There has been a lot of discussion about whether the Trans Pacific Partnership is a good deal for Canada. The discussion, Tom Walkom writes, is inconsequential. Business wants the TPP. And, when it comes to trade, business has always gotten what it wanted:
Canada has always based its trade policy on the needs of business. John A. Macdonald’s 19th century National Policy of protective tariffs was instituted to meet businessmen’s demands for what they called a “living profit.
In the 1970s, when Canadian businesses persuaded Ottawa that they were being overwhelmed by American corporate takeovers, Canada dabbled briefly with economic nationalism and foreign investment controls.
But by the 1980s, big business wanted something different. It told a royal commission studying the Canadian economy that it needed access to the big U.S. market.
And now business wants into the Asian market:
Last week, the Business Council of Canada, which is made up of the CEOs of 150 of the country’s largest firms, scolded the government for dragging its feet on the TPP.
Council head John Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister, said Trudeau’s delay in agreeing to the TPP put at risk Canada’s participation in the scheme.
Manly, just back from a trip to Tokyo, said that there are already hints that the other 10 countries — Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand — might go ahead without Canada.
You can bet that Mr. Manley has Mr. Trudeau's ear. So we'll be in on the deal. But there are still big problems to be addressed -- like labour and environmental standards.
Stayed tuned.
6 comments:
With NZ and AZ we should be able to make some kind of deal good for people. Japan is a wasteland, the other countries barely democracies.
The deal is with all of those countries, not just a couple of them, Steve. And Japan is far from a wasteland.
There are some provisions in the TPP that threaten any country's sovereignty. Secret tribunals to settle disputes. Legal mechanisms that allow corporations to sue governments if they are not allowed to do business, even if the business contravenes that country's policies on employment or environmental standards. It is more of a corporate takeover than a trade deal.
People like Gus Van Harten, of Osgoode Law School, have been making that argument for some time, MacDuff. But the powers that be have not been listening.
Neolib Boomers pretending to be progressives are all for liquidating the labor force to TPP nations and China. They're retired. Not their problem. They believe it will boost their retirement portfolios. (They're also OK with the lion's share of the wealth going to the top 20% who own 90% of the stocks furthering inequality - as long as they get theirs.)
They've always operated on the premise of economic self-interest which is how they destroyed the civilization and economy their parents, the Grand Generation, built up.
Today's "progressive" movement is going in the opposite direction of the original progressive movement that began in the early 20th century - which was centrist and sensible - before all this Lord of the Flies corruption descended on what was once democratic government.
Today's progressives are either neolibs or socialists (neolibs win by default) and cultural Marxists at war with Western civilization. Real progressives, all of them long dead, spin in the graves because of what their rotten offspring have done with all their hard work and sacrifices.
-Gen-X
If Tommy Douglas were around, Gen-X, I'm sure he would not be pleased. Much has transpired since he left us with medicare.
Post a Comment