Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Jacks]

That article is heavy on rhetoric and light on details.

"I think in 10 years from now, we'll call that the signature worst thing in policy that Canada's ever done... "It's a treaty that structures everything forever — and we can't get out of it."

And unlike legislation passed in Parliament, he noted treaties like this one set rules that must be followed forever. This deal, he added, also features "iron-clad" dispute mechanisms. "I'm worried and I don't know how we can get out of this," said Balsillie

and from the same article

The deal must be ratified by all 12 countries, and then it would come into force six months later. It would require a parliamentary vote in Canada. Alternatively, the treaty can also take effect if it's ratified by half the countries representing 85 per cent of the zone's economy. A country can withdraw any time, on six months' notice.

The deal still has to be ratified before it comes into effect so we aren't locked in to anything. Even if we did approve it and it turned out terrible we could opt out at any time in the future so I'm not sure what he is talking about that "we can't get out of it".

Originally Posted by corporatejay

"It is the Blackberry of trade deals" - Jim Balsillie

I was thinking the same thing, Balsillie isn't exactly tearing up the business world but I'm sure he'd tell you it's Harper's fault.

Spoiler!

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Buster

But supporting it after some analysis is not necessarily idiotic.

Agreed. i'm not saying that nobody can hold a reasonable position in support of the agreement after understanding the contents of it.

The details coming out about pharmaceutical IP issues and the rights of private investors to sue governments on loss of expected profits when governments act in protection of their market or citizens present serious concerns, but I think that those and other issues warrant real discussion before taking a definitive position on the whole deal.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Agreed. i'm not saying that nobody can hold a reasonable position in support of the agreement after understanding the contents of it.

The details coming out about pharmaceutical IP issues and the rights of private investors to sue governments on loss of expected profits when governments act in protection of their market or citizens present serious concerns, but I think that those and other issues warrant real discussion before taking a definitive position on the whole deal.

Of course. That's what the gap between negotiations and ratification is intended to address. I think it should be a good discussion.

However, I think many of the critics of the deal forget what a trade deal is all about.

It is designed to reduce barriers to other markets, at the same time reducing barriers in our own. It can't -by definition- be good for everyone on our side, otherwise there would be no need to for an agreement. In general, however, most of Canada's protected industries are protected with a net cost to the Canadian consumer. Milk is an excellent example of this.

So generally with trade deals, you have a highly vocal minority, with entrenched and rent-seeking interests who conduct a fear mongering campaign about specific details. The silent majority, however, will likely benefit from the arrangement, when everything is netted out.

[EldrickOnIce]

I would like to understand the concerns over IP protection for biologic drugs.
As unfortunate as it may be, innovation is driven by profit potential - and as a result, protecting that IP helps insure future innovation. In my opinion.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Jacks

It's up to Trudeau to decide if the deal goes ahead so save your blame game for him.

Sorry, but that's not right. If we don't ratify the deal, Canada will lose by not being part of it. If the deal is bad, and we ratify it, Canada will lose by being part of it. It's a lose-lose situation in that case, and the Conservative, not the Liberals are to blame for that. The deal negotiations are done. Only choices are to accept or reject what the previous government has negotiated. It's highly unlikely he'll be able to re-negotiate a different compromise that might be better for the Canada.

So if the deal goes ahead, and it's not favorable to Canada, you have to blame the Conservatives because regardless of if Trudeau signs it, the results won't favor Canada, and there's not much he can do about it. Similarly, if Trudeau signs it, and it turns out well, Harper and the Conservatives get the credit for it, not Trudeau.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Of course. That's what the gap between negotiations and ratification is intended to address. I think it should be a good discussion.

However, I think many of the critics of the deal forget what a trade deal is all about.

It is designed to reduce barriers to other markets, at the same time reducing barriers in our own. It can't -by definition- be good for everyone on our side, otherwise there would be no need to for an agreement. In general, however, most of Canada's protected industries are protected with a net cost to the Canadian consumer. Milk is an excellent example of this.

So generally with trade deals, you have a highly vocal minority, with entrenched and rent-seeking interests who conduct a fear mongering campaign about specific details. The silent majority, however, will likely benefit from the arrangement, when everything is netted out.

Well if the trade deal is about better benefits for these countries, sure it sounds good but this seems to be a deal brokered by lobbyists for the benefit of world corporations where their agenda is for their benefit, not the countries involved.

Critics note that under the TPP, corporations will be empowered to file lawsuits against governments to block laws that could impair future profits. The lawsuits would fall under special tribunals set up by the World Bank.
Many of the former clients of the trade officials now negotiating these agreements stand to gain immensely.

https://theintercept.com/2015/04/16/tpp-revolving-door/

Backers of the emerging trade accord, which is supported by a wide variety of business groups and favored by most Republicans, say that it is in line with previous agreements that contain similar provisions. But critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.

[vegasbound]

The TPP is a disaster for Canadian dairy farmers. Not impressed with it.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by vegasbound

The TPP is a disaster for Canadian dairy farmers. Not impressed with it.

Good* Now only if the Liberals would remove the 5 or 6 billion dollars of tax dollars they are getting from us.

I am sure I watch the dairy farmer head lobby person come out FOR the deal, how in the world are you calling it a disaster?



*not sure about the potential milk quality issues I have read regarding steroid use

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Good* Now only if the Liberals would remove the 5 or 6 billion dollars of tax dollars they are getting from us.

I am sure I watch the dairy farmer head lobby person come out FOR the deal, how in the world are you calling it a disaster?



*not sure about the potential milk quality issues I have read regarding steroid use

What's good about it? Canadian farmers lose their jobs? Have to sell their stuff for less? How's that good for Canada - more people lose their jobs? .. If they have to be bought off 4.3 billion to try to sell this deal, it's a bad deal.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

What's good about it? Canadian farmers lose their jobs? Have to sell their stuff for less? How's that good for Canada - more people lose their jobs? .. If they have to be bought off 4.3 billion to try to sell this deal, it's a bad deal.

Any farm subsidies are bad. There are 2 choices - either the price is artificially inflated, so that consumers have to pay an artificially high price; or, taxpayer money is simply handed over to farmers. In either scenario 30,000,000 pay so that some (mostly large agricorps) can make money. Why? Is there some kind of a right to farm? Why is milk in Tucson half the price of ours? And that's with stores selling it at a loss. I, as a consumer don't care where my milk comes from, as long as it's "safe". If you can't farm competitively without a handout then you shouldn't be in business. This all stems from an outdated 19th/early 20th century concept that powers should be self-sufficient in food for strategic reasons. Now, in the modern age, that's just a bunch of crap. We won't starve if government stops subsidizing farmers. 7,000,000,000 need to be fed and somebody will supply them with food. When governments get involved stupidity ensues - see the Thai rice fiasco and the whole EU agricultural policy, which basically wastes billions upon billions so that a few thousand Frenchmen can farm just like they did in the 19th century.

[Buster]

Milk farmers have been "milking" the Canadian public for decades. It's pure, despicable rent-seeking.

If there is any reason to be very HAPPY about the TPP, it's because of the milk thing.

[vegasbound]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Good* Now only if the Liberals would remove the 5 or 6 billion dollars of tax dollars they are getting from us.

I am sure I watch the dairy farmer head lobby person come out FOR the deal, how in the world are you calling it a disaster?



*not sure about the potential milk quality issues I have read regarding steroid use

Well for one, I can't count any small time dairy farmer for it and I know lots... I come from a dairy farm. 3.25% imports and displacement of 250 million litres of milk is not an insignificant amount. Therefore, that's going to have an impact on quota management. Quota is hard enough to get in BC, let alone after this deal goes through. This is just the coles notes of it.

As well, Canadian milk has a lot more stringent requirements to follow as far as what goes into the cow. There is one major synthetic steroid (rBST) that is allowed in the US that is not allowed in Canada. I'm all for the use of antibiotics as needed but not rBST.

[GGG]

Most milk in the U.S. Is labeled as rBST free or not
. Or at least
Milk at stores I shop in the U.S.

Does the TPP prohibit banning of certain items in Milk?

[ae118]

I'm sure milk in Canada is more expensive but I'm actually fine with being protectionist when it comes to milk. Our supply is high quality and doesn't contain the crap regular American milk does. If American milk is incorporated into ours and decreases the quality, then everyone gets milk that isn't as good for us at a lower price (for now). Assuming steroid/hormone free or all-Canadian milk can be labelled as such, we can still buy it, probably for more. End result, milk likely costs more for people who care about quality, and lower income people are relegated to crappy milk. That's how I imagine it playing out, anyway - would love to be corrected by someone with milk industry or deep free trade knowledge.

[JohnnyB]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle27169740/

The big problem is that TPP-like agreements are no longer exclusively or even primarily about reducing traditional trade barriers. As Harvard economist Dani Rodrik notes in his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox, with some exceptions (such as Canada’s dairy industry), tariffs have never been lower. Any gains from further reductions would be relatively modest.

Instead, agreements such as the TPP are about implementing policies that have nothing to do with comparative advantage, policies that are often designed to lead to higher consumer costs and concentrated corporate power. Treated as marginal issues, these policies are “free-trade free-riders,” coasting along on an unearned legitimacy.

What, then, is the TPP? In short, it is a new global economic framework, driven primarily by U.S. interests and U.S. power. We should debate it as such. Is it a good deal for Canada? I don’t know – the 6,000-plus pages were dumped on us only late last week – but the secrecy surrounding the talks should tell us something.

Because we’re debating the future framework of the global economy, it would be nice if the debate over the TPP went beyond the old free-traders-versus-protectionists charade. At the very least, we should look under the hood and be suspicious of anyone trying to sell us the TPP as a “free-trade agreement.”

[JohnnyB]

edit: double posted

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Sorry, but that's not right. If we don't ratify the deal, Canada will lose by not being part of it. If the deal is bad, and we ratify it, Canada will lose by being part of it. It's a lose-lose situation in that case, and the Conservative, not the Liberals are to blame for that. The deal negotiations are done. Only choices are to accept or reject what the previous government has negotiated. It's highly unlikely he'll be able to re-negotiate a different compromise that might be better for the Canada.

So if the deal goes ahead, and it's not favorable to Canada, you have to blame the Conservatives because regardless of if Trudeau signs it, the results won't favor Canada, and there's not much he can do about it. Similarly, if Trudeau signs it, and it turns out well, Harper and the Conservatives get the credit for it, not Trudeau.

The world wasn't going to wait for the Liberals to get elected, get sworn in, get caught up on files, etc before concluding the negotiations. That's all water under the bridge now, if the Conservatives hadn't gotten Canada involved then there would be nothing to choose from because we wouldn't be part of it. You seem to think that Trudeau could have gotten some totally one sided 'home run' for Canada, it's doubtful that they could have gotten much if anything better and they may have done worse for all we know.

Now the government, which just happens to be Liberal, get's to decide if we ratify the deal. If they don't feel it's beneficial to Canada then they get to make the decision. You can't blame Harper for decisions that are out of his control.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ae118

I'm sure milk in Canada is more expensive but I'm actually fine with being protectionist when it comes to milk. Our supply is high quality and doesn't contain the crap regular American milk does. If American milk is incorporated into ours and decreases the quality, then everyone gets milk that isn't as good for us at a lower price (for now). Assuming steroid/hormone free or all-Canadian milk can be labelled as such, we can still buy it, probably for more. End result, milk likely costs more for people who care about quality, and lower income people are relegated to crappy milk. That's how I imagine it playing out, anyway - would love to be corrected by someone with milk industry or deep free trade knowledge.

Have you ever bought American milk? American Milk at the same quality No Growth Hormone and No anti biotic for half the price of Canadian milk. So American milk in terms of like for like quality is cheaper. There is also cheaper milk in the US that isn't growth hormone and anti-biotic free.

So the end result isn't more expensive milk for some and cheaper milk for others. Its cheaper milk for everyone.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I would like to understand the concerns over IP protection for biologic drugs.
As unfortunate as it may be, innovation is driven by profit potential - and as a result, protecting that IP helps insure future innovation. In my opinion.

I think the counterargument is that yes, innovation is driven by profit potential, and if simply repackaging existing drugs to renew the patents has better profit margins than actually investing in research on new drugs, then innovation will slow. You need to make sure that there's enough protection that drug companies will have an incentive to create the products in the first place, but not so much that drug companies value their existing patents over creating new or legitimately improved products.
I'm all for allowing patent renewal for legitimate innovation. But allowing patent renewal for 20 years, for something like as obvious as changing an existing tablet into a chewable form seems like it creates more of a reward for superficial improvement than for the much more costly (and much more beneficial to patients) research for legitimately improved drugs.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

Have you ever bought American milk? American Milk at the same quality No Growth Hormone and No anti biotic for half the price of Canadian milk. So American milk in terms of like for like quality is cheaper. There is also cheaper milk in the US that isn't growth hormone and anti-biotic free.

So the end result isn't more expensive milk for some and cheaper milk for others. Its cheaper milk for everyone.

How much are you paying for milk? The average milk price in the US right now is about $3.50 USD for a gallon which works out to about $4.75 CAD for 4 liters. In BC I can get local milk for about $5.50 for 4 liters or national brand stuff for $4.50.

What you're saying is certainly true for cheese, but I've never found milk of similar quality to be all that much cheaper in the US if at all.