The NDP and the new international trade agreement

Argus · October 3, 2015

I don't claim to be an expert on this new trade agreement. As with all such agreements, though, it will hurt some and help others. The only reason for signing it is that the latter will greatly outweigh the former. I have seen a number of economists discussing this in the papers and on television. None had any disagreement about the absolute need for us to be included in an agreement which will involve over 40% of the planet, including our largest trading partner. One said that if this went ahead and Canada wasn't in it could be catastrophic.

The major source of political friction at the moment seems to be over a thousand or so dairy farmers. Supply management is, I know, stupid in most cases. It's certainly stupid with regard to dairy farmers. It gives them a nice living and protects them at the expense of much higher prices for the rest of us.

Both the Liberal and Conservatives seem to want to be part of the agreement but are leery of antagonizing Quebec's dairy farmers in an election. Quebec has a habit of shifting huge number of votes over tiny emotional issues, witness what happened to the Tories over those arts grants a couple of elections ago.

Only the NDP, though, are willing to forego this agreement to protect dairy farmers and auto workers. Their position strikes me as mindlessly stupid and based on a very hard left view of trade and economics. Rejecting the agreement could mean protecting a few thousand jobs at the expense of tens of thousands of more jobs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-will-defend-quebec-farms-ontario-manufacturing-mulcair-says/article26641298/

angrypenguin · October 3, 2015

I don't claim to be an expert on this new trade agreement. As with all such agreements, though, it will hurt some and help others. The only reason for signing it is that the latter will greatly outweigh the former. I have seen a number of economists discussing this in the papers and on television. None had any disagreement about the absolute need for us to be included in an agreement which will involve over 40% of the planet, including our largest trading partner. One said that if this went ahead and Canada wasn't in it could be catastrophic.

The major source of political friction at the moment seems to be over a thousand or so dairy farmers. Supply management is, I know, stupid in most cases. It's certainly stupid with regard to dairy farmers. It gives them a nice living and protects them at the expense of much higher prices for the rest of us.

Both the Liberal and Conservatives seem to want to be part of the agreement but are leery of antagonizing Quebec's dairy farmers in an election. Quebec has a habit of shifting huge number of votes over tiny emotional issues, witness what happened to the Tories over those arts grants a couple of elections ago.

Only the NDP, though, are willing to forego this agreement to protect dairy farmers and auto workers. Their position strikes me as mindlessly stupid and based on a very hard left view of trade and economics. Rejecting the agreement could mean protecting a few thousand jobs at the expense of tens of thousands of more jobs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-will-defend-quebec-farms-ontario-manufacturing-mulcair-says/article26641298/

Precisely. The PM did a good job this morning explaining the upsides of the TPP.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/if-monster-trade-deal-is-reached-canada-will-release-details-harper-1.2593440

(The video is what I'm referring to).

Argus · October 3, 2015

Andrew Coyne's take on the NDP's latest promise.

Whatever the semantic possibilities, what’s significant is what the party wants to be understood from the letter: that it would tear up a major trade deal just days after it was negotiated, at whatever cost to Canada’s long-term economic interests. That’s big.

Indeed, if I thought they meant it, I’d say it disqualified them for office.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-the-ndp-campaign-is-in-a-lot-of-trouble

waldo · October 3, 2015

Precisely. The PM did a good job this morning explaining the upsides of the TPP.

Harper has the gall to suggest supply management will be protected on all levels... while he refuses to answer the direct question put to him repeatedly during the TVA debate... as to whether that meant 100% protection. Of course, it won't and shouldn't be expected to in a "give and take negotiation". Harper thought he could time the TPP signing as a campaign trumpeting point... but along the way, dairy cows got in the way. Harper thought he could have it both ways... have a timed campaign event to showcase TPP and have the full ramifications come to light after the election. Notwithstanding yet another round of secret negotiations that are kept from the Canadian public until the deed is done!

angrypenguin · October 3, 2015

Harper has the gall to suggest supply management will be protected on all levels... while he refuses to answer the direct question put to him repeatedly during the TVA debate... as to whether that meant 100% protection. Of course, it won't and shouldn't be expected to in a "give and take negotiation". Harper thought he could time the TPP signing as a campaign trumpeting point... but along the way, dairy cows got in the way. Harper thought he could have it both ways... have a timed campaign event to showcase TPP and have the full ramifications come to light after the election. Notwithstanding yet another round of secret negotiations that are kept from the Canadian public until the deed is done!

Substantiate this with facts please.

waldo · October 3, 2015

Substantiate this with facts please.

:lol: what? That Harper refuses to answer to what degree/extent his, "trust me... I'm protecting supply management" covers? That's on the record a brazillion times! That Harper is waiting with baited breath to announce a TPP signing during the final run-up to the election? That Harper is keeping the details of intentions within the TPP agreement from the Canadian public?

.

angrypenguin · October 3, 2015

what? That Harper refuses to answer to what degree/extent his, "trust me... I'm protecting supply management" covers? That's on the record a brazillion times! That Harper is waiting with baited breath to announce a TPP signing during the final run-up to the election? That Harper is keeping the details of intentions within the TPP agreement from the Canadian public?

.

This is a silly argument. If I'm negotiating with you, and I know where I'm ahead and how I benefit from you, you really expect me to give away this information to someone else, let alone on national TV?

If Harper told the Canadian public, the other sides would use this information against him.

Let's play this out logically shall we?

Harper goes on national TV to show Canadians how he has managed to eek out a competitive edge that would benefit Canada. Then a competing nation would then watch and then use this info against him.

Keep in mind Harper has promised to share the details once they are negotiated and it still has to get through Parliament. He can't sign and approve everything himself here.

waldo · October 3, 2015

This is a silly argument.

this is a silly interpretation... the Canadian public can be provided with details/objectives to a level that doesn't compromise negotiations. Care to point me a Harper Conservative government document/information source that provides even something approximating the following U.S. high-level intentions within TPP:

Office of the United States Trade Representative - Trans-Pacific Partnership: Summary of U.S. Objectives

We are committed to providing the public information on what we are working to achieve through trade negotiations, and we will continue to share this information through the press, social media, and at www.ustr.gov as we move forward in the TPP negotiations.

angrypenguin · October 3, 2015

this is a silly interpretation... the Canadian public can be provided with details/objectives to a level that doesn't compromise negotiations. Care to point me a Harper Conservative government document/information source that provides even something approximating the following U.S. high-level intentions within TPP:

Office of the United States Trade Representative - Trans-Pacific Partnership: Summary of U.S. Objectives

The objectives are simple. To improve reach by way of free trade agreements (which 99% of all free trade agreements have been done under a Conservative government) and to increase the number of jobs. If certain sectors like the dairy/auto business have to take a hit, so be it.

Protectionism never is a positive benefit to the economy long term.

waldo · October 3, 2015

The objectives are simple. To improve reach by way of free trade agreements (which 99% of all free trade agreements have been done under a Conservative government) and to increase the number of jobs. If certain sectors like the dairy/auto business have to take a hit, so be it.

Protectionism never is a positive benefit to the economy long term.

:lol: well... you're certainly in step with the level of information/detail coming forward from Harper! Not surprised you won't even acknowledge that significant, relatively detailed (at a high level), objectives list from the U.S. government that I linked to!

.

angrypenguin · October 3, 2015

well... you're certainly in step with the level of information/detail coming forward from Harper! Not surprised you won't even acknowledge that significant, relatively detailed (at a high level), objectives list from the U.S. government that I linked to!

.

It's pointless, that's my stance on it. It doesn't offer anything substantial that I didn't know already.

waldo · October 3, 2015

It's pointless, that's my stance on it. It doesn't offer anything substantial that I didn't know already.

anything that you didn't know already? Oh my... are you an insider... how short are your pants? :lol:

angrypenguin · October 3, 2015

anything that you didn't know already? Oh my... are you an insider... how short are your pants?

Yeah let's start hurling personal attacks. Lame.

bush_cheney2004 · October 3, 2015

It's pointless, that's my stance on it. It doesn't offer anything substantial that I didn't know already.

Agreed...it is pointless to point to a U.S. list of TPP objectives, but it is routine to do so on this forum for many topics. "It's just easier".

waldo · October 3, 2015

Yeah let's start hurling personal attacks. Lame.

you weren't attacked at all - I could replay a few of your posts of late and play the "attack card" on you if you'd like. You clearly can't articulate any level of detail concerning the Harper Conservative objectives within FPTP... as I said, your catch-all statement presents as much detail as, as I'm aware, Harper Conservatives are presenting to the Canadian public... as in little to no! I used that link to the U.S. government to present a representative accounting of what a government can present to it's citizenry without compromising negotiations... you continue to, effectively, ignore it as it draws a stark contrast to what Harper Conservatives are presenting to the Canadian public. Somehow, you claimed that information in the U.S. link was "nothing you didn't know already"... to that end, and speaking to the depth of your claimed knowledge, I simply asked if you were an insider... cause that's a whole lot of information provided within that U.S. government source!

Michael Hardner · October 3, 2015

Maybe we should steer away from personal comments so as to not have them misinterpreted as attacks ?

ToadBrother · October 3, 2015

The objectives are simple. To improve reach by way of free trade agreements (which 99% of all free trade agreements have been done under a Conservative government) and to increase the number of jobs. If certain sectors like the dairy/auto business have to take a hit, so be it.

Protectionism never is a positive benefit to the economy long term.

That being said, these peoples are voters too, and voters might take sympathy on them and decide a hard line approach by the Conservatives and Liberals is unfair, and it could harm both in favor of the NDP. Surely, as a Tory supporter, you must be aware of how effective populist stances, no matter how ludicrous and ultimately self-defeating, can be.

The reality is that if the agreement is reached, the solution to these problems will simply be to pay off the members of harmed industries (however you define "harmed"). While a minority NDP government could scupper the deal, I simply can't see them doing it, so what will happen to mollify sectors that could see losses from competition is some sort of payout. If we did have an NDP government at that point, they'd hold that up and declare "We are looking after our dairy farmers!"

The fact is that because the Tories are now a caretaker government, they pretty much have to keep the Liberals and NDP informed, and very likely, though obviously none of the parties admit it, allow some degree of consultation between the government and the parties. I suspect the NDP position as as much a bit of populist showboating, and that they will, as Chretien did in 1994, sign the deal regardless of electoral proclamations.

waldo · October 3, 2015

Agreed...it is pointless to point to a U.S. list of TPP objectives, but it is routine to do so on this forum for many topics. "It's just easier".

please sir! The point wasn't to compare/contrast specifics of the U.S. objectives... the point was to showcase an example of a government actually communicating with its citizenry. You're simply running with your tired same ole, same ole routine where you presume to highlight each/every example where a MLW member makes a reference to a U.S. source. You know, what you presume to suggest represents a, "useful microcosm for the CanAm relationship at many levels."... where you have openly asserted that your intent is to reinforce that, "Canadian's define their identity by/with everything that is American". This is not one of those/your examples.

angrypenguin · October 3, 2015

you weren't attacked at all - I could replay a few of your posts of late and play the "attack card" on you if you'd like. You clearly can't articulate any level of detail concerning the Harper Conservative objectives within FPTP... as I said, your catch-all statement presents as much detail as, as I'm aware, Harper Conservatives are presenting to the Canadian public... as in little to no! I used that link to the U.S. government to present a representative accounting of what a government can present to it's citizenry without compromising negotiations... you continue to, effectively, ignore it as it draws a stark contrast to what Harper Conservatives are presenting to the Canadian public. Somehow, you claimed that information in the U.S. link was "nothing you didn't know already"... to that end, and speaking to the depth of your claimed knowledge, I simply asked if you were an insider... cause that's a whole lot of information provided within that U.S. government source!

My point was that that article you mentioned did not tell me anything that the US government doesn't want to tell me. (e.g. the stuff that would take away from their negotiating power). So why spend the money to put forward such a document when one knows 99.9% of the American public would not go through it. It's a waste of taxpayer money.

My stance is...(directed to the government, not you) go negotiate, tell me what you end up getting, and then I'll vote on it. It's the most efficient way to spend taxpayer money, IMHO.

PIK · October 3, 2015

Supply management will be protected, but it may lose some %. But having 12000 farmers hold the whole country hostage is foolish. The auto sector, that is going to disappear no matter what, so lets get helping the others. As some experts say, if the deal is not signed by anyone ,he would lose no sleep , but if the deal us signed by everyone but us, he would lose lots of sleep.

Edited October 3, 2015 by PIK

cybercoma · October 3, 2015

Maybe we should steer away from personal comments so as to not have them misinterpreted as attacks ?

Maybe you should call out specific personal comments, so everyone knows what you're talking about.

-1=e^ipi · October 3, 2015

Supply management inflates the price of basic food and disproportionately harms poor people.

Way to go NDP.

Topaz · October 3, 2015

Really there's no such thing as "free Trade" because in the end, its the consumers that pays one or another. Sector that Harper says he will protect....he'll end up paying those sectors money and there, its will ALL the taxpayers that lose, plus that sector, be it the dairy or the auto, will lose jobs and unless he's going to pay every worker IF they lose their job through this deal or the dairy loses money, no one wins. All these trade deals that harper had done 54 and counting is all to connect all the countries economy's to control them. IF one falls, they all fall.

-1=e^ipi · October 4, 2015

Really there's no such thing as "free Trade" because in the end, its the consumers that pays one or another. Sector that Harper says he will protect....he'll end up paying those sectors money and there, its will ALL the taxpayers that lose, plus that sector, be it the dairy or the auto, will lose jobs and unless he's going to pay every worker IF they lose their job through this deal or the dairy loses money, no one wins. All these trade deals that harper had done 54 and counting is all to connect all the countries economy's to control them. IF one falls, they all fall.

Yes, in socialist land, trade is a negative sum game, as opposed to a positive sum game as it is in reality.

Guess we should all be like North Korea.

Edited October 4, 2015 by -1=e^ipi