# TPP Trade Talks Progress and Might Get a Deal



## fatcat

we have talked about this in other threads but it's worth it's own thread since it can have far reaching effects on canada

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-on-pharma-protection-in-tpp/article26643347/

it looks like they might be making progress and even getting by the major sticking point of dairy quotas which are opposed vehemently by farmers ... this is something that might cost harper votes with that constituency

my concern all along has been the effect on intellectual property, copyright, fair use, hacking, privacy and so on
michael geist has has always carried the spear on this one really well 

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/09/the-tpp-end-game-and-the-canadian-election/


----------



## sags

From what I have read, Canada will give up supply management, but the US and other countries will keep their agricultural subsidies in place.

This reminds me of years ago, when we lived in a small town close to larger centres who were vying for the Canada Games.

The municipal council was lobbied to hold an event, which would require the purchase of a specialized floor for the community centre floor, to host men's Olympic style wrestling.

The cost was several hundred thousand dollars, and after much prediction of vast economic gains to the community was approved.

As time went on and the floor was purchased and installed, the council sought a meeting with the head promoters of the games and asked about other events they could host.

Sorry, they were told................all the premier events are scheduled for bigger centres...............but thanks for your participation.

The wrestling venue was a big flop..................attended by nobody other than a handful of family and friends of the competitors.

Apparently sweaty men grappling around with each other doesn't attract a big audience...............who would have thought.

It just reminds me.................we should know the full cost and benefits of the TPP, rather than accepting someone's words that it going to be just wonderful.

What is Canada losing and what is Canada gaining.............in plain English please.


----------



## andrewf

I share the concern about IP regulations. Seems TPP is an exercise in regulatory capture, with a bunch of IP-based businesses lobbying for unreasonable protections on patents, copyright, etc. Patents and copyright are already out of control and need to be dialed back. Copyright should be 40 years max.


----------



## fatcat

this will be presented to us a fait-accompli ...
it is one of the major issues of the Leap Manifesto, i.e. abolish all trade treaties
that is probably something in its favor i suppose (the TPP not the Manifesto :hopelessness

i have heard some scary things about changes to fair use and tracking downloaders and so on
the american media industry has been a big player in the tpp talks


----------



## humble_pie

a weakness in the NAFTA & CAFTA agreements is their chapter 11s. These allow a corporation to sue any party in a signatory country that it believes has harmed its inherent right to earn a profit.

a classic example would be a municipality or province passing a new environmental regulation, whereuponn an offshore corporation that had implanted a factory in the region then sues.

i'm assuming the trans-pacific would have its own chapter 11.

when i was researching obscure BC miner pacific rim, which sued impoverished el Salvador for lost profits under CAFTA, i was astonished to read the roster of cases being heard at the ICSID, which is the world bank's washington court that hears NAFTA & CAFTA disputes. That roster was enormous.

suppose a korean car company builds an automotive subsidiary in canada. Suppose the locals then change up environmental or labour regulations. Do we want korea car company to have the right, not only to sue, but most likely to win?

this supranational power of corporations to strike down local regional governments from their head offices on the other side of the planet, is what naomi klein warned about in her first bestseller No Logo.


----------



## dogcom

The stuff fatcat and now humble has come up with here worries me as well. It could start out well but be very troublesome down the road.


----------



## fatcat

we have hints at possible fallout regarding copyright as a result of tpp, though i don't see this as a deal killer for a trade deal that will be a plus for canada though i am frustrated by the fact that we won't see more dairy importation and thus better pricing for consumers

new zealand has said it will bring its 50 year copyright into harmony with the "standard' tpp 70-year term

canada has a 50 year term so we will see whether or not it too now goes to 70, it seems likely

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/10/...g-the-public-on-the-tpp-copyright-provisions/


----------



## sags

The TPP and Harper remind me of Wrong Way Corrigan.......

He took off in his airplane from New York City, bound for Los Angeles and got turned around ending up landing in Dublin, Ireland.

http://blogs.britannica.com/2008/07/2704/

Canada's trade balance for August was negative 2.5 Billion dollars. Please stop with the bad trade deals. We can't afford any more of them.


----------



## fatcat

i don't think it is bad on its face but we would all like to see the details
it opens up huge new markets that can give a big boost to canadian exports especially with our low dollar


----------



## humble_pie

not sure why we'd need dairy imports that might lower price per litre by a penny. But then again, might not. Do we really need milk from US cows all slopped up with bovine growth hormone? 

i'm not going to even _think_ what they're feeding to chickens in china. Please, i'm cooking supper over here.


----------



## scorpion_ca

Canada’s auto industry could lose 20,000 jobs because of TPP trade deal, union says

http://business.financialpost.com/n...cause-of-disastrous-tpp-trade-deal-union-says


----------



## fatcat

based on the benefit package for the canadian auto workers union, this is an inevitability
you can teach people anywhere in the world how to put a part on a car
canadian auto workers are just too expensive and don't bring any special skills to the table that can't be found elsewhere for much less


----------



## bgc_fan

humble_pie said:


> not sure why we'd need dairy imports that might lower price per litre by a penny. But then again, might not. Do we really need milk from US cows all slopped up with bovine growth hormone?
> 
> i'm not going to even _think_ what they're feeding to chickens in china. Please, i'm cooking supper over here.


It was an odd selling point that you brought up: our standards are different in that we don't allow bovine growth hormone for cows that produce milk. I remember the stories about cross border shopping and how cheap milk is, but to have similar CDN standards, you would have to buy the more expensive organic type milk.

It may be an opportunity for exports for other goods, but without exact details it is hard to say.


----------



## dogcom

humble_pie said:


> not sure why we'd need dairy imports that might lower price per litre by a penny. But then again, might not. Do we really need milk from US cows all slopped up with bovine growth hormone?
> 
> i'm not going to even _think_ what they're feeding to chickens in china. Please, i'm cooking supper over here.


With US chicken and milk you do have to question what is done to the animals and how it can effect us. I buy Washington State chicken that advertises no hormones, free range and such on the packages.

http://www.drapervalleyfarms.com/our_chicken.htm

The cheaper chicken from California or somewhere else I wouldn't buy.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> not sure why we'd need dairy imports that might lower price per litre by a penny. But then again, might not. Do we really need milk from US cows all slopped up with bovine growth hormone?
> 
> i'm not going to even _think_ what they're feeding to chickens in china. Please, i'm cooking supper over here.


an obvious benefit of say lifting all dairy quotas completely is that we would be paying a lot less and seeing a much greater selection of dairy products especially including cheeses and butters and so on

at the same time we would lose food security as we lose the non-competitive dairies ... i can see both sides of the issue


----------



## humble_pie

the proposed dairy penetration rate was so low i couldn't quite understand why they were bothering. It's something like 3.25% for milk & dairy products, 2.10% for poultry.

to dogcom: there must be big regional differences in supermarkets across canada? i've never seen US poultry for sale, or poultry from any other country. There seem to be plenty of organic meat & poultry farms in quebec & in eastern ontario, their sales in supermarkets seem to increase every year.


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> an obvious benefit of say lifting all dairy quotas completely is that we would be paying a lot less and seeing a much greater selection of dairy products especially including cheeses and butters and so on



but cat i've mentioned BGH ... to put the issue another way, why should we opt for cheaper milk & dairy when the reason it's so cheap is because those cows are artificially stimulated by chemicals to produce more milk with no additional cost to the dairyman ... however the steroids get into the milk & may affect human beings especially young growing children.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> but cat i've mentioned BGH ... to put the issue another way, why should we opt for cheaper milk & dairy when the reason it's so cheap is because those cows are artificially stimulated by chemicals to produce more milk with no additional cost to the dairyman ... however the steroids get into the milk & may affect human beings especially young growing children.


well, there is a wide variability of milk in the usa from raw milk to milk with and without bgh (bgh isn't exactly a hit down in the states)

we could require labeling of milk with gbh and let consumers decide

if we removed all dairy quotas, which we are not even close to doing but *if*, we would see a wide range of butters and cheeses, milks and creams that would range across the spectrum in price and quality and composition

we really get the short end of the stick in canada and don't get nearly as wide a range of dairy products plus we pay more as well


----------



## LBCfan

humble_pie said:


> not sure why we'd need dairy imports that might lower price per litre by a penny. But then again, might not. Do we really need milk from US cows all slopped up with bovine growth hormone?
> 
> i'm not going to even _think_ what they're feeding to chickens in china. Please, i'm cooking supper over here.


Nothing like an educated answer. US milk prices are at least 40% lower than here. China is not one of the countries making the deal.


----------



## humble_pie

you don't think we're already enjoying a wide range of butters, cheeses, milks & creams that range in price, quality & composition?

cat when you write language like the above to describe delicious, fragrant, salty, heavenly food that smells of fresh clover & mushrooms & toasted walnuts, i get the feeling you must be talking about automotive parts or androids instead. I mean, the above is certainly not foodie talk!

perhaps i could invite you to quebec? we have spectacular, mouth-watering cheeses & creams. There are artisanal cheese makers producing cheese here that is, to put it bluntly, better than france. I can think of one whose sheep farm is near victoriaville, between montreal & quebec city. She produces at least 2 kinds of blue cheese that of course she cannot call roquefort. But they are sublime. In competitions that include native french cheeses, la moutonnière has often won the gold.


----------



## sags

Canadians would be well advised to do everything to secure our own food sources, and not rely on countries with few regulations and little oversight.

After reading about the origin of some of the fish that finds it's way into the supermarkets, I will only eat halibut..........because it is too big to put in a indescribably undesirable fish farm tank.

As I read more........I discovered that Costco will not buy fish products from China, as their buyers were appalled at the conditions at the fish farms. They order from specific farms in India and other places, that they regularly inspect. If a supplier doesn't measure up.............they get the boot.

China isn't a signatory of the TPP, but from what I have read there are numerous "end around" paths for China to deposit their goods into a TPP country and into the mix.

What we don't want.............is to drive our farmers out of business because they can't compete on prices.

Perhaps, regulation that informs..............in big bold letters.............the country of origin.

I would rather pay more and eat Canadian grown food, and shouldn't have to search to see where a product was actually grown.........not packaged or assembled..........grown.


----------



## sags

And I agree on Quebec.

Went to Montreal for a hockey game, and tasted some of the best food ever.

Even the hotdogs in the old Forum were so good, I had to go back for a couple more.

The breads, pastries, soups................unbelievably good...............not to mention French ladies..............ooh la la.........


----------



## humble_pie

here is my understanding, after living in france for a number of years. I'm putting the notion forward tentatively, though, so as not to get slagged as uneducated again.

french farmers are said to be heavily subsidized. On the whole, they grow high-quality non-GMO food & dairy products, which are abundantly sold at markets everywhere. The french even have GMO labels on all raw foods for retail consumers.

the french are a people who pursue good food, good cooking, la gastronomie & all the graces of the table with a passion that is akin to religious fervor. They are content to pay a premium for high food quality & careful labelling, all supported by a centralized government in paris.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> here is my understanding, after living in france for a number of years. I'm putting the notion forward tentatively, though, so as not to get slagged as uneducated again.
> 
> french farmers are said to be heavily subsidized. On the whole, they grow high-quality non-GMO food & dairy products, which are abundantly sold at markets everywhere. The french even have GMO labels on all raw foods for retail consumers.
> 
> the french are a people who pursue good food, good cooking, la gastronomie & all the graces of the table with a passion that is akin to religious fervor. They are content to pay a premium for high food quality & careful labelling, all supported by a centralized government in paris.


regulated markets rarely prosper when they come under pressure by unregulated / open markets, i suspect the french will face a day when if they want their exports to gain access to other markets, they will need to open their own not to mention that their closed markets are either expensive or heavily subsidized by the taxpayer who is demanding money in all kinds of other areas ... they will face pressure from mega-supermarkets, fast food and prepared food which will put their system under strain

the notion of local" food and "100" mile food and food security is misleading, the best kind of food security is trade and avenues of commerce and international standards of food safety, the ability to quickly and easily move food from part of the world to another

we may have good butter, eggs, dairy, seafood, potatoes, seafood and fish but we don't have chocolate, sugar, tea, coffee, oranges, olive oil, mangoes, bananas, avocados

i like to see open markets in most cases, it benefits everyone usually and mostly hurts old line cartels and monopolies

though, i confess i would one day like to taste a bresse chicken they are supposed to be that good ....

View attachment 6321


----------



## HaroldCrump

The issue with US dairy is not just BGH - it is also antibiotics.
Canadian dairy products are antibiotic free even without organic labeling.
OTOH, the only way to get guaranteed antibiotic and BGH free US dairy products is to buy organic - and, I use the word "guaranteed" loosely of course.

I personally do not mind paying more for BGH and antibiotic free dairy.


----------



## HaroldCrump

scorpion_ca said:


> Canada’s auto industry could lose 20,000 jobs because of TPP trade deal, union says


Typical union rhetoric.
But, it got the reaction they wanted - Harper ended up promising $1B subsidy to the auto sector, in addition to the $4.3B to the dairy sector.

Canadian unionized labor (Unifor/CAW/USW) has simply become uncompetitive, with or without TPP, at 75c. loonie or lower.
The choice for Canadian auto sector vis-a-vis the TPP was simple - have a small piece of a huge market, or have a big piece of a small market.

The number 20K is wildly exaggerated since the entire auto sector is about 80K - 100K, give or take.
Anyhow, even if it were true, 20K is better than 50K.


----------



## andrewf

$4.3 billion sop to the dairy industry for this very minor change is a bit scandalous, given that it has been estimated that the dairy farmers' quota could be bought out for $3.6-4.7 billion by buying it out at book value (what the farmer originally paid).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-smaller-than-expected-study/article17123557/

I would rather even bite the bullet on the $23 billion cost of buying out the quota at market prices than this pathetic quarter-measure.


----------



## sags

HaroldCrump said:


> Typical union rhetoric.
> But, it got the reaction they wanted - Harper ended up promising $1B subsidy to the auto sector, in addition to the $4.3B to the dairy sector.
> 
> Canadian unionized labor (Unifor/CAW/USW) has simply become uncompetitive, with or without TPP, at 75c. loonie or lower.
> The choice for Canadian auto sector vis-a-vis the TPP was simple - have a small piece of a huge market, or have a big piece of a small market.
> 
> The number 20K is wildly exaggerated since the entire auto sector is about 80K - 100K, give or take.
> Anyhow, even if it were true, 20K is better than 50K.


As I understand it the $1 Billion auto subsidy goes directly to the auto companies, not the unions or the workers who lose their jobs.


----------



## sags

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders..........all the front runners in the US Presidential election, have said they won't sign the TPP.

The political observations in the US has been the TPP likely wouldn't pass the scrutiny of the Senate and Congress, without major changes in any event.

It has been touted as an "up or down" vote..........so it will likely be "down".


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders..........all the front runners in the US Presidential election, have said they won't sign the TPP.
> 
> The political observations in the US has been the TPP likely wouldn't pass the scrutiny of the Senate and Congress, without major changes in any event.
> 
> It has been touted as an "up or down" vote..........so it will likely be "down".


i doubt it 

these initial reactions are standard political speak designed to talk directly to the base, bernie sanders plays to labor and hilary to the environment and the gop to big business, they always ho-hum and have "concerns" when the spotlight is on but as interest fades and the boring detail work of counting votes gets going and the public forgets, the politicians will find things they like and compromises that "assuage their concerns " etc

this thing is 5 solid years in the making, it has been run up the flagpole well behind the scenes many a time you can be sure, all kinds of people on all sides have looked at this and it has some big backers behind it

i suspect it will get done before obama leaves office


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> As I understand it the $1 Billion auto subsidy goes directly to the auto companies, not the unions or the workers who lose their jobs.


All the subsidies and bailouts go, directly and indirectly, towards retaining and ensuring the privileges of the unionized workforce (Unifor/CAW etc.).
Most of the money from the 2009 bailout went towards reducing the underfunding of the pensions and health care plans.

The companies themselves are already receiving separate billions in subsidies, credits, etc. that are bribes to keep them from relocating overseas.
Such as *this* and *this*.


----------



## HaroldCrump

*Tom Mulcair aligns himself with Mrs. Whitewater over TPP*.
He will also cheer and applaud Mrs. Whitewater when she rejects the Keystone Pipeline, assuming Obama does not reject it first.


----------



## dogcom

The scary thing I am hearing about the TPP is that if certain entities don't like what you are saying they can shut you down. If for example you were critical of the COMEX you could get muzzled for it because it could hurt the COMEX business. I could be saying this wrong because I am in a rush here, but this internet censorship thing could give corporations and government power over our rights in free speech and letting them to do whatever they want which is scary.


----------



## fatcat

dogcom said:


> The scary thing I am hearing about the TPP is that if certain entities don't like what you are saying they can shut you down. If for example you were critical of the COMEX you could get muzzled for it because it could hurt the COMEX business. I could be saying this wrong because I am in a rush here, but this internet censorship thing could give corporations and government power over our rights in free speech and letting them to do whatever they want which is scary.


they are called SLAPP lawsuits and most first world countries are enacting laws against them ... i have also heard that this might be a part of tpp as well ... it may (and we don't know yet) be harder to speak out against corporations .... i think we need to learn more


----------



## s123

This point is a very concerned about TPP.
How's Canada deal with this situation?


The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would grant foreign corporations extraordinary new powers to attack the laws we rely on for a clean environment, essential services, and healthy communities. Foreign corporations would be empowered to bypass domestic courts and directly "sue" the U.S. government before a tribunal of private lawyers that sits outside of any domestic legal system. These lawyers would be authorized to order the U.S. 

https://www.citizen.org/tppinvestment


What is TPP? How Secret Trade Deals Hurt Our Families :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4ZsV7hSzaQ


----------



## sags

The TPP reminds me of the Donald Rumsfeld quote..........

_There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. 

That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

_


----------



## HaroldCrump

Edward Snowden tweeted this yesterday


----------



## fatcat

i think we all need to relax and see the language, mr. snowden needs to use his firepower with more care

michael geist has written a lot about tpp http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2015/10/...ts-to-longer-term-urge-isps-to-block-content/

and he is unhappy with a 20 year extension of copyright, a requirement that isp's block pirate websites, also, i am concerned about provisions involving digital locks and rights management and especially the blocking of devices at the border that might contravene these provisons

the usa entertainment industry has been a big player in these talks because lets face it they have a huge export, namely entertainment in the form of movies, music and tv

i have no idea if more bargaining can take place and the treaty faces ratification in all the countries so we have a ways to go


----------



## s123

Europe seems more aware about TTIP.
Eye opening...

Published: 23:46 GMT, 10 October 2015 | Updated: 02:36 GMT, 11 October 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-against-controversial-Europe-trade-deal.html


The streets of Berlin were flooded with an estimated 150,000 protesters tonight, as furious activists campaigned against a controversial free trade deal between Europe and the United States.


- WHAT IS THE TTIP AND HOW WOULD IT AFFECT PEOPLE IN THE EU AND US? 

But critics believe the deal's cons dramatically outweigh the pros. 

One of its key aims it to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to U.S. companies, which could essentially mean the *privatisation of the NHS.
*
On food safety and the environment, the TTIP deal would seek to bring EU standards closer to those of the U.S. 

But regulations across the Atlantic are much more lenient, with *70 per cent* of all processed foods sold in U.S. supermarkets now containing genetically-modified ingredients.

In the *EU*, virtually *no GM ingredients* are currently permitted.

The use of pesticides are also far more relaxed in the U.S., which uses *growth hormones* in its beef which are *restricted in Europe due to links to cancer.
*
EU regulations are also far stricter on potentially toxic substances being introduced into the market and the environment. In Europe, some *1,200* substances are banned from use in cosmetics; the U.S. however has banned just *12*.

But one of the most feared elements of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (*ISDS*), which would allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies result in a loss of profits.

Protesters have branded the trade deal ‘anti-democratic’ for this element, as it would allow multinationals an element of control over what democratically-elected governments can and can’t do.


----------



## sags

This sums up what citizens think of their trade negotiators and the TPP "model".

(Adult language)

https://youtu.be/aiLk9tlE-h8


----------



## s123

sags said:


> This sums up what citizens think of their trade negotiators and the TPP "model".
> 
> (Adult language)
> 
> https://youtu.be/aiLk9tlE-h8


anda:


----------



## s123

I’m getting known more about TPP each day.
I see more riskier than good deals. 
---

Fact check: Canadians likely to lose more than they gain under TPP
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/fac...dians-likely-to-lose-more-they-gain-under-tpp

One of the key industries that stands to lose the most under the TPP is agriculture. To woo Conservative poultry, egg and dairy farmers, especially in Ontario, Harper has promised to pay them $4.3 billion in subsidies. This could be paid out over the next decade. Harper doesn't have the authority to simply promise such a pay out.
To help pay for anticipated losses in the auto industry, Harper has promised another subsidy of $1 billion over 10 years.

To sum: Canadians will pay $5.3 billion in subsidies over 10 years to pay for what might end up being $3.5 billion more to Canada's economy, over an untold number of years.


----------



## fatcat

s123 said:


> I’m getting known more about TPP each day.
> I see more riskier than good deals.
> ---
> 
> Fact check: Canadians likely to lose more than they gain under TPP
> http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/fac...dians-likely-to-lose-more-they-gain-under-tpp
> 
> One of the key industries that stands to lose the most under the TPP is agriculture. To woo Conservative poultry, egg and dairy farmers, especially in Ontario, Harper has promised to pay them $4.3 billion in subsidies. This could be paid out over the next decade. Harper doesn't have the authority to simply promise such a pay out.
> To help pay for anticipated losses in the auto industry, Harper has promised another subsidy of $1 billion over 10 years.
> 
> To sum: Canadians will pay $5.3 billion in subsidies over 10 years to pay for what might end up being $3.5 billion more to Canada's economy, over an untold number of years.


what you miss completely is the billions of dollars we consumers will save on dairy, eggs and poultry over the next decade

do you think harper wants to sign because he wants to destroy canadian business ? ... 

no, he wants access to other markets and more competition in canada

do the math, the lowering of tariffs means we will have not only more products to choose from, we also have more price competition

businesses won't be bothering to export into canada if they don't have competitive products, it makes no sense, they have good products at good and better prices

you are spouting typical socialist job protection nonsense, this is why the ndp is going to lose, they get up to this kind of silliness


----------



## andrewf

I don't think Harper went far enough in liberalizing supply management. If we are going to be throwing billions at farmers, I want supply management totally dismantled, not this tiny baby step in that direction.


----------



## GoldStone

andrewf said:


> I don't think Harper went far enough in liberalizing supply management. If we are going to be throwing billions at farmers, I want supply management totally dismantled, not this tiny baby step in that direction.


I agree. 

In fairness, he did more than Chretien/Martin (who did absolutely nothing).


----------



## HaroldCrump

Let's keep in mind Harper disbanded the Wheat Board.
I remember all the hue & cry back in 2011/12 from the wheat boards.
All that fear mongering, all that doom & gloom about protecting Canadian farmers, Canadian jobs, Canadian consumers, etc...

It's true Harper has not done enough to reform supply management, but he has done more than any of the last few administrations.


----------



## s123

fatcat said:


> what you miss completely is the billions of dollars we consumers will save on dairy, eggs and poultry over the next decade
> 
> do you think harper wants to sign because he wants to destroy canadian business ? ...
> 
> no, he wants access to other markets and more competition in canada
> 
> do the math, the lowering of tariffs means we will have not only more products to choose from, we also have more price competition
> 
> businesses won't be bothering to export into canada if they don't have competitive products, it makes no sense, they have good products at good and better prices
> 
> you are spouting typical socialist job protection nonsense, this is why the ndp is going to lose, they get up to this kind of silliness



remember?
Canada being sued for billions under NAFTA investor protections
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...illions_under_nafta_investor_protections.html

Now we deal with
Fact check: Canadians likely to lose more than they gain under TPP
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/fact...gain-under-tpp

I am not attacking gov.
I just point out the problems that we should be inform before proceeding TPP deals. 
The gov. are dealing with under huge pressure from Investor.
Your request won't be reached to the gov. unless speaking out.


----------



## s123

HaroldCrump said:


> Let's keep in mind Harper disbanded the Wheat Board.
> I remember all the hue & cry back in 2011/12 from the wheat boards.
> All that fear mongering, all that doom & gloom about protecting Canadian farmers, Canadian jobs, Canadian consumers, etc...
> 
> It's true Harper has not done enough to reform supply management, but he has done more than any of the last few administrations.


More information about Wheat Board.

Argentina moves to protect its wheat farmers
http://www.cwbafacts.ca/2015/02/argentina-moves-to-protect-its-wheat-farmers/

We have seen our share of the international wheat price decline from 90% with the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board to around 40%.

New projections that western Canadian farmers could see as little as 20% of the world price as the smaller Canadian grain handling firms are swallowed up by the international oligarchs means more trouble ahead.

So the news from Argentina shows that western Canadian farmers without the Wheat Board are actually worse off than Argentina’s wheat producers.


----------



## dogcom

Globe and Mail broke out some information today, front page on foreign workers and the TPP. We may be forced to accept it if a foreign corporation is the owner and it may be a problem for our labor laws and wages paid.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...on-temporary-foreign-workers/article26817494/

It sure is sounding more and more scary all the time as information is slowly leaked out.


----------



## sags

Yup, my brother in law is a wheat farmer in Saskatchewan, close to the US border.

He said many of the farmers around there were in favor of dismantling the CWB, thinking they would get a better price for their wheat.

It hasn't turned out as expected. They trucked their wheat to the US and were given a low offer..........take it or leave it, because there were lots of other wheat for sale.

Then they started having the tires on their trucks slashed, and most have given up the idea............and are now complaining about Harper dismantling the board.

Once the big companies gobble up the competition..........they will set the price to farmers

On the TPP itself, more economists are coming out and saying that based on what they have seen, it is a very bad agreement for us.

One called it a "Trojan horse" where tribunals that are adjudged by corporate lawyers will take precedent over the law.

American company Bilcon is seeking $300 million from the government of Nova Scotia after winning a NAFTA ruling for being denied a quarry expansion.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1275735-bilcon-seeks-us300m-after-win-in-quarry-dispute

Since NAFTA, southern Ontario has lost 500,000 manufacturing jobs. 

Any "free trade" deal has to include clauses that ensure equal labour and environmental structures in the TPP countries.

Otherwise it is a race to the bottom, as corporations move production to the country with the lowest cost of production.

Neither NAFTA or the TPP contain any such clauses.

Pretty well all the experts agree that Harper could reveal the total text of the TPP agreement before the election.

The fact that he has chosen not to.............raises a lot of concern.

Free trade..........but fair trade, is what we need.


----------



## dogcom

Free trade agreements should always be fair trade agreements sags. Standards on working conditions, wages, impact on environment and so on should be part of all agreements. Also the agreement should be voted or agreed on in its related parts and not the whole agreement. So first you get the agreement on the wages, standards environment and all parts related to workers and the corporations. Then you separate things like internet security and things not really related to free trade. 

In the end you may get a deal on free trade but not the other unrelated or kind of related items. So we get a free trade deal but not filled with a bunch of other crap. This might not make sense but I hope it does.


----------



## fatcat

what is laughable here about all of you doomsayers with regard to a trade deal (of which we know very little, and no country has revealed the details in deal, it isn't some conspiracy by stephen harper, handyman of the devil) is that you somehow think that harper is going to promote a deal that is bad for his own country ... this makes no sense, none, he wants to sign to give us access to foreign markets and if we aren't fairly treated, then we can sue

you guys do have harper derangement syndrome and you have a bad case

worldwide trade is an inevitability and the canadian worker and businessman is going to have to adjust to it and become competitive ... period ... the canadian auto workers union do not sell a competitive product and they need to find that out

closed markets and protectionist policies do not work

you guys are completely ignoring the benefits to us by virtue of our ability to export our products and have more choice as consumers

which is not to say that i don't have some concerns about the tpp with regards to ip and copyright and internet access and speech


----------



## sags

How cheap are IPhones made in China, Nike shoes made in China, major league team caps made in China, or cars made in Japan ?

They aren't cheap. The corporations sell their products for full price and put the extra profit in their offshore accounts.

They are even screwing their shareholders, by not putting that money to work growing the company or paying it out in dividends.

The Conservative Mulroney government screwed Canadians on NAFTA, and the Conservative government of Harper wants to screw Canadians with the TPP.

They are converts of the failed conservative economics of people like Milton Friedman, whose theories have been consistently proven wrong.

Theories on deregulation, trickle down economics, unequal free trade..................have a place preserved for them in history right beside the dinosaur poo.


----------



## dogcom

I don't think it is conspiracy theory to worry about important documents that is being signed on our behalf. Also if you take out the natural resources we sell how have we done under NAFTA? I think we did cover this one already but I suspect the biggest gains were probably to our stock portfolios. 

On the other hand do these deals give more access to what is important like our resources and laws or bypassing our laws. In return it may give us better access to exploit other countries but to who's benefit. To me it sounds a lot more about exploitation and less about helping average Canadians get ahead. 

The biggest loser in Canada I could see with less access would probably be the lumber industry.


----------



## s123

I think most people read the important documents before signing.

The problems of deals are unclear.
Why make such a big deal to be release TPP full text to the public before signing?
After the full text then we can start discuss.
It shouldn’t be skipped the first step.

--
If Malaysia can release TPPA text before it’s signed and say no deal without “fast track”, why can’t NZ?
http://itsourfuture.org.nz/nz-should-follow-malaysia-lead-in-releasing-tppa-text/

---
TPPA vital in ensuring Malaysia remains competitive - Mustapa
http://english.astroawani.com/busin...ng-malaysia-remains-competitive-mustapa-76681


TPPA will be tabled and debated in the Parliament in the mid of January and will only be signed upon approval by the Parliament.

“If signed, TPPA will move into a two-year ratification phase where the rules and regulations will be streamlined based on it. And if the laws tabled is not approved by the Parliament, then Malaysia can cancel the agreement,” said Mustapa.

He said the contents of the TPPA will be made public in the next few weeks to provide transparent information to the people and this move was being made by almost all members involved in it.


----------



## fatcat

s123 said:


> I think most people read the important documents before signing.
> 
> The problems of deals are unclear.
> Why make such a big deal to be release TPP full text to the public before signing?
> After the full text then we can start discuss.
> It shouldn’t be skipped the first step.
> 
> --
> If Malaysia can release TPPA text before it’s signed and say no deal without “fast track”, why can’t NZ?
> http://itsourfuture.org.nz/nz-should-follow-malaysia-lead-in-releasing-tppa-text/
> 
> ---
> TPPA vital in ensuring Malaysia remains competitive - Mustapa
> http://english.astroawani.com/busin...ng-malaysia-remains-competitive-mustapa-76681
> 
> 
> TPPA will be tabled and debated in the Parliament in the mid of January and will only be signed upon approval by the Parliament.
> 
> “If signed, TPPA will move into a two-year ratification phase where the rules and regulations will be streamlined based on it. And if the laws tabled is not approved by the Parliament, then Malaysia can cancel the agreement,” said Mustapa.
> 
> He said the contents of the TPPA will be made public in the next few weeks to provide transparent information to the people and this move was being made by almost all members involved in it.


stop shilling for big-labour .... harper has said he will release the details of tpp as would any government before it was voted on


----------



## HaroldCrump

Big Labor's position on both sides of the border is incorrigible, but esp. in Canada.

Don't they realize that walking away from TPP means adieu to the lucrative, unionized, jobs-for-life with benefits and pensions?
So, what would big labor prefer - to share the jobs with other emerging countries, or lose all the remaining jobs and just live on dole?

Or perhaps they want a government that can walk away from all foreign trade, build walls around our borders, batten down the hatches and basically have a domestic economy.
Produce locally, buy locally, and consume locally.
And that will allow them to go back to the golden age of manufacturing?


----------



## Xoron

fatcat said:


> what you miss completely is the billions of dollars we consumers will save on dairy, eggs and poultry over the next decade


I hope we can get access to some of that cheap cooking oil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04

Or cheaper baby formula (boy that stuff can be expensive)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

And even cheaper eggs
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/06/how-to-make-a-rotten-egg/


----------



## fatcat

Xoron said:


> I hope we can get access to some of that cheap cooking oil.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrv78nG9R04
> 
> Or cheaper baby formula (boy that stuff can be expensive)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
> 
> And even cheaper eggs
> http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/06/how-to-make-a-rotten-egg/


no argument from me ... i avoid just about any food that originates in china
hong kong, singapore and taiwan are ok but china, forget it ...

its worth noting that china is not part of the tpp
i have no idea what kind of food inspection they have in brunei, malaysia and vietnam


----------



## s123

Very high debt (Public debt as more than 120% of GDP): Japan, Greece, Italy
High debt (Public debt as more than 85% of GDP) : Canada, Germeny, France, UK,

What are we doing wrong?
Where is our money go?
Will TPP help Canada?


- World debt comparison
The global debt clock
Our interactive overview of government debt across the planet
http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock

- Economics 101 -- "How the Economic Machine Works."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0

Created by Ray Dalio this simple but not simplistic and easy to follow 30 minute, animated video answers the question, "How does the economy really work?" Based on Dalio's practical template for understanding the economy, which he developed over the course of his career, the video breaks down economic concepts like credit, deficits and interest rates, allowing viewers to learn the basic driving forces behind the economy, how economic policies work and why economic cycles occur.


----------



## fatcat

something is clearly foul with our fowl
http://business.financialpost.com/n...rs-say-theres-fowl-play-across-the-u-s-border

usa producers sneaking chicken across the border labelled as funky chicken (parts, bits and pieces good for hot dogs only) that apparently is really finger-lickin good chicken (breast meat and top-quality broiler birds)

apparently stopping this flow of hot chicken across the border isn't very easy and tpp may or may not help

why can't we just erase all the rules regarding chicken and let our guys export and compete with the americans ?

are we canadians that bad at the game of chicken ?


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> ... apparently stopping this flow of hot chicken across the border isn't very easy and tpp may or may not help




cat this story is hilarious.

an organic farmer told me that hens are only good for laying up to the age of 2 years. After 2 years their egg production starts to fall.

the problem is that hens live on for approximately 12 years. The cost of keeping them alive is far too high, so they become spent fowl. At the ripe old age of 2.10 years, a poor girl is already destined for the abattoir. She's good for chicken pot pie at best, chicken soup powder at worst.

but is there really any difference in the quality of her meat between the ages of 103 weeks & 105 weeks? probably no difference whatsoever.

it's hard to blame a new york state chicken farmer who espies nearby canada, with notoriously lax border inspection. It's a snap, says yankee farmer to himself. I'll just slap a broiler chicken label on these golden girls. After all, their pedigrees aren't known.

if i'm lucky, continues upstate yankee, the girls will even pass by a border inspector who doesn't speak english.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> cat this story is hilarious.
> 
> an organic farmer told me that hens are only good for laying up to the age of 2 years. After 2 years their egg production starts to fall.
> 
> the problem is that hens live on for approximately 12 years. The cost of keeping them alive is far too high, so they become spent fowl. At the ripe old age of 2.10 years, a poor girl is already destined for the abattoir. She's good for chicken pot pie at best, chicken soup powder at worst.
> 
> but is there really any difference in the quality of her meat between the ages of 103 weeks & 105 weeks? probably no difference whatsoever.
> 
> it's hard to blame a new york state chicken farmer who espies nearby canada, with notoriously lax border inspection. It's a snap, says yankee farmer to himself. I'll just slap a broiler chicken label on these golden girls. After all, their pedigrees aren't known.
> 
> if i'm lucky, continues upstate yankee, the girls will even pass by a border inspector who doesn't speak english.


"honestly officer, this old girl, she's tired, she's been pooping eggs for 2 solid years, she just wants some peace, she's skin and bones, please, can't you look the other way and let her become bouillon cubes ? ... really, it's her dearest wish ... look at those scrawny thighs ... colonel sanders won't even take her for gods sake !"


----------



## humble_pie

no no cat, it's the other way around. Those aging golden gals, egged on by a wiley new york state chicken marketing board, are trying to cross the border into ontario & quebec under the pretence they're young broiler chicks.

what's even cagier is when the americans cook the stringy spent birds stateside, then freeze the morsels into meal prepacks that are shipped to canada. Who'd ever know what a mcChicken nugget is, really. Who'd even know if it's chicken, really.

remember that grandaddy recipoe coq au vin? it's an elderly rooster that's been slowly simmered in red wine for all the hours it takes to tenderize him into a tasty dish.

see, cat, this is what your free trade in food is going to create. It's not going to give us more & better food choices, the way you say. It might give us cheaper food choices but that'll be because catfood is indeed cheap.

what'll happen is that food products everywhere will sink lower & lower in quality, until everybody in the free trade zone is eating universal dogfood.


----------



## s123

humble_pie said:


> no no cat, it's the other way around. Those aging golden gals, egged on by a wiley new york state chicken marketing board, are trying to cross the border into ontario & quebec under the pretence they're young broiler chicks.
> 
> what's even cagier is when the americans cook the stringy spent birds stateside, then freeze the morsels into meal prepacks that are shipped to canada. Who'd ever know what a mcChicken nugget is, really. Who'd even know if it's chicken, really.
> 
> remember that grandaddy recipoe coq au vin? it's an elderly rooster that's been slowly simmered in red wine for all the hours it takes to tenderize him into a tasty dish.
> 
> see, cat, this is what your free trade in food is going to create. It's not going to give us more & better food choices, the way you say. It might give us cheaper food choices but that'll be because catfood is indeed cheap.
> 
> what'll happen is that food products everywhere will sink lower & lower in quality, until everybody in the free trade zone is eating universal dogfood.



Yup!

Why are North America’s Food Standards much lower than EU?
No wonder more people are sick and obese.

The good foods strengthen our health and immune system.

I’ve always looked for those quality foods that are No GMO, No synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, No antibiotic & no preservatives in meat with Local / Made in Canada. (It’s hard to find in my local store)

We’ve tried buy less processed foods also.
It seems everyone stays in good health and no regular medication is needed. 

I’d like to see Canadian foods / environment standard aim to EU standard.
That will lead to better Canadian health.


----------



## sags

Well..............that is an unappetizing thought Humble.

We buy whole chickens at upscale markets.............although that may not mean anything really, and cut them up ourselves.

Chicken nuggets...............not a chance. Wings and legs, we will take a chance on. It is kind of hard to fake those.

I was reading about the state of fish farming........the popularity of Tilapia and all that. It is pretty eye-opening and we are careful where we buy fish.

Give me good old Alberta AAA beef, Canadian range chickens,....and wholesome Canadian produce any day.


----------



## fatcat

pie, just addressing the first part of the story, i think you are incorrect

what is happening is that they are trying export good quality birds i.e. broiler birds ... *disguised* as low quality birds i.e. "spent fowl", i.e. old gals who have been ruined by childbirth (or would-be childbirth as it were)

there is no quota on "spent fowl" but major quotas on broiler birds

you are saying that the golden gals are disguised as broiler birds when it is the other way around

in any event, the mcnugget of information that is laid out before us in the article is an eggscelent example of fowl play at our borders and possibly, in our coops


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> pie, just addressing the first part of the story, i think you are incorrect ...



thanks for the post, cat. I'll have to go back & read the article again, for sure.

why would they be passing off luscious young chicks as stringy old hens, though.

would it be because there are no limits or much higher limits on spent fowl coming into canada? then once the birds are here, a colluding poultry wholesaler can rip off the spent fowl labels & before you can say cinderella! the imported old gals have metamorphosed back into the succulent young broilers they really are?

all that would require significant collaboration between dealers on either side of the border, though, wouldn't it?

in a related development, cat i'm thinking that one of these days Plugging & i should come & cook for you.

have you seen Plug's post on french toast drenched with homemade organic nanking cherry compote. Needless to say, the french toast eggs were organic eggs from a hen on a nearby farm named something adorable, like Harriet or Giselle.

would you like that, cat.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> would it be because there are no limits or much higher limits on spent fowl coming into canada? then once the birds are here, a colluding poultry wholesaler can rip off the spent fowl labels & before you can say cinderella! the imported old gals have metamorphosed back into the succulent young broilers they really are?


 this is exactly it ... labeled, de-labeled and re-labeled, etc etc etc



> all that would require significant collaboration between dealers on either side of the border, though, wouldn't it?
> 
> in a related development, cat i'm thinking that one of these days Plugging & i should come & cook for you.
> 
> have you seen Plug's post on french toast drenched with homemade organic nanking cherry compote. Needless to say, the french toast eggs were organic eggs from a hen on a nearby farm named something adorable, like Harriet or Giselle.
> 
> would you like that, cat.


oooo ... yes, please ! ... can i ave anuver ? wiv more cherries ?


----------



## s123

I think everybody agree with the most important commodity is the clean water.

We can’t afford to keep mass consuming and carelessly polluting the water now.
The TPP may allow for significantly increased exports of oil & gas and Mass-Produced Food that contain a great amount of pesticides, antibiotics without the careful study or adequate protections necessary to safeguard the public.

Health standards already now do not sufficiently protect people and the environment.

A lot of countries are watching Canada closely.
We all would like to see the new gov. will actually step up and choose the best pass for Canadian. 


- The study has showed that about one third of Earth’s largest groundwater basins – 13 of the planet’s 37 – are being rapidly depleted while receiving little to no recharge.

“Given how quickly we are consuming the world’s groundwater reserves, we need a coordinated global effort to determine how much is left,”said UCI professor and principal investigator Jay Famiglietti,
https://www.rt.com/news/267898-nasa-study-world-water/

Critics have argued that the TPP has been negotiated in unusual secrecy and could have negative implications for human rights, national sovereignty, employment and the environment. Proponents claim the deal will spur global economic growth and create jobs.
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151022/1028904361/Scrutiny-Could-Force-Canada-Challenge-TPP.html


----------



## s123

s123 said:


> remember?
> 
> I am not attacking gov.
> I just point out the problems that we should be inform before proceeding TPP deals.
> The gov. are dealing with under huge pressure from Investor.
> Your request won't be reached to the gov. unless speaking out.


Good to see the Gov. & public are engaging.

Justin Trudeau answers B.C. voter's widely shared Facebook letter
http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/justin-trudeau-answers-public-letter-1.3287160


----------



## fatcat

trudeau will jabber about protecting canada's wonderful dairy industry and our lovely chickens and how he will protect high-paying skilled autoworkers jobs and the environment blah blah blah etc etc

and then he will sign the pact ...


----------



## mrPPincer

Farmers are in favour of the deal. 
If the other countries sign on, I think farmers' greatest worry is that the auto sector will screw it up, because it seems they (auto sector) may not be happy with it as it stands, but if we don't join up it will be tougher to get in later; we'd have to give up more.
If the other countries don't sign up it's a non-issue.


----------



## mrPPincer

Personally, I don't want added hormones in my milk products, so I hope we implement and enforce some stricter labelling rules regarding country of origin.


----------



## Spudd

You can look for a symbol of a blue cow saying "100% Canadian Milk" on your dairy products to ensure they're Canadian sourced. Milk & cream is currently all Canadian sourced, but other dairy products already may not be (i.e. cheese, yogurt, ice cream, butter). I just happened to be reading up on this.


----------



## fatcat

Spudd said:


> You can look for a symbol of a blue cow saying "100% Canadian Milk" on your dairy products to ensure they're Canadian sourced. Milk & cream is currently all Canadian sourced, but other dairy products already may not be (i.e. cheese, yogurt, ice cream, butter). I just happened to be reading up on this.


sure, and milk exporters are going to tout the benefits of their milk by labeling "bgh free" or "non-gmo feeds" or some such things, the market will respond and we will have more choice at lower prices


----------



## mrPPincer

^that's fine, you do ofc realise that US agriculture is heavily subsidized by their taxpayers, most especially the dairy industry, and our that system is not subsidized at all by the taxpayers..
With our supply management system we produce precisely what is needed, at cost, and in the stores the market determines the price.

It's a stable reliable system created by farmers that effectively keeps farms in the hands of families and does not rely on subsidization, unlike almost any other jurisdiction on the planet, and that's why all of the political parties stand behind it, in spite of all the blather coming from textbook-dogmatic-know-it-all-ivory-tower-talking-head-media-pundits that are paid to have an opinion on everything, even things of which it seems they know pretty much zilch.


----------



## mrPPincer

Oh, btw, during the election the previous gov't leader promised cash to farmers because of this TPP deal.
As I understand the situation right now, there will be no cash, and the farmers support the deal.


----------



## fatcat

mrPPincer said:


> ^that's fine, you do ofc realise that US agriculture is heavily subsidized by their taxpayers, most especially the dairy industry, and our that system is not subsidized at all by the taxpayers..
> With our supply management system we produce precisely what is needed, at cost, and in the stores the market determines the price.
> 
> It's a stable reliable system created by farmers that effectively keeps farms in the hands of families and does not rely on subsidization, unlike almost any other jurisdiction on the planet, and that's why all of the political parties stand behind it, in spite of all the blather coming from textbook-dogmatic-know-it-all-ivory-tower-talking-head-media-pundits that are paid to have an opinion on everything, even things of which it seems they know pretty much zilch.


but the canadian taxpayers are subsidizing our system by paying more money for milk, dairy and eggs and having less choice in the process ....


----------



## mrPPincer

^that's exactly the myth that's being perpetuated by the ignorant dogmatic in the media.

I picked this from a quick google search but there's lots of other attempts to explain to the layman out there.
http://www.albertamilk.com/supply-management/facts-myths/
I copy/pasted the whole thing, so apologies for the giant wall of text..


> *Facts & Myths*
> 
> Myth: Canadians pay significantly more for milk and dairy products than residents of other countries.
> Reality: Prices for Canadian dairy products are comparable to prices in other countries. Moreover, the part of Canadian disposable income spent on food – and dairy products – has decreased over the years. The USDA reports American cheddar cheese costs $12.54 per kilogram, and in Canada it is $13.70 (2011). In Canada, dairy farmers receive no government subsidies. The price of milk in stores varies from region to region and store to store. It cost between $4.00 to 6.00$ for 4 litres in Canada, while in the US, consumers pay about $1.00 a litre, in China $1.70, in Australia $1.00 to 1.55 $, in New Zealand $1.65.
> 
> Myth: Supply management is a barrier to efficiency and innovation.
> Reality: The jobs in the dairy industry have been created by the investments, creativity, resiliency of farmers and processors. Canadian dairy farmers have made investments and are considered world leaders in many ways – genetics, productivity, and animal welfare standards. Out of the 215 Canada’s cows showed at the World Dairy Expo, 93 (43%) were in the top 5! These are very impressive results and show that dairy farmers of Canada are well respected by their peers from all over the world.
> 
> Myth: Canada blocks imports of dairy products.
> Reality: Canada does not close the doors to imports. The EU, with heavy subsidies for dairy products, exports 10 times more dairy products to Canada than what it imports from us, even though it has more than 500 million consumers!
> 
> Myth: Supply management stops Canada from signing free trade agreements.
> Reality: Supply management hasn’t stood in the way of Canada’s ability to successfully negotiate trade agreements. Since 1986, Canada has concluded NAFTA and bilateral agreements with Jordan, Colombia, Peru, Costa Rica, Chile, Israel and EFTA (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). Canada is close to concluding a comprehensive trade deal with the European Union, and has been accepted in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations; all the while the government says it will defend supply management.
> 
> Myth: If Canada eliminated supply management, the price of dairy products would drop.
> Reality: In New Zealand, the most competitive milk producing country in the world, retail prices for dairy products are comparable to ours. Dairy farmers from California, United Kingdom, Australia and many other countries are in a precarious financial situation, as they get less for their milk and face increased input prices.
> The United Kingdom deregulated its dairy industry in 1995; Australia deregulated its drinking milk market in 2000. Farm price went down, but retail prices went up. When Canada experienced a case of BSE in 2003, beef farmers suffered a huge drop in price, but retail prices dropped a bit for a few months only before going up higher than before (even if beef farmers were still receiving lower prices).
> In the last few years, the global food crisis has meant rapidly increasing food prices around the world. Throughout it all, both farm and retail prices for dairy remained more stable in Canada.
> 
> Myth: The price of quota is a barrier to those wanting to enter dairy or poultry farming.
> Reality: Getting started in any type of farming nowadays is costly. Agricultural land values have risen astronomically in recent years, due in large part to increased grain prices. The number of farms in this country continued to shrink, yet farms are getting larger, because farmers who already own land are better able to leverage credit than outsiders. They also need more land to produce more to afford the increased costs of inputs. Alberta Milk has a New Entrant Program that helps relieve some of these start up costs associated with starting a farm. As well, our quota prices are set by the market.
> 
> Myth: Eliminating supply management in Canada would stop foreign agricultural subsidies.
> Reality: Rather than stopping government subsidies to farmers in the U.S. or Europe, scrapping supply management would allow subsidized milk to enter Canada, damage our dairy industry, make it difficult to find Canadian milk and dairy products and put pressure on our governments to subsidize our farmers. In the Canada’s Supply Managed Dairy Policy: How Do We Compare? study, second of a series of policy papers on the dairy supply management policy in Canada by the George Morris Centre for the Conference Board of Canada, it is recognized that dairy farmers’ of Canada do not rely on government’s fiscal support, unlike other countries, and that volatility is having severe effects on the dairy sector globally.
> 
> Myth: Only Canada manages imports of dairy products.
> Reality: Many countries use tariff rate quotas to limit the importation of various products, including milk and dairy products.
> 
> Myth: Canadian dairy farmers are subsidized by taxpayers.
> Reality: Canadian dairy farmers receive no government subsidies. European dairy farmers receive 55 billion Euros in subsidies per year and Americans paid $4 billion in dairy subsidies in 2009 – or about 31 cents per litre – in addition to retail prices. This money did not even all reach US farmers!
> - See more at: http://www.albertamilk.com/supply-management/facts-myths/#sthash.VFs3hEqr.dpuf


----------



## humble_pie

mrPPincer said:


> ^that's exactly the myth that's being perpetuated by the ignorant dogmatic in the media.
> 
> I picked this from a quick google search but there's lots of other attempts to explain to the layman out there.
> http://www.albertamilk.com/supply-management/facts-myths/
> I copy/pasted the whole thing, so apologies for the giant wall of text..



i feel like poor canute, the saxon standing on the english beach as the tides rolled in. Wasn't canute trying to stop the tide or something.

anyhow mister pincer there you go like so many others, blaming the media for everything.

what in your quote has anything to do with "the media" ? i really want to know each:

isn't the entire quote a PR plant from the alberta milk board, straight into wikipedia, which is a mostly-unedited people's wiki?

now a real journo would have done something completely different, would have presented pros & cons, etc.

but s'no fair, taking a one-side PR piece of propaganda & blaming "the media."

i know i know, debating like this is useless. I count myself incredibly, unbelievably, superextraordinarily lucky that once, just once, only recently, i was able to persuade dogcom that "the media" was not responsible for a particular piece of nonsense ...


----------



## humble_pie

mrPPincer said:


> Farmers are in favour of the deal



why are farmers in favour, though?


----------



## mrPPincer

Apologies, you're right, it's not fair to blame the entire media if it comes across that way, but I've heard it from multiple different voices in CBC lately, and I don't hear the other side, except across the lunch table from the farmers I work for.

Posting the old write-up from the aberta dairy farmer's site is maybe lazy, but it does cover most of the points, and particularly the statisics of jurisdictions that have moved away from supply management.
Consumer prices went up while prices paid to farmers went down.

I could have quoted a write-up from the Dairy Farmers of Canada that is very much similar to the Alberta one if you find the larger group somehow more credible, here, it's more recent too;
http://www.dairyfarmers.ca/what-we-do/supply-management/myths-realities

In any case it's a non-issue in terms of TPP going forward because as I mentioned earlier in the thread, farmers are in favour of the deal.

My attempt to clear up the myths came straight from the source, I'm just a middle-man, not a farmer, but a labourer for farmers, so I think their point of view on supply management carries more weight than mine, and definitely more weight than a journo or two* that are describing something to the public that they clearly do not understand the full value of. *(to be clear, not h_p, or the entire guild  )


----------



## humble_pie

Spudd said:


> Milk & cream is currently all Canadian sourced, but other dairy products already may not be (i.e. cheese, yogurt, ice cream, butter). I just happened to be reading up on this.



spudd would you have any info or links you could share. I've been meaning to read up on the cheese & yogurt foreign content issue, we are heavy on these although do not consume much ice cream or butter (butter has foreign content? who knew)

in recent years one has seen yoghurt prices come down to half what they used to be. This suggests to me that dairies found some way to greatly reduce costs. I thought the most likely explanation was that some kind of condensed or powder milk product from offshore was suddenly being used in yogurt production here.

low retail prices in yogurt spread from dairy to dairy, so that now a 750 ml container of plain yogurt is routinely on sale at $1.99 whereas 3-4-5 years ago the same brand used to be $3.49, 3.99 or even higher.

i'm also interested in so-called "organic" yogurt. I'd love to be better informed about this. Some containers of bio yoghurt do say milk from canadian cows. 

but if there are imported starter milk products for yoghurt, theoretically speaking it should also be possible to import so-called "organic" milk product for "organic" yogurt production. 

i have a sense of futility about asking a dairy's customer service centre for info on this issue, so for a long time i've been intending to read up on this myself. Any shared info would be most gratefully appreciated.


----------



## mrPPincer

humble_pie said:


> why are farmers in favour, though?


I don't know much about the dairy farmer's stand other than they announced they were for it.
I work for poultry farmers, and I got a chance to ask the one I'm working for this week.
He said although the percentage of imported goes up a bit, there were a lot of loopholes that will be closed.

For example all the meat from the breeder flocks were allowed in; they didn't count for whatever reason, that's a huge amount of meat.
Also if the product is under a certain percentage of meat, it was allowed in, so they could stuff a potato into each bird if they wanted and it wouldn't count.

We can compete, our product is better for one thing; for example our producers have gone to an air-cooled product as opposed to water-cooled, so you're not paying for extra absorbed water compared to poultry imported from the states.
Similarly with dairy; ours is hormone-free (meaning no hormones given to the cows), whereas in the states giving the cattle hormones to boost production is ubiquitous and unregulated.


----------



## humble_pie

^^

thanks, i see what your poultry farmer is saying.

interesting & lucky to have a conduit of information that is so close. Straight from the farmer to the forum, via yourself.

i do remember that the percentage increases to be allowed in dairy & poultry were very small, if i understand correctly you are saying that the farmers believe that many loopholes will be cleaned up, so they're content with the still-low import percentages?

i must admit that your reference to air cooled vs water cooled poultry chills me. Because everything here is water cooled. Water pours out of poultry when we roast a bird.

i'd used to buy a capon for thanksgiving from a local store. Owners had a relationship with a local poultry producer. Those capons had no water. They were delicious.

this year the capon i bought poured water into the roasting pan, did not taste quite so delicious. Now after reading your post above i find myself wondering if the grocery store owners had turned to another capon vendor, a cheaper vendor, perhaps an american vendor ...

labelling is going to be important.


----------



## mrPPincer

yep, in fact they expect some growth if it goes through it seems.
Agreed, labelling is going to be important.
It will be a good sign if we see our new government get right on that one.

Funny that the previous gov't promised cash compensation to farmers and still got turfed.
There will be no cash.

This from the farmer I'm working for this week.
btw, he and his wife, and the son that I work with, are all as delighted as most other voters, that we've finally turned that page


----------



## s123

mrPPincer said:


> yep, in fact they expect some growth if it goes through it seems.
> Agreed, labelling is going to be important.
> It will be a good sign if we see our new government get right on that one.
> 
> Funny that the previous gov't promised cash compensation to farmers and still got turfed.
> There will be no cash.
> 
> This from the farmer I'm working for this week.
> btw, he and his wife, and the son that I work with, are all as delighted as most other voters, that we've finally turned that page


I also think labelling is going to be important.

No Labeling = No choice 


Most of Cheese & Ice cream have GMO ingredient in it.
But it's on labeling so able to choose non GMO products.
I like to see more Non GMO + made in Canada products.


----------



## LBCfan

humble_pie said:


> why are farmers in favour, though?


Dairy and poultry producers aren't the only farmers in Canada. Grain, beef and pork producers are in favour since it gives them access to currently protected markets overseas.


----------



## fatcat

s123 said:


> I also think labelling is going to be important.
> 
> No Labeling = No choice
> 
> 
> Most of Cheese & Ice cream have GMO ingredient in it.
> But it's on labeling so able to choose non GMO products.
> I like to see more Non GMO + made in Canada products.


i agree ... we all deserve decent and accurate labeling ... as to country of origin, gmo, bgh, organic, non-organic, whatever



> Dairy and poultry producers aren't the only farmers in Canada. Grain, beef and pork producers are in favour since it gives them access to currently protected markets overseas.


 exactly, everyone misses the export side of this, our dairies and farmers can export out to all kinds of new markets

the kiwis have wanted access to our dairy markets for years, that tells me they have a better, more competitive product, since i don't think they are so stupid as to go into a market they haven't researched


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> i agree ... we all deserve decent and accurate labeling ... as to country of origin, gmo, bgh, organic, non-organic, whatever
> 
> the kiwis have wanted access to our dairy markets for years, that tells me they have a better, more competitive product, since i don't think they are so stupid as to go into a market they haven't researched



me i don't think we're going to get decent, accurate, origin, gmo, bgh, organic, bio, non-organic labelling. Who's going to pay for it? who's going to inspect for it? the food & drug division of health canada is a shadow of its former self. A canadian has to drop dead from botulism before they'll rouse themselves.

i love that last sentence about the kiwis though. Is this how global marketing works? to prove you have a better, more competitive mousetrap, just go sell it in some other poor, hapless, unsuspecting country. Immediately the world will know that you're offering a bravura product.

i'm in the mood for yellow humour today ... here's what i foresee ... in food quality there will be a regression to the global bottom as all countries seek to sell their cheapest, lowest cost, most adulterated food swill to other countries.

eventually, other than those islands of culinary quality france & quebec, there will be nothing left on the dinner tables of the planet except swill & swine food .:biggrin:


----------



## Spudd

humble_pie said:


> spudd would you have any info or links you could share. I've been meaning to read up on the cheese & yogurt foreign content issue, we are heavy on these although do not consume much ice cream or butter (butter has foreign content? who knew)
> 
> i have a sense of futility about asking a dairy's customer service centre for info on this issue, so for a long time i've been intending to read up on this myself. Any shared info would be most gratefully appreciated.


This is the link where I read it: http://www.dairygoodness.ca/100-percent-canadian-milk/100-percent-canadian-milk-faqs

It is put out by the dairy farmers so not impartial - but I can't imagine they would tell a bold-faced lie.


----------



## humble_pie

mrPPincer said:


> With our supply management system we produce precisely what is needed, at cost, and in the stores the market determines the price.
> 
> It's a stable reliable system created by farmers that effectively keeps farms in the hands of families and does not rely on subsidization, unlike almost any other jurisdiction on the planet, and that's why all of the political parties stand behind it, in spite of all the blather coming from textbook-dogmatic-know-it-all-ivory-tower-talking-head-media-pundits that are paid to have an opinion on everything, even things of which it seems they know pretty much zilch.



i wish i weren't such an ivory-talking-tower-headed-dim-witted lump of dough, but i still don't understand why - if supply management works so fine for them - the poultry & dairy farmers are wanting something new under TPP.

i know a dairy farmer in ontario who rails against the dairy board or commission or whatever they call themselves. The keepers of the quotas, them. This farmer has 1200 cows, he'd like to ramp up to 1800 or 2000 cows but can't obtain the quotas.

i haven't asked but i suspect he's been railing so long - at least an entire generation - that any new or refreshed situation looks inviting.


----------



## sags

From what my brother in law describes.........there is farmers and then there is corporate farming, and they tend to get lumped together.

The dismantling of the CWB was much sought after by corporate farms, who have the expertise to manage the free market system with scale production.

The small family farmer, without access or knowledge is left standing at the end of the line, begging someone to please accept his grain.

I don't know, as I am neither types of farmers and know little about the poultry and dairy industry..........other than our current system has worked well for a long time.

From what I read during the great CWB debate on agriculture forums and tidbits from family involved in family, it did seem to me that after being told for years that operating a farm was akin to operating a business, some farmers may have taken on the belief they could stand their ground with the capitalist sharks that own the mill conglomerates. 

What I heard were stories that the mills set the farmers in competition with each other for the lowest price........not the higher prices imagined.

The CWB sought the highest prices for their farm members. Private mills seek the lowest prices for profit.

It seems a perfectly natural result considering who each side represented.


----------



## s123

fatcat said:


> i agree ... we all deserve decent and accurate labeling ... as to country of origin, gmo, bgh, organic, non-organic, whatever
> 
> exactly, everyone misses the export side of this, our dairies and farmers can export out to all kinds of new markets
> 
> the kiwis have wanted access to our dairy markets for years, that tells me they have a better, more competitive product, since i don't think they are so stupid as to go into a market they haven't researched


anda:

The labeling become illegal that would be not good for the consumers.
Why it's not allowed to put on GMO labeling?


- Follow the Money
http://civileats.com/2015/09/30/gmo-labeling-fight-is-there-big-spending-on-both-sides/

A number of companies backing the JustLabelIt campaign, a collaborative effort of organizations and businesses working to label GMOs

Here’s what these groups spent in 2015 so far:

JustLabelIt: $580,000 ($60,000 of which was publicly disclosed for lobbying as the Organic Voices Action Fund.)
Organic Valley: $20,000
Organic Trade Association: $94,400 ($48,600 of which was publicly disclosed.)
U.S. Right-To-Know: $114,000
Environmental Working Group/EWG Action Fund: $467,000
Consumers Union: $150,000
Center for Food Safety: $20,000
Center for Science in the Public Interest: $30,000

Grand Total: $1,455,500


----------



## s123

Do you really want boost forest industries?
Is there any environment protection for the Canadian forest?


The Amazon tops the list at 23-48 million hectares of loss by 2030, according to WWF’s model.

Conspicuously absent from the “top 11 list” are boreal regions, which according to data released earlier this month by Global Forest Watch have lost upward of 15 million hectares in just Canada and Russia alone in the past two years. 

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/these-forests-are-about-to-start-disappearing-2015-5


----------



## peterk

> Conspicuously absent from the “top 11 list” are boreal regions, which according to data released earlier this month by Global Forest Watch have lost upward of 15 million hectares in just Canada and Russia alone in the past two years.


Just FYI, for anyone who's interested. The entire oil sands industry in Canada over a 2 year period (same as above) has disturbed about 13,000 hectares (0.08%), and the total inventory of all disturbed land in the entire region since the oil sands started roughly 50 years ago is about 90,000 hectares (0.6%) of the quoted 15 million.

The boreal forest in Canada and Russia (no need to say "alone" as the vast majority of boreal forest is in Canada and Russia ONLY) is some 1.2 BILLION hectares in size and the above 15 million in logging over 2 years is approximately 1.3% of that, Russia accounting for 64% of the figure.

Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

Vested interest organizations use statistics which promote their interest. They don't care about misinformation, the media does not corroborate information and the public laps it up if it fits their point of view. Nothing new here.

Logging is actually good for the environment. Ever since mankind found it to be in their interest to control and stop forest fires, our boreal forests have become unhealthy and choked with debris. We just don't like to look at clearcut slopes nor burnt out hillsides.


----------



## s123

If the deforest are a low demand, it would be less impact for the environment.
I understand the benefits of logging.
But I wasn't sure any benefit from clear cutting the forest.

If it's becoming massive volume and deforest excessively, 
the situation will be changed and a harmful to the environment. 

- Deforestation: Facts, Causes & Effects
http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html

Loss of species:
Seventy percent of the world’s plants and animals live in forests and are losing their habitats to deforestation, according to National Geographic. 

Water cycle:
Trees are important to the water cycle. They absorb rain fall and produce water vapor that is released into the atmosphere. Trees also lessen the pollution in water, according to the North Carolina State University, by stopping polluted runoff.

Soil erosion: 
Tree roots anchor the soil. Without trees, the soil is free to wash or blow away, which can lead to vegetation growth problems. 

"The situation in Haiti compared to the Dominican Republic is a great example of the important role forests play in the water cycle," Daley said. Both countries share the same island, but Haiti has much less forest cover than the Dominican Republic. 

As a result, Haiti has endured more extreme soil erosion, flooding and landslide issues.

- Benefits Of Logging
http://benefitof.net/benefits-of-logging/

1. Provides essential materials
2. Reduces risk of forest fires
3. Encourages new plant growth


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> me i don't think we're going to get decent, accurate, origin, gmo, bgh, organic, bio, non-organic labelling. Who's going to pay for it? who's going to inspect for it? the food & drug division of health canada is a shadow of its former self. A canadian has to drop dead from botulism before they'll rouse themselves.
> 
> i love that last sentence about the kiwis though. Is this how global marketing works? to prove you have a better, more competitive mousetrap, just go sell it in some other poor, hapless, unsuspecting country. Immediately the world will know that you're offering a bravura product.
> 
> i'm in the mood for yellow humour today ... here's what i foresee ... in food quality there will be a regression to the global bottom as all countries seek to sell their cheapest, lowest cost, most adulterated food swill to other countries.
> 
> eventually, other than those islands of culinary quality france & quebec, there will be nothing left on the dinner tables of the planet except swill & swine food .:biggrin:


this will all be remedied by mr. justin trudeau ... have you seen the hair on that guy ? what about his abs ?

this guy insists on high-quality food and more important so do his rabid millennial'ish supporters who just must have the best food and you better damn well tell me exactly where it comes from !

don't you worry your self pie, mr. justin trudeau is gonna take care of everything


----------



## s123

The learning TPP made more clears my mind lately.

While the consumers keep supporting the cheapest products, it’s also supporting 
Cheap labours, low quality goods, automation (mass production for cost down - the bigger is better), 
Jobless (compete with mass production, robot, software), less healthy, less protection of environment etc..

and
The consumers are creating economies.
It’s all up to the consumers to make themselves better or worse.


----------



## fatcat

http://business.financialpost.com/n...n-trans-pacific-partnership-full-text-reveals

OTTAWA — At long last, Canadians are getting a look — well, more like a peek — at the impact on consumers and companies of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
So far, it looks like it could be more positive than negative. The text of the 12-nation trade deal, signed by Canada and the others over a month ago, was released Thursday, and “the gains for consumers are there, for sure,” according to one trade expert.

Others believe the TPP will also level much of the playing field for industries around the region.

“Most of the visible gains are in trade liberalization in goods,” said Trevor Tombe, assistant professor of economics at the University of Calgary, specializing in international agreements.

“A lot of things that people had been fearing — changes in prescription drug prices — they’re just not there. Canada’s rules in that regard were already stricter than what is coming in with TPP,” Tombe said.

*“Gains for consumers are there, for sure.”*
.........................


----------



## s123

TFWs under TPP need to be reviewed from all Canadian.

---

Bad deal for Canadian workers, great for foreign corporate giants − labour group slams TPP :
http://thinkpol.ca/2015/11/06/bad-d...gn-corporate-giants-−-labour-group-slams-tpp/

The deal requires that all foreign companies be treated exactly the same as Canadian ones, even if those companies are run unethically in jurisdictions with lower environmental and humanitarian standards, the AFL added.

AFL warned that companies will be able to sue member governments for any regulation they provision which might impact their profits, while the section of the deal on labour rights contains virtually no meaningful guarantees on minimum labour or employment laws besides that they must exist.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s new Liberal government promised today to hold a “full public debate” before ratifying the deal negotiated and agreed in principle by former PM Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.


----------



## fatcat

s123 said:


> TFWs under TPP need to be reviewed from all Canadian.
> 
> ---
> 
> Bad deal for Canadian workers, great for foreign corporate giants − labour group slams TPP :
> http://thinkpol.ca/2015/11/06/bad-d...gn-corporate-giants-−-labour-group-slams-tpp/
> 
> The deal requires that all foreign companies be treated exactly the same as Canadian ones, even if those companies are run unethically in jurisdictions with lower environmental and humanitarian standards, the AFL added.
> 
> AFL warned that companies will be able to sue member governments for any regulation they provision which might impact their profits, while the section of the deal on labour rights contains virtually no meaningful guarantees on minimum labour or employment laws besides that they must exist.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s new Liberal government promised today to hold a “full public debate” before ratifying the deal negotiated and agreed in principle by former PM Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.


big labour hates open markets and competition, big labour is built on closed markets and cronyism, no surprise that they don't like it

the ability to sue governments also extends the right to sue to canadian companies who feel they have been treated unfairly under the deal

it's a win for consumers and we are all consumers


----------



## humble_pie

s123 said:


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s new Liberal government promised today to hold a “full public debate” before ratifying the deal negotiated and agreed in principle by former PM Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.


thankx be. Please stand by for the debate, s123, we must all make our voices heard. 

citizens are far more than just consuming & taxpaying bots. Me i don't really care if we get to import cheap plasticized food & cheap plastic widgets, my first loyalty is to canadian corporations. Sorry but so far i can't seem to grasp how TPP is going to increase employment, particularly youth employment, in canada.

i also believe that opening the door wide via this agreement, so that foreign governments & foreign corporations can sail right in to sue canadian governments or companies without preamble, is surrendering far too much sovereign power.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> thankx be. Please stand by for the debate, s123, we must all make our voices heard.
> 
> citizens are far more than just consuming & taxpaying bots. Me i don't really care if we get to import cheap plasticized food & cheap plastic widgets, my first loyalty is to canadian corporations. *Sorry but so far i can't seem to grasp how TPP is going to increase employment, particularly youth employment, in canada.*
> 
> i also believe that opening the door wide via this agreement, so that foreign governments & foreign corporations can sail right in to sue canadian governments or companies without preamble, is surrendering far too much sovereign power.


pie, you and so many others keep talking about imports but seem to overlook exports which have huge potential to increase employment here at home .... 

canada has great potential to increase its exports hugely under this deal and that is why trudeau will approve it

exports are made by people hired to make them, that means jobs

your assumption seems predicated on the assumption that the canadian tpp negotiating team are idiots and somehow want to wreck the country ... i don't get it


----------



## dogcom

Besides raw materials what are we going to export to create so many jobs that is worth giving up so much to foreign corporations as mentioned by humble. Also possibly giving up our freedom of speech on the internet from what I am hearing. I would think if we have something worth selling that others want we would sell it anyway.


----------



## bgc_fan

fatcat said:


> pie, you and so many others keep talking about imports but seem to overlook exports which have huge potential to increase employment here at home ....
> 
> canada has great potential to increase its exports hugely under this deal and that is why trudeau will approve it


While I would agree in principle. That's not exactly what happened after NAFTA as manufacturing just headed to the lowest bidder, Mexico. So which sectors would Canada actually have an advantage over others? I'm genuinely curious because what I see is that we can't compete with manufacturing, farming (most types), sciences, hi-tech, or even oil (oil sands production is notoriously expensive, and the US has been doing well with fracking). Basically, all we have is water, traditional oil extraction and sea food.


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> pie, you and so many others keep talking about imports but seem to overlook exports which have huge potential to increase employment here at home ....
> 
> canada has great potential to increase its exports hugely under this deal and that is why trudeau will approve it
> 
> exports are made by people hired to make them, that means jobs




cat u know i am just a simple biscuit, i cannot hold a cracker to yourself or the Crumpster

but still i am thinking that our exports are mostly resources, ie raw materials. I'm wondering what additional trade benefits could TPP offer.

oil, coal, gas, potash, uranium, lumber, oriented strand board, pulp, gold, iron ore, even BC freshgrown hemp leaf ... all these have their well-established & well-known conduits to world markets, where they are subject to world prices. What more assistance would they need or gain from a pacific trade partnership?

in particular, how would the well-established sales markets for these products generate any additional or any better employment?

take alberta heavy crude, for example. The immediate future is railcars plus Energy East. The industry is already deeply involved in both. These are, respectively, happening/going to happen. What additional employment could TPP bring to this table?

jim balsillie, ex RIMM founder & CEO, has just gone on record saying he's read the massive TPP document & he's concerned for intellectual property rights. This is where canada should get uptight & cautious imho.

we don't need to worry so much about whether our resources can find their overseas markets, they've been finding them successfully for nearly a century. Surely what we do need to worry about - where employment can increase - are the value-added industries. Whatever manufacturing or processing still survives in this country. Software industries. Advanced service industries.

cat u are writing as if canada were an export virgin. As if canada had no clue how to export oil, coal, lumber, grain, etc. But the fact is we are a historic export nation. Since WW II we've developed strong multinationals, although many have slipped into the hands of foreign corporations. Maybe the emphasis should be on supporting the corporations, rather than placing more power into the hands of international government bureaucrats to rule, possibly mercilessly, on our national resource interests?


----------



## humble_pie

bgc_fan said:


> While I would agree in principle [claim that trade agreements mean increased employment]. That's not exactly what happened after NAFTA as manufacturing just headed to the lowest bidder, Mexico.
> 
> So which sectors would Canada actually have an advantage over others? I'm genuinely curious because what I see is that we can't compete with manufacturing, farming (most types), sciences, hi-tech, or even oil (oil sands production is notoriously expensive, and the US has been doing well with fracking). Basically, all we have is water, traditional oil extraction and sea food.



this

although i think there's more to export than water, oil & sea food. 

i've read that BC leaf is a bigger export item than oil, one hears that quality-wise it's considered among the best in the world while quebec fresh leaf is thought to be even better ...


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> cat u are writing as if canada were an export virgin. As if canada had no clue how to export oil, coal, lumber, grain, etc. But the fact is we are a historic export nation. Since WW II we've developed strong multinationals, although many have slipped into the hands of foreign corporations. Maybe the emphasis should be on supporting the corporations, rather than placing more power into the hands of international government bureaucrats to rule, possibly mercilessly, on our national resource interests?


indeed canada is far from an export virgin, we have been an exporting powerhouse of everything from lentils to intellectual property ... we are a smart nation and for the life of me i cannot see the overwhelming pessimism toward this deal ... our team signed off on this for a reason, because they knew that we could take advantage of it

capital will move wherever it needs to move to get better labour costs, protectionism does not work, it will not work ... good paying jobs must be created by ingenuity not by closing our borders

canada will benefit from the tpp by being smarter than the rest


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> indeed canada is far from an export virgin, we have been an exporting powerhouse of everything from lentils to intellectual property ... we are a smart nation and for the life of me i cannot see the overwhelming pessimism toward this deal ... our team signed off on this for a reason, because they knew that we could take advantage of it



how, precisely, will we "take advantage of it."

i've just mentioned that canada has done fine with exports for maybe 75 years.

so where's the advantage? what export industries, exactly, do you believe will benefit? benefit enough to compensate for the signing off of sovereign rights to intellectual property or to the signing off of corporate citizenship under canadian law, as opposed to trade partnership agreement law?


----------



## humble_pie

cat don't forget i've offered you a personal lifeline.

when you're sick to death of opening up imported free trade food packages to find nothing but dried powdered GMO-modified-long-shelf-life-chemical-preservative-edible-plastic substance reconstituted in toxic-mineral-laced water - the whole passing itself off as blanquette de veau or porcini mushroom risotto - believe me the expression sick to death is going to be literal - then Plugging & i will come & cook for you.

we'll restore your good cheer with fresh leafy green local-grown vegetables, with apples & pears we've picked ourselves in orchards we visit every year, with organic eggs from hens named Allardyce or Genevieve, with wild strawberries under thick clotted cream from a nearby cow named Fernande.


----------



## dogcom

It kind of reminds me of a casino where the corporations are the house and everyone else are the players, you can win some but in the end you will lose.


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> how, precisely, will we "take advantage of it."
> 
> i've just mentioned that canada has done fine with exports for maybe 75 years.
> 
> so where's the advantage? what export industries, exactly, do you believe will benefit? benefit enough to compensate for the signing off of sovereign rights to intellectual property or to the signing off of corporate citizenship under canadian law, as opposed to trade partnership agreement law?


three things, first we need to engage in world trade in order to grow and maintain the first world social democracy that we aspire to have ... if i am wrong and we can close ourself off to trade and do this then i stand to be corrected, but i am pretty sure we cannot

second, by saying that it's a bad deal, we essentailly are saying that we aren't as smart as all the rest of the tpp players, who according to most in this thread, will take advantage of poor dumb canada ... like Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru,Vietnam to name a few

third, any country can opt out with 6 months notice

is your mistrust / dislike of harper so great or your opinion of our negotiating team so low that you think we would just sell our country down the river for nothing in return ? seriously ?


----------



## fatcat

humble_pie said:


> cat don't forget i've offered you a personal lifeline.
> 
> when you're sick to death of opening up imported free trade food packages to find nothing but dried powdered GMO-modified-long-shelf-life-chemical-preservative-edible-plastic substance reconstituted in toxic-mineral-laced water - the whole passing itself off as blanquette de veau or porcini mushroom risotto - believe me the expression sick to death is going to be literal - then Plugging & i will come & cook for you.
> 
> we'll restore your good cheer with fresh leafy green local-grown vegetables, with apples & pears we've picked ourselves in orchards we visit every year, with organic eggs from hens named Allardyce or Genevieve, with wild strawberries under thick clotted cream from a nearby cow named Fernande.


cat loves apple pie drenched in clotted cream ... cat think delicious ... more please ... mmmm ... now cat sleeping and dreaming of helpless fat peruvian mice and tender vietnam baby rat .... mmmm


----------



## bgc_fan

fatcat said:


> three things, first we need to engage in world trade in order to grow and maintain the first world social democracy that we aspire to have ... if i am wrong and we can close ourself off to trade and do this then i stand to be corrected, but i am pretty sure we cannot
> 
> second, by saying that it's a bad deal, we essentailly are saying that we aren't as smart as all the rest of the tpp players, who according to most in this thread, will take advantage of poor dumb canada ... like Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru,Vietnam to name a few
> 
> third, any country can opt out with 6 months notice
> 
> is your mistrust / dislike of harper so great or your opinion of our negotiating team so low that you think we would just sell our country down the river for nothing in return ? seriously ?


You know life isn't black and white, we can dislike a trade deal regardless of which government is the one who negotiates it. As far as negotiating team, I doubt that there was much negotiation going on as I suspect the US set most of the big terms, i.e. IP protection is lifted from US policies. 

As far as taking advantage of Canada, I don't think that is the issue, the issue is what benefits is Canada going to get out of it over the current situation. Since you have only provided generalities, I thought I'd provide a link to the government website: http://www.international.gc.ca/trad...mmerciaux/agr-acc/tpp-ptp/index.aspx?lang=eng

Basically, removal of tarrifs on products, nothing extraordinary there.

I haven't looked through any details, but it still comes down to lowest price wins and it doesn't really appear that it deals with the problem of subsidies, which is the biggest problem we have when dealing with the US on agricultural issues.

Looking at other articles, it seems it won't even help out with our softwood lumber issues with the US.


----------



## humble_pie

fatcat said:


> three things, first we need to engage in world trade in order to grow and maintain the first world social democracy that we aspire to have ... if i am wrong and we can close ourself off to trade and do this then i stand to be corrected, but i am pretty sure we cannot
> 
> second, by saying that it's a bad deal, we essentailly are saying that we aren't as smart as all the rest of the tpp players, who according to most in this thread, will take advantage of poor dumb canada ... like Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru,Vietnam to name a few
> 
> third, any country can opt out with 6 months notice
> 
> is your mistrust / dislike of harper so great or your opinion of our negotiating team so low that you think we would just sell our country down the river for nothing in return ? seriously ?



cat i really appreciate your taking the trouble to reply, like i say when it comes to economics i'm only a dumb crumb, i can't hold a cracker to yourself & certainly not to the Crumpster.

but i really want to know. We export mostly raw materials. The global markets for these have been supremely well organized for decades. What help do we need from a trade agreement? please be specific, please no panegyrics in praise of free trade in theory.

i mentioned a current dislocation, what to do with western heavy crude now that keystone is out of the picture. But the industry has been anticipating this for years & the solutions - railcars, energy east - are already far along. What would we need a trade agreement for, on an issue like this? the canadians are handling things fine. It's much better, i think, to have no foreign gummints meddling with the producers of alberta crude at this moment.

is the pacific trade agreement supposed to help with canada's small but successful IT industry? is the help going to be sufficient to outweigh the loss of sovereign law & the meddling from foreign gummints?

are you thinking we need to sell chickens or eggs to trade partners? me i'm thinking that Allardyce & Genevieve can hardly produce enough for local canadians, better to put the $$ into existing farmers' markets & nutrition programs for kids.

harper has nothing to do with my views. My caution comes from some knowledge of canada's Pacific Rim Mining vs El Salvador. Recently the cause has become fashionable among enviros & lefties, but i was involved like 10 or 12 years ago & i knew the circumstances very well. One of my kids worked in the country, visited the minesite at el dorado.

reading the index of ICSID cases - that's the washington World Bank court where trade dispute cases are adjudicated, where the Pacific Rim matter is still being adjudicated after many years - flabbergasted me. That's where i saw how many companies up & sue when a host country where they carry on business, or where they merely hope to carry on business, chooses not to kow-tow to a blackmailing foreign corporation.

i wouldn't be against canada signing a trade agreement if all the issues were ironed out in public, as the liberals are promising. I felt the same way in spring 2014 when harper announced on a friday that canada would commit F-18 hornet bombers to the anti-ISIL coalition. Harper said there would be parliamentary discussion on the monday & the fighter planes would be approved to fly on the tuesday, no matter what.

basically harper said canadians could stuff it. Same thing with the TPP.


----------



## sags

Having dealt with negotiations and contracts on a much smaller scale, I learned that a volume of text can be rendered meaningless with one sentence.

The TPP contains a lot of assurances of maintaining Canadian standards, but close inspection by a team of lawyers will be required to see if the TPP contains that "one sentence" that renders it all mute.

I don't recall how many times we argued the effect of the words.........."shall"........."will"..........."may" during and after contract negotiations.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fatcat said:


> three things, first we need to engage in world trade in order to grow and maintain the first world social democracy that we aspire to have ...if i am wrong and we can close ourself off to trade and do this then i stand to be corrected, but i am pretty sure we cannot





humble_pie said:


> cat i really appreciate your taking the trouble to reply, like i say when it comes to economics i'm only a dumb crumb, i can't hold a cracker to yourself & certainly not to the Crumpster.
> but i really want to know. We export mostly raw materials. The global markets for these have been supremely well organized for decades. What help do we need from a trade agreement? please be specific, please no panegyrics in praise of free trade in theory.


I'll take a leaf out of fatcat's book, and list three point that I think are key to evaluating TPP:

*First*, it is not a _free_ trade agreement.
This is an agreement to carve out an economic zone, similar to the European Common Market from the 1950s, and 1960s.
The goal of TPP (much like ECM) is not to have "free" trade but to have _protected_ trade i.e. protect certain sectors & industries, as well as to counter some other trading block (see point # 2 below).
We all recognize the sectors being protected - auto manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, technology & entertainment (incl. Hollywood copyrighting, etc).

*Secondly*, this trading block is being created to counter a set of trading blocks led by China & Russia.
We can call this the Sino-Russian trade block (not an official name), although China is clearly the dominant player.
There is no single trade agreement the TPP is countering, but a set of multiple trade agreements, most of which dominated by China one way or another.

Currently, the Chinese led trade blocks are a mishmash because of the way those have evolved over the last couple of decades.
There are benign trade agreements dating back to the 1970s and 80s, such as ASEAN.
Then there are more focused trade blocks with more teeth such as the ADB (and its smaller cousin the AIIB).

I believe China will (or, rather is in the process of) consolidating and merging these various blocks over the next few years.

China wants to dominate the WTO, and that is not good for the US.
So the TPP is a way for the US to set up an alternative block of rules, regulations, copyright, licensing and other agreements, as well as a dispute resolution process.
So basically, create a parallel to the WTO.
The goal is to over time reduce the relevance of the WTO, esp. if China ends up dominating it.

*Thirdly*, membership of any country in the TPP (except for the US) is based on the theory of *FoMo* (i.e. _Fear of Missing Out_).
I believe that is why Canada (and most other countries like Malaysia, etc.) have joined.
It's a boat - and you are either on it, or you are not.
If you are not, you will basically be excluded from most trading with the TPP member countries.

So, let's take these three points and derives who benefits and who doesn't, and what it means for Canada.

Country that benefits the most is the US.
There is a reason why President Obama has made this such an important goal of his administration.
It is even said that TPP will be part of the top 3 of his legacy (the other 2 being Obamacare & climate change).

When I say the US, I mean the US corporations, not necessarily the workers, who are increasingly marginalized into low-paying service sector jobs.

What does it mean for Canada?
Well, ironically, it will benefit the very group that is opposing it the most - the auto & manufacturing sector.
In fact, if Canada accepts the TPP, it will do more to benefit manufacturing than devaluing the loonie all the way down to 30c.
If Canada walks away from the TPP, the auto unions can kiss goodbye to whatever industry is left.
TPP guarantees a captive market for Canadian manufacturing product.

The one aspect I have not looked into yet is this - _had TPP been already implemented and both Canada and US were part of it, would President Obama have been able to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline_?
I am not sure how the rules play out in that case.
At the very least, Trans Canada Corp. would have the legal backing to sue to US govt. for rejecting the pipeline as anti-competitive.

Anyhow, leaving aside the energy sector, for most other sectors that form a part of our exports (manufacturing, food processing, forestry products, etc.) membership of the TPP is a matter of survival & retaining our biggest customer - the US.
Walking away from the TPP means losing a significant share of trade with the US.

Is FoMo a good basis for entering agreement?
Is this not like putting a gun to our heads?

Indeed...those are not great reasons for signing a trade deal.
But we are price takers in this game, not market makers.
Market maker is the US of A.

One other point before I close this post - the US is carefully hedging its bet with the TTIP agreement.
In any discussion of TPP, we cannot ignore that the US is simultaneously working on the TTIP, which does not include Canada.

Once both the TPP and the TTIP are completed, the US will basically control world trade by the cojones.
China will be completely isolated (along with Russia).
For all the US cares, China can take over the WTO and do whatever it wants with that - it will not matter.


----------



## AltaRed

I think another overlooked issue is if Mexico and the US are part of the TPP, there will be little, to no, incentive for either of those countries to engage with Canada via NAFTA. NAFTA could very well wind down over time as Mexico and the US focus on TPP members. We don't yet have our Euro trade deal in effect as any kind of alternative outlet and we sure don't have any oil pipelines to either of the west or east coasts to shore up our trade balance. We can't afford to be on the outside looking in. 

The one wild card in all this is Donald Trump. He said he would re-negotiate the trade deals to bring manufacturing back to the USA, etc, etc. In essence, back to pre-trade deal days for the most part. Talk about an elephant carousing in a china shop.


----------



## humble_pie

what a brilliant post from haroldCrump. This (HC's post) is a seminal document, i'm certainly studying it & i hope all who care will take the time to reference this text.

these are the points that need to come out in public discussion, so people can understand. It might very well be, as harold says, that FoMo will rule, the west must adjust & respond to the more recent sino-russian alliance, therefore small canada has no choice.

i'm left wondering, though. I recall small countries in central america being threatened during the CAFTA negotiations that if they didn't join, they'd be totally left out. Since all these countries were among the poorest in the world to begin with, they had no choice. So it makes me cringe a bit to see smaller countries - canada, peru, malaysia - being hit up with the same threat.

the secrecy the PCs used during the PTT negotiations is scary. An informed public is so much better. Even if the liberals come to harold's conclusions, sharing this kind of info with canadians is necessary, imho.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> the secrecy the PCs used during the PTT negotiations is scary. An informed public is so much better. Even if the liberals come to harold's conclusions, sharing this kind of info with canadians is necessary, imho.


The previous govt. (Harper's CPC) was contractually prohibited from revealing the details of the agreement to the public, incl. a democratically elected parliament.
All the participants were.
Absolute NDA was a pre-condition for a seat at the table.
Even the US negotiators were prohibited from revealing any details to Congress.

It was reported that security in and out of the meeting rooms was tougher than trying to get into CIA headquarters at Langley.
Senior officials were searched for concealed cameras, tape recorders etc.

Maybe those rumors were exaggerated, who knows, but absolute secrecy during negotiations was a pre-condition.


----------



## AltaRed

There is a lot of misinformation out there about TPP and the secrecy of negotiations. As HC said, it was contractually required.


----------



## humble_pie

misinformation? there's no information out there except that the negotiations were secret.

next Q: how come you 2 guys - HC & AR - know that secrecy was contractual, but the rest of us don't know?

is there some kind of super-news channel you guys subscribe to but we dumb corn flakes are not allowed to receive? each:


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> I'll take a leaf out of fatcat's book, and list three point that I think are key to evaluating TPP:
> 
> *First*, it is not a _free_ trade agreement.
> This is an agreement to carve out an economic zone, similar to the European Common Market from the 1950s, and 1960s.
> The goal of TPP (much like ECM) is not to have "free" trade but to have _protected_ trade i.e. protect certain sectors & industries, as well as to counter some other trading block (see point # 2 below).
> We all recognize the sectors being protected - auto manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, technology & entertainment (incl. Hollywood copyrighting, etc).
> 
> *Secondly*, this trading block is being created to counter a set of trading blocks led by China & Russia.
> We can call this the Sino-Russian trade block (not an official name), although China is clearly the dominant player.
> There is no single trade agreement the TPP is countering, but a set of multiple trade agreements, most of which dominated by China one way or another.
> 
> Currently, the Chinese led trade blocks are a mishmash because of the way those have evolved over the last couple of decades.
> There are benign trade agreements dating back to the 1970s and 80s, such as ASEAN.
> Then there are more focused trade blocks with more teeth such as the ADB (and its smaller cousin the AIIB).
> 
> I believe China will (or, rather is in the process of) consolidating and merging these various blocks over the next few years.
> 
> China wants to dominate the WTO, and that is not good for the US.
> So the TPP is a way for the US to set up an alternative block of rules, regulations, copyright, licensing and other agreements, as well as a dispute resolution process.
> So basically, create a parallel to the WTO.
> The goal is to over time reduce the relevance of the WTO, esp. if China ends up dominating it.
> 
> *Thirdly*, membership of any country in the TPP (except for the US) is based on the theory of *FoMo* (i.e. _Fear of Missing Out_).
> I believe that is why Canada (and most other countries like Malaysia, etc.) have joined.
> It's a boat - and you are either on it, or you are not.
> If you are not, you will basically be excluded from most trading with the TPP member countries.
> 
> So, let's take these three points and derives who benefits and who doesn't, and what it means for Canada.
> 
> Country that benefits the most is the US.
> There is a reason why President Obama has made this such an important goal of his administration.
> It is even said that TPP will be part of the top 3 of his legacy (the other 2 being Obamacare & climate change).
> 
> When I say the US, I mean the US corporations, not necessarily the workers, who are increasingly marginalized into low-paying service sector jobs.
> 
> What does it mean for Canada?
> Well, ironically, it will benefit the very group that is opposing it the most - the auto & manufacturing sector.
> In fact, if Canada accepts the TPP, it will do more to benefit manufacturing than devaluing the loonie all the way down to 30c.
> If Canada walks away from the TPP, the auto unions can kiss goodbye to whatever industry is left.
> TPP guarantees a captive market for Canadian manufacturing product.
> 
> The one aspect I have not looked into yet is this - _had TPP been already implemented and both Canada and US were part of it, would President Obama have been able to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline_?
> I am not sure how the rules play out in that case.
> At the very least, Trans Canada Corp. would have the legal backing to sue to US govt. for rejecting the pipeline as anti-competitive.
> 
> Anyhow, leaving aside the energy sector, for most other sectors that form a part of our exports (manufacturing, food processing, forestry products, etc.) membership of the TPP is a matter of survival & retaining our biggest customer - the US.
> Walking away from the TPP means losing a significant share of trade with the US.
> 
> Is FoMo a good basis for entering agreement?
> Is this not like putting a gun to our heads?
> 
> Indeed...those are not great reasons for signing a trade deal.
> But we are price takers in this game, not market makers.
> Market maker is the US of A.
> 
> One other point before I close this post - the US is carefully hedging its bet with the TTIP agreement.
> In any discussion of TPP, we cannot ignore that the US is simultaneously working on the TTIP, which does not include Canada.
> 
> Once both the TPP and the TTIP are completed, the US will basically control world trade by the cojones.
> China will be completely isolated (along with Russia).
> For all the US cares, China can take over the WTO and do whatever it wants with that - it will not matter.


as per usual harold does the heavy lifting

yes, i stand corrected it really should be called a "somewhat freer trade agreement" because tariffs are in place and have been negotiated down to the the half-percent ... it is a step toward free trade

yes, the usa is probably going to get the benefit of it but really how can canada afford not to do it ? .... this is my thinking, we have to take the deal and hope we can adapt and get as well as we give

pie, you and the others (the whole thread as far as i can see) who are against it may well be right, we might be getting the short end of the stick 

but i have been trying to say "the alternative is worse", i.e by not signing the deal we lose opportunities for new markets

i stand to be corrected but i believe it is an up or down vote, we are either in or out, this thing has been negotiated and done so when justin says he will chat about the details he is just window dressing, sure we can chat but the only thing we can then do is say yes or no ... 

for obvious reasons it was all negotiated in secret since ratification by various governments would effectively be a continual nightmare of re-negotiation by legislation

we have to trust our team

if we pass and stay out, where do we trade ? where do we expand ? where do we grow ? ... as hc says we are price takers on the world trade stage

so yes, it may not be perfect or entirely beneficial to canada but we need trade so we take the best we can get

pie, as to your questions of what export categories will benefit, i guess i would say that those that are smart and adaptable ... i have immense faith in canada's smarts, i hope and assume we will look at the deal, see opportunities and get to work


----------



## humble_pie

so it's come to this? the US summons other countries to the table, tells them they'll each be starved into poverty if they don't pre-agree with its intended trading hegemony?

before any of the countries can say uh-ok-we'd-like-to-consult-our-electorates-though, washington whips out the ticket of admission, which each country had to purchase just to gain access to the table.

printed on the bottom of the ticket, in the tiniest of fonts, is a legend that says By Walking through the Doorway into this Hall today, You have Agreed to our Terms and Conditions.


(aside to cat) i'm not against the trade agreement per se, i think i said so? what's bothersome is the secrecy & the shotgun mass marriage. All those obedient countries have kind of a Bountiful BC polygamy effect. They think they're wives & partners but in reality they're prisoners.

the way i see it, in the first shock of understanding (thanks to your efforts & harold's efforts), it seems canada & other standby countries have to choose between MaybeMoreButProbablyLess & AnAwfulLotLess.

i suppose that - pacific trade agreement or no trade agreement - the above 2 choices of MMBPL vs AALL are probably the only choices anyhow.


----------



## livewell

humble_pie said:


> so it's come to this? the US summons other countries to the table, tells them they'll each be starved into poverty if they don't pre-agree with its intended trading hegemony?
> 
> before any of the countries can say uh-ok-we'd-like-to-consult-our-electorates-though, washington whips out the ticket of admission, which each country had to purchase just to gain access to the table.
> 
> printed on the bottom of the ticket, in the tiniest of fonts, is a legend that says By Walking through the Doorway into this Hall today, You have Agreed to our Terms and Conditions.


Succinctly put - pretty much seems to sum it up. Looks like we were bent over without the lube. I doff my cap to our US overlords.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> misinformation? there's no information out there except that the negotiations were secret.
> 
> next Q: how come you 2 guys - HC & AR - know that secrecy was contractual, but the rest of us don't know?
> 
> is there some kind of super-news channel you guys subscribe to but we dumb corn flakes are not allowed to receive? each:



It would likely have been a Confidentiality Agreement just like many I signed during working career when negotiating M&A deals, visiting Data Rooms of assets for sale, etc. 

http://www.tradeready.ca/2015/trade...rk-many-secrecy-necessary-securing-agreement/ and 

https://www.quora.com/Trans-Pacific...rans-Pacific-Partnership-negotiated-in-secret

Also see Secrecy of Negotiations under Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secrecy_of_negotiations


----------



## fatcat

[HR][/HR]i agree with everyone who has problems with the secrecy
it has seemed anti-democratic from the beginning

but there really is no other way to do it

as i have said, we can ratify and if we don't like it down the road
6 months notice and we walk away

i bet my house that justin is already in
he will not say no to this ... not a chance

we need trade ...


----------



## sags

There is no rush for Trudeau, as the Americans must vote for it given the requirements of passage, and that looks highly unlikely at this point.

Most of the Presidential candidates for both parties are opposed, Democrats in Congress will support big labour who are opposed, and Republicans seeking re-election don't want to appear to support Obama.

Obama will probably put it before Congress in an up/down vote before the Presidential election, but there is little support beyond big business.


----------



## bgc_fan

sags said:


> There is no rush for Trudeau, as the Americans must vote for it given the requirements of passage, and that looks highly unlikely at this point.
> 
> Most of the Presidential candidates for both parties are opposed, Democrats in Congress will support big labour who are opposed, and Republicans seeking re-election don't want to appear to support Obama.
> 
> Obama will probably put it before Congress in an up/down vote before the Presidential election, but there is little support beyond big business.


I wonder if there is something being missed if all the candidates are opposed and this is a US-led initiative. Maybe just not enough PR to convince the public?

OTOH, a mark of a good deal is one where no one is happy.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> It would likely have been a Confidentiality Agreement just like many I signed during working career when negotiating M&A deals, visiting Data Rooms of assets for sale, etc.
> 
> http://www.tradeready.ca/2015/trade...rk-many-secrecy-necessary-securing-agreement/ and
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Trans-Pacific...rans-Pacific-Partnership-negotiated-in-secret
> 
> Also see Secrecy of Negotiations under Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secrecy_of_negotiations




thankx altaRed for the reading list. In a nutshell, the articles confirm that trade agreements are traditionally forged under diplomatic secrecy; this is still the case but cries of opposition may be on the increase.

everyone can understand why governments would infinitely prefer secrecy though, so i won't go there. 

i found the Quora article most useful, best of all is a long reply from a personnage using the name Scott Lowe (scroll down, it's the first reply after the article.)

this poster points out that US public discussion will be allowed for a period of roughly 2 months. The opportunity will come after the trade agreement is signed & ratified. I imagine that all countries will have the same window for public discussion. 

that's good enough for me, especially when the truth may be that canada doesn't have much choice. However, i passionately believe that a period of public discussion, even open outcry, should occur.

btw i don't see how confidentiality agreements during M & A operations - the right to inspect data rooms etc - are really related to secrecy during diplomatic negotiations? M & A activity affects shareholders, owners & employees but not very many other people. On the other hand, trade, foreign policy & military negotiations affect entire nations.


----------



## HaroldCrump

humble_pie said:


> btw i don't see how confidentiality agreements during M & A operations - the right to inspect data rooms etc - are really related to secrecy during diplomatic negotiations? M & A activity affects shareholders, owners & employees but not very many other people.
> On the other hand, trade, foreign policy & military negotiations affect entire nations.


Trade, foreign policy & military negotiations typically occur in more secrecy than corporate M&A.

Every major trade in modern history has been negotiated in secrecy.

The Bretton Woods conference was negotiated in secrecy in the remote village in New Hampshire.
The Plaza Accord was negotiated in secrecy.
The creation of the Federal Reserve was shrouded in secrecy in Jekyll Island.

I understand the need for secrecy.
What is unique about this is that it's an all-or-none i.e. take it or leave it, you are either on the boat or you are not.

There is another recent (relatively) agreement that is similar - and that is the Maastricht Treaty, which created the Eurozone and the Euro currency.
Any member country joining has to conform to the criteria (known as the _convergence rules_) - there is no choice.
Those rules are the entire reason why Greece is in such trouble and has been excluded from the ECB QE.

Unlike TPP, there is a lot of flexibility in the enforcement of the Maastricht Treaty rules, though.
Countries are given several years to conform to the rules, and it is allowed to become non conformant for an extended period of time during economic crisis.

But the key point is that such rules override individual member countries' fiscal policies and democratic processes.


----------



## AltaRed

humble_pie said:


> btw i don't see how confidentiality agreements during M & A operations - the right to inspect data rooms etc - are really related to secrecy during diplomatic negotiations? M & A activity affects shareholders, owners & employees but not very many other people. On the other hand, trade, foreign policy & military negotiations affect entire nations.


They are similar in that share prices of a given stock can be affected on any given 'whim' of data (or negotiating position) being released in a particular area. Saputo for example in the dairy negotiations, technology stocks during IP negotiations. There would likely have been excessive volatility in the stock markets for 5 years as nations put different issues on the table, then taking them away, etc. And it would have been important that the data only be released outside trading hours on the premise that everyone have a fair chance in the markets. It would have been a gong show.

That said, another important issue would have been the intense pressure of every lobbying (vested) interest group during negotiations. Imagine how a public negotiation would go (and ignorant naive media reporting on same) if a country put an issue on the table to get past an impasse with another party while at the same time taking something else away as a quid pro quo.... and then doing another swap yet again with another item amongst 10-12 parties no less. Negotiations would have never gotten off the ground in the first place.

The parties did an admirable job of keeping information 'tight' for the duration. If we don't like the result, then we don't ratify it. That said, I don't see it standing much of a chance of being ratified in the USA given the current level of dysfunction down there.


----------



## fatcat

sags said:


> There is no rush for Trudeau, as the Americans must vote for it given the requirements of passage, and that looks highly unlikely at this point.
> 
> Most of the Presidential candidates for both parties are opposed, Democrats in Congress will support big labour who are opposed, and Republicans seeking re-election don't want to appear to support Obama.
> 
> Obama will probably put it before Congress in an up/down vote before the Presidential election, but there is little support beyond big business.


this is typical and means little ... few politicians will come out for something like this which has something in it to piss off everyone

these trade deals are done under the breath and in back rooms 

money and business want this treaty and it will go through

they spent years and included business and their lobbyists who were in touch with the people they own in congress ... this thing has been a massive project that wasn't constructed to then fail absent a major hue and cry from the electorate

i make it 75% to pass


----------



## HaroldCrump

^ The sales job has already started.

*Obama is touting this as a boon for middle class families*

ha, ha, middle class families is the gift that keeps on giving, innit? On both sides of the border

Obama's pitch could put any used car salesman to shame....


----------



## s123

The EU has a ban on GMOs for food and animal feed currently. There are some reasons for that. 
They’ve realized the possible negative impact on the health and also negative impact on the communities from the GE crops.

We can learn from what happened in Argentina that they’d been growing it for 15 years.

The media in Europe are informing the public of these facts more than here. The access to more reliable information will increase realization. After the facts are realized, the people will start seeking the solution.

I’m not sure TTIP will be proceeding. Recently even Russia and China have banned the import of GE foods. 

….the Russian parliament suggested a norm set for the maximum allowable content of transgenic foods for Russian manufacturers that produce foods with GE ingredients. When the percentage of GMO exceeds 0.9%, the producer must label its products accordingly and warn the consumers.

Russia also geologically close to Europe.
As long as the prices are reasonable with a better quality of foods that will be attractive.

The major western media does not talk much about the GMO impact because negative impact for the industries. 

The less knowledge / information make the people unaware for a long time just like Argentina.
They thought the soy industries will boost the economy which may have but did not benefit the wealth for the regular people. 
The result is the loss of their good health and damaged environment.

It’s easy for damage to be done but the restoration of environments may take years and may never be the same as their original state.

TPP & TTIP will be boosting the wealth for the giants.
And we’ve seen accumulating the number of debt of the nation.
The nation is weakening each day.
(Draining out money & resources, eating lower qualities foods, lowered health, damaging environment)

It’s same as US of A.
Who have more wealth and who become poor?

We‘re beat up by the systems. 
One of the systems is drain the money & resources out from the nation.
Others are conflict by the war, revolution etc..

--
Effects of GMO in Argentina
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/2015/09/effects-of-gmo-in-argentina/

Argentina is one of the countries where GMO has been used for up to 15 years. It has also carried out epidemiological and clinical surveillance of the effects GMO has had on their people who live close to farms where these crops are planted.

In 1990, 35 million litres were used during the crop year. In 1996, the introduction of transgenic biotechnology accelerated the use of pesticides to the extent that 98 million litres were used, and in 2000, it increased to 145 million litres.

Last year 292 million litres were used, and this year, the fields will be sprayed with over 300 million litres of herbicides, insecticides, acaricides, defoliants and other poisonous substances.

Each year, the amount of Glyphosate per hectare repeatedly sprayed on the same plot of land has increased. This is because weeds have become resistant.

Twelve million Argentineans are directly sprayed. This means that a sufficient amount of those 300 million litres of agro-toxics are sprayed on houses, schools, parks, water sources, sports fields, and work areas.

This population is treated by physicians working in the crop-sprayed towns, where they’ve noticed an alarming increase of cancer, birth defects and reproductive disorders, which cannot be concealed anymore.

--
- Russia joins more than 30 other countries that have banned the import of GE crops. 
http://www.seattleorganicrestaurant...s-to-defeat-gmo-labeling-in-oregon-county.php

- Argentina: The Country that Monsanto Poisoned? Photo Essay *UPDATED*(December 29, 2014)
http://www.overgrowthesystem.com/argentina-the-country-that-monsanto-poisoned-photo-essay/


----------



## sags

The Auto Manufacturers business group isn't happy with the contents of the TPP.

They say it is much worse than they expected and will cost a lot of jobs in Canada.

They muse about renegotiating that part of the deal, which as I understand it would be a non starter.

When labour and business agree it is a bad deal............maybe it is bad deal.

Interesting that even without China as a signatory in the TPP, they will have a hand in it.

The auto manufacturers say the Japanese companies will buy cheaper parts from China, assemble the car in Japan and ship it to North America tariff free.


----------



## andrewf

Given the huge natural experiment of Europe vs North America on GMO, is there any epidemiological evidence that GMOs are harmful? Given how disastrous opponents of GMOs portray them to be, there should be clear evidence of harm in humans.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Given the huge natural experiment of Europe vs North America on GMO, is there any epidemiological evidence that GMOs are harmful? Given how disastrous opponents of GMOs portray them to be, there should be clear evidence of harm in humans.


I do not worry about GMOs. We have been accepting genetically modified food since we started to till the ground, even if it was mostly selective acceptance of natural mutations for almost all of mankind's history. More recently, we would not have the cereal grain crops we have today, especially wheat, if it was not for Canadian efforts through the Morden Research Centre. The main thing that has changed is an efficient ability to 'create' mutations in a controlled way. Why is this not likely a good thing?

This planet is going to need all the help it can get to grow enough food for 9 Billion humans, many of whom are breeding like rabbits. Think about it for a moment. What does one want? Popluation control? Or GMO foods? One cannot opt out of both without willful starvation/war.


----------



## andrewf

I'm not especially concerned about GMOs either. I just don't get how opponents of GMOs are so uncritical about looking at the issue. They often portray GMOs as poison to be avoided even in trace amounts, but then can't produce any evidence of harm in humans, and only a handful of questionable studies in animal models.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> I do not worry about GMOs. We have been accepting genetically modified food since we started to till the ground, even if it was mostly selective acceptance of natural mutations for almost all of mankind's history. More recently, we would not have the cereal grain crops we have today, especially wheat, if it was not for Canadian efforts through the Morden Research Centre. The main thing that has changed is an efficient ability to 'create' mutations in a controlled way. Why is this not likely a good thing?


There is a difference between the "traditional" gene selection of picking the "best in breed" and crossing varieties and the newer gene splicing technique. You have to admit that crossing an anti-freeze gene from a cold water fish into a tomato so it doesn't freeze, or retains its freshness for a prolonged period of time isn't something that can be done "naturally". 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/throwing-biotech-lies-at_b_803139.html

That being said, sometimes there are some interesting projects, like incorporating vaccines into fruit to make it easier to distribute in Third World countries.

But when it comes down to it, there will always be an ick factor. 

For example, to deal with water shortages, there is the option of doing black water (sewage water) recycling. The process will produce pure water, so pure that it can dissolve metal because it lacks the normal minerals that you find in drinking water. However, many people will gag at the thought of it.


----------



## AltaRed

Andrew, fear of the unknown perhaps. Many examples of similar paranoia. Example 1: Parents not vaccinating children and then burdening the health system when contagious diseases make a comeback a la recent Whooping Cough outbreaks with severe health risks to the very young. Example 2: Out west at least, the paranoia of smart meters for electricity and the fear of brain tumours while at the same time having a cell phone glued to their ears, WiFi in the house, and radio waves coming from every direction. 

One can go on and on about irrational behaviour. That said, at some level, these are good checks and balances against industry/government going amok with concepts that are not rigorously tested/reviewed. The problem is finding the right balance.


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> But when it comes down to it, there will always be an ick factor.
> 
> For example, to deal with water shortages, there is the option of doing black water (sewage water) recycling. The process will produce pure water, so pure that it can dissolve metal because it lacks the normal minerals that you find in drinking water. However, many people will gag at the thought of it.


We have been eating/drinking a lot of ick factor for centuries. Think about the poor folks downstream of Montreal shortly when that dysfunctional city dumps raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. Just because there is a dilution factor doesn't mean that some downstream water treatment intake won't be taking in globs of feces.


----------



## andrewf

There are plenty of things that regulators allow that are quite questionable. Getting exercised about non-issues like GMO is a waste and muddies the water enough that truly concerning regulations are not examined.


----------



## HaroldCrump

sags said:


> Interesting that even without China as a signatory in the TPP, they will have a hand in it.
> The auto manufacturers say the Japanese companies will buy cheaper parts from China, assemble the car in Japan and ship it to North America tariff free.


That is not the only way China will have a back door entry into the TPP.

*China is trying to get its piece of the TPP dairy market via New Zealand*.

China is not a pushover - they are not going to let the US go ahead with TPP & TTIP and not hedge themselves.

They started front-running the TTIP years ago by buying up businesses, companies, real estate, land rights, etc. in the Eurozone at least 3 - 4 years ago.
They took advantage of the Eurozone debt crisis to buy up equity in many business located within the Eurozone.
They are also buying up real estate - everything from farmland to hydro stations to shopping malls throughout the Eurozone.

China has nearly $3.5 Trillion in forex reserves (officially), and probably several billions more in state enterprises not reported by the PBOC.
They have anywhere between 3,000 to 9,000 tonnes of gold.

They are taking all those assets for a spin around the world and buying up everything in sight.

Their counter to the US is - go ahead, make our day with the TPP & TTIP, it wouldn't matter because we will own half of every company that does business within the TPP & TTIP zones.


----------



## s123

Thinking about the amount of spraying in food makes me feel icky. 
The unnatural colorful, waxy food makes me lose my appetite also. 

A lot of people don’t care when it doesn’t affect them. (food, health, environment or anything else)

Food = life style = health =environment
It’s all affected each other.

people are start noticing that some of the health effects from the foods and others. 

The one example is antibiotic resistance increases. 
And it will be noticed more because it will affect them. 


If the people are not helping to improve their heath + other factors that will weaken the immune system.

It will harder to fight back with even common cold over the course of time. 

--
Antibiotic resistance could threaten surgery, chemo patients
To help prevent superbugs, say no to antibiotics for coughs or colds, ask for meat that's antibiotic-free
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.3274170
Posted:Oct 16, 2015 9:17 AM ET

The new study, published Friday in The Lancet, estimates that as many as half of infections after surgery and more than a quarter of infections after chemotherapy are caused by organisms already resistant to standard antibiotics.

If antibiotic resistance increases by just 30 per cent in the United States, the tougher-to-treat bacteria could cause 6,300 more deaths a year and 120,000 more infections in patients undergoing either chemotherapy for cancer or 10 common surgical procedures, the researchers projected.

"It's a large enough number that it should be of concern," Laxminarayan said.

He added that the number would be even higher if the estimate included all procedures that require antibiotics, which range from simple root canals to organ transplants.

"Antibiotics are the one medication that everyone will get at some point in their life," Laxminarayan said.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Further to my posts above, *China is now in the process of concluding separate trade deals with Australia and South Korea* - both important trading countries & Australia is also a member of the TPP.
This is in addition to ASEAN and RCEP, which I spoke about earlier.

Another deal the above article mentions is the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council), which includes Saudi Arabia.
As most of you probably know, earlier this year, China became the biggest importer of Saudi oil, ahead of the US.

Their strategy is to neutralize any advantage TPP countries have by cutting separate trade deals.


----------



## fatcat

HaroldCrump said:


> That is not the only way China will have a back door entry into the TPP.
> 
> *China is trying to get its piece of the TPP dairy market via New Zealand*.
> 
> China is not a pushover - they are not going to let the US go ahead with TPP & TTIP and not hedge themselves.
> 
> They started front-running the TTIP years ago by buying up businesses, companies, real estate, land rights, etc. in the Eurozone at least 3 - 4 years ago.
> They took advantage of the Eurozone debt crisis to buy up equity in many business located within the Eurozone.
> They are also buying up real estate - everything from farmland to hydro stations to shopping malls throughout the Eurozone.
> 
> China has nearly $3.5 Trillion in forex reserves (officially), and probably several billions more in state enterprises not reported by the PBOC.
> They have anywhere between 3,000 to 9,000 tonnes of gold.
> 
> They are taking all those assets for a spin around the world and buying up everything in sight.
> 
> Their counter to the US is - go ahead, make our day with the TPP & TTIP, it wouldn't matter because we will own half of every company that does business within the TPP & TTIP zones.


exactly as did the japanese years ago, right ? ... my feeling is that we are going to have a patchwork of trade deals (which will eventually collapse into larger deals) and i am glad ... the more of each others stuff we own, the less likely we are to go to war

i suspect that a door to china has been left open all along in the construction of the tpp and that in fact the member countries would like china to join but on terms that the tpp has established

the size, immaturity and sheer complexity of the chinese economy would make for a much more complex negotiation


----------



## fatcat

ah yes, the fix be in ...

obama leans hard on his good friend "justin"
trade minister chrystia freeland huffs and puffs ... "it's not our job!"
harper tells us it would be a "terrible error" not to pass it



> At the time, Harper said it would be a “terrible error” if Canada failed to ratify the agreement and Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has been facing mounting pressure to get on board with TPP since taking office in early November. Following his first meeting with Canada’s new Prime Minister in mid-November, U.S. President Barack Obama made it clear he still expects Ottawa’s approval.
> “We are both soon to be signatories to the TPP agreement,” Obama said on Nov. 19 while seated directly next to Trudeau. “I know Justin has to agree with what’s happened, but we think that after that process has taken place, Canada, the United States and other countries that are here can establish the high-standards agreement that protects labour, protects the environment, protects the high value-added goods and services that we both excel in.”
> Trudeau has previous pledged to “evaluate” the agreement signed by the previous Conservative government in the days following his Oct 19[SUP]th[/SUP] electoral victory. In late October, he reportedly agreed to “promote” TPP with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe following a 15-minute telephone call between the two leaders, though he has said little about his government’s deliberations since.


http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/12/3/Ca...its-not-my-job-to-sell-Canadians-on-TPP-.aspx

all that is left is for the liberals to declare in no uncertain terms that "we didn't do this" ... "this ain't our baby" ... "the fat man from alberta did this twisted thing"

but, you know, we're gonna pass it ...

hilarious ... this thing was passed about 6-months after negotiations started and all the major players were briefed on the outcome


----------



## s123

Not hear much about TPP news lately.
Let's see....
“full public debate” ?

- Canada will sign TPP trade deal Feb. 4, but ratification not certain
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transpacific-trade-deal-tpp-signing-freeland-1.3418567


----------



## s123

For Canadian innovators, will TPP mean protection – or colonialism? - Jan. 30, 2016
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...an-protection-or-colonialism/article28462854/

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative bills TPP as “Made in America” and “the first agreement that addresses the global digital economy.” That’s why TPP provides great benefits to national economies oriented to capturing wealth from high value-added goods and services. Canada is not one of those of countries. Because of decades of failed innovation policies, our economy is still structured for 19th-century commodities and 20th-century manufacturing rather than for a 21st-century innovation economy. 

Canada currently does not have the capacity to compete in the global digital economy, which relies on intangible assets for growth. Despite Canada’s 14 new free-trade deals, the 30-per-cent decline in our dollar and a growing U.S. economy, Canada posted record trade deficits and shrinking exports throughout 2015 as prices for tangible commodities fell.

.....Canada had no strategy of spurring domestic growth through innovation because those responsible for the agreement never consulted with Canadian technology entrepreneurs. Compare that with the current U.S. Trade Representative, who spent six years with Silicon Valley’s best, crafting policies for TPP that resulted in what The New Yorker magazine has called “Silicon Valley’s Big TPP Win.” That’s why, more recently, Canadian TPP cheerleaders have started admitting that the agreement will not address our innovation shortcomings. If TPP does not enable Canadians to successfully commercialize our ideas, then it’s not a net benefit to our economy.


----------



## sags

All of the US political front runners have said they will not ratify the agreement, so it appears the Liberals will sign the deal and wait to see what Washington does.


----------



## s123

sags said:


> All of the US political front runners have said they will not ratify the agreement, so it appears the Liberals will sign the deal and wait to see what Washington does.


I would like to see the Liberals will fix the problems before the sign. 
and ....
It's better the Liberals won't sign (hold this time) and and wait to see what Washington does.


- Anger as government blocks TTIP legal documents relating to health service 

http://www.theguardian.com/business...locks-ttip-legal-documents-nhs-health-service

It is understood that Barack Obama’s negotiating team has rejected Malmström’s reform proposal ahead of talks next month.

But last week a Canadian newspaper reported that the EU had approached the new administration in Ottawa to revise a trade deal between the EU and Canada (CETA) that will be presented to the EU parliament for ratification in mid 2016, with a view to the deal becoming law in early 2017.

*Brussels wanted the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, to strip out the ISDS tribunal and replace it with the new international courts system, putting pressure on the US to follow suit.*


----------



## s123

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking.
It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”

“There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle. 
The other is as though everything is a miracle.” 

― Albert Einstein

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/9810.Albert_Einstein?page=1


----------



## s123

Do not sign!

- Maori of New Zealand call the signature of the TPP a “death sentence” for Indigenous rights
http://rightswatch.ca/2016/02/03/ma...e-tpp-a-death-sentence-for-indigenous-rights/

*Corporate interests above indigenous rights*
Of particular concern, for example, is the Maori right to protect rights to traditional knowledge and plants. 
The TPP chapter on environmental regulations fails to address resource management practices 
and the TPP article on Trade and Biodiversity recognizes the rights of nations over genetic material and natural resources. 

Together, these chapters offer potential for multinational corporations and the pharmaceutical industry to seek exclusive rights over traditional plants 
and seeds that are often found in areas controlled by Indigenous peoples. 
These chapters conflict with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 
which requires free, prior, and informed consent of the Indigenous peoples affected by such policies.

As noted by the Council of Canadians, the TPP also contains an investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) provision 
similar to the Canada-China Foreign Investment and Promotion Act (FIPA), which the Canadian Government signed in 2012 
without any prior consultation with First Nations.
The concern with FIPA’s investor-state provision, which applies equally to the TPP provision, 
is that it could be used to pass over Indigenous rights by placing questions of resource management in the hands of multinational corporations 
and outside the control of the local communities most affected.


----------



## s123

Important events!

- What's in the declarations that sealed the Canada-EU trade deal?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-europe-declarations-thursday-1.3823992

Neither the European Commission in Ottawa, nor International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland's office, will confirm that what was posted online constitutes the agreed final version of the declaration.

But a final version has been agreed — when Freeland*decided to conclude Canada's negotiations last week, that signaled*the end of Canada's willingness to rewrite.
Sources suggest the final wording could*be officially released before Canada signs the deal in Brussels*— an event now expected to follow close on the heels of successful votes in Wallonia scheduled for Friday afternoon, local time.


- Mechanical problems cause delay in Trudeau's trip to Brussels
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-europe-trade-signing-wheels-up-1.3825927


----------



## TomB19

These secret agreements that affect all of us is straight up traitorous.


----------



## s123

TomB19 said:


> These secret agreements that affect all of us is straight up traitorous.


Yep! Just do fair trade and open up the information to the public.


----------



## s123

Have you read this?
Canadian Gov. needs focus on protecting Canada (people & Land/Water---environment).
Awful deals. Don't proceed CETA.

- The great CETA swindle :
http://failedevolution.blogspot.ca/2016/11/the-great-ceta-swindle.html
Swindle #4 CETA protects public services like healthcare and water:


Probably the biggest threat to public services comes from the far-reaching foreign investor rights in CETA’s chapter eight. While Canada, the EU and its member states have inserted a number of public service reservations and exemptions in the CETA, none of these do apply to the deal’s investor-state dispute settlement provisions (chapter 8, section F). And they don’t apply to the most dangerous investor protection standards, like expropriation (article 8.12) and fair and equitable treatment (article 8.10). This makes regulations in sensitive public service sectors such as education, water, health, social welfare, and pensions prone to all kinds of expensive investor claims.

Governments could end up paying billions in compensation to foreign investors in return. The decision would be taken by a panel of for profit arbitrators (rather than independent judges), would be based on CETA’s extreme investor privileges (rather than a country’s constitution, which balances the rights of property holders) and could include compensation for loss of expected future profits (which are rarely compensable under most constitutions). 


Facing such an incalculable risk, governments might not go ahead with their plans to take services back into public hands – even when past privatisations have been failures. This could threaten the growing trend of re-municipalisation of water services (in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Hungary), energy grids (in Germany and Finland), and transport services (in the UK and France), as well as a potential roll-back of some of the failed privatisations of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) to strengthen non-profit healthcare providers.


In short, CETA severely limits governments’ ability to create, expand, restore, and regulate public services. 
This threatens people’s rights to access services like

water, health care, and energy, as well as labour conditions in these sectors.


Claiming that CETA protects public services without changing the deal’s provisions that work to the contrary is wishful thinking, at best.

* Full report and references:
https://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/great-ceta-swindle.pdf


----------



## mordko

^ I am sorry, but why exactly do you believe that investors shouldn't have any rights and don't deserve legal protection from governments' often arbitrary/populist decisions?


----------



## new dog

I just heard of this the other day and if it is like the TPP it could be meant to swindle us.


----------



## olivaw

mordko said:


> ^ I am sorry, but why exactly do you believe that investors shouldn't have any rights and don't deserve legal protection from governments' often arbitrary/populist decisions?


Sure, shareholders should have rights but conflicts must be resolved by an independent judge. CETA gives decision making authority to panels of for profit arbitrators. 

Water, health services, food and energy are necessities. Governments must preserve the power to classify some or all of them as a human right. Sometimes it is in the public's interest to re-publicize certain systems.

ETA: i support CETA but a few details need to be renegotiated.


----------



## s123

I like this movement! :applause:
Fix NAFTA. Restoring balance in ecosystem. Let's move on to Fair Trade for everybody's wealth.

-Atlas Tube CEO praises Trump's 'fair' trade agenda:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/busin...trump+27fair+trade+agenda/12369326/story.html

Zekelman also said*a review of NAFTA is long overdue, and should not been seen as a threat to Canadian companies.*
“I think things always need to be reviewed, for the simple reason that times have change,” he said. “Canada has never been threatened by the U.S, and the U.S. has never been threatened by Canada. The jobs lost*in our two countries have been lost to Mexico or China.”

Canadian companies, he added, cannot compete with countries that have inferior labour and environmental standards. “When workers are being paid $2 an hour, when they have no human rights, you can’t have fair trade.”

-Brexit: an opportunity for Fairtrade:
http://www.thenews.coop/110622/news/co-operatives/brexit-opportunity-fairtrade/

The*Co-op Group is the world’s largest retailer for Fairtrade products. Its last*two*annual meetings featured several resolutions on Fairtrade with enormous support from members – including a motion calling on the Board and the Executive to provide a review of the range and availability of Fairtrade products. They also asked for a review of the Group’s Fairtrade policy over the next 12 months and the active promotion of Fairtrade and Fairtrade products through advertising and member engagement in stores.


----------



## appsmartvn

*HELLO*

i'm assuming the trans-pacific would have its own chapter 11.


----------

