Transcript: Trans-Pacific and Canada's Trade Future | Dec 09, 2015

Steve sits in the studio. He's slim, clean-shaven, in his fifties, with short curly brown hair. He's wearing a gray suit, lilac shirt, and checked blue tie. Behind him, a wall screen reads “The Agenda, with Steve Paikin.”

Steve says THE DETAILS OF THE
TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP HAVE
BEEN REVEALED.
AND NOW THE 12 MEMBER-NATIONS
HAVE TAKEN THE DEAL BACK TO
THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS FOR
RATIFICATION.
HERE TO DISCUSS THE OBSTACLES
AHEAD IN CLOSING THE DEAL, AND
WHAT IT WILL ALL MEAN FOR
CANADA.
WE WELCOME,
IN WASHINGTON D.C.:
LAURA DAWSON, DIRECTOR OF THE
CANADA INSTITUTE AT THE WILSON
CENTER;

Laura is in her early forties, with short wavy auburn hair in a bob. She’s wearing glasses, an aqua blazer over a black shirt, a black necklace and golden hoop earrings.

Steve continues AND WITH US IN STUDIO:
STUART TREW,
EDITOR OF THE
MONITOR, THE MONTHLY JOURNAL FOR
THE CANADIAN CENTRE FOR POLICY
ALTERNATIVES.

Stuart is in his thirties, with short brown hair and a shadow of a beard. He’s wearing a gray coat over a black shirt.

Steve continues WE WELCOME YOU TWO BACK TO OUR
AIR WAVES.
WE HAD YOU ON A FEW MONTHS AGO
TO LOOK AT THIS THING AND WE'RE
GLAD YOU'RE BACK AGAIN.
LET'S REMIND EVERYBODY, THE
T.P.P. CONSISTS OF MORE THAN
5,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION.
IT IS A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGE AGREEMENT.

A slate appears on screen, with the title “The TPP agreement by numbers.”

Steve continues to read from the slate and says
THERE ARE 12 NATIONS, AS WE
SUGGESTED, IN THE T.P.P.
NOT CHINA, SIGNIFICANTLY.
AND THE T.P.P. MARKET CONSISTS
OF NEARLY 800 MILLION PEOPLE
WHOSE ECONOMIES COMBINE TO
28.5 TRILLION dollars OF ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY AND ABOUT 2 TRILLION
OF THAT IS US.
OKAY, LAURA DAWSON, GET US
STARTED.
INITIAL IMPRESSIONS, FIRST OF
ALL, NOW THAT WE KNOW MORE ABOUT
THE T.P.P., OF WHAT YOU THINK OF
THE AGREEMENT?

A caption appears on screen. It reads "Laura Dawson. Wilson Center."

Laura says I'M
CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC.
IT IS A WORK-IN-PROGRESS.
IT WAS A WAY TO UPDATE THE
NAFTA.
IT'S A WAY TO INTEGRATE CANADA
INTO OTHER ECONOMIES IN ASIA AND
PLACES THAT WE WANTED TO BE.
IT'S PRIMARILY A DEFENSIVE
AGREEMENT FOR CANADA SO THAT
OTHER COUNTRIES DON'T GET A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER US.
SO IT'S GOT SOME STRENGTHS.
IT'S GOT SOME AREAS THAT ARE A
LITTLE BIT UNCERTAIN.
BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY THERE ARE
ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS IN THOSE AREAS
OF UNCERTAINTY THAT CANADIANS
CAN BE PRETTY HAPPY WITH THIS
AGREEMENT.

Steve says STUART TREW?

The caption changes to "Stuart Trew. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives."
Then, it changes to “Trans-Pacific and Canada’s trade future. The deal revealed.”

Stuart says WELL, I AGREE,
AND I REMEMBER THE LAST TIME WE
HAD THIS CONVERSATION, WE AGREED
THAT IT WAS LARGELY A DEFENSIVE
AGREEMENT FOR CANADA.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF NEW ACCESS,
NEW GAINS THAT CAN BE HAD FOR
MANY OF THE EXPORT AREAS, GOODS
EXPORTS FOR CANADA.
WE'VE SEEN -- IT'S TRUE.
NOT HUGE GAINS.
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE HUGE
JOBS FROM THIS AGREEMENT.
AREAS WE MIGHT SEE ADDED
BENEFIT, SAY THE JAPANESE
MARKET, FOR BEEF, POTATOES, THAT
KIND OF THING.
WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WE'RE
COMPETING WITH THE UNITED STATES
IN A LOT OF THOSE AREAS SO IT'S
BASICALLY THE STATUS QUO.
ON THE FLIP SIDE, THERE'S A LOT
TO BE WORRIED ABOUT IN THESE
OTHER CHAPTERS THAT LAURA
MENTIONED THERE.
MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE
HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH TRADE, BUT
THERE'S A LOT OF RED FLAGS THAT
HAVE GONE UP SINCE THE DEAL WAS
MADE PUBLIC.

Steve says WE'LL START TO
UNPACK THOSE AS WE GO ALONG.
PERHAPS ONE OF THOSE RED FLAGS
WAS RAISED ACTUALLY BY THE MAN
SITTING IN THAT CHAIR JUST 6 OR
8 WEEKS AGO AND THAT WAS JIM
BALSILLIE, ONE OF THE
CO-FOUNDERS OF RIM, WHO
EXPRESSED MASSIVE DISAPPOINTMENT
OVER THE T.P.P., SAYS IT'S THE
WORST THING THE HARPER
GOVERNMENT HAS EVER NEGOTIATED.
SPECIFICALLY HE'S CONCERNED
ABOUT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RULES.
I WANT TO PLAY A CLIP FROM THAT
INTERVIEW AND WE'LL COME BACK
AND CHAT.
ROLL IT, SHELDON.

A clip plays on screen with the caption "Jim Balsillie. October 16, 2015."
In the clip, Jim speaks with Steve in the studio.
Jim is in his fifties, bald and clean-shaven.

He says THE INNOVATION ECONOMY IS A
SET OF RULES AND YOU CREATE THE
RULES TO ADVANCE YOUR
PROSPERITY.
IF YOU CAN GET PEOPLE TO TAKE
RULES THAT ADVANCES YOUR STATE'S
PROSPERITY, WELL, GOOD ON YOU.
BUT MY POINT IS, UNDERSTAND HOW
THE GAME IS PLAYED,
UNDERSTAND -- HAVE A DIALOGUE
WITH BUSINESS WHERE YOU KNOW
WHAT RULES ARE HELPFUL AND NOT
HELPFUL, AND GET IN THE GAME AND
PLAY SHREWD AND SOPHISTICATED.
THAT'S WHAT AMERICA DOES, IT
DOES SO WELL.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THEM.
AND I'M SIMPLY SAYING, TAKE A
PAGE OUT OF THEIR PLAY BOOK AND
START PLAYING WITH THEM.
DON'T JUST COMPLY WITH WHAT THEY
FOIST ON US.

The clip ends.

Steve says SO MR. BALSILLIE'S
VIEW CLEARLY IS THAT CANADA'S
NEGOTIATORS GOT OUTMANOEUVRED BY
THE AMERICAN NEGOTIATORS.
WHAT'S YOUR VIEW?

Stuart says THEY DID.
CANADA IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE
A LOT OF THE RULES THAT WERE
DESIGNED MAINLY TO BENEFIT U.S.
CORPORATIONS, WHETHER IT'S THE
ENTERTAINMENT SECTOR, WHETHER
IT'S PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS,
SOFTWARE SECTOR, THAT KIND OF
THING.
CANADA IS GOING TO CHANGE ITS
COPYRIGHT REGIME AGAIN, HAVING
GONE THROUGH A LONG FIVE-YEAR
PROCESS WHERE WE CAME TO A NICE
BALANCE WITH MULTIPLE
STAKEHOLDERS HERE IN CANADA.
WE'RE NOW BEING ASKED, FOR
EXAMPLE, TO INCREASE COPYRIGHT
TERMS, NOT JUST ON AUDIO
RECORDINGS, WHICH WAS DONE IN
THE BUDGET BY THE HARPER
GOVERNMENT, BUT ON ANYTHING THAT
RECEIVES A COPYRIGHT, BOOKS,
THIS KIND OF THING.
THAT'S GOING TO ADD COSTS TO
CONSUMERS, IT'S GOING TO ADD
COSTS TO SCHOOLS AND OTHER AREAS
WHICH WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE
CASE WITHOUT THE T.P.P.
PHARMACEUTICALS IS ANOTHER AREA
WHERE, AGAIN, ALTHOUGH CANADA
WILL SAY WE'VE SIMPLY MAINTAINED
THE STATUS QUO, THERE WEREN'T
CONCESSIONS.
THAT'S ONLY HALF TRUE.
CANADA MADE SIGNIFICANT
CONCESSIONS ON PHARMACEUTICAL
PATENTS IN THE EUROPEAN DEAL,
WHICH IS WAITING TO BE RATIFIED.
THOSE AREN'T DONE YET.
WE'RE LOOKING AT CONSIDERABLE
CHANGES TO OUR PATENT AND
COPYRIGHT REGIME THAT WILL HAVE
COSTS FOR CANADIAN CONSUMERS.

Steve says HOLD OFF THERE.
LET'S GET LAURA COULD COMMENT
FIRST WHETHER YOU SHARE JIM
BALSILLIE'S CONCERNS THAT
CANADIANS GOT OUTMANOEUVRED AND
WE'LL GO ON FROM THERE.

Laura says IT'S NO
SURPRISE, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE
PRO-INNOVATION PIECE IN THIS
ARGUMENT.
I'M SURPRISED THAT JIM
BALSILLIE, WHO IS ESPOUSING A
PRO AGENDA FOR CANADA, NOT
PROMOTING RULE OF LAW IN NEW
MARKETS.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT
MR. BALSILLIE HAD A CHALLENGE
WITH A PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE
IN THE UNITED STATES, A PATENT
TROLL ISSUE, DIDN'T END WELL FOR
HIM, AND HE WOULD REALLY PREFER
THAT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE NOT
BE SPREAD TO THE OTHER T.P.P.
COUNTRIES.
I GET THAT.
BUT IF IT'S A NARROW ISSUE FOR
ONE COMPANY, I DON'T SEE TARRING
THE WHOLE T.P.P. AND ALL OF
CANADA AND THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
BECAUSE YOUR INDUSTRY HAPPENED
TO GET A BAD RESULT IN A U.S.
COURT.
IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE REST OF
CANADA.

Steve says LET ME JUMP IN ON
THAT, LAURA.
I'M NOT HERE TO SPEAK FOR HIM,
OBVIOUSLY, BUT I THINK HIS
CONCERNS GO DEEPER THAN MERELY
HIS OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH
THIS.
HE'S LOOKING SECTOR WIDE AND HE
FINDS IT WANTING.
IS THAT NOT A PROPER CONCLUSION
TO DRAW?

Laura says NO.
LET'S LOOK SECTOR-WIDE.
FIRST OF ALL, THE LAST
MEANINGFUL AGREEMENT CANADA HAD
THAT DEALT WITH ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE DIGITAL ECONOMY WAS THE
1994 NAFTA.
WE NEED THINGS TO DEAL WITH THE
MODERN ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
ECONOMY.
THE T.P.P. CONTAINS A CHAPTER ON
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.
IT CONTAINS PROHIBITIONS THAT
WOULD BLOCK DATA FLOWS THAT
CANADIAN EXPORTERS OF DIGITAL
SERVICES NEED.
IT DOES VERY LITTLE DAMAGE TO
THE CANADIAN PHARMACEUTICAL
CONSUMER.
IT REALLY DOES NOT AFFECT
PRICING AT ALL.
WHAT IT DOES DO IS IT ENCOURAGES
INNOVATION IN THE BIOLOGICAL
SECTOR, WHICH IS A HIGH-TECH
SECTOR THAT CANADA IS AND SHOULD
CONTINUE TO BE ON THE FRONT EDGE OF.

Steve says STUART, LET'S TALK
CARS AND TRUCKS.
APPARENTLY THERE IS SOME CONCERN
HERE BECAUSE THE ALLOTTED AMOUNT
OF TIME TO PHASE OUT JAPANESE
TARIFFS, OR TARIFFS ON JAPANESE
AUTO IMPORTS, IS 5 YEARS FOR
CANADA AND 30 YEARS FOR THE
UNITED STATES.
THAT'S QUITE A DISCREPANCY.
WHY IS IT SO BIG?

Stuart says IT IS. IF YOU
DON'T MIND I'D LIKE TO GO BACK
FOR A SECOND TO AN ISSUE OF
E-COMMERCE -- UH -- I MEAN, THIS
IS AN AREA. THERE'S SIGNIFICANT
PRIVACY CONCERNS HERE, TOO.
THE E-COMMERCE CHAPTER IS GONNA
HAVE A SECTION THAT FORCES OR
PROHIBITS COMPANIES FROM HAVING
SERVERS AND INFORMATION TO BE
STORED IN CANADA. THAT'S GONNA
EFFECT THE PRIVACY OF PEOPLE AT
HEALTH CLINICS -- THIS KIND OF
THING. IN TERMS OF COSTS, I
WOULD SAY THAT THE EUROPEAN
TRADE DEAL ON PHARMACEUTICALS --
THE ESTIMATES, AND THEY'RE
CONSERVATIVE, IS THAT IT WILL
COST CANADIAN CONSUMERS OR AT
LEAST HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS,
PURCHASERS OF DRUGS, UPWARDS OF
ABOUT 850 MILLION DOLLARS
ANNUALLY WHICH IS TWICE AS MUCH
AS CONSUMERS ARE GOING TO SAVE
IN TERMS OF TARIFF SAVINGS IN
THE E.U. DEAL. SO THERE ARE
COSTS IN THE COPYRIGHT AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CHAPTERS
FOR CANADIANS.

Steve says OKAY. ON AUTO, 5 YEARS
TO PHASE OUT TARIFFS ON JAPANESE
IMPORTS FOR US.

Stuart says THAT'S RIGHT.

Steve says 30 YEARS FOR THE U.S.

Stuart says THAT'S RIGHT.

Steve says WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

Stuart says IT'S HARD TO
KNOW WHY THE DIFFERENCE IS
THERE.
THERE ARE PROBABLY A NUMBER OF
THINGS LIKE THAT WE'LL SEE AS WE
ANALYSE THE DEAL IN PARLIAMENT
AND OUTSIDE.
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE AN
IMPACT ON THE NORTH AMERICAN
AUTO SECTOR.
WE'VE SEEN CONCERNS FROM NOT
JUST THE UNIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA BUT THE
AUTOMAKERS THEMSELVES ARE
WORRIED ABOUT THIS LOW RULE OF
ORIGIN WHICH COMES INTO EFFECT
IN WHICH CASE COMPONENTS AND
VEHICLES WHICH WERE MOSTLY MADE
IN CHINA WILL BE ABLE TO GET
INTO CANADA TARIFF-FREE, EVEN
THOUGH THEY AREN'T FROM THE
T.P.P. ZONE.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN ESTIMATES
OF 22,000, 25,000 JOB LOSSES
FROM THE T.P.P., AND THOSE ARE
BASED ON UNIFOR ESTIMATES.
YEAH, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT THING
TO LOOK INTO.

Steve says LAURA DAWSON, ANY
EXPLANATION ON YOUR END FOR THE
DISCREPANCY THERE?

Laura says AGAIN, I'M
GOING TO GO THE OTHER DIRECTION
ENTIRELY.
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT CANADA
NEEDS TO BE FOCUSING ON THOSE
SECTORS THAT ARE COMPETITIVE AND
GROWING AND IN WHICH WE HAVE A
GLOBAL ADVANTAGE.
IF YOU READ THE NEWSPAPERS
RECENTLY, CANADA IS EXPERIENCING
SOME OF THE LARGEST JOB LOSS IN
HIGH TECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE
TECHNOLOGY JOBS THAT WE'VE HAD
IN MANY YEARS.
WE NEED TO REVERSE THAT.
AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT A SECTOR
LIKE THE AUTO SECTOR, WE NEED TO
CONSIDER THE SOURCE OF THE
CRITICISM.
IS IT AN ENTITY THAT IS TRYING
TO PRESERVE OR PROTECT THE
MARKET FOR CANADA, TO KEEP OUT
COMPETITION, TO KEEP PRICES
HIGH?
OR IS IT A SOURCE LIKE THE AUTO
PARTS SECTOR IN ONTARIO?
LINAMAR SAYS WE ARE READY TO
COMPETE GLOBALLY AND SHOW THE
WORLD WHAT CANADA HAS.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE AUTO CHAPTER,
FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO RECALL
THAT THE T.P.P. PARTIES ARE NOT
ALL STARTING IN THE SAME PLACE.
WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT TARIFF
LEVELS, DIFFERENT RULES OF
ORIGIN, DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND
TECHNICAL BARRIERS.
YOU CAN'T SAY, OH, WE DID NOT
GET EXACTLY THE SAME AS PARTY B,
BECAUSE WE ALL STARTED IN A
DIFFERENT PLACE.
SO THAT'S ONE ISSUE.
BUT SECONDLY, WHEN YOU READ THE
CHAPTER, IT IS FULL OF ALL SORTS
OF SAFEGUARDS THAT SAY, YOU
KNOW, WE THINK THAT THIS IS
GOING TO BE OKAY FOR THE
CANADIAN SECTOR, BUT IF IT
RESULTS IN UNANTICIPATED IMPORT
SURGES, UNANTICIPATED
DISRUPTIONS, WE HAVE SAFEGUARD
AND SNAP-BACK MECHANISMS THAT
WILL COMPENSATE AND BRING US
BACK TO STATUS QUO.
WE ARE TRYING TO DO NEW TRADE
AND NEW COMPETITIVE PRACTICES,
BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT MIGHT
HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
WE'RE PREPARED TO, YOU KNOW,
COVER THAT, IF NECESSARY.

Steve says STUART, ARE YOU NOT
GIVING ADEQUATE ATTENTION TO THE
SAFEGUARDS AND SO-CALLED
SNAP-BACKS THAT ARE IN THIS
AGREEMENT?

Stuart says NO, I'M
LOOKING MORE AT THE EFFECT THAT
SOME OF THESE PREVIOUS
AGREEMENTS HAVE HAD ON U.S.
EXPORTS, CANADIAN EXPORTS, AND
THINGS LIKE MANUFACTURED GOODS.
YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK AT THE
KOREA DEAL, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THE
STATES' IMPORTS JUMPED -- THE
TRADE DEFICIT GREW CONSIDERABLY
AFTER THE U.S. SIGNED THAT DEAL
WITH KOREA.
THE SAME THING WE'VE SEEN
ALREADY WITH THE CANADIAN-KOREA
DEAL.
THE REALITY IS, THERE'S GOING TO
BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT WHEN YOU'RE
EXPORTING MORE AND MORE RAW, LOW
PROCESS, LOW VALUE-ADDED GOODS
AS THESE DEALS TEND TO DO, FORCE
CANADA DOWN THAT PATH AND YOU'RE
BRINGING IN MORE OF THESE HIGH
VALUE-ADDED PRODUCTS, YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE YOUR TRADE DEFICIT
GROW AND AN IMPACT ON JOBS.
I'M NOT SURE WE SHOULD SO
CASUALLY SAY, WELL, CERTAIN
SECTORS THAT ARE COMPETITIVE ARE
GOING TO DO WELL AND OTHERS
THAT, LIKE AUTO, WHICH ACTUALLY
IS COMPETITIVE, IT'S VERY
PRODUCTIVE, CANADIAN PLANTS ARE
VERY PRODUCTIVE, IT'S ONE OF THE
MOST IMPORTANT SECTORS IN THE
CANADIAN ECONOMY.
I'M NOT SURE WE SHOULD BE
DISCOUNTING THE VIEWS OF THE
AUTO SECTOR, AND ESPECIALLY AUTO
WORKERS, WHEN WE SIGN THESE
DEALS.
THEY SAY WATCH OUT.
WE'RE GOING TO SEE JOB LOSSES
AND PRODUCTION GO OVERSEAS, I
THINK WE HAVE TO PAY CLOSE
ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY'RE
SAYING.

Laura says SORRY, SORRY, STEVE.
I'M NOT DISCOUNTING THE VIEWS OF
THE AUTO SECTOR.
I'M SIMPLY SAYING WE NEED TO
GIVE THE COMPETITIVE HIGH-TECH
ADVANCED AUTO SECTOR A CHANCE TO
BE COMPETITIVE IN THE WORLD.

Steve says TOYOTA JUST
ANNOUNCED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
DO THE RAV4 AT CAMBRIDGE, WHICH
IS A BIG BOOST.

Stuart says AND SEND THEIR
SMALL CARS TO MEXICO.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN IN THE
AUTO SECTOR IN ONTARIO.
THIS DEAL IS RAISING A LOT OF
RED FLAGS FOR WORKERS AND
PRODUCERS --

Steve says LET'S FIND OUT IF
THERE ARE ANY RED FLAGS BEING
RAISED FOR FARMERS.
LAURA, TO YOU FIRST ON THIS.
THE SUPPLY MANAGEMENT -- LET ME
PUT IT THIS WAY.
THE VERY CONTROVERSIAL SUPPLY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS STILL
INTACT AND IN PLACE, SO THE
HARPER GOVERNMENT DID NOT GIVE
THAT UP, AS MANY FEARED THEY
WOULD.
HAVING SAID THAT, THE CRACK IN
THE DOOR FOR OFFSHORE
COMPETITION IS A LITTLE BIGGER
NOW AND I WONDER WHETHER OUR
DAIRY FARMERS IN PARTICULAR NEED
TO BE NERVOUS ABOUT THAT.
WHAT'S YOUR VIEW?

Laura says WELL, THE
CRACK OF THE DOOR IS A LITTLE
WIDER, BUT OUR DAIRY FARMERS
HAVE BEEN GIVEN BASICALLY TEN
YEARS OF GUARANTEED INCOME
PROTECTION.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR
EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION IS, STEVE,
BUT MINE DON'T GIVE ME TEN
YEARS.
I AGREE WE ARE ENTERING A
TRANSITION PHASE FOR THE DAIRY.
WE'VE TAKEN UP A LOT OF TIME
TALKING ABOUT CANADIAN DAIRY.
FRANKLY I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT
CANADA'S COMPETITIVE SECTORS,
OILSEEDS, WHEAT, PORK.
THE ASIAN DEMAND FOR PROTEINS IS
HUGE.
SOYBEANS.
LET'S GET OUT THERE AND SERVICE
THAT HUGE MARKET RATHER THAN
WRING OUR HANDS ABOUT
2.5 PERCENT OF THE CANADIAN
DAIRY CONSUMPTION MARKET.

Steve says JUST FOR THE RECORD,
WE WORK IN PUBLIC TELEVISION
HERE, SO WE DON'T HAVE TEN
MINUTES, LET ALONE TEN YEARS OF
JOB PROTECTION.
BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY FOR
ANOTHER DAY.
DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK ON THAT
ON THE SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ISSUE?

The caption changes to "The road to ratification."

Stuart says I THINK THE
GOVERNMENT DID THE RIGHT THING
BY PROTECTING THIS INDUSTRY.
CANADA'S DAIRY FARMERS SUPPORT A
LOT OF HEALTHY COMMUNITIES.
IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO SEE A
SYSTEM THAT'S WORKED FOR THEM
THAT WE THINK HAS WORKED FOR
CONSUMERS IN TERMS OF STABILITY
OF PRICES.
IF YOU LOOK OVER THE PAST YEAR,
FOR EXAMPLE, ON FOOD PRODUCT
PRICES, A LOT OF THEM HAVE GONE
UP CONSIDERABLY.
YOU LOOK AT MEATS.
DAIRY HAS STAYED VIRTUALLY THE
SAME FROM 2013 TO 2014.
THERE'S BENEFITS TO THE SYSTEM.
IT'S GOOD TO SEE IT SAFEGUARDED.
I WOULD SAY THERE'S A LOT OF
OTHER VESTED INTERESTS THAT WERE
PAMPERED TO A MUCH LARGER DEGREE
IN THE T.P.P. THAN THE DAIRY
FARMERS WERE.
AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT THEM AT
THE BEGINNING, IT'S BIG PHARMA,
IT'S THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.
THESE COMPANIES GET ESSENTIALLY
VIRTUAL MONOPOLY PROTECTION IN
THESE FREE TRADE DEALS.

Steve says LET'S FIGURE OUT,
THEN, LAURA, TO YOU FIRST ON
THIS.
WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THE OBVIOUS
THING HERE, WHICH IS THAT THE
PREVIOUS CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT
NEGOTIATED THIS DEAL AND SIGNED
OFF ON IT.
THERE'S NOW A NEW LIBERAL
GOVERNMENT IN PLACE WHICH HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING THIS
AGREEMENT.
MY QUESTION IS: DOES THE NEW
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE ANY
LEVERS AT ITS DISPOSAL TO
RENEGOTIATE, LAURA, WHAT IT
DOESN'T LIKE ABOUT THE CURRENT
AGREEMENT?

Laura says I GUESS IT
HAS A LEVER AVAILABLE TO
RENEGOTIATE.
IF THEY'RE ASKING ME AS AN
ADVISOR, I WOULD SAY DEFINITELY
NOT.
WHAT WE'VE SEEN HISTORICALLY IS
WHEN AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN
NEGOTIATED BY ONE PARTY AND THEN
HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY
ANOTHER, BOTH IN CANADA AND THE
UNITED STATES, THAT THE NEW
GOVERNMENT FINDS A WAY TO PUT A
STAMP OF APPROVAL OR SOMETHING
UNIQUE, A PARTICULAR BRAND OR
ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT,
WITH MORE EMPHASIS, WITH MORE
FOCUS.
THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP WITH THE
SIDE AGREEMENTS ON LABOUR AND
THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE NAFTA.
THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP WITH THE
HUMAN RIGHTS CHAPTER IN THE
CANADA-COLOMBIA AGREEMENT.
SO I THINK THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TWEAK, TO
CUSTOMIZE THE AGREEMENT, BUT I
THINK IF CANADA WERE TO
FUNDAMENTALLY RENEGOTIATE THIS
AGREEMENT, THAT WE WOULD FALL
OFF THE T.P.P. TABLE ENTIRELY.
I'M FRANKLY MORE CONCERNED THAT
THE U.S. WON'T BE ABLE TO RATIFY
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT AGREEMENT AND WE NEED
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE MOVING
FORWARD.

Steve says LET'S JUST PUT SOME
NUMBERS UP HERE WHICH SPEAK TO
YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE
AMERICANS WILL NEGOTIATE THIS THING.
SHELDON, BOARD NUMBER 2, IF WE
COULD, RIGHT NOW?

A slate appears on screen, with the title “TPP membership by GDP in trillions.”

Steve reads from the slate and says
THE UNITED STATES' ECONOMY IS A
17-PLUS TRILLION DOLLAR ECONOMY
REPRESENTING 61 percent OF THE
COUNTRIES INVOLVED HERE.
JAPAN AT 4.6 TRILLION IS 16 percent OF
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
CANADA AT -- NOW, THIS IS
1.79 TRILLION U.S., SO AROUND
2 TRILLION CANADIAN dollars.
6 percent OF THE DEAL.
AUSTRALIA, ALMOST ONE AND A HALF
TRILLION, AND MEXICO AT A LITTLE
OVER ONE AND A QUARTER TRILLION,
SLIGHTLY UNDER 5 percent OF THE ECONOMY
REPRESENTED IN THIS.
SO CLEARLY THE AMERICANS ARE THE
HUGEST PLAYERS IN THIS
AGREEMENT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF
THEIR ABILITY TO GET THIS
AGREEMENT THROUGH THEIR CONGRESS
AND MAKE THE CHANGES THAT THEY
MAY WANT TO SEE THAT OTHERS MAY
NOT?

Stuart says IT'S REALLY HARD --

Laura says CAN I JUMP IN?
THERE CAN BE NO AGREEMENT UNLESS
THE U.S. RATIFIES BECAUSE THE
RULES AS THEY'RE SET OUT IN THE
CURRENT T.P.P. ARE, THERE MUST
BE AT LEAST 60 T.P.P. PARTIES
AND 85 percent OF T.P.P. REPRESENTED IN
THOSE PARTIES AGREEING TO GO
AHEAD AND WE MUST HAVE THE U.S.
IN ORDER TO GET THAT NUMBER.

Steve says I HEAR YOU.
FAIR ENOUGH.
MY QUESTION IS, GIVEN THE SIZE
OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY RELATIVE
TO ALL OF THE OTHER PLAYERS IN
THIS 12-COUNTRY AGREEMENT,
PRESUMABLY THEY HAVE MORE CLOUT
TO GET WHATEVER CHANGES THEY MAY
NOT LIKE IN THIS THING AT THIS
STAGE OF THE GAME THROUGH AND
THEREFORE CAN AND THEREFORE
EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO LIVE WITH
IT?
I DON'T KNOW.
STUART, START US ON THAT.

Stuart says IT'S GOING TO
BE VERY INTERESTING WHAT HAPPENS
IN THE U.S. FROM THIS POINT ON.
WE'RE INTO THE 90-DAY PERIOD OF
REVIEWING IT IN CONGRESS BEFORE
THE PRESIDENT SIGNS IT OR NOT.
I IMAGINE HE'S GOING TO SIGN AT
THE END OF THAT PERIOD.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF TALK FROM
SENATORS AND CONGRESS PEOPLE
ABOUT MAKING CHANGES.
SOME OF THEM DON'T THINK IT GOES
FAR ENOUGH ON PATENTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, FOR BIOLOGICS.
SOME THINK IT GOES TOO FAR IN
TERMS OF THE OFF-SHORING
POTENTIAL FOR U.S.
MANUFACTURING.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP AN
EYE ON WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
I THINK THAT ACTUALLY GIVES THE
TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT SOME ROOM TO
STAND UP AND SAY, WELL, WE'RE
GOING TO REVIEW IT AS WELL.
IT WOULD REPRESENT REAL CHANGE.
AS THEIR PLATFORM SAID, IN TERMS
OF NEGOTIATING AND RATIFYING
DEALS --

Steve says EXCEPT AMERICA IS
61-PLUS PERCENT OF THE ECONOMIES
REPRESENTED AND WE ARE SIXTH.

Stuart says IT'S TRUE.
BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY WE SHOULD
JUST ROLL OVER AND TAKE THE DEAL.
PREVIOUSLY CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS
WOULD SIMPLY SEND A DEAL TO
PARLIAMENT AFTER IT'S BEEN
SIGNED.
BASICALLY THEY WOULD SAY,
THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO, NO
WAY WE CAN CHANGE IT.
IT'S EITHER AN UP, DOWN, YES OR
NO VOTE.
REAL CHANGE IN CANADA WOULD BE
GIVING PARLIAMENT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT IN
ADVANCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN -- KEEP
IN MIND THE TRUDEAU GOVERNMENT
JUST SAW THIS DEAL A FEW WEEKS
AGO.
IT WAS NEGOTIATED AND CONCLUDED
AND WHAT DO THEY CALL IT, A
CARETAKER GOVERNMENT, WITH NO
INVOLVEMENT FROM EITHER
OPPOSITION PARTY DURING OR
BEFORE THE ELECTION.
THERE'S A GOOD ARGUMENT TO BE
MADE WE CAN GO TO PARLIAMENT
WITH THE PROMISE THAT IF THERE
ARE THINGS WE CAN'T LIVE WITH,
WE CAN TAKE THEM OUT OF THE DEAL.

Steve says LET'S FIND OUT
SINCE, LAURA, YOU'RE IN THE
AMERICAN CAPITAL, WHAT'S YOUR
PROGNOSIS ON ONCE SENATORS AND
CONGRESSMEN GET A LOOK AT THIS
THING, HOW MUCH THEY CAN TWEAK
IT AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO?

Laura says I THINK
THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL
MISAPPREHENSION, BOTH IN CANADA
AND THE UNITED STATES, THAT
THESE DEALS ARE KEPT SECRET FROM
THE LEGISLATORS, SECRET FROM THE
BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS.
THEY ARE DONE WITH A LOT OF
CONSULTATION.
U.S.T.R., CANADA'S DEPARTMENT OF
INTERNATIONAL TRADE, THEY DON'T
GO IN AND NEGOTIATE AN AUTO
CHAPTER OR A SERVICES CHAPTER
WITHOUT REALLY, REALLY TALKING
TO THE STAKEHOLDERS.
AND SO IT'S A BIT DISINGENUOUS,
WHEN THE DEAL COMES OUT TO SAY,
FOR FOLKS TO SAY I'M SHOCKED AND
APPALLED.
I HAD NO IDEA IT WAS IN THERE.
OF COURSE THEY KNEW IT WAS IN
THERE AND THEY PROBABLY AGREED
IN ADVANCE.
IF IT GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR POLITICAL LEVERAGE, THEY'RE
GOING TO USE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO
EXERT WHAT THEY MIGHT SEE AS A
BETTER DEAL.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE CHALLENGE
IN THE UNITED STATES.
IT REALLY IS ABOUT POLITICS
RIGHT NOW.
WITH THIS SESSION OF CONGRESS,
YOU KNOW, THE CLOCK RAPIDLY
RUNNING DOWN, COMING INTO A
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, WITH IT
BEING A DEMOCRATIC AGREEMENT BUT
IT'S USUALLY THE REPUBLICANS
THAT ARE TRADITIONALLY
PRO-TRADE, ARE THE REPUBLICAN
TRADE SUPPORTERS GOING TO GIVE A
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ANY EXTRA
CREDIBILITY, ANY EXTRA SUPPORT,
OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE LOOKING
AT HOW THIS PLAYS OFF IN THEIR
LARGE ELECTORAL FORTUNES?
SO THAT'S A PROBLEM.
I THINK WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
HERE IN THE UNITED STATES IS
THAT BUSINESS REALLY NEEDS TO
STEP FORWARD.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN A STRONG
BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY COMING
FORWARD IN THE UNITED STATES
EXCEPT FOR THE FOLKS THAT STUART
MENTIONED, THE PHARMAS, THE
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY,
ET CETERA.
WE NEED MANUFACTURERS, HIGH-TECH
MANUFACTURERS, ADVANCED
MANUFACTURING, FOLKS THAT ARE
WANTING TO BENEFIT FROM GLOBAL
SUPPLY CHAINS TO ALSO STEP UP
AND MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD.
IF THEY DON'T, I WOULD SAY IT'S
A NEAR-RUN THING HERE IN THE
U.S.

Steve says ONE QUICK FOLLOW-UP
TO YOU ON THIS, LAURA: PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO BE WONDERING WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE NORTH
AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IF
THE TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP IS
PASSED.
WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THOSE TWO?

Laura says OKAY.
THERE ARE TRADE LAWYERS OUT
THERE WHO ARE NOW HITTING THEIR
FOREHEADS WITH THEIR HANDS, BUT
BASICALLY THE AGREEMENT IS
LIKE -- THE NAFTA IS LIKE A
FOUNDATION AGREEMENT, ACTUALLY
THE W.T.O. AGREEMENTS ARE THE
FOUNDATION AGREEMENTS.
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS THAT ARE
NEGOTIATED AROUND THE WORLD ARE
MEANT TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE
W.T.O.
THE NAFTA IS COMPLIANT WITH THE
W.T.O.
AND ANYTHING THAT GOES DEEPER OR
BEYOND THE NAFTA IN THE T.P.P.
WILL SUPERSEDE WHAT'S IN THE
NAFTA.
IT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, LIKE AN
EXTRA LEVEL OF COMMITMENT OR
DEPTH OR EXPANSION.
SO THE NAFTA'S NOT GOING
ANYWHERE.
IT'S BEING ADDED TO.

Steve says UNDERSTOOD.
LET ME READ SOMETHING WRITTEN BY
BLAINE HAGGARD WHO IS A POLY-SCI
PROF IN ST. CATHARINES, ONTARIO.

A quote appears on screen, under the title “Not so much about free trade.” The quote reads “The big problem is that TPP-like agreements are no longer exclusively or even primarily about reducing traditional trade barriers. As Harvard economist Dani Rodrik notes in his 2011 book ‘The Globalization Paradox’, with some exceptions (such as Canada’s dairy industry), tariffs have never been lower. Any gains from further reductions would be relatively modest.
Instead, agreements such as the TPP are about implementing policies that have nothing to do with comparative advantage, policies that are often designed to lead to higher consumer costs and concentrated corporate power. Treated as marginal issues, these policies are ‘free-trade free-riders’, coasting along on an unearned legitimacy.”
Quoted from Blayne Haggart, The Globe and Mail, November 9, 2015.

Steve says OKAY.
LET'S PICK THAT APART A LITTLE
BIT.
STUART, YOUR VIEW OF THAT VIEW?

The caption changes to "TPP or perish?"

Stuart says YEAH, I WOULD
AGREE WITH THAT, AND ESPECIALLY
IN CERTAIN AREAS, AS WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT ALREADY TODAY,
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, A PATENT LOCKS AWAY
THE RIGHT TO MAKE PROFIT ON A
CERTAIN PILL OR WHATEVER, A
MEDICAL DEVICE, FOR 20-PLUS
YEARS.
IT LOCKS AWAY THE ABILITY FOR
GENERIC -- POTENTIAL GENERIC
COMPETITION TO SEE THE RESEARCH
THAT WENT INTO PRODUCING IT FOR
5 TO 8 YEARS.
YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY
DEALS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO
BASICALLY MONOPOLY RIGHTS.
THEY PROTECT MONOPOLY RIGHTS FOR
THESE COMPANIES.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
GETTING AT IN THAT QUOTE.
ANOTHER AREA THAT IS TOTALLY
BAFFLING WHEN IT COMES TO FREE
TRADE IS THIS IDEA THAT FOREIGN
INVESTORS SHOULD GET GREATER
PROTECTIONS IN OTHER MARKETS, IN
THE CANADIAN MARKET, THAN
NATIONAL FIRMS HAVE.
AND WE GET THIS THROUGH THE
INVESTMENT CHAPTER.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T
TALKED ABOUT TOO MUCH IN CANADA
YET BECAUSE CANADA IS SO USED TO
SIGNING THESE INVESTMENT
PROTECTIONS INTO ITS FREE TRADE
AGREEMENTS THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT
THE HISTORY THAT THEY'VE HAD IN
CANADA.
WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST YEAR AN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
DECLARED ILLEGAL BY A NAFTA
TRIBUNAL OF THREE PAID
ARBITRATORS WHO DIDN'T REALLY
KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING
ABOUT IN THIS CASE, AND WILL BE
FINING CANADA, WILL ESSENTIALLY
BE GETTING SUED FOR GOING
THROUGH A LEGAL PROCESS AND
DECIDING THAT A QUARRY SHOULDN'T
BE BUILT IN NOVA SCOTIA.
CANADA IS THE MOST SUED COUNTRY
IN THE NAFTA REGION UNDER THIS
PROCESS.
ABOUT 60 percent OF THE CASES INVOLVE
ENVIRONMENTAL OR
RESOURCE-RELATED POLICY MEASURES
THAT GOVERNMENTS IMPLEMENT.
SO THIS IS REALLY -- THESE DEALS
ARE ESSENTIALLY CORPORATE RIGHTS
DEALS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
AND ON TOP OF IT, THESE ARE
GRANTING FOREIGN FIRMS RIGHTS
NATIONAL FIRMS DON'T HAVE TO
BYPASS THE CANADIAN COURTS
WHENEVER THEY DON'T LIKE A
MEASURE THAT A GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN.

Steve says LAURA, CAN YOU HELP
US AS WELL BY TELLING US WHAT DO
YOU THINK HE MEANS WHEN HE SAYS
FREE TRADE FREE RIDERS?

Laura says THERE HAVE
BEEN A LOT OF TOPICS FROM BROCK
UNIVERSITY TO QUARRIES IN NOVA
SCOTIA.
I WAS WITH THE PROFESSOR RIGHT
UP UNTIL HE SAID NOTHING TO DO
WITH COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE.
HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT SO MUCH
ABOUT TARIFFS ANYMORE BECAUSE
AVERAGE INDUSTRIAL TARIFFS ARE
RELATIVELY LOW.
FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE NOW
ABOUT MUCH MORE INTRACTABLE AND
CHALLENGING AREAS OF TRADE
DISTORTIONS, WHAT WE CALL
NON-TARIFF BARRIERS.
SO THESE ARE THINGS LIKE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF LICENSING SO
THAT BEFORE YOU CAN EXPORT YOUR
PRODUCT FROM CANADA TO CHINA,
LET'S SAY, THAT IT HAS TO GO
THROUGH 17 DIFFERENT
INSPECTIONS, AND SO IT IS
PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU
TO GET THAT PRODUCT FROM CANADA
TO CHINA.
SO WHAT WE DO IN FREE TRADE
AGREEMENTS IS WE TRY TO HAVE
MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF INSPECTION
AND CERTIFICATION AND SAFETY SO
THAT IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR
PRODUCTS TO MOVE.
WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE
ARE NO UNNECESSARY BARRIERS TO
TRADE.
BUT IT'S TRICKY, AND THAT'S THE
THING THAT THE T.P.P. HAS REALLY
TRIED TO GET INTO, IN THINGS
LIKE ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, IN
TERMS OF STATE-OWNED
ENTERPRISES.
WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED THAT AND
THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CHAPTER
IN THE T.P.P.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
WE'RE TRADING WITH COUNTRIES
WHERE GOVERNMENT-OWNED
ENTERPRISES HAVE A BIG STAKE IN
THE ECONOMY, THAT THOSE
ENTERPRISES ACT LIKE COMMERCIAL
BUSINESSES, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE
THE FULL WEIGHT OF GOVERNMENT
LEANING ON YOU, BREAKING THE
RULES.
WE WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
AND THAT, LIKE STUART WAS
SAYING -- HE WAS TALKING ABOUT
INVESTOR STATE DISPUTE
SETTLEMENT IN THE CANADIAN
PERSPECTIVE.
I WANT TO TURN THAT AROUND AND
LOOK AT THE INTERESTS OF
CANADIANS AND HAVING INVESTOR
PROTECTIONS IN NEW MARKETS WHERE
WE'VE NEVER BEEN BEFORE, IN
KYRGYZSTAN AND KAZAKHSTAN.
CANADIAN INVESTORS AND CANADIAN
COMPANIES CAN COMPETE THE WORLD
OVER, BUT WE DO NEED SOME BASIC
INVESTOR PROTECTION SO THAT OUR
PROPERTY ISN'T SEIZED AND
EXPROPRIATED WITHOUT ANY LEGAL
RECOURSE.

Steve says TRY AGAIN, STUART?

Stuart says WELL, YEAH, I
CAN SEE CANADIAN INVESTORS,
MINING COMPANIES ESPECIALLY ARE
LARGELY SUPPORTIVE OF THESE
INVESTMENT PROTECTIONS WE BUILD
INTO THESE TRADE DEALS.
THE REALITY IS, THEY DON'T DO
VERY WELL WHEN THEY CHALLENGE
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT POLICIES
OVERSEAS.
SO IT'S A SYSTEM THAT ISN'T
WORKING FOR CANADIAN INVESTORS,
THAT IS IN CANADA RESULTING IN
THINGS LIKE A BAN ON -- A
MORATORIUM ON FRACKING IN Québec
BEING CHALLENGED AS A TRADE
BARRIER.
A POLICY LIKE DENIAL OF A PERMIT
FOR A QUARRY, AGAIN, IN NOVA
SCOTIA.
THAT'S A TRADE BARRIER.
WE HAVE CASES WHERE A COURT
ORDERED REVOCATION OF PATENTS
FOR A U.S. DRUG COMPANY, ARE
BEING CHALLENGED AS A TRADE
BARRIER.
THIS IS OUR COURTS, RIGHT?
THIS IS A DECISION OF THE COURTS
THAT'S CONSIDERED A TRADE
BARRIER UNDER NAFTA.
AND HERE WE ARE EXPANDING THE
SYSTEM, THE T.P.P. INTO EUROPE,
97 TO 98 PER CENT OF INVESTMENT
IN CANADA WILL NOW BE COVERED BY
THESE EXTREME INVESTOR RIGHTS
THAT ARE BEING CHALLENGED IN
EUROPE. THERE WAS A PROTEST, IF
I CAN JUST MENTION THE PROTESTS
IN EUROPE IN OCTOBER. 250
THOUSAND PEOPLE CAME OUT TO
PROTEST THIS DEAL THAT THE
PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT WAS TRUMPING
THE CANADA-EUROPE TRADE
AGREEMENT -- BECAUSE OF THESE
INVESTOR RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY SEE
THEM AS NOTHING BUT A BIG HAND
AWAY TO THESE CORPORATIONS.
THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THE
EUROPEAN DEAL WILL FAIL UNLESS
WE TAKE THEM OUT OF THAT DEAL
AND I THINK THE TRUDEAU
GOVERNMENT CAN USE THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT WE DON'T
LIKE THEM IN THE T.P.P. EITHER
BECAUSE IT'S TIME TO REALLY
REVISE THAT ONE ELEMENT OF
THESE DEALS.

Steve says LAURA, LET ME GIVE
YOU THE LAST WORD.
GO AHEAD.

Laura says STUART IS
VERY SELECTIVE IN THE CASES.
CANADIAN MINING COMPANIES ASIDE,
CANADIAN BANKS, CANADIAN
MANUFACTURERS, CANADIAN
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES,
CANADIAN I.T. COMPANIES,
CANADIAN GAMING COMPANIES --
COMPANIES ALREADY BUILDING THEIR
INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL IN CANADA,
THEY'RE GOING TO CANADA'S
EXCELLENT UNIVERSITIES, BUILDING
THE BRAINS TRUST AND TRYING TO
EXPORT THEIR SERVICES,
TECHNOLOGY, AND INNOVATION
ABROAD -- WE NEED PROTECTION FOR
THEM.
WE NEED PROTECTION FOR THEIR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
PROTECTIONS FOR THEIR ABILITY TO
INVEST AND EXPAND IN THE WORLD.
THAT'S WHAT THESE AGREEMENTS
GIVE US.

The caption changes to "Produced by Sandra Gionas, @sandragionas"

Steve says THE DEBATE SHALL
CONTINUE.
WE THANK BOTH OF YOU FOR HAVING
PART OF IT HERE ON TVO TONIGHT.
LAURA DAWSON AT THE WILSON
CENTRE IN WASHINGTON.
STUART TREW, CANADIAN CENTRE FOR
POLICY ALTERNATIVES.
MY THANKS TO YOU BOTH.

Stuart says THANKS, STEVE.

Laura says THANK YOU.

Watch: Trans-Pacific and Canada's Trade Future