http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/what-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-talks-mean-for-canada-1.2489255

 

what does everyone think of TPP? Seems most canadians aren't aware of it. I'm all for it, especially happy if it destroys supply management in the dairy industry.

 

I think tarrifs are a hinder to economic development and supply management is poor economic policy.

I know very little.  On another forum someone challenged me on this when I mentioned my support for the Conservatives.  The thing is, with massive agreements like this, not everyone or everything will be a "win".  If Canada won every issue in a trade agreement, it means the other parties are losing.  As the article states, every country has to put some water in their wine to get an agreement done that works for everyone.

 

But, knowing little about it, on the surface it seems like something Canada has to be at the table for.

It looks like supply management is on the way out, which will be a blow for producers who invested millions in their quotas. Will they be compensated?

It's mostly about giving international corporations more rights than Nations, than it is about lower tariffs, which are already historically low for most things.

 

One that should concern Canadians, is it's affect on healthcare. one of the biggest costs of healthcare is drugs, which are controlled by a panel in most countries, but not in the USA. They can charge whatever they want in the USA.

I definitely believe we should be careful on drug prices.  I respect the right of the drug companies that invest all the money and research into development to recoup their investment but to me this isnt like building a better smart phone.  There has to be a sense of moral responsibility.  And since a private enterprise is never going to impost moral responsibility on itself, government must.  But I'd suspect Canada is in a better place to argue that at the table then not at the table.

 

We shall see...

This is how Canada, and most countries deal with drug prices. Companies get a patent, in exchange for the regulation of the price set by this panel, consulting with the industry.

"The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) 

The PMPRB protects the interests of Canadian consumers by ensuring that the prices of patented medicines sold in Canada are not excessive. It does this by reviewing the prices that patentees charge for each individual patented drug product in Canadian markets. If a price is found to be excessive, the Board can hold public hearings and order price reductions and/or the offset of excess revenues. The PMPRB regulates the "factory gate" prices and does not have jurisdiction over prices charged by wholesalers or pharmacies, or over pharmacists' professional fees."

Missed this one earlier, kind of slipped under the radar.  Demonstrates European policy makers are willing to stand up  for the rights of their citizens to set policy in their own national interest and will not allow multi-national corps. to have a veto over changes to policy.  In Canada this isn't even a debate.

Typical political bullshit, Adam Taylor helps negotiate the deal, then quickly jumps ship to receive his rewards from a lobbyist company funded by corporate interests.

EU quietly asks Canada to rework trade deal's thorny investment clause

European Union officials quietly approached Justin Trudeau's new government last fall with a request to revisit the controversial investment protection clause in the Canada-EU trade deal.

Negotiations for the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) were supposed to have concluded in the summer of 2014 — the former Conservative government led by Stephen Harper had trumpeted success since an agreement in principle in 2013.

But nothing was signed then. Or since.

"The debate over whether ISDS provisions should be in trade agreements is over," said Adam Taylor, now with Ensight Canada, who worked for former Conservative minister Ed Fast during the negotiations. 

"There is strong consensus that they are good, they protect businesses and they should be part of these ambitious, 21st-century trade agreements," he told CBC News.

But critics point to how expensive things can get for taxpayers when corporations sue governments for interfering with trade.

Now, stoked by fears of setting a bad precedent for trade talks with the United States, well-organized dissent in Europe has taken hold.

It risks a humiliating defeat on a ratification vote expected at the EU's parliament in Brussels this fall, unless a compromise can be reached to appease moderate opponents.

"Both parties don't want to re-open negotiations," said Marie-Anne Coninsx, the EU's ambassador to Canada.

But: "there might be some legal adjustments that would be necessary to the clause and we have indications from both sides that there's willingness to do this," she told CBC News.

Negotiators have been meeting weekly by video conference, as a legal process to "scrub", or vet, the text and check 23 language translations drags on. The EU believes this section can be reworked as part of the "scrub."

International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters in Montreal last week that both she and Prime Minister Trudeau are holding talks and she's confident they will get a deal soon.

"I'm not going to give you specific timelines because we're negotiating now, and sort of — negotiating is the wrong word — we're getting through with the Europeans, across that final mile to the finish line," the minister said

Anti-American suspicions

The investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism Canada negotiated on CETA was consistent with other deals.

As with Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), businesses are protected from arbitrary government decision-making. The opportunity for corporations to recover damages aims to force governments to fulfil the trade deals they sign, or be held accountable.

Americans have proven particularly skilled at winning, or dragging out, these disputes. And that's the problem.

"Everything started when we began negotiations with the U.S.," Coninsx told CBC News. While CETA would have been transparent and preserved a state's right to regulate, she said, applying its ISDS to a bigger trading partner changed things.

"Dealing with the U.S. sometimes raises other concerns than dealing with Canada," she said.

Anti-American suspicions have fuelled an anti-trade movement that draws hundreds of thousands of protesters — and the attention of politicians — in key countries like Germany and France.

Can't pass without changes

"A creative solution is needed," Taylor said, using a trade negotiator's term for a negotiated compromise, lest ISDS become a "poison pill that derails the deal altogether." 

If ISDS is a no-go, or red line, for certain EU legislators, it's prudent for Canada to find a solution, he said.

Veteran campaigner Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians has been in Europe trying to mobilize opposition.

"I don't think it could pass the European Parliament as it stands now," she said.

Europeans now see things as a two-part North American deal: part one is CETA with Canada, and its passage sets up part two with the U.S.

Even if part two fails, American corporations with branch plants in Canada could still take aim at European policies, she's argued.

Facing these political headwinds, the EU proposed a new Investment Court System (ICS) this fall. Unlike the case-by-case ad hoc tribunals that adjudicate in North America, this suggests permanently-appointed judges, a formal court of appeal and clear rules to make things fair, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses.

But Barlow's collaborators believe the compromise might be worse, formalizing rights for foreign corporations that domestic companies would not have in the new court.

They'd prefer to defeat the deal as is.

"I'm sure if the government is going to do it, it would like to do it as quietly as possible, but it will be impossible to keep it quiet," Barlow said.

Americans left 'pissed off'?

Americans aren't receptive to the new court idea. Neither, at least fully, is Canada.

In an article written for a Polish newspaper last week and translated for Maclean's magazine by Canada's embassy in Warsaw, Canada's lead negotiator, Steve Verheul, candidly admits that the opposition to ISDS comes as a "significant surprise." (Ambassador Coninsx told CBC News her side didn't foresee it either.)

Speaking to the Polish audience, Verheul tips Canada's hand: "Canada can agree to some of the changes," the translation reads, but we have concerns that the [proposed court] is significantly more complicated and expensive. It also does not guarantee that a case will be heard by the most appropriate panel of judges."

"We think it will bring more assurances for some, but not more costs," Coninsx told CBC.

Trade lawyer Mark Warner, part of Ontario's legal team during the CETA talks, agrees with Verheul that while NAFTA's ad hoc tribunals are composed of recognized experts, the kind of generalist judges named to this permanent court could lack tailored expertise. 

It all puts Freeland in a tight spot if she takes seriously her mandate letter marching orders to proceed with ratification as quickly as possible.

"I think the Americans will be pretty pissed off at us," Warner told CBC News. 

If Canada agrees to a compromise the U.S. doesn't want, "it's like throwing a finger into their eye. And I thought Justin Trudeau said he was going to have better relations with [Washington.]"

A side deal could be "a nice little talking point" that sets the Liberals apart, similar to what the Chrétien government did with its side deals on labour and the environment when NAFTA came in, Warner said. 

"They could say 'see, we're not doing Stephen Harper's bidding, we got this from the Europeans,'" — but they'd be left with both diplomatic and "architectural" issues later if CETA isn't consistent with other North American deals, including the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership deal of 12 Pacific Rim countries.

"We do most of our trade with the Americans, not with Europe," Warner said. "I wouldn't do it."

Edited January 25, 201610 yr by Throw Long Bannatyne

Canada has been one of the real losers in Investor/state disputes, they've cost us much money. and we lose the ability to govern and pass laws.

basically handing over sovereignty to a small stable of corporate lawyers living in Geneva, New York,  London and so on. we don't even know their names. That's who makes these decisions, that govern our lives, or economy, our environment, our labour rights....

great idea.

Completely the opposite of democracy.

 

Here's one guy involved in the TPP (another crappy trade deal we are supposed to swallow)

 

BBC....

 

Quote

 

"Japan's Economy Minister Akira Amari has said he is resigning amid corruption allegations.

As Japan's lead negotiator for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, Mr Amari was expected to travel to New Zealand next week to sign the agreement.

 

Malaysia will also sign the TPP...

 

 

Quote

 

Malaysia's top prosecutor has cleared Prime Minister Najib Razak of corruption in a long-running financial scandal that has gripped the nation.

The attorney-general's office said the $681m (£479m) that Mr Najib received in his bank account was a personal donation from the Saudi royal family.

 

...see..... no problem. just a gift of 479 million pounds.... from Saudi Arabia.

LOL.

There is a real problem with this potential agreement. How can we compete with the labour costs of countries who pay way below minimum wage with no environmental standards, worker safety and health programs? More disturbing is the degree to which our national sovereignty is compromised.

Under NAFTA , Canadian law is subordinate to trade panel rulings, but American law and standards are not.

unfortunate that people aren't following these backroom deals.... they have big effects on us all.

10 hours ago, Mark F said:

unfortunate that people aren't following these backroom deals.... they have big effects on us all.

And our children and children's children. These pacts often need ten years to get out of.

The trade agreement Harper did with Communist China is in force for 31 years. 

 

 

Thought I would revive this old thread with this recent article as it is still newsworthy and ties in with the recent Panama Paper revelations.  Canadians need to pay more attention to issues that influence the long-term future of this country and pay less to trivial sparkle dust thrown up by the media and the entertainment industry.

 

TPP 'worst trade deal ever,' says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the Trans-Pacific Partnership may well be the worst trade agreement ever negotiated, and he recommends Canada insist on reworking it.

"I think what Canada should do is use its influence to begin a renegotiation of TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens and not just the large corporations," he said in an interview with CBC's The Exchange on Thursday.

 

Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, was a keynote speaker at a conference at the University of Ottawa on Friday about the complex trade deal.

International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland put Canada's signature on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, but it has yet to be ratified here. The House of Commons trade committee is studying the TPP — a process that Freeland said could take up to nine months.

Stiglitz described Freeland as "old friend" in an interview with The Canadian Press and said he has explained some of the pitfalls of the TPP to her, among them its potential to reduce workers' rights.

Stiglitz takes issue with the TPP's investment-protection provisions, which he says could interfere with the ability of governments to regulate business or to move toward a low-carbon economy.

Multinationals have right to sue

It's the "worst part of agreement," he says, because it allows large multinationals to sue the Canadian government.

"It used to be the basic principle was polluter pay," Stiglitz said. "If you damaged the environment, then you have to pay. Now if you pass a regulation that restricts ability to pollute or does something about climate change, you could be sued and could pay billions of dollars."

There were similar provisions in North American Free Trade Agreement that led to the Canadian government being sued, but the TPP goes even further.

He said the provision could be used to prevent raising of minimum wages or to overturn rules that prevent usury or predatory lending practices.

Stiglitz argues the deal, which is a 6,000-page mammoth and extremely complex, should have been negotiated openly.

"This deal was done in secret with corporate interests at the table," he said.

He also forecasts the deal will have little impact on trade volumes, especially in advanced countries like the U.S. and Canada, where mostly capital-intensive goods are exported and labour-intensive goods are imported.

Rules of origin provisions

But it will change the basic legal framework that governs society, shifting power to corporations, he said.

Stiglitz said the "rules of origin" provisions have the ability to hurt North American employment, because they allow "very clever ways of hiding what's going on."

"You could have an automobile where the vast majority of the automobile was actually made in China and Thailand [which did not sign the TPP] but it comes into Canada as a Japanese good," he said.

All the presidential candidates now are speaking out against the deal and it may never be passed in the U.S.

"I'm a little surprised that Canada would seriously consider going through the political fight that is associated with getting this agreement ratified until the U.S. adopts it," he said.

He recommended Canada work with the Europeans, who have also objected to the investment protection provisions, to rework the deal.

With files from The Canadian Press

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/joseph-stiglitz-tpp-1.3515452

This deal claims that it would reduce the duration of patents so that cheaper drugs etc. will flow into the system sooner. It also claims it will enforce minimum wage standards and working conditions in the poorer nations. It claims it will reduce the illegal trade in endangered species, such as rhinos and elephants. It will definitely threaten our marketing boards and supply management for milk, eggs etc. as cheaper imports come in.

imo, the US is the big winner in this deal, no question.

 

 

 

Free trade just kills jobs. They go to where the workers are paid the least. Hello, Mexico.