tariffs are already low and Canada is not such an important trade partner, they say. Nowadays, almost 1,700 Belgian companies export to Canada, which indirectly creates almost 23 000 jobs; 70 % of these companies are SMEs. Belgian goods exports to Canada increased by 30% in 2017, the year in which CETA provisionally came into force, compared to 2016. We can also expect important new opportunities, as public procurement in Canada is also open to Belgian companies. The economic added value of the agreement, both for our ⁇ and for our consumers, seems to me clear. Therefore, our group will support the ratification.

It is a highly balanced free trade agreement, in which we have worked with EU governments to find the best protection for sensitive sectors. We see the agreement with a like-minded country like Canada as an important step forward in EU trade policy. After all, Canada is much more than a trade partner; it is a strategic partner in the geopolitical context and the security context for cooperation on sustainability, migration and the management of climate challenges.

CETA is therefore a crucial step in demonstrating that Europe is willing to take the lead in a world order where multilateral cooperation and regulated sustainable trade are central. For these reasons, the bill can count on our support.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I will try not to repeat what I said in the committee.

Allow me first to point out two fundamental reasons I consider not to approve the proposed treaty tomorrow. The first reason is related to the overall evaluation of the development of globalization of our world.

I remember that thirty to forty years ago there was a debate about what kind of globalization we wanted. One had the adepts of ultraglobalization and usually found those on the right side of the political playing field, one had the other-globalists, to which I count myself, and there were even the anti-globalists.

In fact, trade agreements have acted as globalization engines for the past thirty to forty years. The neoliberal supporters of globalization gave us the image of a global free trade paradise. Thanks to the network of free trade agreements, we would see the whole world flourish. I think that after thirty years it is good that the ultra-globalists look at the state of the world for a moment. I give here a few results. Since 2015, not so long ago, the richest 1% of the world owns more than the other 99% of the world’s population.

Since 2016, eight people own as much as the world’s 3.6 billion poorest people. I can give you their names. They will not sound unfamiliar in your ears. Bill Gates, Amancio Ortega, Warren Buffet, Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison and Michael Bloomberg own as much as the lower half of the entire world population.

Mr Van Peteghem asks the word for an interruption.

You make a correct comparison, but at the same time you must also dare to show the evolution of extreme poverty in the world. In fact, it has fallen. In 1990, 36% of the world’s population had to live with 0.9 euros per day. Today it is 18%. Extreme poverty has been halved. This is also a consequence of globalization. In this case, you can give a nuanced image.

Thank you for your intervention, but you will agree with me that 75% of the improvement in poverty can be reduced to one country, namely China. Look at the figures and the efforts made in China to get the poorest regions out of poverty. I’m willing to accept much, but you can’t claim that that 75 percent would have been brought out of poverty by unbounded free trade in China. That claim would not stand up.

Let me explain why we have come to these figures. As a reflection, I ask you to look at the results of thirty years of promises that we were on our way toward a global free trade paradise.

This is what I want to point out to you: look at the results of the policies carried out.

I will give you another example. The income of the poorest 10% has increased by $3 per year since 1988, while the income of the richest 1% has increased 182 times. The income of the richest 1% has risen 182 times more than the income of the poorest 10%!

I will give another example: a CEO of a global top 100 company earns in one year as much as ten thousand people working in the textile sector in Bangladesh.

I will give one last reference. A new study by Thomas Piketty shows that in the United States over the past thirty years the income growth of the poorest 50% of Americans is equal to zero percent, while the income of the richest 1% has increased by 300%!

These types of trade agreements are the core engines of globalization. Why is it possible to obtain such results? That is very simple. What is the consequence of the opening of all state borders, but also of the limitation of the ability of governments to regulate free trade, for which you have just pledged? This leads to a concentration of economic power. I gave you eight names of people, but you can add the names of the major multinational companies they run. It is that great economic power that makes these actors have such an impact on the political business that they can lobby very hard and weigh very hard.

We now have a new type of trade agreements. It is now a step further than the type of trade agreements we concluded five years ago. That step further is to give those already very strong economic powers the opportunity to engage in newly created regulations before parliaments, the elected of the people, can bow over regulation. This is called regulatory cooperation.

In this relationship, on the one hand, are the administrations. For us it is the European Commission, with the people of the DG Trade; those people are absolute believers, who do not doubt for a second the beneficial consequences of the ultra-liberalization of free trade that we have experienced. On the other hand, there are the representatives of the big companies in the two blocks, in this case Canada and Europe. These companies are given the opportunity to give their judgment on the regulations being made. Neither the European Parliament nor the parliaments of the European Member States have a view to this. We will have no sight of it.

That will happen. This is the first mechanism that will make it worse.

Colleagues said at the speech that these treaties are not only about economics, but that they also include social and ecological standards. That is true, but there is a world of difference. All economic rules are enforceable. All other rules, the social ground norms I call them, are not enforceable.

There is an unequal development. The economic power of the major economic actors is increasing. In doing so, the social norms, which are not enforceable, will be the final result of the competition that large multinational companies create between Member States, by setting the Member States against each other, and so on.

It goes even further. Therefore, the debate about who, in case of dispute, has the right to judge whether standards are complied with is so important. We are all legislators. We all know that the laws we make can never encompass the full reality and that therefore one should also be able to rely on an independent judge who weighs the interests of the various parties and who can make a decision.

There is indeed an improvement in the situation, which I have also said in the committee. We come from the ordinary arbitration on the ISDS to the ICS. But, colleagues, this is and remains a very business-friendly body. You can be assured: even if the ICS comes there, it will be made up of people who have very close ties with the large industry. Do we give them the final judgment over disputes that very often arise from complaints from companies that say they are hindered in their business and by one or another rule make less profit? We do not do that, right? Colleagues, if we want to defend the public interest, we do not give that judgment to them, not even to the ICS, and ⁇ not to the ISDS.

Colleagues, this is really something to be worried about.

I will give you another number before I come to the conclusion of my first point. The 2017 Global Wealth Databook of Credit Suisse, ⁇ not a leftist organization, has calculated that between September 2016 and September 2017 82 % of the growth of assets in that one year went to the top 1 %.

Between September 2016 and September 2017 there was a global wealth growth, 82 percent of which went to the top 1 percent. These figures come from Credit Suisse and not from the study service of the sp.a or any leftist think tank. The lower 50 % did not see any increase in its assets during that period.

My conclusion, my colleagues, is that we cannot continue with globalization as it is now. We cannot agree to the acceleration or deepening of trade agreements, as they are presented to us here. Some accuse us of being against the Canadians. I was also very opposed to TTIP. I do not know if this agreement will ever come back.

I have not yet read a summary of the European Agreement with Japan, but I would be surprised if this was not in the same bed as TTIP and CETA. We need other free trade agreements. Some accuse me of being a cryptoprotectionist.

Colleagues, those who think that we are doing well to hunt through the throat of free trade in the world, I urge you to think further. For example, I refer to President Obama. In his farewell address to the United Nations, he said that a world in which 1% of humanity controls as much as 99% of others can never be a stable world.

I would like to ask you to think for a moment. There are several reasons why in the last ten to twenty years there has been a decline in confidence in politics.

On the other aspects that are involved, I will not go in. I am convinced that the rise of populism, ⁇ eurosceptic populism, can be found in the assumption of those who are behind, who see the accumulation of this incredible wealth in the hands of a few, while they are behind. Trump hurts the mass of American voters who feel left behind. There are a number of reasons, but this also plays a role in Europe, ⁇ more because people have seen that the banks that caused the crisis, which caused them to get into trouble, have been saved with government money, while left to their fate. First, I would like to warn you about the way we are organizing globalization. Continuing with the kind of free trade agreements like CETA, TTIP and, I fear, with Japan will make us stand right on the wall. For that reason alone, my group will not approve the treaty tomorrow.

I come to my second point. It will probably turn out to be an evil hope, but I hope that some of you will start to doubt. I asked a question in the committee. They ask us if we have anything against Canada. I have nothing against Canada. It’s a beautiful country with a fairly good foreign policy, I don’t have any problems with that. But there is also an elite in Canada who wants this kind of treaty. These treaties do not protect the interests of ordinary Canadians, but of the top 1% in Canada. We are told that they are very close to us with their norms and values. Yes, that’s good, but if they’re so close to us, why don’t we trust the European and Canadian legal systems as they are today? Why should we create a separate ICS? I have not been answered to that question.

Per ⁇ the Minister will answer later. If there are interpretation disputes in the relations between, for example, Belgian and Canadian companies, why can they not be dealt with by a Canadian or European court? I have not yet received a good response.

A second element may be somewhat less important, but in fact this text asks Parliament for a blank cheque. We are asked to approve the text tomorrow, and if the European Court of Justice makes a judgment soon, the text will be amended. Colleagues, I’m sorry, but giving a mandate to the government for something so fundamental as settling interpretation differences that can often go over billions would even be hard for me if I were a member of the majority.

There is a third and last point. I find it unheard of that Belgium, the state that itself brought the issue to the European Court of Justice, does not even have the European loyalty or courtesy to wait for that Court to make a judgment. That cannot be in me. We are with the founding members of the European Union and we all know that that European Union is built on a series of cornerstones. One of those cornerstones is the European Court of Justice. The current 28 Member States accept that if interpretations of European treaties or European legislation are to be given, they must give full confidence to the European Court of Justice. Well, that is being put on foot here.

It is becoming even more painful. Alexander Van der Bellen, the president of Austria, the country currently holding the presidency of the European Union, has said that he will not sign until the European Court of Justice has made a ruling.

Therefore, there is more European federal loyalty to a Member State that has joined the EU some time after us. I would be ashamed if I, as the Belgian government, didn’t even wait for the judgment of the European Court of Justice.

For completeness, I will summarize the other reasons, which I have developed in the committee, as well.

The third reason we advocate to vote against is because the liberalization of services will take place on the basis of a negative list. We think this will create a lot of uncertainty.

Furthermore, the precautionary principle, a foundation of European health and safety regulation, is not sufficiently protected.

The possibility of taking measures to prevent a new financial crisis with all its consequences is weakened by the rules on the liberalization of the financial sector contained in the Treaty.

We will also argue against CETA because, according to an independent, academic study by Tufts University – in my knowledge the only one – in a worst case scenario CETA would even destroy jobs.

The agribusiness industry, which dominates the North American market, claims that it considers European sanitary standards as technical barriers and wants to use CETA to work away from them. The competition of the much larger Canadian industrial companies will feel strong in Europe.

I assume to my colleagues that you, like me, received an email from a representative of the dairy industry in Belgium earlier this week. I must admit that I am not well at home in those circles. I know the working environment better. Anyway, the representative is not alone, because the agricultural sector, especially in Wallonia, is very concerned about the consequences of the treaty.

When we ask you – and we have done so several times – what is the situation with regard to economic interest, you always refer to some offensive interests that we might encounter. I do not hear anything about defensive interests. If the boundaries are opened more and more often and therefore the social ground standards are further reduced, how can those involved generate an additional income? This has not been considered for a second, let alone measures to help those persons in the transition period.

For these eight reasons, we will vote against the treaty with conviction tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, unlike the previous speaker, we will approve CETA tomorrow. We are indeed strong supporters of it, because we believe it provides an advantage for our exporting companies.

The committee’s hearings clearly showed that the biggest growth potential for exports lies outside the EU. As a small, open economy, we need to work hard on this.

Moreover, geopolitics is currently very interesting to strengthen ties with Canada. The last G7 summit made this clear.

Finally, in this way we reaffirm our absolute confidence in a strong European trade policy. We realize that the approval in this Parliament will not lead to the final Belgian ratification of CETA. This requires the approval of our Wallish and French-speaking colleagues, but it would be a very clear signal from Parliament. Although some counties disagree, Belgium remains committed to promoting international trade.

For my party, it is important that the treaty will make it easier, especially for SMEs, to export and find new markets. The major obstacle for our companies are the so-called non-tariff barriers and above all the different standards that products must meet. Products of our companies comply with the strict European rules, but that does not provide any guarantee that other countries will allow them on their market.

Sometimes it is simply a question of the type of test used. For example, the EU and Canada can both require that a substance is fire retardant, but it may be too much of the good if one uses two different tests or certificates to establish that. Multinational companies already have the necessary resources and manpower to ensure that their products meet all the different standards, but our SMEs do not have that bandwidth. Such agreements, in which greater cooperation on product standards is agreed, are therefore essential to allow our SMEs, the backbone of our Belgian and Flemish economies, to export more and more easily.

CETA is often referred to as a gift to multinationals. We have just heard of Mr Van der Maelen. This assertion seems to me completely wrong. It is not the multinational companies, but just our small exporters, who need the treaty. SMEs account for 70% of employment across the country, including those who have difficulty in our society. For them, such treaties mean a lot less administrative burden and thus lower thresholds for exporting outside Europe.

Colleagues, I would also like to take this opportunity to regret the level of the CETA debate. There was plenty of disinformation in the discussions in the committee and outside, in newspapers and other parliaments. There was a lot of playing on the feelings, without even taking any account of what is actually stated in the treaty texts. This creates unfounded panic among the population with potentially very detrimental consequences for our economy and the international appearance of our country.

The best proof for the unfoundedness of the criticism is the fact that the Wallish government agreed to the signature, after having received a text that simply explains and explains the original text, without changing a letter of it. That the PS suddenly began to communicate that the new CETA is arrived, was quite grotesque.

CETA works and this is clearly demonstrated in our trade figures. The treaty came into force provisionally in October last year. Our trade with Canada grew last year by as much as 30% compared to 2016.

I have, for all clarity, searched for the detailed trading figures per quarter. If we compare exports to Canada in the last quarter of 2016 with exports in the last quarter of 2017, we see an increase of as much as 76%. It is clear that our exports will ⁇ benefit from CETA and exports are very important for employment in our country.

It is clear to me, therefore, that by postponing CETA and wasting unnecessary time, the PS and the whole opposition, in the event of enlargement, merely caused a standstill in the field of unemployment and constrained the growth of our SMEs.

In short, once again, the leftist opposition chooses to organize unemployment, while the government is working hard to create jobs. I look forward to the adoption of the treaty in Parliament tomorrow.

First, I would like to make a technical comment. Miller and Vandenput have clarified that CETA responds to a geopolitical issue at the time. It is true that between the time when CETA was negotiated, the time when it was signed and now soon ratified, the situation has fundamentally changed. We were not in a post-Brexit period. We were obviously not in this busy post-election period of President Trump, which we have regretted every day for several months.

History has its reasons. The CETA was not negotiated by Justin Trudeau, the current Canadian Prime Minister. Yes, the various attempts to accommodate the Wallon government have been negotiated by the team of Justin Trudeau but the general philosophy of CETA has been negotiated by Stephen Harper who is, Mr. Miller, the worst consumer that can be known overseas before Trump. Go see what Stephen Harper did or what he said at the time. You will realize that this is not the model of openness or progressism that is expected. This is my first comment.

My second note concerns the specific system dedicated to multinationals called ICS (International Court System) which, of course, is not the ISDS system. This is an evolution, or even an improvement, compared to an arbitration court that put in the presence of high-paying lawyers on both sides of a table and was cut to three. It is not that, but it still remains a specific system for multinational companies. This has been denounced by the Association of German Judges. It is nothing.

Let it be clear, dear colleagues, before this court, multinational companies will be able to drag states, but not the opposite! Is this compatible with EU law, the Lisbon Treaty? The Court of Justice of the European Union is determining this at the request of our Minister of Foreign Affairs. This request for opinion has been filed but we do not wait for this opinion to ratify and vote, while it is our country itself that has filed this request for opinion. This is very special. He is a cavalier.

In the committee, a number of colleagues, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that those who opposed this free trade treaty were in the camp of populists like Salvini or the Austrian far-right, opposed to these free trade treaties which, however, thanks to the exchange of goods, create peace on earth. I am a caricature, but this is more or less what has been said.

The majority of the right-wing and far-right in Austria have ratified CETA in Parliament. But President Alexander Van der Bellen, who is from the Green Party, refused to sign it until the European Court of Justice has given its opinion on the matter, within six to eight months. This is a decision of common sense. As the depository of the request for an opinion, we could have at least waited for this opinion before ratifying this important treaty.

Ms. Grovonius said that the draft law giving consent to the treaty did not respect the letter and spirit of the agreement reached between you, Mr. Minister, and the Wallon government of the time, and more ⁇ its Prime Minister-President, Mr. Magnette. I give it wrong and I give it right. The PS may have been deceived by your immense skill in making sure that the Inter-Belgium Agreement provides for the filing of a request for an opinion to the Court of Justice of the European Union, but that it does not provide – and it is a very great imprudence on the part of the Prime Minister-President of the time – that you are obliged to wait for the Court’s opinion to file this bill giving consent to CETA. You have been subtle and you have respected, unfortunately, the spirit and letter of the intrabelge agreement. However, I maintain that it is ⁇ unpleasant, ineffective and even dishonest not to wait for the opinion of the highest European court before ratifying CETA.

My third note concerns pre-regulatory cooperation, which makes much less ink flow than the system of arbitration courts. This prior regulatory cooperation concerns the capacity of the European Commission and the Canadian Government, before proceeding with the establishment of a rule established in Canada by the provinces – whether through a law, a decree, a decree or an order – to give their non-elected officials the opportunity to negotiate on the establishment of a rule. I heard in the committee that it would be about discussing the size of the caps, the content of the bottles or the fat content of one or another fish that would be exchanged across the Atlantic ... It will indeed also be about those norms. But also those concerning the emissions of vehicles or those of the chemical industries; it will also be the various social protections that can be demanded in any state, region, province, etc. Our standards are all that and not just the size of the caps.

The prior regulatory consultation is to allow unelected officials to go to negotiate in an alcove, in a black chamber, where there are neither social partners nor Canadian and European environmental associations. Decisions can be implemented without any democratic legitimacy. Of course, Mr. Miller, it will then be up to the various parliaments to eventually legislate, but on the basis of a regulatory consultation that has already taken place in a secret place. It is unacceptable!

You are formally right to say that CETA, in any of its provisions, will not prevent states or the European Union from legislating. But through pre-regulatory cooperation and this Chamber of Advisory Process, CETA will guide a whole series of decisions that will be taken democratically afterwards.

It is a form of umbrella between the democratic expression that is ours, our ability to legislate, and where the decision is actually made.

If I’m talking about this, it’s because Canada is obviously a country we’re immensely close to. It is probably the extra-European country to which we Europeans, but ⁇ ⁇ we Belgians, are closest. It is true. I would like to remind you that we voted for the Friendship Treaty which was sealed and signed on the same day as CETA. We also consider Canadians as friends.

But Canada also has a whole range of specifics, such as the extraction of gas and oil from bituminous rocks, i.e. a process of extraction of oil and gas ⁇ damaging to the environment. Canadian multinational companies are extremely active in this type of energy, which is a fossil energy that is ⁇ destructive to the Canadian environment, but which also goes against the interests of Canadian indigenous peoples.

Justin Trudeau is the most sympathetic prime minister in the globe, and I think he is, but Canadian economic, environmental and industrial interests are contrary to our European values. This means, for example, that under CETA, European companies will be able to invest in the bituminous gas sector, because Europe lacks hydrocarbon raw materials. In any case, she has little.

This is what lies behind CETA. These are the people of the Belgian or European big business who defend the CETA. The idea, for example, of developing a specialized hydrocarbon port in Zeebrugge, to import hydrocarbons extracted in this completely anti-environmental way, is what is there behind.

The signing of CETA is the open door to all these mechanisms, which value first and foremost the interests of large multinational companies active in these sectors, at the expense of standards, since standards are seen as obstacles to the development of this type of specific activities.

I talked about energy. Now let’s talk about agriculture. European and Canadian agricultural models are fundamentally different.

Agriculture is constantly evolving in Europe. The size of farms tends to increase in Europe, while small family farming structures tend to disappear. Nevertheless, this situation is nothing compared to Canadian agri-food and agriculture, consisting of very large spaces controlled by multinational agri-food companies. Therefore, one ton of wheat produced in Canada is incommensurably cheaper due to extreme mechanization and the presence of very large fields, compared to one ton of European wheat produced in compliance with European rules, imperfect but with fundamentally different rules, landscape and peasant structure.

On this issue, I do not hear the liberals and CETA promoters about the impact that CETA will one day have on European agriculture. In fact, CETA creates a market that resembles the European Union, i.e. where goods, goods and services can be exchanged, but without the regulation of the European Union. Rather than a regulatory framework that is our current directives and regulations, CETA provides for two mechanisms, the International Court System (ICS), the arbitration court reserved for multinationals, and the prior regulatory consultation that aims precisely the opposite, namely the possibility one day, later, in a few months, in a few years, to reduce the regulatory capacity of States.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, never a dossier like this had made me travel so many kilometers across Wallonia and Brussels. I counted the number of meetings before coming and, reviewing my agenda, I find that I went to 52 citizen debates or meetings in municipal councils, in local associations, among trade unions, employer associations, by train, by bicycle and by car. Yes, by car, Mr. Minister, because it is very difficult to return from Ciney at 23:30. Because of the government’s budget cuts in the SNCB budget, no night train could take me back from Ciney to Brussels!

It must be acknowledged, Mr. Minister, that the debate that took place in the press, but also and especially in civil society, is quite unprecedented. It has enabled everyone, you in particular and us who participated in citizens’ meetings, to better explain, though with different appreciations, what was behind CETA. This was a positive element.

Unfortunately, we are now at the end of this process. Democratically, a majority in this Parliament is in favor of the ratification of this CETA. The democratic rule must be respected. However, the thousands of people I have met are blurred and their opinions are still ignored. I have to say that you have won and we have lost.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, know from the beginning that, as we did in the committee, the CDH group will abstain from this bill giving consent to CETA since it is under this acronym that this economic agreement is best known.

I take the floor here before you because my colleague, Georges Dallemagne, is on a mission abroad. He demonstrated, in the committee, the necessity of this abstention, and this, in more than one title.

That said, I would like to bring this agreement back to the global geopolitical context we are facing today, which has been considerably darkened in the last two years.

Threats are increasing. Instability is increasing. The world is fragmented. The transatlantic alliance is challenged by the US president. The rejection of oneself and the rejection of others are increasingly present to the heart of our democracies. In the face of all this, the European project itself is also in danger.

This is seen day after day. The Trump administration is no longer content with threats or provocations against the European Union, Canada or its other historic allies. It went on to acts on climate, on trade, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the Iranian nuclear, on the support for Brexit, on the European Union seen as an enemy, on the G7, on the NATO and on Russia. I do not know if the number of examples is exhaustive but, in any case, it is significant.

Following the threats and tariff decisions of the Trump administration, we can even talk about the beginning of a trade war between the United States and its closest partners. For its part, Canada is attacked by the US administration as part of the renegotiation of ALENA, this well-known free trade agreement imposed by the United States alone.

You should not be naive. Beyond his eccentricities and outrages, the American president seems to me to methodically apply a constructed and coherent doctrine in favour of a dangerous, nationalist and identitarian political project that is contrary to our vision of society and the world. It assumes and claims its contempt for international institutions and for any agreement that is not only for its own benefit.

The same American president does not hide his will to dislocate any form of global regulation, nor his will to get rid of international organizations that promote it and to dismantle the European Union beyond the Brexit he has supported and continues to support.

Therefore, in the face of all these bad winds, and the drifts of the U.S. President, it is in the interest of Europe to seek strong partnerships with allies who share as widely as possible its worldview and its values. These same countries also defend and respect multilateralism, international law, regulated globalization and protected social and environmental rights.

Today, there is no partner closer to European values than Canada. It is with him that we can consider building a multilateral international order based on rules and respecting each of its partners. It is with it that it is still possible to negotiate, improve existing agreements and step by step move towards a regulation of globalization in the service of human development. Therefore, one may wonder if this is the right time to send a message of mistrust to our Canadian partner, through a possible vote of rejection of CETA.

Asking the question is answering it. We will not oppose the present draft decree with assent.

I was a Wallon parliamentary for fourteen years. It takes time for me to adapt. Mr. Miller can testify. I agree with you, it is a bill that is more of an assent! Sorry if I made this mistake by using an inappropriate term.

One simply cannot ignore the challenges I have just listed, nor the worrying developments of the last two years, and pretend that these threats do not exist. In this context, the message sent by a negative vote would be incomprehensible and symbolically disastrous.

So we are not going to oppose this bill – you see, I’m doing it quickly! At the moment, we can’t vote for it either.

CETA has some shortcomings.

Mr de Lamotte, Mr Hellings wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. de Lamotte, you are our third CDH interlocutor on CETA. Unfortunately, Ms. Matz, who was speaking in the general debates, has health problems and was unable to follow the file. Mr. Dallemagne had defended the point of view you have just defended but which was entirely opposed to what Ms. Matz had defended earlier in this Chamber. I am sorry to fall on you, I know you are the water carrier. There is no doubt that there is a complete twist of your political formation with regard to CETA, between what was announced at the time when there was negotiation of the intrabelge agreement between the Wallon government, of which your party was already a part, and what you tell us today.

You rely on geopolitical changes to justify this change of attitude. I remember what I said in my speech. This CETA was fully negotiated under Conservative Stephen Harper, not Justin Trudeau. The objectives of deregulation that I just explained in my speech were these and remain the same. The geopolitical change today helps you to explain this change of attitude but take back the incredible interventions not only of Mrs. Matz in the House, but also those of Mrs. Simonet in the Walloon Parliament. Connect them with what you just said, especially about the size and impact of agriculture.

I know that your voters are ⁇ sensitive to any initiative that could be taken internationally and that could have an impact on rural tissue and rural life. I am sorry to say that this is a real renunciation! I was talking about the pain that people we met thousands of times during our debates in the villages and cities of Wallonia and Brussels must feel. But I also think of the pain of your voters in the face of this deeply inhumane turn-back.

Mr. Hellings, I think it might be useful if you listen to me until the end. Of course, I will meet this argument. Furthermore, I suppose that you are aware that there have been changes in the text, in particular on the arbitral tribunal, and that tags have been proposed. However, two years have passed between the first version and this version.

I suggest you let me go to the end so that we can talk about it.

We will not oppose this bill, but we cannot vote in favour at the moment. The CETA has, indeed, flaws, gaps and shortcomings. It is an international agreement resulting from intense and long negotiations. And, like any agreement of this type, it is a compromise for which each of the parties had to accept some of the other’s demands and make concessions.

Nevertheless, the agreement is ambitious and the Canadian partner has been open to European requests, including in order to improve the text in the future. However, there remains one major unknown and concern: that of the compatibility with European law of the ICS arbitration mechanism provided by the CETA, which succeeded the ISDS, even more criticized. We were in that context when you talked about history, Mr. Hellings!

This is so unknown that on September 6, 2017, Belgium officially submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union, a request for an opinion regarding this compatibility of the ICS with European treaties, in the context of CETA ratification procedures. This request for opinion followed a long and legitimate struggle of civil society, which had drawn the attention of the political world on CETA, on the arbitration mechanisms, on the fundamental issues surrounding the negotiation and ratification of this new type of trade agreement.

Several political parties, including mine, had decided to convey several of these concerns while expressing our own concerns about CETA. It is in this context that after several weeks of crisis and negotiations, on 27 October 2016, concrete and significant advances had been achieved thanks to the persistence of our negotiators in the Walloon Region.

It must be recalled and underlined: thanks to this mobilization and persistence, CETA has been able to be substantially improved and guarantees have been obtained.

I think, for example, of the adoption by the European Union of the Common Interpreting Instrument which is attached to CETA. This legally binding declaration has helped to clarify many points and answer several legitimate questions raised by certain provisions of the agreement. I will not list them for you, since the debate has already taken place in the committee and my colleague has taken charge of it.

The other accompanying statements also helped to install better shelters, as was the case with the European Commission declaration on mutual benefits and the system of compulsory health insurance.

I repeat, for the CDH, Canada is a partner with which balanced exchanges concerned with social and environmental standards must be possible. In addition, they are beneficial to our country and, in particular, to Wallonia – as you mentioned in your speech, Mr. Hellings.

Why abstain and not vote? Simply because before ratifying, we should indeed have waited for the opinion requested by Belgium at the Court of Justice of Luxembourg. Indeed, the questions concerning the arbitration mechanism, its possible implications and the risk it may pose have not yet been satisfyingly resolved. In the eyes of many observers, this is a fundamental point that must absolutely be clarified before going further. Since the opening of this case, this is the position of the CDH.

Furthermore, I would like to remind myself that the concerns about arbitration mechanisms were so serious and reasoned that they convinced even the European Commission. In fact, it has exceptionally taken advantage of the legal-linguistic review period of CETA, in 2015-2016, to propose to the Canadian government to make institutional adjustments in order to improve the judicial system of investments.

The ICS was set up to replace the initially planned, but heavily criticized, private arbitration procedure.

In addition, as part of this review, Canada also declared its willingness to work alongside the European Union on the creation and development of a Multilateral Investment Court. This is a project still being developed, but it would be a real progress, a positive and additional step, after moving from ISDS to ICS.

In view of the questions, concerns and the numerous uncertainties raised by the development of an unprecedented mechanism, the CDH had obtained, in October 2016, in accordance with the first requirement of the Wallon Parliament, that this future arbitral mechanism – which will evolve – be previously submitted by the federal government to the Court of Justice of the European Union to ensure its compatibility with the European Treaties.

The Government formally fulfilled its commitment on 6 September 2017 and submitted a request for an opinion to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Whatever happens, this opinion will inevitably have a significant impact on CETA, but also on other draft treaties as well as on the future of this type of arbitration mechanism.

It therefore seemed logical to wait a few additional months in order to know the Court’s opinion on this fundamental question and to vote on this text with full knowledge of the facts. Unfortunately, this is not the path the government has taken. In fact, on 8 May last, the Minister of Foreign Affairs deposited on the Chamber’s office the present draft law giving consent to CETA without waiting for the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Mr. Minister, it would rather have been logical, and much more respectful to the Court, to wait for the Court’s answer to the question that you yourself asked just a few months ago.

As far as we are concerned, we continue to think that as long as the Court of Justice of the European Union has not ruled on this question raised by Belgium, it will not be possible for various Belgian parliaments to rule with full knowledge of the facts on such an important issue.

Therefore, preferring to remain faithful to these beliefs and consistent with ourselves, we have requested and obtained that Belgium ask for the opinion of the European Court of Justice on a fundamental point of CETA. Waiting for the answer, it is impossible to validly express ourselves on the bill that is submitted to us today.

It is a shame, but by submitting this text too early, without accompanying it with the Court’s response, the government prevents us from speaking. We could have voted in his favour, but the government, I repeat, prevents us from doing so.

It would have been better to do things in order: wait for the answer to the question we have formulated, and then submit the bill to the House. We would then have been able to properly discuss it with all the information available, including the Court’s opinion on the ICS. This is not the case, and this will justify our abstention in the voting tomorrow.

In accordance with the decision of the Council of the European Union adopted in October 2016 and following the vote of approval by the European Parliament in February 2017, the CETA Treaty, as regards the exclusive competence of the European Union, applies, on a provisional basis, from 21 September 2017. The question raised today is whether it is desirable to give consent to CETA before the Court of Justice of the European Union has given its opinion on its accounting and on that of the so-called ICS mechanism with the European Treaties and, in particular, Article 218.11 TFEU.

In response to several written questions, which you answered during the last quarter of 2017, Mr. Minister, you confirmed that, on 7 September 2017, Belgium submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union a request for an opinion on the compatibility with the European Treaties of the Investment Judicial System (ICS).

This request for an opinion constitutes one of the essential elements of the declaration of the Kingdom of Belgium to the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the European Union (COREPER) of 27 October 2016, after consultation with all the federal entities of the country.

Since the Court of Justice was referred by the Belgian state on 7 September 2017 and the opinion is expected at the earliest during the first quarter of 2019, it can be questioned why the government thus wishes to force the debate in Parliament on the consent law, while waiting a few more months would not present unreasonable legal risks. On the contrary, either this would ⁇ give the government an argument that would raise any doubt about the compatibility with European law of the exceptional judicial mechanism envisaged in the CETA treaty, or, on the contrary, it would obviously force the parties to review a mechanism that attacks European law, if that was the opinion of the Court of Justice.

Sure, the request for an opinion is not legally binding, but this request has been the subject of a fairly broad consensus in the political world. We know what difficulties and difficulties. Undoubtedly, I would almost say that this agreement falls within a healthy concept of federal loyalty. It can hardly be understood that the federal government does not first give priority to the opinion of the Court of Justice before submitting its draft consent to our assembly.

Indeed, we have serious legal doubts as to whether the provisions of CETA concerning the establishment of this judicial system are compatible with European law. In addition, we have requested a consultation with a specialized agency in European law. This study highlighted fundamental points that raise doubts about the compatibility of CETA with EU law. I list them.

First, there is the breach of the equality of citizens before the law, which is yet one of the key elements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an integral part of the Treaty establishing the European Union. According to the investment chapter of the CETA, foreign investors of one Contracting State would have privileged access to an external jurisdiction against the acts of another State, while this remedy will not be open to domestic investors of that State. Foreign investors are thus treated more favourably than domestic investors throughout the EU. This will benefit only Canadian investors.

Second argument: this court, parallel to the courts of the Member States, can be used against any measure, in the broadest sense, that is, either a legislative, regulatory or administrative act or even a decision of a national court that the foreign investor considers to be contrary to the rights conferred by CETA.

Third argument: the primacy of European law, a fundamental element of the Treaty governing the functioning of the European Union, is challenged because the investment court has no obligation to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on questions of interpretation of European law where those questions are useful for the solution of the dispute in question.

However, it is known that the Court of Justice has always remained quite firm on the principle of both the primacy and the uniformity of the application of European law, and on its monopoly of interpretation. I recall in this regard the judgments of the Court of Justice, or opinions, stating that Member States have no right to submit to a court outside the Union that could be brought to know the interpretation of European law – this is the Mox case. Likewise, it is not acceptable that an external court may decide on the division of competence between Member States and Community bodies (also according to an opinion of the Court of Justice 1/91). As regards the application of European law to matters determining a dispute before a court outside the Union, referral for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice must be guaranteed and respected.

These are different opinions of the Court, in particular a opinion of the Court of Justice of 18 April 2002 on the draft agreement establishing a common European airspace between the European Community and third countries, and other opinions that followed; in particular a opinion of the Court of Justice of 8 March 2011 on the draft agreement - Establishment of a unified system for the settlement of disputes in patent matters; or the opinion of the Court of Justice of 18 December 2014 on the draft international agreement - Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

However, the Investment Court is a court outside the Union because it is constituted by the Contracting Parties through a designation by the Joint Committee of the Agreement. Its judgment shall be final and enforceable, except for appeals admitted for legal matters, appeal which may only be brought before an instance which shall be established within the same court outside the Union.

Foreign investors will have direct access, without being required to exhaust domestic remedies. However, neither in the Treaty establishing the European Union nor in the case-law of the Court of Justice exists a precedent that recognizes an external court constituted by a trade and investment treaty, open to investors and capable of deciding, even implicitly or indirectly, on issues of European law.

The Court of Justice of the European Union remains a pillar of European integration, which is based on the supremacy or primacy of European Union law, and on the sovereign interpretation of European Union law by its own courts, under the ultimate control of the Court of Justice.

Certainly, the Commission has sought to exclude the Court of Justice from the application of CETA. Nevertheless, we believe that the Court of Justice should express, probably following the request for an opinion submitted by your government, Mr. Minister, reservations, if not a severe judgment, regarding this particular mechanism of special jurisdiction established by the draft Treaty. When I say judgment, I mean appreciation, of course.

For these reasons, it seems to us that the prerogatives of the Court are not respected by the draft and that as a consequence, we cannot accept the draft treaty in the state, regardless of the debate, otherwise, on the interest of promoting trade relations between States. This legal question, which aims to preserve the achievements of the European construction, and in particular the achievements of which the Court of Justice is guarantor, seems to us to be an essential question which we cannot abstain from in regard to the examination of the bill submitted to us. Therefore, we cannot vote on the bill in the state.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the World Cup of cynicism does not yet exist, otherwise the Blue Devil Didier Reynders would have all the chances of winning the cup! In fact, Mr. Minister, you are asking for the opinion of the European Court of Justice on the compatibility of CETA with the European treaties, opinion expected for the beginning of 2019 and which, according to experts, will probably be negative. However, you laconically declare that the government has never undertaken to wait for this notice before ratifying CETA.

Conclusion: This opinion was just a smoke screen to stifle the critical voices that have been widely heard. In any case, the PTB joins the broad front of civil society in its fight against CETA and rejects this fundamentally unbalanced agreement.

Four axes of criticism are listed. First, our criticism focuses on the mechanism for settling differences between investors: the Investment Court System (ICS). Despite some improvements made through social mobilization, the risks this system poses to democracy are still very real. For example, there is no obligation to exhaust national judicial routes before resorting to this "private" arbitration, as defined in the opinion of the Association of German Magistrates who refuse to recognize it as a public court. I rise to the question of the Director-General of the European Bureau of Consumer Unions (BEUC), to which she has never received an answer: since everyone seems to repeat how very good friends Belgium, Europe, Canada are, why would we need a parallel arbitration system? Second risk, before this court, a company can assign states if they make a decision that could harm its profits. Companies will be able to confront financial interests with the general interest. ICS creates rights for companies that are not and will not be granted to anyone else.

Second, one criticism concerns the direct threat of CETA to public services. The motto of CETA is “Open the Markets”. We are facing a fundamental change where liberalization of public services and services in general becomes the norm and regulation becomes the exception, a dangerous precedent. As the representative of the Belgian mutualities explained to us, the privatization of social security is explicitly included in the text of CETA. Germany is the only country to have included in its exemption list a full protection of its national social security system. Belgium did not. Certainly, a posteriori, once again, as a result of social pressure, Belgium has added some important protections in a series of CETA interpretative documents. But their binding legal force remains heavily disputed.

The conclusion of CMS DeBacker’s lawyer Annabelle Lepièce is very clear on this point: “Whenever the interpretation is in contradiction with the treaty, it is the treaty that will prevail.”

Our third criticism is about protecting social, environmental and democratic standards. CETA introduces the mechanism for regulatory cooperation. Basically, a working group comprising representatives of companies will have to check whether new bills are not in conflict with economic interests, and therefore harmful to trade.

The NGO CNCD-11.11.11 clearly explained to us how this mechanism, even if voluntary, will further increase the influence of companies in political decision-making, decrease its transparency, diminish democracy and the level of protection. This mechanism may contribute to the reduction of a whole series of standards of general interest (health, environmental, social standards) which are considered to be barriers to trade and free trade.

Certainly, CETA contains specific chapters on sustainable development, labour standards, environmental standards. However, it is important to note that these chapters do not contain any binding provisions. Contrary to the rights of investors, these social and environmental standards are therefore not opposable.

Our latest criticism is about U.S. subsidiaries in Canada. Four fifths of U.S. companies have subsidiaries in Canada. Thanks to CETA, any of these subsidiaries would therefore have immediate access to the European market. Of course, CETA requires a genuine link of the company with Canada. But what does this mean, “a real connection”? And most importantly, who will control this? Today, we are already unable to control the tens of thousands of foolish companies trying to bypass legislation. The conclusion is clear: CETA risks being the Trojan horse for American multinationals.

In short, the people do not want this treaty. In Belgium and Europe, there were impressive mobilisations. It really begins to become the official anthem of your government. But no, Mr. Minister, it is not because they have not understood CETA or because they confuse CETA with TTIP. The peoples do not want these treaties because they understand very well that they serve only the interests of large multinational companies at the expense of European citizens as Canadians.

In this regard, please do us a favor. Do not repeat once again, as Miller has done again, this dubious argument that says: "If we do not conclude an agreement with Canada, I do not see with whom we could still do it."

The question is not the attitude of the European Union towards Canada, but rather that of the peoples towards the multinationals.

(Incident at the Public Tribune. The Chairman requests the removal of two visitors from the public tribune.)

(Incident in the public hall. The President asks for the removal of two visitors from the public tribune.)

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank all the political groups for the debate, not only during this plenary session but also in the committee. Many hearings took place, many questions were asked and there were many other modalities for a thorough debate on a possible treaty.

I would like to thank some groups for their support for the treaty. It is about the majority of Parliament, according to what I have seen. This is the right way to get approval.

I would like to talk about some elements from the dossier.

First, a thorough debate has been going on for several years. The negotiations began in 2004 and in 2009 followed a real mandate for the European Commission. Negotiations were followed and a first agreement was reached in October 2013. The publication came at the end of 2014. The signatures were placed in 2016, after which the entry into force came in 2017. I would only like to point out that the discussions were very long and that many different actors were involved.

I would like to point out from the beginning that listening was ⁇ important. I believe that we have never so multiplied hearings and direct contacts, both at the European and Belgian level. The Belgian government has arranged meetings with all organisations that have wished to express themselves on the subject.

I have always made a distinction between ideological opposition to free trade, which I can understand, and sometimes very political opposition that has manifested itself in the majorities and opposition according to times and places, and legitimate concerns that have been raised by a number of actors. These concerns were very present in the agricultural world or when we discussed arbitration and investor-state conflict settlement procedures.

On agriculture, we have had many meetings with representatives of the agricultural sector. At the end, we did not only ask for an assessment of the annual consequences of such a treaty. We also requested a cumulative analysis of the potential effects of various treaties, not only with Canada but also with Mexico, with Mercosur and others in the coming years.

Regarding the arbitration, Belgium ultimately decided to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Regarding the more specific issues raised during the discussions, I would like to return to some of them. First of all, I would like to remind you that we followed the opinion of the State Council for the very text of the draft.

As suggested in point 9.1 of the State Council Opinion, the common interpretative instrument and unilateral declarations made on behalf of one or more Member States or EU institutions in the context of the adoption of the Council decision authorising the signing of the Agreement on behalf of the European Union, have been added to the bill as deposited in the House of Representatives.

In point 9.2 of the opinion, the State Council suggests supplementing Article 2 of the bill so that it expressly agrees to the common interpretative instrument. You will notice that this suggestion does not cover unilateral declarations made on behalf of one or more EU Member States or EU institutions in the context of the adoption of the Council decision authorising the signing of the agreement on behalf of the EU.

Following the decision of the State Council, the draft approval law was amended to expressly approve the common interpretative instrument. Therefore, the proposal of the Council of State was fully followed. However, there is no basis for ratification of a unilateral declaration, as the declarations in question are not negotiated with Canada and the majority of the declarations have been made by Member States individually.

The Court of Justice of the European Union must take unilateral statements into account when interpreting the agreement. Therefore, we wish to stick to the amended text as it was following the opinion of the State Council, taking into account the agreement itself and the interpreting act or instrument.

There have been a number of questions concerning the government’s willingness to present this ratification now before the House before the European Court of Justice has given its opinion. First of all, I will remind, as I have done in the committee and also publicly, that the federal government has never committed itself to wait in any way for this opinion. This was said formally and clearly expressed from the agreement concluded with the federal entities. Moreover, other entities have decided to move forward in the ratification as well. There is no doubt about the federal loyalty, I recalled. We clearly gave our sense of the need to move forward.

It is about moving forward, as more than a dozen other EU countries have already done. We are confident that we can be confident in the compatibility of the ICS with European treaties. I refer first to the interpretation of the legal services of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. This public court, which is decided by both parties, is not asked to interpret European law, but to interpret exclusively the agreement.

If we do not progress in the procedures, there is a risk that, as in other agreements, the previous ISDS clauses will continue to apply. However, we would like to move forward with the current arrangement, which is already a major progress for both partners, but also to continue the debate around the multilateral Court.

I will not explain again in detail – since this was done in a committee – the judgment in Achmea, but this is a completely different issue, since that decision concerned arbitration mechanisms between Member States of the European Union and did not involve third States.

With regard to Austria, and this has already been said in another intervention, there is already an approval by the two chambers of CETA. The two assemblies agreed to ratify the treaty. However, the president takes a different position and waits for the advice to place his signature. This is probably also related to internal political reasons in Austria.

Regarding regulatory cooperation, I simply remind you that this is a voluntary cooperation.

On a voluntary basis, two partners can work together to reach a regulation. It is always possible to make a decision within the government or in the Parliament on a new regulation, without any barrier on it. So there is no problem for one or the other partner to approve a new regulation and move towards its entry into force.

There is also a real willingness of the European Commission to cooperate with civil society in this regard. Civil society will be consulted. I think it is very useful to repeat this with the evolution of a possible regulation in Europe and in our country.

I come to the text itself. As I recalled, negotiations have been completed since the end of 2013. The text remained unchanged. There was no discussion on the text. What has been discussed are interpretation provisions. This debate took place not only in Belgium, but also with other EU states and with the Canadian partner. This is what led to the interpretative instrument that was signed with a few days of delay – three if I remember correctly – compared to the date set during the negotiations.

I confirm that the text of the agreement remained unchanged. We tried to interpret a number of devices through the interpretative instrument. There were also unilateral statements from a number of European states, including Belgium, but also from European institutions.

In terms of the economic impact of CETA, there are developments.

There is an increase of more than 30 % in 2017 compared to 2016, with the largest increase in the fourth quarter, with CETA entering into force on 21 September 2017. In 2017, Belgium was Canada’s third EU partner after Britain and Germany, behind France and other countries. This is quite remarkable. Canadian figures from June 2018 confirm the trend. They show a remarkable 41% increase in Canadian imports from Belgium since the entry into force of CETA. The figures relate to the period October 2017-May 2018. This is the highest figure of all European countries. This is 17% for France, 14% for Spain, 12% for Italy and 5% for Germany. I repeat: Belgium 41 %. I would add that CETA is very important, not only for large companies, but also for many SMEs.

At the request of the various Regions, economic missions were organized, including in Canada. As part of these economic missions, a very large number of small and medium-sized enterprises came to Canada to export directly to this country.

I also recall that a very large number of small and medium-sized enterprises are obviously suppliers to larger groups that export to Canada.

It should be noted – I will not go into the details of the analysis because it might lead us too far on the choices made by the different governments – that the most impressive figures probably come from Wallonia with, according to the Awex website, an 118.3% increase in exports to Canada between 2016 and 2017.

It is true that this is essentially related to a case in the transport sector, with a four-year contract of four billion euros concerning – if the Awex communicates the information correctly – military equipment with the final recipient, when the equipment will be assembled, Saudi Arabia. I am therefore not sure that this evolution decided under the previous Walloon government can be put as one of the elements emanating from CETA itself.

But it is worth recalling the numbers because there is a lot of debate about sustainable development and the ethical nature of relations within CETA. In any case, it is interesting to note that the biggest export in recent years is mainly related to military equipment whose final user will be Saudi Arabia.

Finally, I come to the more general evolution through what many have evoked, namely geopolitics. In this regard, we are now seeing a return to protectionism which is marked quite strongly. This has been reminded through Brexit in the European Union or through the positioning of the new US administration. It is therefore important that the European Union can establish new partnerships somewhat around the world.

By the way, we have been doing this for several years. Thus, new partnerships were established, not only with Canada, but also with Japan – the treaty was just signed –, Vietnam and Mexico. We are also negotiating with Mercosur, as we did with Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and a number of African countries. I am convinced that it is beneficial for the European Union to continue on that path and we therefore advocate for a positive evolution in that area.

By the way, as some MPs have already noted, Canada is so close to the European Union that it is impossible to think of an agreement with another partner without an agreement with Canada.

Furthermore, in the discussions that open up on other trade agreements, I systematically want to repeat – for example, in committees, both on the banks of the majority and the opposition; but also by most of our European partners – that CETA represents the best agreement the European Union has reached to date. I am therefore very surprised to see that it has been possible to approve many previous agreements, but to now reject the one that is considered to be the best it has ever concluded. This is not only true on the commercial level, but also in all aspects of sustainable development, where we share several commitments with Canada.

You conclude and reward, well understood, all those and all those who have taken part in these many debates, as well as those and those who support the ratification of this text. You must also be more precise again that all the possible exchanges with the actors of the civil society have their place. At some point, it belongs to the governments and to the parliaments to pronounce. This government has done it. It requires simply at present that the Chamber also pronounce itself, neither more nor less. You think all the arguments have been exchanged. It is now about taking position. The Government has done it; I hope that the Parliament will do it too.