discussion paper number 31, spring 2016 the …spring 2016 justnews 1 discussion paper number 31,...

Spring 2016 JUSTnews 1

DISCUSSION PAPER

Number 31, Spring 2016

The TPP: Integrity Litmus Test for the Liberalsby Leslie Kemp and Cym Gomery

U.S. power.” He argues that “calling the TPP a free-trade agreement overplays its benefits, plays down itsproblematic aspects” and fundamentally misrepre-sents the deal.

Only two of 26 chapters in the TPP have to dowith trade, according to the Councilof Canadians. The other 24 chaptersdeal with how governments regulatecorporate activity, what Crown cor-porations can and cannot do, howlong pharmaceutical patents or copy-right terms should last, how the In-ternet is governed, protocols for thesharing of personal informationacross borders, regressive bankingand taxation rules, and proceduresfor compensating a company or in-vestor when environmental or publichealth policies interfere with profits.

This agreement’s purpose, aswith previous so-called trade agree-ments, is to create a friendly environ-ment for investors by restrictingwhat governments can regulate. TheTPP is similar to other such agree-ments, taking society further downthe path to “neoliberal nirvana.”

The new Liberal Federal Gov-ernment pledged to “hold a full andopen public debate in Parliament toensure Canadians are consulted onthis historic trade agreement.” How-ever, the Liberals supported previousfree trade deals despite promising toscrap or change them. The Liberals

have a historic opportunity now to break with a not-so-venerable tradition, and take the side of the Canadi-an middle class over profits and corporations.

_________________

On February 3, 2016, Canada’s International TradeMinister, Chrystia Freeland, signed the massivetwelve-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Pa-cific Rim treaty. Led by the US, the partnership in-cludes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan,Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Pe-ru, Singapore, the United Statesand Vietnam.

That signature came before thegovernment had finished assessingthe economic costs and benefits thedeal potentially holds for Canada,Freeland acknowledged. The Liberalshave billed the signature as a “techni-cal step” that will allow Canada tostay at the bargaining table, and Free-land says that the government willcontinue to study the TPP’s potentialconsequences.

The CUSJ board feels that Cana-da has yet again signed on to a tradedeal that gives powers to corporationsat the expense of human needs, theenvironment, and democracy. TheTPP would surpass the North Ameri-can Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)in giving powers to corporations.Further, according to Médecins sansFrontières, the TPP may become themost harmful trade pact ever in re-stricting access to medicines in devel-oping countries.

However, there is hope; the dealhas been signed, but there are twoyears before Canadian MPs will be asked to vote onwhether to ratify it. This deal needs to be scrapped.Here’s why.

1. This deal was conceived as a backroom dealbetween the US government and their corpo-rate friends to create the largest trading blocin the world.

2. This deal is not so much about trade as aboutcorporate deregulation in the interest of profit.

Blayne Haggart, assistant professor at Brock Uni-versity, describes the deal as “a new global economicframework, driven primarily by U.S. interests and

Leslie Kemp, top, and Cym Gomery; bothare members of the Board of Canadian Uni-

tarians for Social Justice.

NOTICE OF AGMCanadian Unitarians for Social Justice annual gen-eral meeting: Monday May 23, 2016, 8:30 am to 12noon at the University of British Columbia.

Guest speaker, Guy Dauncey, author and futurist,“Thinking Boldly about the Future.”

More information p. 10-11 and at www.cusj.org


TPP: The Good and the Badby Bill Curry

The Trans-Pacific Partnership would create a free-trade zone among 12 nations around the Pacific, mak-ing it the world’s largest. The twelve nations in theTrans-Pacific Partnership are: Australia, Brunei, Cana-da, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand,Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Thesecountries account for 40 per cent of the world’seconomic output. In November, 2015, the U.S. andNew Zealand governments released versions of the fulltext of the agreement. On January 25, 2016, Canada’sLiberal government confirmed that it would sign thedeal, though it still needs to be ratified by a majorityvote in the House of Commons before being officiallyintroduced.

TPP is the new NAFTACanada and Mexico have long enjoyed privileged

access to the United States, the country with the biggesteconomy in the world. That special status will bediluted under the Trans-Pacific Partnership by thetwelve countries that would share in the perks of TPPmembership.

At a high level, TPP is similar to NAFTA in that itinvolves pledges to reduce or eliminate tariffs on awide range of goods and services. It also sets out rulesfor resolving disputes.

The deal may not be the end of NAFTA, however.The TPP deal still requires the approval of the U.S.Congress, and sen-ior Democrats andRepublicans ex-pressed strong res-ervations in re-sponse to the de-tails. Canada’sTrade Minister, EdFast, said thatCanada’s supportis contingent on apositive vote forthe deal in Parlia-ment followingthe Oct. 19, 2015,federal election.

Is the TPP a fair, balanced deal for Canada?Labour rules

Unlike Canada’s recent trade deals with the Euro-pean Union and South Korea, the TPP is not limited tohighly developed nations. Critics of the deal say theinclusion of countries such as Peru and Vietnam willsee well-paying jobs exported to low-wage economieswhere workers have less protection from exploitation.Canadian officials countered that the deal includes

strong and enforceable rules banning child labour andentrenching the rights of workers in member countriesto unionize.

The TPP also reduces hurdles for employees towork temporarily at affiliate offices of their employerin other member countries. This measure is aimed at

easing business travel. Officially known as intra-com-pany transfers, these arrangements have attracted con-troversy at times in the context of the Canadian debateover temporary foreign workers. The chief executiveofficer of Royal Bank of Canada apologized in 2013after a controversy emerged involving the outsourcingof information technology work that involved intra-company transfer visas.

Dispute-resolution provisionsFree-trade deals, including NAFTA, have provi-

sions for resolving disagreements between states. Theyalso include in-vestor-stateprovisions thatallow privatecompanies tocontest govern-ment decisions.For instance,Canada was re-quired to payforestry firmAbitibiBowaterInc. $130-mil-lion in 2010 af-ter the com-

pany won a NAFTA Chapter 11 challenge againstNewfoundland and Labrador’s decision to expropriateits assets.

The investor-state provisions of Canada’s Compre-hensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) withthe European Union was one of the main sources ofcontroversy against the deal from within the EU. Cana-dian officials said on Oct. 5, 2015, that the dispute-resolution provisions in the TPP are similar to thosethat are in CETA and NAFTA.

Trade Ministers hold a conference to discuss the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal.

U.S.–and Canadian–workers will face competition fromcountries where labour is cheaper.


Will Canadian consumers benefit?Canadian consumers can expect to see lower prices

over time for one of their biggest purchases: vehicles.The current 6.1-per-cent tariff on passenger vehiclesfrom Japan will be phased out completely over fiveyears. The new lower content threshold for auto partsshould also reduce costs. The elimination of a widerange of tariffs should lead to more choice and lowerprices for consumer goods.

Will Canadian exporters benefit?Canadian companies will gain a competitive ad-

vantage over their rivals from non-TPP countries thatwill still face the existing tariffs. This is particularlyimportant given the improved access Canadian firmswill have to the Japanese market, which ranks third inthe world in terms of gross domestic product behindthe United States and China.

China was not invited to join the TPP negotiationsand the deal is widely viewed as a challenge to China’sgrowing economic influence in the Asia Pacific region.

What Canada Sacrifices and What It GainsAlcohol

Bottles of Canadian whisky will be well-aged bythe time producers cash in on the Trans-Pacific Part-nership. Malaysia will take up to 15 years before drop-ping its whisky tariffs. Vietnam will drop its55-per-cent duties within 12 years. These are the typesof details that make up the trade agree-ment, as varying timelines and tariffs ap-ply to different products and countries.

Canadians are known abroad for theirice wine and Canadian whisky and bothproducts will have fewer barriers to enter-ing TPP nations under the deal. Australiaand New Zealand will drop duties on Ca-nadian wine right away, while Japan willfollow suit within seven years.

AutosCanada’s concessions on auto imports quickly

came under fire Monday as the TPP deal was an-nounced. Canada will allow vehicles to enter the coun-try from Japan duty free within five years, yet theUnited States negotiated a 25-year timeline beforeerasing similar tariffs. The Canadian Vehicle Manufac-turers’ Association issued a short statement saying it is“concerned to learn of a significant differentiation inthe negotiated tariff transitions achieved by Canadaand the United States.”

The privileged access of Canada’s auto parts man-ufacturers to the North American market will also bediluted under the deal. Current rules under the NorthAmerican free-trade agreement (NAFTA) require that62.5 per cent of auto parts come from North Americain order to avoid tariffs. Under the TPP, autos manu-

factured in Canada must meet a new standard that 45per cent of the cost be based on parts made withinthe TPP. Canada called this a victory that would allowfor more exports, but Unifor, the union representingCanada’s auto workers, condemned the deal as “outra-geous” and warned that it will kill jobs.

AgricultureCanada expects the TPP will be good for a large

number of agricultural sectors as new export marketsopen up, thanks to the elimination or reduction oftariffs. The timeline varies by country and by product.

Access to the large Japanese market is a key prizefor TPP members. Once the deal comes into force,Japan will immediately end tariffs on 32 per cent of itsagricultural imports, while other tariffs would be re-duced or eliminated over the next 20 years. Australia,Malaysia and New Zealand will eliminate more than 90per cent of their agricultural tariffs immediately oncethe deal is in place.

Canola and processed food and beverages werehighlighted by Canadian officials as export sectors thatshould benefit under the deal.

Beef and porkCanadian beef and pork producers are among the

big winners under the TPP deal. From 2012 to 2014,Canadian producers exported $2.6-billion worth ofpork and $1.3-billion worth of beef to TPP markets,though much of that was to Canada’s NAFTA partners.

Within 10 years, Japan ispromising to eliminate itstariffs on a wide range ofpork products, while thecurrent 50-per-cent tariffson beef will be reduced to 9per cent within 15 years.Vietnam will move morequickly, eliminating tariffsof up to 31 per cent on freshand frozen beef withintwo years.

DairyCanadian dairy farmers marched with their cows

and tractors on Parliament Hill a few weeks ago, urgingthe Conservative Government not to surrender Cana-da’s system of supply management during the closed-door TPP talks. Other TPP members, including NewZealand, had made clear they wanted major dairy con-cessions from Canada.

When the deal was announced Monday, Ottawasaid it would pay $4.3-billion over 15 years to dairy,chicken and egg farmers affected by the TPP or Cana-da’s free-trade deal with the European Union. Thesupply management system was not abandoned, butCanada would give TPP members duty-free access to

Farmers urge the government not to surrenderCanada’s supply-management system.


3.25 per cent of its dairy market and 2.1 per cent of itspoultry market.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada responded favoura-bly to the deal. “We obviously would have preferredthat no additional market access be conceded in thedairy sector,” Dairy Farmers president Wally Smithsaid in a statement. “However, we recognize that ourgovernment fought hard against other countries’ de-mands. … We have come a long way from the threat ofeliminating supply management.”

FisheriesCanadian officials highlighted the potential for

gains in seafood exports under the TPP deal. Back-ground documents highlight the fact that Japan has

traditionally been known “forits high per capita consump-tion of fish and seafood.” Ja-pan has committed toeliminating 66 per cent of itsfish and seafood tariffs oncethe deal is in place.

Snow crab, lobster,shrimp, salmon, scallops, hali-but, mussels, tuna and oystersare also listed as Canadian sea-food products that will gaineasier access to TPP markets.

ForestryFree trade and forestry hasn’t always gone smooth-

ly for Canada. The dispute-resolution clauses of NAF-TA were invoked in the past to sort out differencesbetween Canada and the United States oversoftwood lumber.

The Forest Products Association of Canada calledMonday’s TPP deal “an important boost” for Canada’sforest industry. The lobby group noted that Canadacurrently exports more than $22.6-billion of forestproducts a year to TPP countries and that is now ex-pected to grow because of the deal.

Heavy industryIndustrial goods like farming and construction

equipment as well as aerospace products would getquick access to TPP markets under the deal.

“Canada has obtained an advantageous tariff out-come—the elimination of all tariffs on industrial goodsfrom all TPP countries,” states background informationreleased by the Canadian Government.

The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters praisedthe deal and said it would help its members reach thegoal of doubling Canada’s manufacturing and export-ing output by 2030.

PharmaceuticalsAs the negotiators extended their deadline over the

weekend, reports emerged that rules relating to so-

called biologics were among the final points of disa-greement. Biological products include vaccines, bloodand cutting-edge products that combine natural sub-stances.

The final deal provides pharmaceutical companieswith five years of exclusive use of new biotechnologybefore having to share datawith generic drug manufac-turers. The BiotechnologyIndustry Association hadbeen urging TPP countriesto match the current 12-year intellectual propertyrestrictions that are in placein the United States. The association called the shorterprotections “remarkably short-sighted” and warnedthey would chill global investment in newhealth research.

ServicesBankers, engineers, architects and environmental

consultants are some of the jobs that fall under thebroad category of services covered by the TPP. Thedeal will make it easier for employees to make tempo-rary work trips within the TPP region. There are alsonew provisions to make it easier for workers to bringtheir spouses on business trips.

Canadian officials argue that Canada’s bankingsector in particular should benefit from the deal. Theyalso insist that the deal allows Canada to protect andpromote its existing rules for supportingCanadian culture.

“Nothing in the TPP agreement prevents govern-ments from regulating in the public interest, includingwith regard to adopting measures to promote culture,delivering public services like health and education orproviding protections for Aboriginal peoples,” theGovernment states [incorrectly] in background docu-ments.

How Could It Affect our Trading Partners?Pharmaceuticals: Next-generation pharmaceuticals,including cell-based biologics, will have patent-styleprotections for eight years. That’s in line with Canadi-an policy, but will disappoint some countries that de-clared anything beyond five years would beunacceptably expensive for patients and taxpayers.

Technology: There are rules in the deal to protect thedigital economy, and practices like cloud computing. Itwould prevent national governments from cutting offdata flows, by limiting laws that require local storageof data.Bill Curry is the Parliamentary reporterfor the Globe and Mail. The entire articleappeared Monday, Jan. 25, 2016. ________________


Trade Minister Needs to BreakOut of Bureaucrat's Bubble on

TPPby Murray Dobbin

Deal’s massive risks demand independent,government-funded assessments.

Are Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland’s officials mis-leading her about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

Freeland signed the agreement Thursday in NewZealand, but repeated her assurances that criticsshouldn't worry—the government hasn’t committed toratifying it and consultations and a full debate willprecede a vote in Parliament. Thatcould be up to two years away.

Yet so far the consultation proc-ess has not penetrated the ideologi-cal bubble created by tradedepartment officials.

Take one example. By far thebiggest concern of critics (includingNobel Prize-winning economistJoseph Stiglitz) is the Investor StateDispute Settlement (ISDS) provi-sion. This allows corporations toclaim damages if they believe a gov-ernment’s laws or regulations un-fairly harm their interests or hurtprofits.

Freeland seems to be either ill-informed or misledabout the provision’s impact. At a panel discussion inVancouver last month she seemed unaware of theISDS. Her fellow panelists, both economics profes-sors, downplayed the threat.

For many of us who have dealt with trade bureau-crats promoting these investment protection agree-ments it is easy to suspect that Freeland isbeing deliberately misinformed by her ownstaff.

Consultations promisedSounds good. But the execution raises

serious questions about how genuine the con-sultation will be.

First, the vast majority of consultationshave been with groups supportive of theseagreements: Provincial government minis-ters, business groups, industry reps, universi-ties, etc. Of 74 such meetings (as of Jan. 31), therehave been a handful with “students” (but not withstudent council representatives who have actuallystudied the TPP) and a couple with labour—with theCanadian Labour Congress and Unifor.

There have been no meetings with NGOs whohave taken the time to examine the TPP closely, likethe Council of Canadians and the Canadian Centre forPolicy Alternatives, with First Nations (whose agree-ments with governments can be trumped by ISDS) orenvironmental groups.

Obviously there is still time for such engagement,but the process so far does not bode well for balancedinput.

Gifting arbitrary powers to big corporationsThe more serious sign that trade officials are busy

manipulating their minister is revealed in the answersthe government provides to Canadians who take it upon the offer to engage. When they write to the govern-

ment asking about investment protec-tion and the ISDS in the TPP, here's theresponse they get: “With respect to In-vestor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS),the TPP will not impair the ability ofCanada or its partners to regulate andlegislate in areas such as the environ-ment, culture, safety, health and conser-vation. Our experience under theNAFTA demonstrates that neither ourinvestment protection rules nor theISDS mechanism constrain any level ofgovernment from regulating in the pub-lic interest.”

This is so demonstrably false as toshock even the most jaded cynic. Does

Freeland know what is being said in her name? Sincethe North American Free Trade Agreement came intoeffect on Jan. 1, 1994, Canada has been the target of35 investor-state claims under the agreement. Nearlytwo-thirds involved challenges to environmental pro-tection or resource management laws or regulations.Canada has already paid out more than $170 million

in damages in six cases (lost or settled) andabandoned most of the “offending” legisla-tion and regulations. We face additionalcorporate claims totalling more than $6 bil-lion in potential penalties for NAFTA “vio-lations” such as the Quebec government'sdecision to ban fracking under the St. Law-rence River.

This does not take into account the leg-islation and regulations (federal and provin-cial) that have never made it out of their

cribs, killed by the chill of knowing they wouldn’tpass ISDS muster. A recent UN report quoted a for-mer Canadian official as saying: “I've seen the lettersfrom the New York and D.C. law firms coming up tothe Canadian government on virtually every new envi-ronmental regulation... Virtually all of the new initia-

Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland

Consultations to datehave only been withprovincial govern-

ments, businessgroups, industry

reps…., but not withstudent council repre-sentatives who haveactually studied the

TPP.


Canada Sued over MMTIn 1997, Canada restricted import and transfer of thegasoline additive MMT because it was a suspectedneurotoxin that had already been banned in Europe.Ethyl Corp., the U.S. multinational that supplied thechemical, sued the government for $350 millionunder the North American Free Trade Agreementand won! Canada was forced to repeal the ban,apologize to the company and pay an out-of-courtsettlement of US$13 million.

tives were targeted and most of them never saw thelight of day.”

In one of the most egregious cases decided underNAFTA, Bilcon of Delaware, a tribunal effectivelyoverruled federal and provincial governments’ envi-ronmental concerns last year and allowed a quarry togo ahead in Nova Scotia. University of Ottawa lawprofessor Donald McRae, one of the tribunal mem-bers, wrote a detailed dissentingopinion warning of the negative impactof the decision.

“Once again, a chill will be imposedon environmental review panels whichwill be concerned not to give too muchweight to socio-economic consider-ations or other considerations of the hu-man environment in case the result is aclaim for damages under NAFTA Chap-ter 11,” McRae wrote. “In this respect,the decision of the majority will be seenas a remarkable step backwards in envi-ronmental protection.”

Even one of NAFTA’s strongest supporters, To-ronto trade lawyer Larry Herman, expressed concernthat the dispute tribunals were unilaterally expandingtheir mandate to circumvent domestic courts. Thedecision, Herman observed, “will feed ammunition tothose who oppose international arbitration as a formof dispute settlement.”

Just as these unaccountable panels are expandingtheir powers to interfere in the democratic legislativeprocess, Canada is about to extend these arbitrarypowers to corporations in nine more countries in theTPP.

Selling free tradeYet so far the “ammunition” provided by this

evidence has run smack up against the Kevlar vests inthe Global Affairs bureaucracy. The department’sname has changed under the Trudeau Government,but its approach is powerfully reminiscent of the badold days of the Department of Foreign Affairs andInternational Development, when a priesthood oftrade bureaucrats protected the Holy Grail of “freetrade” against all detractors. So deeply did they be-lieve in their mission that factual analyses of agree-ments like NAFTA and the Multilateral Agreement onInvestment (MAI) were not even acknowledged, letalone heeded.

Noel Schacter, chief trade policy negotiator forthe B.C. NDP government in the late 1990s, recallsdealing with federal officials.

“Federal government trade negotiators sold freetrade by overstating the upsides and underestimatingthe downsides," he says. ¨This was especially true ofinvestor-state provisions, which had the potential tobe lethally damaging to critical social policy areas

such as medicare or the environment. These publicservants appeared to have little knowledge of thesesocial policy areas and little concern. During mytenure I never saw any independent analysis that dem-onstrated why provisions in trade treaties were neces-sary or how the broader public good would beserved. It often felt like being in a temple of true

believers and those of us who questionedthe doctrine were heretics.”

Is there any way to counter the perni-cious influence of these free-trade zealots?The most powerful antidote would be in-dependent analyses of the controversialareas of the TPP—in other words, genuineconsultation. The only time this has beendone was under the NDP government ofGlen Clark, which provided funding formany social sectors—such as First Na-tions, women, unions, and environmental-ists—to hire experts and study the impact

of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment on theirconstituencies. The resulting studies led the B.C. gov-ernment to oppose the MAI (which eventually failedto win needed international support).

If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Freeland aretruly committed to broad consultation beyond thebusiness community, they should follow the samemodel.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agen-cy already does something similar. Its ParticipantFunding Program “supports individuals, non-profitorganizations and Aboriginal groups interested in par-ticipating in federal environmental assessments.” Itwould be a tragic irony if this consultation programled to new environmental legislation—which thentriggered a multi-billion-dollar claim by a foreigncorporation under the TPP.

Murray Dobbin is one of Canada’s mostpopular progressive political commen-tators and analysts, and has been a jour-nalist, broadcaster, author and socialactivist for over forty years. This articleappeared in TheTyee.ca, 5 Feb., 2016.______________

Law professor Donald McRae


THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE(TPP) AGREEMENTMUST BE DEFEATED

by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous tradeagreement designed to protect the interests of thelargest multi-national corporations at the expense ofworkers, consumers, the environment and the foun-dations of American democracy. It will also nega-tively impact some of the poorest people in the world.

The TPP is a treaty that has been written behindclosed doors by the corporate world.

Incredibly, whileWall Street, the phar-maceutical industryand major media com-panies have fullknowledge as to whatis in this treaty, theAmerican people andmembers of Congressdo not. They havebeen locked out of theprocess. The TPP fol-lows in the footstepsof other unfetteredfree trade agreementslike NAFTA,CAFTA and the Per-manent NormalizedTrade Agreementwith China (PNTR).

These treaties have forced American workers tocompete against desperate and low-wage labouraround the world. The result has been massive joblosses in the United States and the shutting down oftens of thousands of factories. These corporatelybacked trade agreements have significantly contrib-uted to the race to the bottom, the collapse of theAmerican middle class and increased wealth andincome inequality. The TPP is more of the same, buteven worse.

Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a“free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race tothe bottom to boost the profits of large corporationsand Wall Street by outsourcing jobs, undercuttingworker rights, dismantling labor, environmental,health, food safety and financial laws, and allowingcorporations to challenge our laws in internationaltribunals rather than our own court system.

If TPP was such a good deal for America, theadministration should have the courage to show theAmerican people exactly what is in this deal, insteadof keeping the content of the TPP a secret.

Ten Ways the TPP Hurts Working Families

1. The TPP will allow corporations to outsourceeven more jobs overseas.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, if theTPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than 130,000jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone. But that is just thetip of the iceberg.

Service Sector Jobs will be lost. At a time whencorporations have already outsourced over 3 millionservice sector jobs in the U.S., TPP includes rules thatwill make it even easier for corporate America tooutsource call centres, computer programming, engi-neering, accounting, and medical diagnostic jobs.

Manufacturing jobs will be lost. As a result ofNAFTA, the U.S. lost nearly 700,000 jobs. As a resultof Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, theU.S. lost over 2.7 million jobs. As a result of the KoreaFree Trade Agreement, the U.S. has lost 70,000 jobs.

The TPP would make matters worse by providingspecial benefits to firms that offer offshore jobs and byreducing the risks associated with operating in low-wage countries.

2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined.The TPP creates a special dispute resolution proc-

ess that allows corporations to challenge any domesticlaws that could adversely impact their “expected fu-ture profits.” These challenges would be heard beforeUN and World Bank tribunals which could requiretaxpayer compensation to corporations.

This process undermines our sovereignty and sub-verts democratically passed laws including those deal-ing with labour, health, and the environment.

3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will bethreatened.

NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and otherfree trade agreements have helped drive down thewages and benefits of American workers and haveeroded collective bargaining rights. The TPP willmake the race to the bottom worse because it forcesAmerican workers to compete with desperate workersin Vietnam where the minimum wage is just 56 centsan hour.

4. Our ability to protect the environment will beundermined.

The TPP will allow corporations to challenge anylaw that would adversely impact their future profits.Pending claims worth over $14 billion have been filedbased on similar language in other trade agreements.

Most of these claims deal with challenges toenvironmental laws in a number of countries. The TPPwill make matters even worse by giving corporationsthe right to sue any of the nations that sign onto theTPP. These lawsuits would be heard in internationaltribunals bypassing domestic courts.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders answersquestions at a press conference.


Japan’s economy minister resigns over money scandal, denies briberyby Stanley White and Leika Kihara

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese Economy Minister Akira Amari resigned abruptly on Thursday, January28th, 2016, to take responsibility for a political funding scandal that has rocked the government, butdenied having taken bribes. Amari is a close ally of the prime minister and a core member of his policyteam. He led Japan’s negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade bloc.

The resignation of Amari, who has spear-headed Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s economic policies,could pose a setback to the administration’s “Abenomics” growth plan aimed at driving Japan out of

deflation, analysts said.But the government moved swiftly to contain the fallout by appointing Nobuteru Ishihara, a former minister and secretary-

general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, as his replacement.In a packed news conference televised live, Amari acknowledged taking money from a construction company executive but said

he told his aides to correctly record the funds as a political donation.While asserting his legal innocence, Amari said he was stepping down to prevent the scandal from being a distraction to the

Abe administration’s drive to pull the country out of deflation.

fully used to avoid financial crises. These controlsrange from establishing a financial speculation tax to

limiting the massive flows of speculative capi-tal flowing into and out of countries responsi-ble for the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s.

In other words, the TPP would expand therights and power of the same Wall Street firmsthat nearly destroyed the world economy justfive years ago and would create the conditionsfor more financial instability in the future.

9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes.The State Department, the U.S. Department of

Labor, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty Interna-tional have all documented Vietnam’s widespreadviolations of basic international standards for humanrights. Yet, the TPP would reward Vietnam’s badbehaviour by giving it duty free access to the U.S.market.

10. The TPP has no expiration date, making itvirtually impossible to repeal.

Once the TPP is agreed to, it has no sunset dateand could only be altered by a consensus of all of thecountries that agreed to it.

Other countries, like China, could be allowedto join in the future. For example, Canada andMexico joined TPP negotiations in 2012 and Japanjoined last year.

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders is anAmerican politician and thejunior United States Senatorfrom Vermont. He is a candi-date for the Democratic nomi-nation for President of theUnited States in the 2016 U.S.presidential election.

_________________

5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.The TPP would make it easier for countries like

Vietnam to export contaminated fish and sea-food into the U.S. [and Canada]. The FDA hasalready prevented hundreds of seafood importsfrom TPP countries because of salmonella, e-coli, methyl-mercury and drug residues. But theFDA only inspects 1-2 percent of food importsand will be overwhelmed by the vast expansionof these imports if the TPP is agreed to.

6. Buy America laws could come to an end.The U.S. has several laws on the books that re-

quire the federal government to buy goods and serv-ices that are made in America or mostly made in thiscountry. Under TPP, foreign corporations must begiven equal access to compete for these governmentcontracts with companies that make products inAmerica. Under TPP, the U.S. could not even pre-vent companies that have horrible human rightsrecords from receiving government contracts paidby U.S. taxpayers.

7. Prescription drug prices and the profits of drugcompanies will increase; access to life savingdrugs will decrease.

Big pharmaceutical companies are working hardto ensure that the TPP extends the monopolies theyhave for prescription drugs by extending their pat-ents (which currently can last 20 years or more).This would expand the profits of big drug compa-nies, keep drug prices artificially high, and leavemillions of people around the world without accessto life saving drugs.

Doctors without Borders stated that “the TPPagreement is on track to become the most harmfultrade pact ever for access to medicines in developingcountries.”

8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense ofeveryone else.

Under TPP, governments would be barred fromimposing “capital controls” that have been success-

The TPP willban capital

controls thathave success-fully prevent-ed financial

crises.


anyway. They would say the FIPA has a minimumterm and apply that term regardless of what a futuregovernment in Canada did. If they ordered Canada topay compensation to a Chinese investor and the gov-ernment refused, Canada’s assets in other countriescould be seized to make good on the award.

What has to happen to ensure future trade dealsare better scrutinized and of benefit to Canadians?

The long lock-in periods should not be allowed, topreserve democracy. They are not included in otherinternational treaties; why should foreign investors’priorities be privileged this way? Also, all these trea-ties should have to be approved by Parliament, and,because they clearly affect the provinces and territo-ries, by provincial and territorial legislatures too.

Personally, I think deals like FIPA—and theTrans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Canada-Eu-rope Trade Agreement (CETA), both of which are still

being negotiated—are so massiveand long-lasting they deserve a na-tional referendum before they arefinalized. It should not be left to thefederal Cabinet to finalize a trade orinvestment deal that cannot be re-versed for decades.

What do you hope your book willachieve?

I hope it will contribute to moreawareness about the steady erosionof our democracy and sovereigntythrough these obscure treaties. Ialso hope it will help people see theimportance of supporting politicalparties and governments that arecommitted to ending that erosion.That would be wonderful.

Frants Attorp is a resident of SaltSpring Island, B.C. For the fullarticle, see Island Tides, vol. 27(16), p. 2, Aug. 20-Sept. 2, 2015.__________________

Sold Down the Yangtze—a Cri-tique of the China Trade Deal

by Frants Attorp

While many people and or-ganizations have denouncedCanada’s free trade deal withChina, one voice has stood outabove the others—that of GusVan Harten, a Law professor atthe Osgoode Hall Law Schoolwho specializes in internation-al investment.

Van Harten has publisheda scathing condemnation of thetreaty, Sold Down the Yangtze—Canada’s LopsidedInvestment Deal with China [paper back CDN$21.27]. In his book, he explainswith frightful clarity how the FI-PA works in China’s favour, andundermines democratic institu-tions by putting Canadians at riskof multi-billion dollar lawsuits. Hesystematically debunks the falselogic of those who promoted thedeal, be they politicians, legal ad-visers, or high profile journalists,and sends a dire warning aboutother similar deals coming downthe pipe.

I interviewed Professor VanHarten upon release of his book.

What prompted you to writeSold Down the Yangtze?

I wanted to provide a full ac-count of what the FIPA does, andhow people were misled by themedia blitz to sell it… I also want-ed to suggest what future govern-ments can do to limit the damage.

Where are the checks and bal-ances?

In international law, it is easy for a country to giveup its sovereignty and can be hard to get it back. Therewas very little process in the case of the FIPA. All thatit required was a decision of the federal Cabinet, not avote in Parliament and provincial legislatures, forexample, or a national referendum. Had a more pub-licly accountable process been used, I doubt we’d bestuck with the FIPA.

What is to prevent a future government from sim-ply ripping up the FIPA and telling Chinese corpo-rations to get lost?

The short answer is: the lawyers who would sit asarbitrators under the FIPA would issue their award

Author Gus VanHarten, Osgoode Hall

Law Professor

Membership DuesIf you had planned to renew your membershipdues by December 31, 2015, but forgot, here isyour chance for a special dispensation: Renewby March 31st and have your payment coveryour membership for 2016. Our MembershipCoordinator, Joy Silver will not send you a renew-al notice after our Annual General Meeting in May.You can pay online at www.cusj.org or fill out themembership renewal form, back of this newslet-ter, and send it and a cheque to our treasurer, BobStaveley, at the address indicated on the form.


CUSJ Program & Annual General Meeting (AGM) 2016University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.

CUSJ Dinner Saturday, May 21st,6:00 pm. at Mahoney’s Restaurant/Pub

CUSJ Saturday Night Movie: May 21st

7:30 pm. at The Nest (New Student Union Building) Room 2314

Haida Gwaii: On the Edge of the World

A paean to breathtaking Haida Gwaii and the spirited peoplewho populate it. The natural beauty of this culturally richarchipelago has served as a backdrop for tragedies such asoutbreaks of smallpox and the exploitation of natural re-sources. And yet, the Haida Nation remains undaunted,drawing on 14,000 years of tradition in preparing for ashowdown over the Northern Gateway pipeline and planningfor a more sustainable future. “So much more than a profile

of this remarkable place and the cast of characters who populate it, this film captures the heart andheartbreak of the clashes it has seen, primarily over logging (in an unforgettable interview, a formerpolice officer, who is Haida, recalls having to arrest his auntie at a protest). And it hints at what’s tocome in a showdown over Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. As one resident warnsand promises: “We are ready to fight, believe me.”—Marsha Lederman, Globe and Mail.

Monday, May 23rd 2016. Make your travel plans to the CUC AGM include the CUSJ AGM onMONDAY morning!

CUSJ AGM AGENDAMonday, May 23rd in Mary Murrin 3 in Gage Towers

8:30 am – Registration, Coffee, Meet & Greet 9:00 am – Chapter Conversations: Our congregational relationship with non-charity organizationshas changed irrevocably now that we’ve been made aware of CRA rules, so once again we will bediscussing the roles and best practices of local and regionalchapters. We will discuss clarifying our chapter guidelines tomake the relationship between CUSJ chapters and Congrega-tional Social Responsibility Chapters more clear, and will dis-cuss the relationship between CUSJ and the CUC and withCongregations that have charitable status.

10:00 am – AGM11:00 am – Keynote Speaker: Guy Dauncy: Thinking

Boldly About the Future: Another World isPossible — followed by questions and com-ments from the floor.

12:15 pm – Lunch (back at Mahoney’s Restaurant/Pub) forthose who wish to stay.

Guy Dauncey, futurist and author, livesin Victoria, B.C.

Check if your membership isup to date!

If not, see notice on page 9.


Thinking Boldly About the Future: Another World isPossible

Proverbs 20:18 “Where there is no vision, the peopleperish.”

It is not enough to say, “No!” Throughout existence,among all animals and humans, having a positivevision of a future outcome has been a precondition forsuccess. The power of our vision needs to be twentytimes stronger than the power of our fears.

We need to imagine a future world brimming withinnovation and hope, where the climate crisis is beingtackled, the solar revolution is underway, neighbour-hoods are flourishing, and a new green economy istaking shape that is vibrant, socially just and ecologi-cally sustainable.

With such a beautiful vision in place many new peo-ple will be attracted, strengthening our belief that wecan do it: that we can indeed build a better world.

Guy Dauncey is an author and futurist who works todevelop a positive vision of a sustainable future, and to translate that vision into action. He liveson Vancouver Island, in Canada.

Guy is founder of the BC Sustainable Energy Association, co-founder of the Victoria Car ShareCooperative, and the author or co-author of ten books, including The Climate Challenge: 101Solutions to Global Warming and most recently Journey to the Future: A Better World IsPossible. (Books will be on sale at the CUSJ Conference table and at the CUSJ AGM).

Guy is an Honorary Member of the Planning Institute of BC, a Fellow of the Findhorn Founda-tion in Scotland, and a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts.

CUSJ AGM – Live Streamed on the WebLive stream instructions: TBAFor the fifth time CUSJ offers the opportunity for all our members across Canada to attend ourmeeting, hear our speakers and participate through the online chat. We want to honour thosewho don’t travel because of greenhouse gases or cost and yet want to be part of our meeting.Host a local meeting in your own chapter or congregation. Let’s join whole communities on linefor a cross-country check-up and discussion.

Standing on the Sideof Love and Justice

T-shirts at AGM 2014.

_________________


JUSTnews is published byCanadian Unitarians for Social Justice

www.cusj.org

PresidentMargaret Rao

Editorial CommitteePhilip Symons, Editor,

Don Vipond and Lesie Gillett

Production TeamBert MacBain, Debra MairJoy Silver, Philip Symons

Submissions to or enquiries regardingJUSTnews should be addressed to:

Philip Symons, Editor JUSTnews1394 Vista Heights

Victoria, BC, V8T 2J3

Phone [email protected]

The views published herein do not nec-essarily reflect views and opinions ofthe Canadian Unitarian Council, Cana-dian Unitarians for Social Justice or allCanadian Unitarian Universalists.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSEThe CUSJ purposes are:

• to develop and maintain a vibrant network of Unitarian social ac-tion in Canada and elsewhere and to proactively represent Unitar-ian principles and values in matters of social justice and inparticular

• to provide opportunities, including through publication of newslet-ters, for Unitarians and friends to apply their religious, humanisticand spiritual values to social action aimed at the relief of (1)poverty and economic injustice, (2) discrimination based on reli-gious, racial or other grounds, (3) abuses of human rights whetherof individuals or peoples, (4) abuses of democratic process, and

• to promote peace and security, environmental protection, educa-tion, and literacy in keeping with the spirit of Unitarian values.

These purposes are an integral part of the Constitution of CUSJ,adopted at the CUSJ Annual Meeting in Mississauga, ON, May 19,1999, and amended at the 2003 AGM.

I agree with the above Statement of Purpose, and wish to join or renew membership in CUSJ.

Enclosed please find my donation of $__________

Name________________________________________

Address______________________________________

______________________________________

Tel ( )________________Postal Code____________

Email________________________________________

Add me to the CUSJ ListServ: yes no

I would like to receive my JUSTnews Newsletter by:

post only post and e-mail e-mail only.

Name of Congregation (if a UU member):

______________________________________________

Date:___________________

Please mail to: CUSJ Membership, c/o Bob Staveley,P.O. Box 40011, Ottawa, ON K1V 0W8

Publications mail agreement No. 40037866

Return address:52-3190 Tahsis Ave.Coquitlam, B.C.V3B 6G1 Printed on recycled paper

discussion paper number 31, spring 2016 the …spring 2016 justnews 1 discussion paper number 31,...

Documents