Article content continued

Some German officials are reportedly opposed to the investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS) clause of the CETA document which they say encroaches on the ability of countries to deal with some foreign investment issues — such as those regarding labour laws and environmental protection. In particular, there are worries that ISDS provisions could lead to foreign operators challenging domestic rules in independent tribunals.

But Mr. Barroso said the CETA declaration “was fully backed by all member states of the EU, including Germany.”

“So, until now, all of the official communications that we received from Germany were absolutely in favour of this agreement,” he said.

“I think that in Europe, the country that is going to benefit the most from this agreement is indeed Germany — as the biggest economy, as the biggest exporter. So it is quite obvious.”

However, Lawrence Herman, a Toronto-based international trade and investment lawyer, said the ISDS provisions should be viewed as “a big issue.”

“I don’t think it’s going to be difficult for Canada to get its ducks in order, but what about the German opposition in Europe? I think that’s the scene that bares watching,” he said.

“If the Germans say they don’t agree with this deal because of these provisions, does that put the entire deal in jeopardy, or is there another way of dealing with what appears to be a growing opposition in Germany?”

Mr. Herman said “internal politics” are pushing for changes to CETA to help keep similar ISDS provisions out of Germany’s free-trade talks with the U.S.

On the other hand, he said, “why would the U.S. government negotiate with the Europeans if they can’t implement an agreement with Canada.”

One solution, he added, would be to “remove those provisions.”

“CETA would still be absolutely of great value to Canada. I don’t believe that it’s worth going to the wall to maintain these ISDS agreements. These [free-trade agreements] can exist without them.”

Twtter.com/gisfeld