Protectionism
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
With fast-track authority, Obama hopes to tie-up Pacific Rim trade deal - The Globe and Mail
Seems it's now expected to pass. Which likely means Canada is going to have to put supply management on the table - before the election.
Seems it's now expected to pass. Which likely means Canada is going to have to put supply management on the table - before the election.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
Re: Protectionism
Or not. The Conservatives and Liberals are running away from this on purely tactical grounds -- some twenty ridings at stake -- while the NDP is generally anti-free-market as a question of ideology.Shakespeare wrote:With fast-track authority, Obama hopes to tie-up Pacific Rim trade deal - The Globe and Mail
Seems it's now expected to pass. Which likely means Canada is going to have to put supply management on the table - before the election.
Still, it's sad that 13,000 farm families can hold 35 million Canadians hostage. Would changing to a proportional representation electoral system make such problems better or worse?
George
The juice is worth the squeeze
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
Harper poised to sign Pacific Rim trade deal, putting safe rural ridings in play - The Globe and Mail
But in Canada, TPP will be no easy sell. Although there will doubtless be a phase-in period, along with compensation for affected farmers, signing means the end of supply management, which for decades has protected the dairy and poultry industries.
Those farmers will be justifiably angry at the Conservatives. Mr. Harper promised he could get a TPP deal while still protecting supply management. In the end, he decided to sacrifice the interests of the farmers to the greater interest.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
Re: Protectionism
An example of doing what is best....finally!
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
Re: Protectionism
AltaRed wrote:An example of doing what is best....finally!
The TPP is worthwhile for Canada, on this count alone.
George
The juice is worth the squeeze
Re: Protectionism
Let me venture a guess: certain haters are going to carry on being vocal hating!ghariton wrote:AltaRed wrote:An example of doing what is best....finally!
The TPP is worthwhile for Canada, on this count alone.
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
Re: Protectionism
I wouldn't make that assumption in order to keep politics out of this thread. TPP will be a legacy that will benefit some 99.9% of Canadians and rival, in impact, NAFTA and GST by Brian Mulroney. It will matter not who wins the election in October once this has been committed too.adrian2 wrote:Let me venture a guess: certain haters are going to carry on being vocal hating!
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
Let's hold the celebrating until the deal is signed. If it means the end of the marketing boards, the celebrating can begin then.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
Looks like the cold feet won.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
Re: Protectionism
Oh I dunno. Looks as if it was played very well by the Conservatives (as seen from their point of view, not the Canadian public interest). The New York Times report of the failure cited a number of stumbling blocks but at the head 0of the list was Canadian supply management.Shakespeare wrote:Looks like the cold feet won.
Now the Conservatives can tell the dairy farmers what sacrifices they made for them, while telling the rest of Canada that, hey! the deal failed and it wasn't their fault.
So much for a government committed to free trade, or free markets, or fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately the other parties are no better.
The left will celebrate. And in a few years they will complain about slow economic growth. All the fault of the capitalists, of course.
George
The juice is worth the squeeze
Re: Protectionism
Disappointing but not unexpected I guess.. and I agree with George's persective. Good way to put the blame on the dairy industry in particular and eventually Canadian sentiment will follow.
I think the deal will eventually be done simply because Canada cannot afford to be left behind. Just not before October X.
I think the deal will eventually be done simply because Canada cannot afford to be left behind. Just not before October X.
finiki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
- Bylo Selhi
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 29494
- Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
- Location: Waterloo, ON
- Contact:
Re: Protectionism
Conservatives were sure Trans-Pacific Partnership deal would be signed, suggests that Steve was more than willing to sell out the dairy farmers:
That's not what threw a monkey wrench into the negotiations:The Conservative government was so confident in recent weeks it would sign a Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that it was asking business groups to loudly support the conclusion of an agreement, reasoning their voices would drown out those of unhappy milk producers – the one sector Ottawa expected would be sorely disappointed.
As The Globe and Mail has reported, Canada and Mexico only learned when they arrived at the Hawaii round of Trans-Pacific talks in late July that the United States and Japan had brokered a deal on vehicle imports that could hit the NAFTA partners’ auto sectors hard. And, furthermore, Washington had assured Tokyo that its North American neighbours would accept this side deal...
This is an example of how Canada is fighting at Trans-Pacific Partnership talks to maintain its privileged commercial relationship with the United States at the same time as it girds itself for a new agreement that would grant 10 other countries even better access to U.S. markets than NAFTA.
Canadian auto-parts makers say they are worried about the prospect of Japan winning the right to sell cars duty-free inside a future Trans-Pacific Partnership trade zone when a majority of the vehicle content comes from low-cost countries that are not signatories to the commercial accord.
This would not just hurt the North American auto industry but also steel and plastics makers. It could also reduce the rationale for assembling cars within NAFTA countries.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
They are now in a caretaker government due to a decision of their own making. It is arguable that they now can not sign a binding agreement.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/09/21/sayonara-nafta-canada-must-compromise-to-stay-in-tpp-talks/
Suspect this will be a major issue in Ontario.Short-term pain for long-term gain is never a comforting or persuasive message to constituents whose oxen are about to be gored.
NDP leader Tom Mulcair has been drawn out of his free trade sheep’s clothing to defend automotive jobs. Someone must do this.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
Re: Protectionism
Yes. The question is how Mulcair -- or any Canadian leader can best defend automotive jobs in Canada. If the U.S. decides to tear up NAFTA, and cuddle up with their new best buddy Japan, what is to stop them? Reputation, to some extent, and self-interest in broader geo=political issues, I suppose. But that kind of negotiation is best done behind closed doors, and we are now in the public arena.Shakespeare wrote:Short-term pain for long-term gain is never a comforting or persuasive message to constituents whose oxen are about to be gored.
NDP leader Tom Mulcair has been drawn out of his free trade sheep’s clothing to defend automotive jobs. Someone must do this.
I guess that Obama never did like Canada very much.
The silver lining is, as the article says, that this is short-term pain for long term gain. Automotive jobs in Canada are disappearing anyway. New arrangements will make it harder for Canadian governments to try to hang on. wasting taxpayer dollars, raising false hopes among auto workers, and misleading young people into entering an occupation with no future.
George
The juice is worth the squeeze
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
Well, if the marketing boards go too, that will certainly be a plus.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
Obama is negotiating in the US's best interests, not Canada's.I guess that Obama never did like Canada very much.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
Re: Protectionism
As he should. But (a) I think he is undervaluing the long term benefits to the U.S. of a longstanding friendship (b) he is being unduly swayed by an irrational animus against Canada.Shakespeare wrote: Obama is negotiating in the US's best interests, not Canada's.
George
The juice is worth the squeeze
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
IIRC the Cons interfered in his re-election campaign. Being told KXL was a "no-brainer" probably didn't help.he is being unduly swayed by an irrational animus against Canada.
Anyway, that's enough of that history on this thread.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
Trans-Pacific Partnership could include big dairy concession - Politics - CBC News
10% is "massive"????????CBC News has learned Canada is prepared to offer up a significant share of its domestic market (as defined by consumption levels), including not only fluid milk, but also possibly butter, cheese, yogurt or the milk powders and proteins used to make other foods.
The American goal for dairy market access was nine or 10 per cent, a figure that prompts dairy industry folk to use words like "enormous" and "annihilation." But even if Canadian negotiators successfully push back, an offer of even half that would be huge.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
- Shakespeare
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 23396
- Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
- Location: Calgary, AB
Re: Protectionism
NDP government would not adhere to a TPP deal, Mulcair says in letter - The Globe and Mail
“As you participate in Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations this week in Atlanta, I wish to advise you that an NDP government will not consider itself bound to any agreement signed by your Conservative government during this federal election,” Mr. Mulcair writes.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
- bcjmmac
- Contributor
- Posts: 817
- Joined: 07 May 2006 02:28
- Location: Lobster Ville, NB (also known as Shediac)
Re: Protectionism
Not looking like the NDP will form the government anytime soon if you believe the polls, but more importantly would they support any other party that won't rip up the treaty (i.e Liberals?) should there be a minority government?Shakespeare wrote:“As you participate in Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations this week in Atlanta, I wish to advise you that an NDP government will not consider itself bound to any agreement signed by your Conservative government during this federal election,” Mr. Mulcair writes.
-
- Veteran Contributor
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: 27 Mar 2010 16:01
Re: Protectionism
The trouble with the TPP is that no details are being given out (too disruptive to negotiations if you let the affected parties know what's being planned I guess.) As a result the public is being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We can't make an informed decision on whether it makes reasonable trade-offs in costs/benefits. And not too many people are willing to take Harper's word for it (or anything else).
In the USA, at least they know that any treaty has to be ratified by Congress. (I admit this makes them ungovernable at times, particularly when the President and Congress are at odds. But it does make for a thorough public airing of all the issues before final approval. And if you think our dairy farmers are being parochial, you should look into agribusiness and farm subsidies in the US.)
In Canada, any party with a Parliamentary majority can push it through. So if the PC's get back in it's not going to be much of a check-and-balance or even meaningful public debate.
In the USA, at least they know that any treaty has to be ratified by Congress. (I admit this makes them ungovernable at times, particularly when the President and Congress are at odds. But it does make for a thorough public airing of all the issues before final approval. And if you think our dairy farmers are being parochial, you should look into agribusiness and farm subsidies in the US.)
In Canada, any party with a Parliamentary majority can push it through. So if the PC's get back in it's not going to be much of a check-and-balance or even meaningful public debate.
- bcjmmac
- Contributor
- Posts: 817
- Joined: 07 May 2006 02:28
- Location: Lobster Ville, NB (also known as Shediac)
Re: Protectionism
Repeat post of what I put in the election forum, but the Cons may be playing an end game on the opposition - i.e. the terms are not near as dire as what has been threatened in the press/by the opposition & the Cons will be able to point that out (with lots of experts to back them up) should negotiations end in the very near future. They did have the option to delay negotiations until after the election but chose not to - makes me think they have something up their sleeve (just a guess/opinion).
Re: Protectionism
The document will be tabled in Parliament, for all to see, before any vote takes place. As well, I expect that huge amounts of supporting materials will also become public at that time. There is always the possibility of secret side deals, but with twelve different countries at the table, no secret will stay that way for long.OhGreatGuru wrote:The trouble with the TPP is that no details are being given out (too disruptive to negotiations if you let the affected parties know what's being planned I guess.) As a result the public is being asked to buy a pig in a poke. ...
In Canada, any party with a Parliamentary majority can push it through.
Are you worried about the public's lack of knowledge of the details, or of the possibility that an elected government will try to exercise its mandate?So if the PC's get back in it's not going to be much of a check-and-balance or even meaningful public debate.
Nobody is being forced to vote Conservative. The NDP is offering a clear alternative, for those who want it.
George
The juice is worth the squeeze