Over 450 European and Canadian civil society groups urge legislators to reject CETA

ceta-open-letter-nov-28Over 450 public interest groups from across Europe and Canada today urged legislators to vote against the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). They joined forces to defend people and planet against the threats posed by the EU-Canada agreement, which still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament. Should EU parliamentarians give the trade deal the green light, ratification votes in EU member states would follow.

In an open letter sent to legislators today, the groups express serious concerns about CETA, the ratification of which could weaken protections for workers and the environment, and provide foreign investors with extreme tools to attack public interest regulations.

The open letter highlights that:

  • CETA is no progressive trade deal but even more intrusive than the old free trade agenda designed by and for the world’s largest multinationals.
  • the deal features many worrying provisions that sideline the needs of people and planet.
  • there must be a paradigm shift towards a transparent and inclusive trade policy.

Trade unions, farmer associations, environmental and public health groups as well as human rights and digital rights organisations from both sides of the Atlantic are among the long list of signatories. Their firm rejection of CETA is exemplary for the growing opposition to the controversial agreement, which has also been criticised by legal scholars, small and medium-sized businesses, as well as a number of economists.

Trade campaigner Pia Eberhardt on behalf of signatory Corporate Europe Observatory said:

“Ratifying CETA would give corporations a carte blanche to push through their interests no matter what. CETA contains powerful tools for corporations to bully decision makers and sue for compensation if they introduce policies to protect people and the environment that may affect company profits. We would essentially see corporations hindering governments from doing the job for which they were elected.”

“In times of catastrophic climate change, rising social inequality and growing anger of those who no longer feel represented by politicians, more rights for corporations is the last thing we need.”

Larry Brown, President of the Canadian National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) and Trade Justice Network also signed the letter. He added:

“We stand with European workers and members of civil society who are mobilizing against this corporate-driven trade deal, which will not benefit people. We will continue to fight the deal in Canada. We want our political leaders to move away from the failed model of past trade agreements and promote trade that benefits people and the environment.”

The General Secretary of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), Jan Willem Goudriaan, another signatory of the letter, commented:

“Trade unions have provided ample input to the CETA negotiations in order to protect public services and strengthen labour rights. But despite last-minute concessions to clarify the possible interpretation of the agreement, our concerns are not addressed in the text. CETA has become a deal that is actually detrimental to the interests of people. We therefore urge Members of the European Parliament to stand up for citizens, public services and our democracy and vote against CETA.”

Notes to Editors:

  • Read the full open letter to legislators (with links to translations into many languages, including French, German, and Spanish).
  • There has been substantial controversy in the European Parliament over the tight timetable of the CETA dossier. Coordinators of the lead committee on international trade (INTA) are expected to decide on a new schedule today (28 November). It is likely to include an INTA vote in January, following which all Members of the European Parliament would have the opportunity to vote on CETA in plenary in February.
  • Examples illustrating the broad coalition of voices criticising CETA include:

Response to Joint Interpretative Declaration on CETA

On October 5, 2016, a joint EU-Canada Declaration on CETA was released in Brussels and began to circulate publicly. The Declaration was supposed to be an official reply to the very specific amendments to CETA proposed by labour unions, parliamentarians, social justice organizations, and the public in both Canada and Europe. Instead of addressing these specific concerns, the Declaration completely ignores them.

And, in a display of arrogant condescension, the Declaration simply reiterates and clarifies what is already in the agreement, as if the various legitimate concerns that it purports to respond to have neither merit nor substance.

In light of this refusal to respond seriously to the substantiated and well-researched concerns of civil society, the members of the Trade Justice Network cannot accept this empty and meaningless Declaration as anything more than public relations. As well, as various legal scholars and trade experts have indicated, the Declaration is certainly not legally binding. This is consistent with the entire process of the CETA agreement so far. CETA was negotiated in secret, without any attempt whatsoever to include citizens, and has not taken into consideration the reasonable and legitimate amendments proposed by civil society.

Background

With the release of the CETA text on the government of Canada website, researchers, policy analysts, and interested citizens in labour unions, social justice groups, civil society organizations, and the public carefully read the agreement, identified specific areas of concern, and have repeatedly articulated these concerns in research documents, essays, and editorials. Furthermore, these specific concerns have been consistently raised with government officials in Canada and Europe in letters, public consultations, and in large-scale public protests and mobilizations, which in some cases numbered in the hundreds of thousands. At the same time, and all along, we have been proposing clear and very specific amendments to the CETA text.

Labour and civil society groups asked for specific amendments in the chapters dealing with the Investor Court System, the right to regulate, regulatory cooperation, public services, investment protection, public procurement, and labour and environmental protection. Proposed amendments to the text included language that would create binding enforcement mechanisms to protect workers’ wages and rights, to enforce health and safety standards, and to ensure environmental sustainability. Citizens in both Canada and the EU also demanded that the text be amended to remove all mention of the disturbing investor court system that bypasses our existing judicial system to give private foreign investors special legal privileges and to provide private foreign investors the extraordinary power to sue democratically elected governments for their policies and legislation.

The October 5 Declaration

In Canada, our specific concerns and proposed amendments were largely ignored by the original signatory to the agreement, Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party government. With the defeat of the Conservatives, and the election of a new government in October 2015, we were led to believe that these concerns would finally be taken seriously, and that the text could be amended. Hopes were raised when government officials signalled a willingness to listen to the specific criticisms raised in particular by the Canadian Labour Congress and its German counterpart, the DGB.

With the October 5 Declaration, it is evident that these hopes were decidedly misguided. The Declaration fails to address the shortcomings of CETA, and essentially ignores the concerns that have been raised. There is nothing whatsoever in the Declaration that acknowledges the specific demands and recommendations of civil society. There is no attempt at all to respond to proposed amendments, indeed none of the proposed amendments were even mentioned at all.

Instead the declaration touts the supposed virtues of CETA, and tries to depict it in an excessively optimistic light. The critics of CETA are served up nothing more than clarity and trite, empty reassurances: “a clear and unambiguous statement” of what was already agreed to.

Citizens and civil society groups asked for amendments. The response was stale platitudes. The Declaration simply reiterates the claims made about the supposedly wonderful social and economic benefits of CETA, without any even token attempt to validate those claims. They are true because they are stated to be true.

In other words, the Declaration is based on several patronizing assumptions: either citizens have not read the CETA agreement, or we don’t really understand what’s in it, or we just can’t see that it “promotes and protects our shared values.” The Declaration assumes that the critics are wrong, and that CETA doesn’t do what the critics allege. All these assumptions are egregiously flawed and deeply condescending.

And so the Declaration is weak and largely meaningless. And even if it wasn’t meaningless, in any case it is legally irrelevant, devoid of any legal content or significance. It does not even offer the pretext of interpreting the CETA provisions in legal terms. It does not alter or amend CETA in any substantive way, and it articulates commitments that are aspirational, non-binding, and lacking any effective legal enforcement.[1]

For all these reasons, the Declaration has to be viewed as nothing more than a public relations exercise—an attempt to mollify critics of CETA, but not to take them seriously. In the words of Greenpeace, the Declaration “has the legal weight of a holiday brochure.”

 The False Promise of Progress and Prosperity

Those who are promoting CETA typically invoke high-minded metaphors to justify what they are doing: tearing down walls, building bridges, promoting partnership and prosperity. They will also have us believe that those who oppose it are rejecting an open, modern, progressive economy.

The truth is, their words are empty rhetoric. Contrary to their heady attempt to brand their self-image, those who promote CETA are not the progressive voices of Canada. There is absolutely nothing progressive about a trade deal that gives special powers and privileges to foreign private investors, that undermines democratic and legal institutions, and that does nothing to meaningfully protect our health, our jobs, our labour standards, or our environment.

For us in Canada, what is equally perplexing is that all this is coming from a government that campaigned on a promise of “Real Change.” Regrettably, this new government has done nothing to substantively alter the very same CETA agreement negotiated by the previous Conservative government. It is more than a little bewildering how a trade deal negotiated by the Stephen Harper regime—widely recognized as one of the most reactionary governments in Canadian history—can by some magical process become a truly progressive agreement because the government—not the agreement—changed. The simple fact of the matter is that Justin Trudeau is now championing Stephen Harper’s trade deal, making a mockery of his campaign promise for “Real Change.”

As for the supposed economic benefits of CETA, the reality is that there is no clear empirical data that trade liberalization is the engine of growth, and there is no credible evidence that unregulated trade benefits everyone equally. In fact, there is lots of evidence to the contrary. The most recent example is a September 2016 study from Tufts University that predicts that CETA will result in significant job losses, slowing economic growth, and increasing inequality on both sides of the Atlantic.[2]

Despite the lofty claims, the actual legacy of the recent decades of globalized trade deals has been dismal. What these trade agreements have really done is help constitute and consolidate both income inequality and climate change on a scale unprecedented in human history. There is no evidence to support the often-cited slogan that a rising tide lifts all boats. On the contrary, what has coincided with liberalized trade deals has been the golden age of corporate wealth, greed, power, and environmental destruction. Instead of better jobs, the North American industrial heartland has witnessed shuttered factories. In their place emerged an explosion of precarious and part-time work without pensions or benefits. Wages have stagnated. Tax revenues have plummeted, and with the reduction in fiscal capacity, there have been no new social programs since 1980.

Conclusion: Meaningful Dialogue Required

If the signatories to CETA are serious about addressing the real and legitimate concerns raised by the democratic voices of Canada and the European Union, we call on them to open the agreement, enter into genuine and meaningful dialogue with civil society organizations and the public, and discuss the possibility of real amendments and changes to the text.

Larry Brown                                                      Blair Redlin

Co-Chair, TJN                                                   Co-Chair, TJN

 

Download this post as a PDF

 

[1]. See for example, Gus Van Harten, “Comments on the EU-Canada Declaration on the CETA” (Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper No. 6/2017, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, ON, October 8, 2016), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2850281.

[2]. Pierre Kohler and Servaas Storm, “CETA Without Blinders: How Cutting ‘Trade Costs and more’ Will Cause Unemployment, Inequality and Welfare Losses” (GDAE Working Paper 16-03, Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University, Medford, MA, September 2016), http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/ceta_simulations.html.

Kanada darf das „grundsätzlich bedenkliche” europäische Handelsabkommen nicht ratifizieren

Kanadische Gewerkschaften erklären sich solidarisch mit den Großkundgebungen in Europa und rufen die liberale Regierung auf, das umfassende Wirtschafts- und Handelsabkommen zwischen Kanada und der Europäischen Union nicht zu ratifizieren.

Wie umstritten CETA ist, lässt sich an den über drei Millionen Europäerinnen und Europäern ablesen, die den Aufruf gegen CETA und das Zwillingsabkommen TTIP unterschrieben haben. Und der Widerstand der Europäer gegen CETA, der sich in erster Linie gegen die Investorenrechte und den mangelnden Schutz für öffentliche Dienste richtet, wächst. Diese Bedenken, die das Abkommen in Europa noch zu Fall bringen könnten, werden auf der anderen Seite des Atlantiks vom Trade Justice Network (TJN), einer Koalition kanadischer Gewerkschaften, Umweltschutz- und Bürgerrechtsgruppen, geteilt.

Angesichts eines weiteren Treffens der EU-Handelsminister in Montreal fordert das TJN die kanadische Regierung auf, CETA nicht zu ratifizieren.

„Die kanadische Ministerin für internationalen Handel Chrystia Freeland bewirbt das Abkommen zwischen Kanada und der Europäischen Union als ‚progressiv‘, aber nichts könnte von der Wahrheit weiter entfernt sein. CETA enthält in seiner derzeitigen Version grundlegende Mängel und begünstigt die Interessen der Konzerne gegenüber jenen der kanadischen Bevölkerung”, sagte der Vizevorsitzende des TJN Larry Brown.

Unsere wichtigsten Forderungen lauten:

  • Streichung aller Bestimmungen zum Investitionsschutz. Es besteht kein Grund, unsere öffentliche Gerichtsbarkeit zu umgehen und auf außergerichtliche Schiedsverfahren zurückzugreifen, die die Konzerne begünstigen. Der für CETA vorgeschlagene Investitionsgerichtshof bedeutet keine echte Verbesserung gegenüber dem bedenklichen Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegungssystem im NAFTA und anderen Handelsabkommen.
  • Schutz der öffentlichen Dienste vor Privatisierung. CETA stellt eine Gefahr für unsere öffentlichen Dienste dar, da im Falle gescheiterter Privatisierungen eine Renationalisierung bzw. eine künftige Expansion öffentlicher Dienste kaum noch möglich wären.
  • Weg mit den Patentverlängerungen für pharmazeutische Produkte. Mit dem im CETA vorgesehenen Patentschutz könnten die jährlich für unser Gesundheitssystem anfallenden Medikamentenkosten um $ 1 Milliarde und mehr steigen.
  • Schutz für das öffentliche Auftragswesen. Nach derzeitigem Stand würde das öffentliche Auftragswesen einer Regierungsbehörde bzw. eines Sektors, sofern sie nicht ausdrücklich ausgenommen sind, unter die CETA-Bestimmungen fallen. Damit werden die Rechte der Provinzen, Kommunen und anderer Einheiten beschnitten, ihre Ausgaben im Rahmen des öffentlichen Auftragswesens bestmöglich zu investieren, indem sie lokalen Gütern und Dienstleistungen den Vorzug einräumen.

Änderungen müssen an den grundlegenden Rahmenbestimmungen des Abkommens vorgenommen werden und dürfen nicht in Form rechtlich nicht bindender Zusatzabkommen, Briefe oder Erklärungen erfolgen.

„Das Trade Justice Network steht Seite an Seite mit den europäischen Arbeitnehmer/innen und Aktivist/innen der Zivilgesellschaft, die in Deutschland, Österreich, Belgien und anderswo zum Widerstand gegen CETA mobilisieren, das in vielerlei Hinsicht genauso gefährlich ist wie TTIP. Die überwältigende Ablehnung in Europa brachte die TTIP-Verhandlungen mit den USA zum Stillstand; CETA, so die Gegner, ist aber nichts anderes als TTIP durch die Hintertür”, so Blair Redlin, Vizevorsitzender von TJN.

Das Trade Justice Network ist ein Bündnis aus Umweltschutzgruppen, Organisationen der Zivilgesellschaft und indigen Bevölkerung, Kulturverbänden, Bauernbünden, Gewerkschaften und der Bewegung für soziale Gerechtigkeit; sie haben sich zusammengeschlossen, um das Ausmaß und die im Geheimen geführten Verhandlungen der meisten Freihandelsabkommen zu hinterfragen. Das Netzwerk setzt sich für eine nachhaltigere, gleichberechtigte und sozial gerechte internationale Handelspolitik ein.

Weitere Informationen (auf Englisch) bei:

Deb Duffy

613-709-0382

Canada must not ratify ‘fundamentally flawed’ European trade pact

In solidarity with mass demonstrations taking place in Europe, Canadian groups are calling on the Liberal government not to ratify the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

CETA is highly controversial, with more than three million Europeans signing a petition against CETA and its twin agreement TTIP. And European opposition to CETA is growing, focused on the deal’s investor rights rules as well as lack of protection for public services. Those concerns, which could stop the deal in its tracks in Europe, are shared across the Atlantic by the Trade Justice Network, a coalition of Canadian unions, environmental and citizens’ groups.

As a number of EU Trade Ministers arrive in Montreal for other meeting, the TJN is calling on the Canadian government not to ratify CETA.

“Canadian International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland is pitching the Canada-EU trade deal as ‘progressive,’ but nothing could be further from the truth. CETA as written is fundamentally flawed, and favours corporate interests over those of Canadians,” said TJN co-chair Larry Brown.

Among the TJN’s key demands are:

  • Remove all investor rights rules. There is no need to bypass our public court system and use extra-judicial arbitration that favours corporations. CETA’s proposed Investor Court System is not a real improvement on flawed investor-state dispute resolution systems in NAFTA and other trade deals.
  • Protect public services from privatization.CETA puts our public services at risk by making it harder to reverse failed privatizations or expand public services in the future.
  • Stop pharmaceutical patent extensions. CETA’s patent protection provisions could increase the annual cost of pharmaceuticals in our health care system by a $1 billion or more.
  • Protect public procurement.Currently, public procurement by any government service or sector not explicitly excluded is swept into CETA. This limits the rights of provinces, municipalities, and other entities to get the most out of their procurement spending by favouring local goods and services.

Changes to CETA must be made in the body of the agreement, not in a non-binding side agreement, letter or statement.

“The Trade Justice Network stands with European workers and members of civil society mobilizing in Germany, Austria, Belgium and elsewhere to resist CETA, which has many of the same dangerous provisions as TTIP.  Overwhelming European opposition is blocking this trade deal with the U.S., and opponents recognize that CETA is simply TTIP through the back door,” said TJN co-chair Blair Redlin.

TJN statement in German

The Trade Justice Network is comprised of environmental, civil society, student, Indigenous, cultural, farming, labour and social justice organizations that have come together to challenge the scope and secret negotiating process of most free trade agreements. It emphasizes the need for a more sustainable, equitable and socially just international trade regime.

For more information:

Deb Duffy, NUPGE

613- 709-0382

 

TPP: Urgent need for full, independent assessment

Hearings into the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership kicked off in Vancouver with a stark warning from the Trade Justice Network about the deal’s many negative consequences, and an urgent call for a comprehensive, public and independent assessment of the pact.

TJN co-chair Blair Redlin told members of the House of Commons Committee on International Trade there is no rush to ratify the TPP, and every reason for a proper economic, social and environmental evaluation of the deal.

Outside the hearings, demonstrators rallied against Canada ratifying the deal, and advocacy group OpenMedia organized a giant TV screen displaying protest messages from across the country.

Redlin told the committee the TPP is not about trade, as 97 per cent of Canada’s exports to TPP countries are already duty-free. Instead the deal aims to secure and expand corporate rights and protections.

The TPP’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system will let foreign corporations sue governments if a law or regulation interferes with their investments – and profits. Under these NAFTA-style rules, Canada is already the most-sued developed country. Expanding access to this one-sided process could mean a spike in new cases.

The TPP’s controversial ISDS rules will limit government powers to regulate in the public interest, including by supporting industries that create good local jobs, and protecting the environment. A government investing in transit or wind turbines could face challenges for favouring local procurement.

Ratifying the TPP comes at a high price, said Redlin. Independent analysis of the deal has found it will:

  • cost Canada 58,000 jobs;
  • increase income inequality;
  • limit access to generic drugs, which in turn will drive up health care costs;
  • let corporations move to countries with cheaper labour and weaker labour laws;
  • hurt Canada’s agricultural, manufacturing and technology sectors; and
  • threaten internet freedom.

Redlin highlighted the outcomes of a recent TJN-sponsored forum, where Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz described the TPP as “the worst trade deal ever.”

The TPP was finalized by the former Harper government during last year’s federal election, and then signed by the new Liberal government. Consultations on the deal have been limited, poorly publicized, and have appeared to favour the voices of corporations – not citizens.

Blair Redlin’s presentation notes

Making sense of the TPP: A forum at the University of Ottawa

Poster_TPP-EnglishOn April 1, a blue-ribbon panel of experts from Canada, the United States and Europe will hold a forum in Ottawa on the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The keynote speaker at this free event will be Noble Prize-winning economist Dr. Joseph Stiglitz.

Proponents of the TPP argue that it is a once-in-a-generation trade deal that will create jobs and boost Canada’s economy. Opponents counter that the TPP is far more than trade deal – it is an unprecedented set of rules created to increase the profits of transnational corporations and grant them extraordinary powers to override governments that enact legislation in the public interest.

Canada’s Liberal government has called for extensive public consultation before deciding if it will ratify the TPP, and International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has promised to commission an impact study.

MAKING SENSE OF THE TPP is meant to be an informed contribution to the consultation process. It will be hosted by the University of Ottawa and sponsored by CWA Canada, the country’s only all-media union, and the Trade Justice Network.

In addition to Dr. Stiglitz, participants include:

  • Prof. Gus Van Harten, author and expert on international investment law
  • Dr. Ron Labonte, University of Ottawa Canada Research Chair in Globalization and Health Equity
  • Jeronim Capaldo, ground-breaking Tufts University Research Fellow
  • Scott Sinclair, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives economist
  • Pia Eberhardt, Brussels-based international trade researcher for the European Corporate Observatory

The experts will explore the TPP’s potential impact on jobs, manufacturing, health care, sovereignty and the Internet. The forum will also examine the controversial ISDS provision of the TPP, which would grant foreign corporations the right to sue governments if they believe a government decision negatively impacts their potential future profits – something neither Canadian companies nor private citizens have the right to do.

 Date: April 1, 2016

Time: 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. (Keynote address at 11 a.m.)

Location: Room FSS4007, Social Sciences Building, University of Ottawa

RSVP: jkarpf@uottawa.ca (attendance is free but space is limited)

Media inquires: Contact Bill Gillespie at 647-786-4332

CETA: Liberals trying to hoodwink Canadians

OTTAWA, February 29, 2016- The Trudeau government’s announcement of reforms to the Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions within the Canada-EU Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement (CETA) is nothing more than window dressing.

“The minor tweaks to CETA’s investor-state provisions do nothing to stop foreign corporations from using the threat of billion dollar lawsuits to prevent governments from enacting socially or environmentally responsible measures,” said Larry Brown, co-chair of the Trade Justice Network.

CETA’s Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, now rebranded as the Investor Court System to further mask the pro-investor bias, will allow Europe’s richest corporations to bypass our domestic courts and sue our government for millions or even billions of dollars if a measure is deemed to threaten their future profits.

“Canada is already the most-sued developed country through ISDS. The federal government has paid more than $200 million to corporations through this mechanism so far and is facing active claims worth billions more,” said Blair Redlin, co-chair of the TJN. “As well, ISDS puts a serious chill on the ability of governments at all levels to enact legislation and public policies that protect the health and well-being of citizens or promote sustainable development. If the new Canadian government ratifies CETA, these problems will only get worse.”

The secret renegotiation also failed to address the numerous other problems with CETA including a billion dollar increase to drug prices, threats to supply-management, a ratchet mechanism that locks in privatization and restrictions to local procurement which will hurt locally sourced food programs and other buy local programs.

“Unfortunately, Minister Freeland has done nothing to fix the fundamental problems with this deal. CETA is still a terrible deal for everyday Canadians, and it cannot be ratified without thorough and transparent renegotiation,” said Brown.

TJN is an extensive and multi-sectoral network uniting environmental, civil society, student, Indigenous, cultural, farming, labour and social justice groups whose aim is to challenge the scope and secretive nature of most free trade agreements.

– 30 –

For more information: Larry Brown, co-chair, Trade Justice Network

613-228-9800

Cost of Harper’s Great Deal on the TPP: $5-Billion and Counting

Steven Harper was desperate to get a TPP deal during the election campaign. After all, his last great trade deal, the CETA with Europe is in serious trouble in the EU and may never be implemented.

So now we have the TPP. A great deal for Canada, we’re told.

Except that this great deal is going to hurt our dairy farmers so much that the taxpayers of Canada are going to have to pay $4.3 billion in compensation for their losses.

Except that this great deal is going to hurt our auto parts manufacturing so much that it’s going to cost the taxpayers of Canada another $1 billion to compensate them.

What did we get? Empty assurances from a PM who never saw a free trade deal he didn’t like.

The cost? On top of the $5 billion in cash, on top of the thousands of jobs that will be lost, Harper promised to give corporations from Australia, and Japan, and Vietnam, and Malaysia, and seven other countries, the right to challenge the democratic decisions of our government.

Harper promised to let companies from Brunei and New Zealand and Singapore and all the rest of them, have equal rights with Canadian companies to bid on publicly financed projects or contracts. No more local purchasing, no more using Canadian taxpayers’ money to support Canadian companies and workers.

Harper promised that if any government in Canada decided to privatize a public service, they, or any successor government, will never have the right to change their minds, even if the privatization was an absurd mistake. Governments could only ever move one way, to privatize. They call it the ratchet effect.

Harper has signed an agreement so that no government from here on will be able to introduce a new social program that isn’t bound by the privatization ethos of the TPP.

Harper has committed that our crown corporations will not be able to serve the public interest, they will have to act under strictly commercial considerations.

Harper has agreed that Canadians shouldn’t really have the right to pass regulations governing corporate behaviour, unless the whole of the TPP world, including the US, Australia, and Vietnam, is in agreement.

And there’s more. Drug prices will almost certainly increase again.

We don’t know for sure what we’ve given up in the areas of intellectual property or IT.

The value of the TPP? Completely hypothetical.

The costs? Far too high.

This is a deal by business, for business, with a price tag Canadians shouldn’t have to pay.

Mexican Dairy Farmers Oppose TPP too

The Union of Dairy Producers of the Mexican Republic and the Mexican Dairy Federation asked the government to refrain from presenting offers in the negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which are being carried out in Atlanta, Georgia, United States, that have not been agreed to by the national sector.

The National Front of Dairy Producers and Consumers demanded that the product be removed from the negotiations. Alvaro Gonzalez Muñoz, the group’s president, explained that the risks are very high, since the nations that make up the commercial bloc will offer very low prices for dairy products, which will lead to the bankruptcy of the majority of the 250,000 producers.
Vicente Gomez Cobo, president of the Mexican Dairy Federation, indicated that the national negotiators “should not use milk producers as a bargaining chip. We are not like textiles or patented medicines.”

Salvador Alvarez Moran, president of the Union of Dairy Producers of the Mexican Republic, explained that the sector is going through a profound crisis, created by the oversupply of milk on world markets, which has led to a 70 percent drop in prices in the last year and a half. “The situation could get worse if we include dairy in the TPP, since New Zealand is the main exporter of milk and cheeses in the world. Its competitive advantages allow it to produce milk at half of what it costs in Mexico.”

He referred to the Mexican dairy supply chain, which is made up of 250,000 farms, of which 96 percent have fewer than 100 heads of cattle, and which generate 635,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Both reported that the 240,000 dairy producers continue to confront a complicated situation due to the low prices they receive, which are below the costs of production. “Hundreds of small and medium producers are at risk of disappearing,” they indicated in separate interviews.

Gomez Cobo said that production costs have risen 30 percent due to the effects of the devaluation of the peso against the dollar, since 85 percent of inputs are priced in that currency.

 

Harper undermines TPP negotiations with careless remarks

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

OTTAWA (Sept. 22, 2015) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper has shown reckless incompetence with his recent remarks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and Canada now has no choice but to step away from the table, says the Trade Justice Network.

The TJN, a coalition that includes labour unions – organizations with tremendous experience in negotiating – says Harper’s ill-advised comments on the auto industry have left Canada with no room to manoeuvre.

“Mr. Harper has already publicly conceded that Canada is prepared to accept a bad deal for Canada’s auto parts manufacturers,” said TJN spokesman Larry Brown.

“Canada’s negotiating team now has no leverage whatsoever with which to defend this crucial industry at the TPP talks. Every other country knows that Mr, Harper has publicly conceded on this point – he will accept a deal that does not protect the industry and its workforce.”

“No one should ever go to a negotiating table saying that reaching a deal is absolutely crucial; the other side knows that they can extract the maximum concessions because you’ve already implied that you will accept pretty much anything to get this ‘crucial’ deal.”

The TJN also questions whether the current government has any moral authority to reach an agreement on such a major issue as the TPP. It is unheard of for an outgoing government to conclude an international treaty of such scope during an election campaign, when they should be just caretakers.

“With no moral authority to conclude a deal and with Canada’s negotiators being completely painted into a corner by Mr Harper, the only sensible option for Canada is to stand aside, at least until the federal election is concluded,” Brown said.

“At that point our negotiators may get the kind of mandate from a new government that will allow them to actually bargain in Canada’s best interests, instead of having their position completely undercut by an incompetent negotiator like Mr. Harper.”

You can find the Trade Justice Network on Twitter (@TradeJusticeNet) and on Facebook.

For more information contact:

Larry Brown – Trade Justice Network

Ph# 613-799-3942 © 613-228-9800 (w)