CETA is Coming Are You Scared Yet

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
ygtbk

kropotkin1951 wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The drug cartels will win big and might finally get to totally bankrupt our health care system.

[Citation needed]

This is what I am talking about. Seems to me that there is only one taxpayer.

Quote:

In an important concession, Canada is extending patent protection on pharmaceuticals for two years, which is estimated to drive up the cost of prescription drugs to consumers and governments by up $3 billion annually. Ottawa says it’s willing to compensate the provinces for any additional costs.

 

So your theory is that people in the pharmaceutical industry, who generally get 17-20 year patents (_if_ they get them, it's not easy inventing things) are making out like bandits by getting two extra years of protection? This is obviously wrong.

ygtbk

josh wrote:
Yawn. The RepubliCon corner is heard from.

When all you have is personal attacks, you have nothing.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Reduce "barriers to business"? Duh. That's what all these deals do. And translation: eliminates social and economic laws businesses don't like.

I wonder if this also has to do with a way for American agri-business to get around Europe's laws concerning restrictions and labelling of GMOs.

josh

ygtbk wrote:

josh wrote:
Yawn. The RepubliCon corner is heard from.

When all you have is personal attacks, you have nothing.

You have nothing.  So I'm reduced to personal attacks.

BTW, how's that shutdown going?

 

ygtbk

josh wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

josh wrote:
Yawn. The RepubliCon corner is heard from.

When all you have is personal attacks, you have nothing.

You have nothing.  So I'm reduced to personal attacks.

BTW, how's that shutdown going?

It's not going well, to tell the truth. Your country (I assume you are American) is borrowing lots of money that, under current circumstances, it is never going to be in a position to pay back. If you are not an American, congrats.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

We'll have to se all the details to see how badly Harper  screwed the country.  That's what he does.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

ygtbk wrote:

So your theory is that people in the pharmaceutical industry, who generally get 17-20 year patents (_if_ they get them, it's not easy inventing things) are making out like bandits by getting two extra years of protection? This is obviously wrong.

Really where did you get that misinformed opinion. The price of drugs drops immediately when the patents run out ergo ever year of protection for corporations that use mostly public research will result in higher costs for our health care plans.

Quote:

European pharmaceutical companies are healthy

The figures on investment in R&D are as revealing as the figures on sales are misleading. The profits of the biggest multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers continue to grow, including those of European-based companies. Indeed five of the top 10 most profitable pharmaceutical companies in the world are of European origin.

...

The most recently available figures from 2003 also show that Europe´s share of world pharmaceutical sales grew. Manufacturers and market analysts are bullish that robust growth can be expected.

...

Much of the investment in pharmaceutical R&D comes from public sources

A report from the US National Institutes of Health discovered that only 14% of total R&D spending by the manufacturer went to basic research. 38% was dedicated to applied research and 48% was spent on product development, which does involve improving existing compounds or adding additional therapeutic applications to known compounds.

Whilst it is widely acknowledged that the clinical development of medicines costs time and money, it should also be borne in mind that, according to the February 2000 study, “public researchers often tackle the riskiest and most costly research, which is basic research, making it easier for industry to profit.”

Erythroprotein (Epo) was discovered after two decades of work by a university biochemist called Eugene Goldwasser at the University of Chicago. Marketed as Epogen by Amgen, it has gone on to become one of the world´s best-selling biotech drugs. But a large proportion of the basic R&D was paid for by the US taxpayer.

The real challenges for pharmaceutical companies

Despite these soaring sales and profits there are serious challenges facing Europe´s pharmaceutical industry and its ability to continue delivering innovative medicines that correspond to patients´ needs. Yet none of them have anything to do with parallel distribution.

It is a fact that the majority of manufacturers now spend more money on marketing than on R&D, as this table shows.

http://www.eaepc.org/parallel_distribution/myth.php

NDPP

Canada-EU Free Trade Deal Signed

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-eu-free-trade-deal-signed-1.2125122

"This is a big deal. Indeed, this is the biggest deal our country has ever made,' Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in Brussels on Friday."

Screwed again Canuckleheads...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You can tell how bad it is because every business talking head on the CBC is drooling over it. I think I will take Maude's view of this not the Dragon Dens.

Quote:

Second, this deal will give French companies Suez and Veolia, the two biggest private water operations in the world, access to run our water services for profit. Under a recent edict, the Harper government has tied federal funding of municipal water infrastructure construction or upgrading to privatization of water services. Cash-strapped municipalities can only access federal funds if they adopt a public-private partnership model, and several cities have recently put their water or wastewater services contracts up for private bids. If Suez or Veolia are successful in bidding for these contracts (and under the new deal, local governments cannot favour local bidders) and a future city council decides it wants to move back to a public system, as municipalities are doing all over the world, these corporations will be able to sue for huge compensation. Private water operators charge far higher rates than public operators and cut corners when it comes to source protection. Privatization of water services violates the essential principle that Canada’s water is a public trust.

The same “investor-state” clause contained in the Canada-EU deal poses the third threat to Canada’s water. The rules essentially say that if a government introduces new environmental, health or safety rules that were not in place when the foreign corporation made its investment, it has the right to compensation, which a domestic corporation does not have. For instance, an American energy company is suing Canada for $250 million in damages using a similar NAFTA rule because Quebec decided to protect its water by placing a moratorium on fracking. Moreover, transnational corporations are now claiming ownership of the actual water they require in their operations. Another American company successfully sued Ottawa for $130 million for the “water rights” it left behind when it abandoned its pulp and paper operations in Newfoundland, leaving workers without jobs or pensions. The new deal with Europe will give large European corporations similar rights, further eroding the ability of governments to protect our fragile watersheds and ecosystems.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/maude-barlow/2013/10/canada-eu-deal-thre...

ygtbk

kropotkin1951 wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

So your theory is that people in the pharmaceutical industry, who generally get 17-20 year patents (_if_ they get them, it's not easy inventing things) are making out like bandits by getting two extra years of protection? This is obviously wrong.

Really where did you get that misinformed opinion. The price of drugs drops immediately when the patents run out ergo ever year of protection for corporations that use mostly public research will result in higher costs for our health care plans.

You are obviously correct that drugs are cheaper once they're off-patent. You are ignoring the incentives that lead them to be developed in the first case.

I await your proof that extending patent protection by two years (from say 17-20 to say 19-22) is more than an incremental change. You have not made that case.

ygtbk
Geoff

On what basis are people arguing that the Conservatives will get a majority? I haven't seen a poll in ages that would support that prediction.  As for Mulcair's position, I agree that he's doing nothing dfferent from what Jack was doing in terms of positioning the party. That doesn't mean I won't still vote NDP.  I just think electoral politics are limited in terms of the change they can bring about. 

Although political action is much more than casting ballots, I believe there is still value in casting ballots. Mulcair may fall well short of what some would like to see from the NDP, but Stephen Harper he ain't.

quizzical

ygtbk wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:
ygtbk wrote:
So your theory is that people in the pharmaceutical industry...are making out like bandits by getting two extra years of protection?

Really where did you get that misinformed opinion. The price of drugs drops immediately when the patents run out ergo ever year of protection for corporations that use mostly public research will result in higher costs for our health care plans.

You are obviously correct that drugs are cheaper once they're off-patent. You are ignoring the incentives that lead them to be developed in the first case.

I await your proof that extending patent protection by two years (from say 17-20 to say 19-22) is more than an incremental change. You have not made that case.

i don't call the 6 billion dollars it's going to cost tax payers incremental. 6 billion dollars makes its own case. 6 billion dollars out of the system to pharma is sure enough more than incremental to them or they would not have negotiated it. what a short thinking person you are.  if it wasn't significant they wouldn't have negotiated for it. duh!!!!!!

and you slipped right over the pie charts showing its tax payers who've been paying the biggest portion of  r&d costs along with all the funds from charities tied into the big pharma drug cartel ring. it's money they also gained from you know people. they didn't use what more than 11% of their own money on most r&d.

the reality is they, big pharma, use our tax payers money for r&d and patent what they find from using our money and then they charge us more because they've patent rights. rights they asked to be extended by 6 billion dollars.

 

ygtbk

@quizzical: Big Pharma. Got it. Talking points checked. You are not actually addressing the point I made about patent extension, which is that 2 years out of 20 is incremental.

I do not disagree with your statement that if taxpayers are paying for people to patent things, that could be a problem. I am not in favour of the government subsidizing people who would have done the research anyway - seems like a waste of money.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

No you don't get it. The patent protection is already way longer than required to not only pay all the research costs but to make a handsome profit. Big pharma is already gouging the sick and wants more. That is not incremental that is capitalist greed ar its worst.

While CETA is only Europe based let us not forget that NAFTA includes favoured nation status so US pharma gets to sidle up to the public trough as well.

quizzical

what talking points are you talking of? i'm so far from getting any you'd most likely get yours first. i thought up above you said when people personally attack they got nothing?!!!!!! can you handle consistency in your mind at all?

no no you got it wrong it's 20 + 2 more years NOT 2 out of 20 years. when what you call incremental = 6 billion then you'd think Euro pharma wouldn't have given a shit and not bothered to include it into the agreement?!!!! they did bother. they know the value of 6 billion even if you don't.

 

mmphosis

I am not scared.

CETA, whether it comes or not, will fail.  A majority of Canadians voted for the NDP and Liberals and against NAFTA, but the Progressive Conservative Party (remember them?) pushed NAFTA through anyways.  NAFTA is a failure.

http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=715 (2003) an American perspective

http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/nafta-failure_810.html (2006) a Canadian perspective

 

Aristotleded24

The high cots of food has far more to do with the concentration of both the food processing and the grocery stores. (In any part of the country, there are only about 2-4 big grocery chains).

I also take issue with Hall Findlay's claim of prices being "artificially set." Prices are "artificially set" by definition, because it's always people who set prices. It's not like prices fall from the sky.

Centrist

Rebecca West wrote:
I don't see Quebec going for it, not by a long shot.

I still have never understood why, but Quebec was probably the strongest proponent for NAFTA back in 1988. And today we are also apparently seeing a replay of same:

Quote:
Still, the Parti Québécois has long been an ardent free-trade apostle and on Friday it reiterated its support for the deal. This is a rare issue on which the sovereigntist establishment, the main opposition parties in the national assembly and corporate Quebec see eye to eye.

But the 1988 NDP could afford to ignore Quebec’s strong pro-trade current. Today the province has become central to its fortunes. Taking on the bulk of its influential chattering class over CETA is not a proposition to be entertained lightly.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/10/18/canadaeu_trade_agreement_secures_stephen_harpers_legacy_tosses_ndp_a_hot_potato_hbert.html

 

 

 

Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:
I don't see Quebec going for it, not by a long shot.

I still have never understood why, but Quebec was probably the strongest proponent for NAFTA back in 1988.

The other wild card is whether the Parti Quebecois will even be in power when it is time for the provinces to ratify it.

In any case, the Liberals and the CAQ have enough votes between them for the deal to pass, which probably explains why Marois isn't digging in her heels on this question.

In 1988, the Liberals and NDP proudly took up the anti-free trade cause. Not the case this time. We citizens need to fight this deal all on our own, without any help from anybody else.

ygtbk

quizzical wrote:

what talking points are you talking of? i'm so far from getting any you'd most likely get yours first. i thought up above you said when people personally attack they got nothing?!!!!!! can you handle consistency in your mind at all?

no no you got it wrong it's 20 + 2 more years NOT 2 out of 20 years. when what you call incremental = 6 billion then you'd think Euro pharma wouldn't have given a shit and not bothered to include it into the agreement?!!!! they did bother. they know the value of 6 billion even if you don't.

If it were an extra 20 years I would agree with you, but that's not how the patent system works. Do you have a citation you could share?

ygtbk
NDPP

Take Action: Invite Yourself To Harper's CEO CETA Celebration

http://www.canadians.org/blog/take-action-invite-yourself-harpers-ceo-ce...

"CBC reported this morning that the Harper government will table the 'deal in principle' it signed with the European Unoin last Friday in Brussels.."

 

Conservatives, Capitalists and More  -  by Yves Engler

http://yvesengler.com/2013/10/25/conservatives-capitalists-and-more/

"Clearly, big business has gotten almost everything it has wanted from Harper's Conservatives.

The Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) is an even bigger sop to international investors..."

NDPP

#NoTTP: Mass Protests Slam US-EU Trade Deal as 'Corporate Power Grab' (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/195144-europe-protests-stop-ttp/

"The main aim of the wave of protests is 'to reclaim democracy', which in this case stands for putting an end to the negotiations on three major trade agreements: The EU-US deal (TTIP), the EU-Canada deal (CETA) and the trade in services deal (TISA)

One of the organizers of Berlin's demonstrations, Michael Efler, told RT's Peter Oliver: 'We are protesting here against the free trade deal completely negotiated in secret, because they give corporations more rights [than] they've ever had in history.'

Protests were planned in 22 countries across Europe - in over 1,000 locations..."

Wakey Wakey Canucklheads...!

ygtbk

And CETA goes forward under the new government:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/02/18/trudeau-says-he-expects-canada-eu-free-deal-to-be-signed-this-year/#.Vsb5PfkrLZ5

Sounds like they might be modifying the investor-state dispute mechanism.

Quote:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he expects the ambitious free trade deal between Canada and the European Union to be signed this year.

When it is it ratified later, it will be an important milestone in relations between Canada and the 28-country European block.

Canada's chief negotiator has said he expects the deal, known as CETA, to be ratified sometime next year.

Quote:

Earlier this week, Canada's chief CETA negotiator Steve Verhuel said Canada is working with the EU to revise controversial investor protection provisions in the deal at the direction of the Trudeau government.

The Europeans first raised the matter with Canada after political opposition arose in Europe in 2014 over the chapter that deals with settling disputes between companies and governments, known as ISDS, he said.

Trudeau didn't mention that bump in road but said his cabinet ministers have been instructed to work constructively with their European counterparts.

mark_alfred

It's good that the exchange between Ramsey and Verheul made the news.  Here's the full exchange from the Trade Committee:

The Chair wrote:
Thank you for your questions.    We're going to move to the NDP. Ms. Ramsey, you're up next for six minutes.

Ms. Tracey Ramsey (Essex, NDP) wrote:
Thank you so much for your report today. I really appreciate the information.    

We heard, from reports on CETA's scrubbing phase, our European partners are pushing to replace the ISDS with ICS, the court system. This was in part due to growing public concern among Europeans over empowering corporations to sue governments for creating regulations that interfere with profits. In your opinion, will the revised ICS provisions better serve the Canadian public interest than the previous ISDS provisions?

Mr. Steve Verheul wrote:
It's true we are working with the Europeans at this point to revise some of the investment provisions. There are really two parts to this.     

The first part is that we're clarifying some of the provisions in the agreement with respect to the obligations to ensure that the government's right to regulate is not interfered with by investor claims that could affect that ability to regulate. Most of those provisions are going to be described as “provisions for greater certainty”, in other words, to make it very clear to any kind of arbitration process what we intended when we negotiated the agreement.    

A second part of this relates to the process itself. You mentioned the investment court system. The EU has proposed that to the U.S. in the U.S.–EU negotiations. They've not proposed that system to us.    

We are working on a system that would be somewhat different from what is in the CETA now, particularly with respect to the selection of arbitrators or members of a panel. We're also looking at whether we can advance the process toward having an appellate mechanism, which is currently mentioned in CETA as a future work program. We're looking at whether we could have that implemented when CETA comes into effect. Those are the issues we're working on with the Europeans right now.

Ms. Tracey Ramsey wrote:
I have a few more questions along the same line.    

Are there specific exemptions in CETA for regulations on the sensitive areas of public interest, such as climate change action or water?

Mr. Steve Verheul wrote:
There are some existing exemptions now when it comes to areas like expropriation in particular, where we've exempted issues related to the environment and social services and various other issues of that nature. I don't think we have mentioned water specifically, but we have various protections for water throughout the agreement, which would also have a bearing on that.

Ms. Tracey Ramsey wrote:
Since the election, have you received any instructions from the current government to take CETA in a new direction, be it on ISDS or any other areas of CETA?

Mr. Steve Verheul wrote:
I wouldn't call them instructions at this point. We've certainly had a dialogue about potential improvements that could be made with respect to the approach to investment in CETA, and that's what we're exploring with the Europeans now. Clearly the EU first came to us with some of these concerns because of the political situation regarding those issues in the EU. We have had an interest on our side in seeing whether we can make some improvements in light of that. That's been supported by the government.

Ms. Tracey Ramsey wrote:
Was there ever any discussion about eliminating ISDS and ICS provisions altogether, given that investors can already seek recourse in domestic courts?

Mr. Steve Verheul wrote:
No. There hasn't been a discussion of eliminating any kind of avenue for investors to pursue potential claims because you can't pursue those kinds of avenues through domestic courts. Domestic courts have no authority to adjudicate obligations in international treaties. If we're going to have any kind of form of redress for breach of an obligation in the investment treaty, we'd have to go to some other mechanism like an investment dispute resolution process.

Ms. Tracey Ramsey wrote:
My other question is about CETA as well. Regarding the protection of patents for pharmaceutical products, the technical summary of the Canada–EU CETA stipulates that Canada's federal government is prepared to address incremental cost impacts if concessions to the EU in this area have a financial impact on provinces or territories.    

How would incremental cost impacts be assessed, and by whom?

Mr. Steve Verheul wrote:
That's an issue we're continuing to work on, and this is in conjunction with other departments that are more directly involved in the pharmaceutical area. We have been doing an evaluation of the potential costs and doing some modelling of what the expectations would be for those costs. There will also have to be a discussion with the provinces and territories to get their perception of what kinds of cost increases they could expect. We'll have to come to an understanding following that.

Ms. Tracey Ramsey wrote:
What mechanisms could be used by Canada's federal government to address the incremental cost impacts?

Mr. Steve Verheul wrote:
I wouldn't want to speculate, because this is still under design, but I would assume that the most likely outcome would be some kind of payment to provinces and territories to offset those additional costs. It's certainly been discussed in the past.

mark_alfred

From the above, I found the following snibbet to be interesting:

Ms. Tracey Ramsey wrote:
Was there ever any discussion about eliminating ISDS and ICS provisions altogether, given that investors can already seek recourse in domestic courts?

Mr. Steve Verheul wrote:
No. There hasn't been a discussion of eliminating any kind of avenue for investors to pursue potential claims because you can't pursue those kinds of avenues through domestic courts. Domestic courts have no authority to adjudicate obligations in international treaties. If we're going to have any kind of form of redress for breach of an obligation in the investment treaty, we'd have to go to some other mechanism like an investment dispute resolution process.

I'd like to hear another opinion on that.  I think I'll write rabble staff and see if they can look into doing an article on this.

mark_alfred

Okay.  I wrote the following to the editor of Rabble:

mark_alfred wrote:

Hello.  I appreciate Rabble as a source of alternate news and viewpoints.

I read some exchanges from the Trade Committee on the parliament website.  The following was between NDP member Tracy Ramsey and Canada's trade negotiator Steve Verheul

[I included the quote from the post above]

Is this true?  I would like to see a different opinion of this.  Do "domestic courts have no authority to adjudicate obligations in international treaties"?  If so, is there a way around this?

It seems a useful thing to know for those of use who find ISDS a threat to sovereignty.

mark_alfred

Admittedly, the editor email is generally for story contributions rather than story requests, but I figure it doesn't hurt to ask.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

From the above, I found the following snibbet to be interesting:

Ms. Tracey Ramsey wrote:
Was there ever any discussion about eliminating ISDS and ICS provisions altogether, given that investors can already seek recourse in domestic courts?

Mr. Steve Verheul wrote:
No. There hasn't been a discussion of eliminating any kind of avenue for investors to pursue potential claims because you can't pursue those kinds of avenues through domestic courts. Domestic courts have no authority to adjudicate obligations in international treaties. If we're going to have any kind of form of redress for breach of an obligation in the investment treaty, we'd have to go to some other mechanism like an investment dispute resolution process.

I'd like to hear another opinion on that.  I think I'll write rabble staff and see if they can look into doing an article on this.

If someone breaks the agreement it is null and void. The trading partner can retaliate and they can settle it diplomatically.

mark_alfred

Oh.  What if neither party acknowledges breaking the agreement, but feels the other did break the agreement?  In the case of such a dispute, is there no option for domestic courts to adjudicate the dispute?  Must there be a parallel external justice system set up to adjudicate such a dispute that potentially could undermine the laws of a nation that's party to such a trade agreement?  In effect undermining the sovereignty of that nation? 

quizzical

sounds treasonous to me to sign trade agreements undermining sovereignty

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Oh.  What if neither party acknowledges breaking the agreement, but feels the other did break the agreement?  In the case of such a dispute, is there no option for domestic courts to adjudicate the dispute?  Must there be a parallel external justice system set up to adjudicate such a dispute that potentially could undermine the laws of a nation that's party to such a trade agreement?  In effect undermining the sovereignty of that nation? 

Whomever feels wronged can retaliate or withdraw from the agreement. There is no need for "enforcement".  If any country feels justified in having tarifs they should go ahead and have them. We don't need trade deals to trade.

mark_alfred

Perhaps.  I dunno.  These trade agreements are often in the 100s (if not 1000s) of pages long packed with legalese, so the idea that disputes can between a big corporation and a nation that's party to such a trade agreement can simply be washed away because, as you feel, the nation can simply "withdraw from the agreement", well, maybe they can withdraw, but the dispute over actions during the active term of the agreement would still exist, I assume.  Or not.  I dunno.

Anyway, my main question is whether or not this statement by Steve Verheul is accurate.  That being,

Quote:
There hasn't been a discussion of eliminating any kind of avenue for investors to pursue potential claims because you can't pursue those kinds of avenues through domestic courts.

 

ygtbk
Pondering

That is very threatening. They are trying an end run around the countries they fear will refuse to sign, like Greece and possibly to create political cover for governments whose citizens are against it.

I wish the Council of Canadians were a political party so I could vote for them.

mark_alfred

The Council of Canadians does good work.  It's a shame the Liberals seem so in favour of this deal.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

The Council of Canadians does good work.  It's a shame the Liberals seem so in favour of this deal.

And the NDP as well.

mark_alfred

Ramsey is the only NDPer on the Trade Committee.  I felt she had some good questions regarding ISDS provisions, which is the problematic aspect of this deal.  The answers she got clearly showed the Libs aren't working with the Europeans for something different to ISDS.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Ramsey is the only NDPer on the Trade Committee.  I felt she had some good questions regarding ISDS provisions, which is the problematic aspect of this deal.  The answers she got clearly showed the Libs aren't working with the Europeans for something different to ISDS.

No they aren't. The don't want the ISDS clause changed to what EU is suggesting and neither does the Council of Canadians. The Liberals are going to accept whatever the EU wants to get this deal ratified as it will help get TPP through.

NDP opposition is lip service. CETA should be openly debated every bit as much as TPP. The ISDS is not the only problematic area. It's just the enforcement mechanism to a deal that undermines democracy. A different enforcement method is no better. The problem is the agreements within CETA.

mark_alfred

I think given that Europe generally has good labour standards that CETA isn't going to be as big a potential concern as the TPP, actually.  The idea is to strive toward fair trade rather than free trade, I figure.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

I think given that Europe generally has good labour standards that CETA isn't going to be as big a potential concern as the TPP, actually.  The idea is to strive toward fair trade rather than free trade, I figure.

The problem isn't labour it's that corporations use these deals to highten competition to drive down wages and to prevent governments right down to the municipal level from favoring local companies and to prevent us from pasing environmental protection laws. CETA is the model for TPP and TIPP. If CETA passes so will TPP and TIPP forming a huge single trading block creating a playground for international corporations. That's why they won't drop the ISDS clause or alter it substancially. The whole point is gain corporate rights over government not to achieve lower prices for consumers.

mark_alfred

"drive down wages"?  So corporations in Canada will decide to relocate to Europe to be able to use the highly unionized workforce there?  Hmm.  Oddly this scenario is not raising alarm bells in my head.  That said, I feel the dispute resolution mechanism (ISDS) is a concern to be flagged.  I wrote Tracey Ramsey above for more info about it.  The editor of Rabble never got back to me.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

"drive down wages"?  So corporations in Canada will decide to relocate to Europe to be able to use the highly unionized workforce there?  Hmm.  Oddly this scenario is not raising alarm bells in my head.  That said, I feel the dispute resolution mechanism (ISDS) is a concern to be flagged.  I wrote Tracey Ramsey above for more info about it.  The editor of Rabble never got back to me.

Yes, to drive down wages on both sides, the EU as well as Canada. The ISDS is not merely a concern to be flagged. It is THE most important aspect of ALL the trade deals. Tarrifs are an aside, totally inconsequencial in comparison to the ISDS chapter.

quizzical

every time i read this thread title i say "no" internally.

maybe the mass attempt through trade agreements to get everyone working for 2 cents a day- if what you believe will happen happens- will unite the workers of the world and awaken people in cause more than anything else would?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

"drive down wages"?  So corporations in Canada will decide to relocate to Europe to be able to use the highly unionized workforce there?  Hmm.  Oddly this scenario is not raising alarm bells in my head.  That said, I feel the dispute resolution mechanism (ISDS) is a concern to be flagged.  I wrote Tracey Ramsey above for more info about it.  The editor of Rabble never got back to me.

Yes, to drive down wages on both sides, the EU as well as Canada.

How does a trade agreement with Europe drive down wages on both sides?  I can see how this occurred with Mexico.  But Europe?  I don't see it. 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

"drive down wages"?  So corporations in Canada will decide to relocate to Europe to be able to use the highly unionized workforce there?  Hmm.  Oddly this scenario is not raising alarm bells in my head.  That said, I feel the dispute resolution mechanism (ISDS) is a concern to be flagged.  I wrote Tracey Ramsey above for more info about it.  The editor of Rabble never got back to me.

Yes, to drive down wages on both sides, the EU as well as Canada.

How does a trade agreement with Europe drive down wages on both sides?  I can see how this occurred with Mexico.  But Europe?  I don't see it. 

Because it makes it easier for companies to threaten to relocate if the government doesn't give them what they want. Right now we are in competition with only the US and and Mexico. If a European car manufacturer wants to do business in Canada they are required to have a certain amount produced here.

Reading here and there I discovered that the "pro" for Canada is hugely increased market for our agricultural production including beef. High labour agriculture, anything that can't be picked by machine won't be helped and could be harmed, but beef and wheat will benefit.

The EU is being flooded with low wage workers from the Eastern Bloc willing to take lower salaries, even professional. Worker mobility is also part of the deal allowing corporations more staffing freedom.

mark_alfred

Are European cars currently produced in Canada?

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Are European cars currently produced in Canada?

Actually I have no idea. Perhaps it's just all about car parts. My point isn't about cars. Cars are just an example of a product.

The significance of manufacturing jobs pales to the point of being inconsequencial in comparison to ISDS.  It's a distraction.

ygtbk
josh

"I am absolutely thrilled to be able tell everyone here that we have now completed the legal review of the CETA deal — an essential step in the process. This is really a gold-plated trade deal."

As part of the legal review of the text, Freeland said both sides agreed to make changes to the controversial investor-state dispute mechanism (ISDS), which allows government laws and regulations to be challenged outside of domestic courts — as in NAFTA and Canada's many foreign investment protection agreements.

"The have been modifications to the investment chapter to reflect the shared intent of Canada and the EU to strengthen our provisions on the right to regulate, to establish a revised progress for the selection of tribunal members to adjudicate disputes," Freeland explained. 

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/02/29/liberals-modify-cetas-investor-dispute-cl...

Sounds like mere window dressing.

Pages