Give TPP a fair hearing

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 09/10/2015 (3713 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

BRANDON — Perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. Perhaps we ought to read the fine print before we pass judgment on a deal that could have sweeping ramifications for the Canadian economy for decades to come.

Two days before the federal election campaign was launched, I wrote that the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations could have a game-changing impact on the course and outcome of the election.

At the time, the TPP was a proposed trade deal for Canada, the United States, Mexico, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam — a collective population of almost 800 million and an annual GDP of more than $28 trillion. It would address a wide range of issues, including labour standards, intellectual property rights, environmental protection, automobile manufacturing, forestry and agriculture.

A Canadian Press report said: “The governing Tories want to launch the campaign with the deal in hand — an agreement they could brandish as evidence of their economic stewardship.” Contrary to those expectations, however, the deal was not concluded, and it is arguable that failure was at least partially responsible for the lethargic, unfocused flow of the Conservative campaign in August. The Tories expected a deal to coincide with the election call and, when that did not materialize, they were caught flat-footed.

On Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the TPP negotiations had been completed and an agreement is in place. He has promised to release the full details of the agreement, but the text of the deal is still undergoing intensive legal review. It is unlikely it will be made available to Canadians before they vote on Oct. 19.

Almost everything we know about the TPP agreement comes from the Harper government or experts who received information from the Harper government. In exchange for increased exports of Canadian pork, beef, canola, forestry, minerals, machinery and many other products, we have been told we only surrendered a miniscule increase in foreign dairy and poultry imports and reductions in Canadian parts content in imported cars and trucks.

Given past trade deals, it’s a claim that sounds too good to be true, and that may be case this time. Indeed, there is much we still do not know about the TPP agreement’s terms. For example, how will it impact environmental standards and the cost of prescription drugs? Does it call for bulk water exports? How will Canadian workers be impacted by lower wages paid in other member countries?

Though the public remains largely oblivious to the TPP’s specifics provisions, that fact has not stopped politicians from using the deal to win votes. Shortly after announcing the agreement, Harper told an Ontario audience “opening markets for Canadian trade is just one part of our economic action plan for jobs and growth, it is the plan that Canada needs to keep moving forward… It is going to make a big material difference to your lives, what the choice is on Oct. 19.”

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has taken the opposite approach. Despite having not seen the agreement, he told a Toronto audience the TPP will hurt Canadian families. Playing up fears of job losses, he promised to scrap the deal if his party forms the next government.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau claimed Harper hasn’t done a good job of explaining specifically how Canadians will benefit from the deal — an assertion supported by two polls released this week — and said he would consult with both Parliament and the provincial premiers before ratifying the deal.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

Trudeau’s plan is the most reasonable in the circumstances. Given Canadians’ unawareness of the TPP’s specific provisions and its long-term impact on the various regions of the country, it is both reckless and irresponsible to either endorse or condemn the agreement, sight unseen.

It would be just as reckless to allow our incomplete knowledge of the TPP to impact which party’s candidate we vote for. It is far wiser to withhold judgment until we see the entire agreement and are in a better position to weigh all of its consequences.

deverynrossletters@gmail.com Twitter: @deverynross

Deveryn Ross is a political commentator living in Brandon.