Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Tag: canada

  • EVENT: Optimising the Canada-CARICOM Trade Relationship – Thursday, June 29

    EVENT: Optimising the Canada-CARICOM Trade Relationship – Thursday, June 29

    The CIC National Capital Branch Latin America and Caribbean Study Group, and the Canada Caribbean Institute invite you to a virtual discussion on

    Optimizing the Canada-CARICOM trade relationship

    Thursday, June 29, 2023, 10 am to 1 pm

    Canada and CARICOM are working to define a forward-looking bilateral cooperation agenda. While trade has been an important part of the relationship for many years, recent trade and investment flows have seen a decline. Can enhanced trade relationships contribute to the forward bilateral cooperation agenda? And if so, how can this best be achieved?

    The Canada International Council Latin America and Caribbean Study Group and the Canada Caribbean Institute are pleased to host a panel on Optimizing the Canada CARICOM trade relationship. The panel will feature several exporters and investors outlining their experiences and lessons in the market. The main trade promotion and facilitation agencies from the two sides will set out their programs and experiences in seeking to expand bilateral trade. Finally, the panel will feature a discussion of the current “government to government” trade arrangements and whether these are appropriate going forward.

    The moderators of this event will produce a short summary of proceedings to share with attendees and others following the event.

    REGISTRATION FOR EVENT

    The registration link is the following: Optimizing the Canada-CARICOM Trade Relationship Tickets, Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:00 AM | Eventbrite

    Note that several days before the event all registrants will receive an email with the actual Zoom link.

  • Has Canada become Collateral Damage in the US-China Trade War?

    Has Canada become Collateral Damage in the US-China Trade War?

    Renaldo Weekes, Guest Contributor 

    The trade tensions between the United States (US) and China have subsided for a while as each side has promised not to introduce new tariffs during a 90 day period starting from December 1, 2018, when US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping had a dinner at the G-20 summit in Argentina. Negotiations resume on January 7, 2019 and, so far, it seems that not much has changed as both have committed to their previous stances on the matter. However, the overall context of the negotiations has changed. Canada has arrested Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd’s Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou at the US’ request. Shortly thereafter, China arrested two Canadian citizens, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Many see China’s actions as a tit-for-tat response to Meng’s arrest and wonder if Canada will now become collateral damage in a trade war between the US and China.

    Why were Meng and the Canadian duo arrested?

    Meng has been accused by the US of allegedly violating its sanctions on Iran by defrauding multiple US banks. On a layover in Canada, she was arrested by Canadian authorities on request from the US. She has since posted bail and is required to wear an ankle monitor and stay in her residence from 11 p.m. until 6 a.m. Kovrig and Spavor were arrested on suspicion of engaging in activities that were considered as breaching national security. The pair reportedly is subjected to three interrogations a day, must sleep with the lights, does not have access to legal representation and can only have consular visits once a month. Both Canada and China have denied that the arrests of the Canadian pair are related in any way to the arrest of Meng Wanzhou but Canada has said that the arrests were unfounded.

    Did Meng’s arrest influence Kovrig and Spavor’s arrests?

    Some may see it as a coincidence that Kovrig and Spavor, both Canadians, were arrested in China shortly after Meng, a Chinese heavy-weight, was arrested in Canada. As mentioned earlier, both countries have denied that the arrests are related. However, some persons, including former diplomats, are quite sure that the opposite is true. Reportedly, Chinese officials are concerned about Meng’s arrest. A Canadian parliamentary delegation, currently in China, has engaged in talks with Chinese officials about the pair of Canadians they arrested.  The officials demanded to know why Canada arrested Meng. It is public knowledge that Canada has detained Meng for bank fraud on the US’ request but it seems as though the Chinese believe there is more to the arrest than meets the eye. Fearing the worst, they may have retaliated by detaining two Canadians in order to keep Canada in check. It seems probable that Meng’s arrest had an impact China’s decision to arrest the Canadians.

    Do the arrests have an effect on the trade war?

    The trade war between the US and China has been quite contentious as each side continually laid tariffs on the other party’s goods until recently. When dealing with any high stakes negotiation such as this one, persons may wonder if external issues would impact the talks. This is especially the case in the current situation as the US has pointed out many problems it wants China to fix such as alleged forced transfer of intellectual property from foreign companies and restricted market access. There is also the issue of the disputed South China Sea where, as recently as today (Monday, January 7, 2018), China claimed that the US violated its domestic and international law by performing acts interpreted as provocation near the sea.

    As it relates to the arrests, China’s actions may be ostensibly seen as its modus operandi whenever one of its citizens is arrested overseas, and not related to the trade war. In a previous tit-for-tat situation in 2014, Canadian aid workers Kevin and Julia Garratt were detained for the same national security reasons as the pair of Michaels shortly after Canada arrested Su Bin, a Chinese man wanted for industrial espionage in the US. Mrs. Garratt was released on bail while Mr. Garratt remained detained for more than two years until his eventual deportation, which occurred after Su Bin was extradited to the US and sentenced.

    However, as mentioned earlier, Chinese officials seem to believe that Meng’s arrest was political. One may infer that the Chinese may not want the US to receive Meng as this may give additional leverage to the US in the trade talks. China’s paranoia may have been bolstered by comments President Trump made which insinuated that Meng’s arrest may assist in securing the “the largest trade deal ever made.” China may, therefore, seek to create its own leverage by punishing Canada, a US ally, in whatever way it can. China may refrain from committing any additional acts that directly affect the US but still continue current acts with which the US is concerned.

    Canada’s situation

    Canada is in a sticky situation. China will continue to punish Canada until it secures Meng’s release. Though it is a US ally, Canada’s citizens are the ones being used as pawns in China’s game so it will have to navigate this situation mostly on its own merit. This situation can be, theoretically, immediately remedied by Canada releasing Meng, rejecting the US’ extradition request. China may likely release the Canadians in return and refocus its attention solely on the US. However, this decision cannot be made lightly. Should Canada disregard all credible evidence of Meng’s crimes in order to appease China or will it repeat its 2014 decision of extradition? When weighing this decision against the well-being of your own citizens, it is not an easy decision to make. Canada must keep in mind that this is not a simple tit-for-tat situation for China as is usually the case but a piece on the battlefield. China cannot allow the US to gain what it sees as additional leverage. This ostensibly personal spat is being fought against the backdrop of the US-China trade war.

    If Canada arrested Meng outside of the context of a trade war between the US and China, the situation probably would have been the same. The US would have still made the request to Canada as Meng’s arrest was predicated on her committing bank fraud with the intent of violating the US’ sanctions on Iran. China would have still arrested the two Canadians in retaliation since this is its established modus operandi. The weighing of Meng’s crimes versus its citizens’ well-being would still be an issue. As mentioned earlier, the US has a number of issues with China’s actions. Therefore, if not the trade war, Canada may have been collateral damage in some other dispute. It is safe to conclude that Canada is indeed collateral damage in the US-China trade war. However, the trade war is just the biggest of many disputes that have the potential to create more collateral damage.

    Renaldo Weekes is a holder of a BSc. (Sociology and Law) who observes international affairs from his humble, small island home. He has keen interest in how countries try to maneuver across the international political and legal stage.

  • EU-Canada CETA: Seven Things to Know

    EU-Canada CETA: Seven Things to Know

    Alicia Nicholls

    After a week more akin to the nail-biting final minutes of a suspense film, the European Union and Canada have finally signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) today Sunday, October 30, 2016. This sets the stage for the agreement to be provisionally applied.

    Here are seven quick things to know about CETA:

    1. CETA is the EU’s first completed  free trade agreement with a G-7 country and its most ambitious trade agreement to date -By numbers, it encompasses over 500 million people (500 million in the EU-28 and  35 million in Canada), 29 countries and 24 languages. Prior to CETA’s signature, trade relations between the EU and Canada were guided by the Framework Agreement for Commercial and Economic Cooperation, in force since 1976 as well as a number of sectoral agreements.
    2. Canada was the EU’s 11th largest trading partner in 2015 – This is according to EUROSTAT data as at April 2016 which valued Canada-EU trade in 2015 at 63,479 million euro, accounting for 1.8% of EU trade with non-EU partners. On the flip side, the EU is second only to the United States as Canada’s largest  trading partner. According to Statcan data, Canada exported $39,454.8 million ($CAN) in goods to the EU in 2015 and imported $53.004.5 in the same period.
    3. CETA was several years in the making –  Negotiations between the EU and Canada began in 2009 and the text was concluded in 2014 and received legal approval in February 2016. However,the agreement has had to overcome several hurdles, including the fact that as a “mixed” agreement under EU law, it had to obtain the approval of each of the 28 EU member countries (in accordance with their own constitutional arrangements). There has been popular and political opposition to the Agreement, including the impasse between the Belgium Federal Government and the regional government of Wallonia which had threatened  to be the final nail in the coffin until a last minute internal deal saved the day. Despite the resolution of this political impasse, some popular dissent towards the Agreement remains as evidenced by the anti-CETA protests.
    4.  Almost 99% of tariffs will be eliminated on goods trade between the EU and Canada – The exceptions are a few sensitive agricultural products. However, tariff-eliminations are only a small part of CETA and the Agreement is WTO-plus in many aspects. It includes provisions on trade in services, investment,  sustainable development, labour, environment, inter alia. It also opens up the procurement market in the EU and Canada so businesses in those countries can bid on government contracts in each other’s countries.
    5. CETA provides for a novel Investment Court System – The permanent bilateral investment tribunal provided for in CETA’s Investment Chapter (Chapter 8) is a marked departure from the ad hoc tribunals used in traditional investor-state dispute settlement systems. The tribunal will be comprised of 15 members (five EU nationals, five Canadian nationals and five nationals of third states). In addition to this new ISDS system, the investment chapter provides more explicit language regarding the State’s right to regulate, an appellate tribunal, greater provisions on transparency of proceedings and conflict of interests, as well as commitment by the EU and Canada towards the shared objective of working towards the establishment of a permanent multilateral investment court which will replace the bilateral court under CETA.
    6. CETA is expected to boost income in both the EU and Canada. According to a 2008 joint study by the European Commission and the Government of Canada, conducted prior to the launch of the negotiations, it was found that the annual real income gain  within seven years of CETA’s implementation is to be an estimated  11.6 billion euros for the EU and 8.2 billion euros for Canada. The stated benefits of CETA are job creation, a liberalised procurement market and increased merchandise and services trade and investment flows between Canada and the EU and cheaper goods and services for consumers.
    7. CETA will be the benchmark for future agreements signed by both the EU and Canada with subsequent trade partners.  The standard of ambition in the Agreement is high. CETA is likely to be the last trade agreement signed by the UK as an EU-member before the UK is expected to make its Article 50 notification and BREXIT negotiations begin (slated for March 2017).

    The full text of the Agreement may be viewed here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.

  • CETA Trade Deal Deadlock Broken

    Alicia Nicholls

    UPDATE: Text of the Addendum (in French) is available here.

    The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the European Union (EU) and Canada has finally won the backing of Belgium’s hold-out Walloon region. This is according to reporting by BBC News which broke the news earlier this evening. According to the BBC, Belgium’s Prime Minister, Charles Michel,  has advised that after internal negotiations among Belgium’s federated bodies, an addendum to the deal has been struck which has “addressed regional concerns over the rights of farmers and governments”.

    Hailed as the EU’s most ambitious agreement with a third party to date, CETA is a  landmark agreement encompassing not just the elimination of customs duties on goods between the EU and Canada, but also deep provisions on trade in services, intellectual property, investment, government procurement, inter alia. Though negotiations formally ended in 2014, the agreement has not yet been signed.

    As a mixed agreement under EU law, CETA requires the signature of all 28 EU member states (in accordance with their own constitutional arrangements). Under Belgium’s federated structure, the consent of its regional legislatures is required before the Belgium federal government can sign trade agreements with third states.

    Wallonia is Belgium’s francophone region, with a population of 3.6 million which is generally less prosperous than Flanders, the Dutch-speaking region.  Wallonia’s minister-president, Paul Magnette had raised a number of concerns over the Agreement’s provisions which he insisted needed to be addressed before Wallonia would give its support. These included, chiefly, the potential impact on Walloon farmer’s in the face of competition from Canadian pork and beef imports and the potential impact of the agreement’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions on governments’ regulatory rights.

    Monday’s deadline which the EU had set for Belgium to address its internal opposition to the agreement was missed and the signing ceremony which had been carded for today, Thursday, was cancelled. The prospect of one region potentially vetoing seven years’ of negotiating work led not only to concerns about the EU’s ability to effectively enter into international trade deals with third parties, but  on whether a similar scenario would play out in the Brexit negotiations with the UK..

    Symptomatic of the anti-globalisation, anti-free trade furor sweeping over western countries, CETA has faced some popular and political opposition in other European countries as well, although all EU governments (including the Belgium federal government) have indicated their intention to sign.

    So, it seems as though disaster has been averted for now and both the EU and Canada can give a sigh of relief. Wallonia’s acquiescence paves the way for Belgium to sign the Agreement. However, two notes of caution must be borne in mind. Firstly, the exact details of the Belgian addendum have not been reported as yet. Secondly, the addendum will need to be accepted by the remaining 27 EU member states. Suffice it to say, the ending of this story has not been written as yet.

    As an update, the text of the Addendum (in French) is available here.

    Read the full BBC article here.

    Alicia Nicholls, B.Sc., M.Sc., LL.B. is a trade and development consultant with a keen interest in sustainable development, international law and trade. You can also read more of her commentaries and follow her on Twitter @LicyLaw.