Two articles on what is going on with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to be signed by Canada this week

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2016/02/02/Canada-Will-Sign-TPP/

Canada Will Sign TPP Thursday, but Deal Far from Done

Feds have promised wide consultation. Here's what should happen next.

By Michael Geist

Later this week, the 12 countries that make up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive global trade deal that includes Canada, the United States, and Japan, will gather in New Zealand to formally sign the agreement. Signing the TPP is a major step forward for the controversial treaty, but questions still abound over whether it will be ratified and take effect.

While the Liberal government has been cautious about expressing its support -- International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has been consistent in calling for consultation not conclusions -- the decision to sign the TPP was never much in doubt. The agreement contains incentives to be an “original signatory,” since only those countries qualify for the rules related to entry into force of the agreement. To stay on the sidelines at this early stage might have kept Canada out of the TPP for good.

Moreover, as Freeland emphasized in a public letter released last week, signing a treaty does not create binding legal obligations. Indeed, Canada has a fair number of international treaties that it has signed but not ratified, including a 1988 Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory notes. The same is true for the United States, which has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, but has not ratified it.

The big question was never whether Canada would sign, but rather what comes next. The TPP will not take effect for at least two years, giving the government ample time to engage in the consultation and study that was largely absent during a negotiation process that was notable primarily for its secrecy. Proponents of the TPP will urge the government to implement quickly, yet there is no advantage to do so and considerable risk that Canada would bear the costs of the agreement without ever realizing the benefits.

Freeland and her parliamentary secretary, David Lametti, have already engaged in more public consultations on the TPP in two months than the Conservative government did during years of negotiations.

But there is far more work to be done.

Study costs and benefits. First, Canadians must understand the costs and benefits of the TPP in order to provide useful feedback. The government summaries released last fall frequently present a misleading picture of the agreement. For example, the documents claim that Canada secured a broad exception for the cultural industries. However, on closer inspection it turns out that Canada did not get a full cultural exception as the TPP mandates unprecedented restrictions on policies to support the creation of Canadian content.

The shocking cultural restrictions are the tip of the TPP iceberg. The summaries on copyright and patent reform fail to mention significant legislative changes that would could raise education and health care costs. There is no reference to the privacy implications of the deal and no acknowledgement that other countries obtained protections not granted to Canada. The government should go back to the drawing board to present a more balanced, accurate picture of the agreement and its implications for Canada.

Economic and legal reports. Second, the Liberal government should conduct the economic and legal studies that were seemingly missing from the negotiations. Unlike countries such as New Zealand that have estimated the costs of some TPP reforms, Canadians have been left to guess at the real price of the agreement. In fact, several recent reports have projected very modest benefits for Canada that rank among the lowest in the TPP.

No more secret consultations! Third, the government's emphasis on transparency must extend to the TPP consultations. That requires more than just listing consultation events or inviting the public to email their views. There should be public events streamed online and outcomes from other meetings should be posted online. Moreover, Canadians should have access to consultation submissions (with individual privacy protected as desired) to allow them to better gauge the public response.

Done deal?

Fourth, the TPP consultation should go beyond whether to support or reject the deal. Walking away remains a possibility, but if the agreement moves toward ratification, the government should explore flexibilities within the treaty or negotiate side letters to limit the negative consequences. Moreover, a late push to revisit issues such as dispute resolution (as is happening with the Canada-European Union agreement) should remain on the table.

Even as Canada signs the TPP, implementation remains far from a done deal. 

Second article:

https://ricochet.media/en/894/so-when-do-we-get-that-full-and-open-debate-on-the-tpp  (Editor: If this link doesn't work you will have to google Ricochet Media to get to the site)

So when do we get that 'full and open' debate on the TPP?

The Liberals are punting a real discussion on the Trans-Pacific Partnership as far into the future as possible

By Derrick O'Keefe

Canada’s new trade minister, Chrystia Freeland, went to some length this week to downplay the significance of her government’s upcoming public signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The sprawling corporate trade and investment agreement, negotiated by 12 Asia-Pacific countries including Canada under the Harper Conservatives, will be formally signed at a ceremony in New Zealand next week.

To hear Freeland tell it, this is no big deal. In a statement issued as an open letter to Canadians, she says, “As Parliament returns this week, I will work with my colleagues from all parties to conduct a full and open debate in Parliament, a commitment we made in October’s election.”

No ‘real change’ on TPP?
The media loves the TPP, but should you?
The TPP is about entrenching corporate power, not about ‘free trade’

The minister’s letter downplays the significance of the signing ceremony, suggesting the government wants to keep a lid on the TPP debate in Canada for as long as possible. “Signing does not equal ratifying,” she says. “Only a majority vote in our Parliament can allow the Agreement to take force. Signing is simply a technical step in the process, allowing the TPP text to be tabled in Parliament for consideration and debate before any final decision is made.”

When’s the debate?

Until the final two weeks of last fall’s election campaign, the TPP wasn’t on the radar. The Conservatives tout the agreement, which took years to negotiate, as proof of the success of their business-first approach to foreign relations. Harper’s trade minister, Ed Fast, even took time out of the election campaign to participate in the final stages of negotiations.

The NDP, by that point slipping in the polls, took a stand against the agreement, asserting that it would, among other things, lead to major job losses in Canada’s manufacturing sector. (Recent number crunching by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which estimates the TPP could cost 58,000 jobs, appear to vindicate the NDP’s concerns on this front.) The Liberals remained non-committal in the final days of the election campaign, heavily emphasizing their support for “free trade” but promising a “full and open debate”in Parliament and with the public before finalizing the deal.

The question now is, when can we start this debate?

While Freeland claims widespread public consultations are underway on the TPP, the government is keeping things as low-key as possible. They have not been convening town hall meetings across the country, instead inviting people to share their thoughts on the TPP via an email address on the government website.

Four months since the deal was first announced by the outgoing Conservatives, the Liberals seem no more eager to take a substantive position on the TPP, making any potential debate more akin to shadow boxing.

Delaying decision on ratification (or not)

Take, for example, this exchange between NDP leader Tom Mulcair and Prime Minister Trudeau in the first Question Period of the new session of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Pacific Partnership was negotiated in secret during the final days of the Conservative government. Now, after campaign promises of a more open government with real consultations, the Liberals say they will sign the Conservative-negotiated trade deal with absolutely no changes. TPP would kill 58,000 Canadian jobs, weaken supply management, hurt our auto sector, and put Canadian innovators at a competitive disadvantage. Why is the Prime Minister signing this bad Conservative trade deal without the consultations he promised?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his question because it allows me to set something absolutely straight. We were elected on a commitment to consult with Canadians and indeed to consult with the House of Commons before a decision was made on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Indeed, not signing in the upcoming step would mean that we decided, without consulting with Parliament, not to go forward with the TPP. Of course, we are open to consulting with Canadians and consulting with Parliament, and that is the step that brings us toward ratification or not. That is what it is all about, and that is our commitment.

Taken together, the statements from Trudeau and Freeland sound like the government has decided to delay dealing with this issue for as long as possible, punting ratification (or not) as far down the road as possible. They may have already decided to wait this out until at least after the U.S. presidential elections. With a lot of opposition to the TPP in the U.S. Congress, plus the anti-TPP stances of the presidential frontrunners (including, most recently, Democratic favourite Hillary Clinton), the Liberals look like a government that has decided to waste as little political capital as possible on the TPP.

In the meantime, it looks like it will be up to civil society to lead the “full and open” debate on the TPP.