Will the Senate get the better of Ceta? Narrowly voted by the National Assembly in 2019, the very controversial free trade treaty which links the European Union to Canada is preparing to be examined by the upper house this Thursday, March 21. A stopover which places more than ever a sword of Damocles on the text which came partially into force in September 2017: a put in the hot seat by the communist senators. The gesture is as symbolic as it is rare: the group chaired by Cécile Cukierman sacrificed two of its four hours of annual parliamentary time to include the Ceta ratification project on the agenda of the Luxembourg Palace.
The objective is clearly assumed in the middle of the European campaign: to empty the trade agreement of its substance, by attacking its first article, which establishes the rules on investments, as well as on social and environmental standards. “Far too unbalanced”, in the opinion of communist senator Fabien Gay who initiated the initiative to include the treaty on the agenda. Firstly, “Ceta does not take note of the environmental commitments made by the European Union and its member states”, explains the elected official from Seine-Saint-Denis. Secondly, it “does not include any mirror clause, which means that Canadian agricultural sectors will be able to import foodstuffs produced under much less demanding social and environmental conditions than those to which our farms are subject.”
The beef industry threatened by American protectionism
Because if the treaty has indeed benefited certain agricultural sectors, like cattle breeders or cheese producers, others, conversely, would be threatened. According to the socialist Didier Marie, senator from Seine-Maritime, small farms will suffer the full brunt of Canadian competition “as soon as it establishes itself on our soil”. A specter already agitated at the time of the debates in the National Assembly in 2019. Many elected officials were concerned about the repercussions of Ceta on the economic health of the beef industry. The fact remains that to date, Canadian producers still concentrate a major part of their exports in the United States. The predicted cataclysm therefore did not occur. This does not mean, however, that it will never happen.
“Depending on the outcome of the American elections, the United States could decide to close its doors to imports of foreign agricultural products. Canada would therefore not have a thousand other solutions than to turn to the European market…”, warns Senator LR Max Brisson. And the deal’s critics don’t stop there. The same anger is crystallizing around the arbitration courts provided for by Ceta: a jurisdictional system called the Investment Court System (ICS), which will allow Canadian companies considering themselves wronged by the standards decreed by the European Union to attack a member state. A tool which “would only serve to put pressure on the States concerned so that they abandon their commitments”, crushes the elected socialist Didier Marie.
The vote “which will be of no use”, really?
A “catastrophe”, which must be avoided at all costs. However, LR senator from Charente-Maritime Corinne Imbert confides: “Like many elected officials, I wonder about a vote which will be of no use…” Because if the communists, socialists and ecologists plan to unite against this ” umpteenth climate-killing treaty”, the Les Républicains group is not overcome by the same momentum. Especially since two hours to review a text of 2,344 pages, “that’s not a lot”. So, on the eve of the vote, several free electrons are still wondering. But nothing surprising in this heterogeneous group, torn between liberal convictions and sovereignist inclinations, and within which “the word ‘consignment’ has always had difficulty penetrating”, assumes Max Brisson. And some have understood this well. Last Thursday, the centrist Union group, chaired by Hervé Marseille, requested that the text be sent back to committee. Final maneuver which should serve to tighten the ranks of the “pro-Ceta”.
On the left and on the right – for those who will vote in favor of the deletion amendments – everyone assures: their position is in no way a criticism of free trade in principle. “We are not against trade agreements, but they must contribute to the protection of human rights, and not come into conflict with the objectives of environmental protection”, defends Didier Marie. On the right, the priority remains agricultural sovereignty. “I am not for return to protectionism, but I am in favor of fairer trade which would involve the preservation of sectors such as energy or food”, argues Max Brisson, who describes himself as deeply liberal.
On the executive side, the watchword remains the same: defend the agreement, whatever the cost, according to the established formula. At the microphone of FranceInfo this Monday March 18, the new Minister Delegate in charge of Foreign Trade, Franck Riester, particularly praised the “many virtues” of Ceta, convinced of the “relevance” of an agreement which allowed France “to massively increase its exports, by more than 33% in six years”, and whose results “are concrete, positive for our economy, for our businesses, in all sectors”.
The last word goes to Macron
Whatever the outcome of the vote, the fate of the text is in the hands of the executive. As part of the accelerated procedure chosen by the government, three possibilities are available to Emmanuel Macron: the opening of a joint joint committee, the referral of the text to the National Assembly, which would sign the resumption of the parliamentary shuttle, and finally, non-notification of Parliament’s vote, which would amount to… doing nothing. “A democratic denial which will feed the populists a little more,” laments Max Brisson.
But Fabrice Gay is convinced: “What will happen in the Senate this Thursday is a political thunderbolt.” Even more so a few weeks before the European elections, and at a time when the executive is struggling to curb the anger of the agricultural world. In this context, the government will not be able to turn a deaf ear. Not like in 2021, when a resolution inviting the government to open Ceta to debate was voted unanimously, and the then Minister of Relations with Parliament, Franck Riester, abbreviated: “We have everything time, there is no hurry. And remember, we are the masters of the clocks!”