“We need the CCPA to remind us that our dreams of a decent, egalitarian society are reasonable — indeed that with a little work, they are practical. And I love that practicality, that protection of the dream of the possible.”
— Naomi Klein
In an opinion piece published in The Tyee and iPolitics, CCPA’s senior trade researcher Scott Sinclair analyzes the extraordinary concessions made by the Canadian government to gain entry to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations. Canada's terms of entry can only be described as demeaning. They set Canadians up to lose big in the high-stakes talks on issues ranging from agricultural supply management and higher drug costs to internet freedom.
Click here to read the full op-ed.
The Harper government's frantic efforts to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations came to fruition last week, with the announcement that Canada will be admitted to the talks.
The TPP is a nine-member, U.S.-led effort to create a "21st century" trade and investment agreement. The U.S. is seeking a tough, far-reaching agreement favouring U.S. commercial interests that China, Japan and other trading rivals will have little choice but to join. China, however, appears to view the TPP as little more than an American plot.
Canada already has free trade deals with four of the current TPP members (the U.S., Chile, Peru and Mexico). As economist Jim Stanford has noted, the other six (Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and Vietnam) combined account for less than one per cent of Canada's exports. The United Steelworkers points out that, "any conceivable increase in exports to these markets would be almost insignificant in terms of total Canadian output and employment."
While claiming that it made no substantive concessions to get in, the Harper government almost certainly signalled its flexibility on key stumbling blocks such as agricultural supply management and intellectual property rights protection.
The high costs to dairy, poultry and egg farmers, our artists and cultural industries, internet freedom and a wide range of other public interests will eventually become all too obvious.
One hand tied behind our back
Canada's terms of entry to the talks can only be described as demeaning. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) set out the conditions for entry in a letter to both Canada and Mexico. The letter has not been released, but its contents and the conditions governing Canadian and Mexican participation have been reported in a Washington trade policy publication.
For two years, Canada has been lobbying heavily to get into the talks. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade balked at the onerous demands coming from Washington, but in the final days the file was taken over by the PM's chief of staff who was dispatched to Washington to secure Canada's entry, apparently at any cost.
Sight unseen, the government of Canada has agreed to accept any negotiating text on which the nine current members have already reached consensus. According to the USTR, this includes all agreed ("unbracketed") text within chapters that are still open, not just completed chapters. To date, only one chapter has been completed.
It is almost unbelievable that Canada accepted this condition. The 12 rounds of TPP negotiations have been wrapped in unusually tight secrecy, though draft versions of two chapters (investment and intellectual property) have been leaked.
Free hand for lobbyists
What's more, the Canadian government apparently accepted a further condition that it will not reopen any text that is agreed upon during the period before it gains full negotiating status. Canada and Mexico will not be able to formally join the negotiations until after other TPP countries complete their domestic consultations on the new partners' entry. The USTR will soon notify the U.S. Congress of Canada's impending entry, which will trigger a 90-day consultation process.
Canada will probably not be a full participant at the negotiating table until the fifteenth round, which will be held in December. In the meantime, two more full rounds in July and September will have been completed. Playing hardball, the USTR has brazenly stated that Canada and Mexico will not even be granted observer status at the July or September rounds. Presumably, they will not be granted access to the text either, until after the internal U.S. review period is over.
This means that during the next two rounds, the nine current members will have the opportunity to reach consensus on areas where they know that Canada has sensitivities, notably agricultural market access, drug pricing, cultural industries, and copyright protection. It also means that U.S. lobbyists, representing everything from brand-name drugs, agricultural exports, motion pictures and softwood lumber, will have a free hand to try to insert their own poison pills ahead of Canada's entry.
Second-class participants
By agreeing to these unprecedented and humiliating restrictions on Canada's ability to negotiate freely, the Harper government has also clearly telegraphed its desperation to be part of this agreement, whatever the ultimate cost to Canadians.
Despite official claims to the contrary, it is very clear that both Canada and Mexico have entered these high-stakes negotiations as second-class participants. The USTR is firmly in charge, and the Americans have once again confirmed their well-deserved reputation as ruthless negotiators. They have exacted a high procedural price for Canadian entry.
In its desperate bid to be part of these talks, the Harper government has left Canadians with a clear choice -- to take an agreement shoved down our throats by the U.S. and its powerful corporate lobbies or to leave it. Given the obvious costs, the only dignified option is clear.
Scott Sinclair is senior trade policy researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. This op-ed was originally published in The Tyee and in iPolitics.
CBC Radio's The House did a segment last Saturday (Feb. 11) on the Harper government's bilateral free trade strategy and specifically its approach to China. CCPA's Scott Sinclair was on a panel with Bay St. trade lawyer Lawrence Herman.
For those who are interested, the podcast can be found here. The segment begins with a clip from NDP trade critic Brian Masse at the 23 minute mark.
It may be that the sheer bravado and aggressiveness of the Harper government's bilateral negotiating strategy (including talks with China) could reopen much-needed public debates on the merits of free trade and Canada's trade and investment treaties. Host Evan Solomon closed this way -"Back to the future -- the free trade debate is back on the agenda."
The recent decision by the European Union (EU) to disregard Canadian government pressure and forge ahead with regulations that recognise the higher green-house-gas intensity of fuel produced from tar sands and oil shale is encouraging. The Canadian government has lobbied furiously against Article 7a of the European Fuel Quality Directive and is even threatening to challenge the measure under international trade rules.
The Canadian government position flies in the face of increased scientific certainty that the ever-expanding exploitation of oil sands reserves within Canada and around the world would lead to disastrous climate change. In the words of climate scientist James Hansen, “Policy makers need to understand that these unconventional fossil fuels, which are as dirty and polluting as coal, must be left in the ground if we wish future generations to have a liveable planet.”
Effective environmental regulation of the Canadian tar sands is absolutely necessary, yet will likely only occur in either of two ways:
1) Canadian governments will come to their senses and curb the pace and scale of development, while protecting the region’s First Nations, downstream communities and the global environment.
2) Governments and consumers in both importing and non-importing countries will apply pressure on Canada and the industry to fully account for the high environmental costs of this form of energy production, thereby making alternative, less polluting forms of energy, more viable.
The proposed investment protection rules in the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), however, could obstruct both these paths to a more environmentally sustainable future.
Should the rights of multinational investors trump democratic rights and the protection of the environment?
This briefing paper is based on remarks by CCPA trade analyst Scott Sinclair given at the Trading Tar Sands forum held in the European Parliament on July 12, 2011. The event was organised by the UK Tar Sands Network and chaired by Keith Martin, MEP (Greens) and Kriton Arsenis, MEP (Socialists and Democrat).
To read the paper click here.
In ongoing Canada-EU trade negotiations, the European Commission is seeking full coverage of sub-national (provincial and municipal) procurement. In Canada, as in Europe, many important public services, such as waste, water and public transit, are delivered by local authorities.
The exclusion of local purchasing and services from the procurement restrictions of trade treaties has provided policy flexibility to use such purchasing as a tool for local economic development. It has also reduced the risk of litigation and demands for compensation from foreign investors and service providers when privatisation schemes are halted or reversed.
In this briefing paper, based on his remarks to a Centre for Civic Governance event held in conjunction with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ annual conference, Scott Sinclair explores the implications of the Canada-EU CETA for municipal governments.
Click here to read it.
“We need the CCPA to remind us that our dreams of a decent, egalitarian society are reasonable — indeed that with a little work, they are practical. And I love that practicality, that protection of the dream of the possible.”
— Naomi Klein