HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 4:29 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver-Yaletown
Posts: 3,875
TPP Trade Deal Proposal Would See CBC, Canada Post Exist Solely For Profit

I am very surprised for not having seen any discussion around the current TPP Trade Deal talks that the Harper Government together with 11 nations is trying to push through possibly this week. The ramifications of this deal for the Canadian businesses and public services could be huge, and not for the better.

With 75% of Canadians having not even heard about this very important secret deal being discussed, I urge people to be at least informed.

Quote:
TPP Trade Deal Proposal Would See CBC, Canada Post Exist Solely For Profit

A leaked document from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade talks indicates the CBC, Canada Post and other Crown corporations could be required to operate solely for profit under the deal’s terms.

It’s unknown whether the principles outlined in the document will be a part of the final agreement, but the paper — a briefing for ministers ahead of a December, 2013, TPP meeting — also raises questions about the extent to which Canada will be able to continue using taxpayers’ money to fund Crown corporations, such as the $1-billion annual subsidy to the CBC.

The latest round of TPP talks, between Canada and 11 other countries, opened in Hawaii this week, and news reports indicate some negotiators are optimistic a final deal will be reached in this round.

The Harper government is reportedly eager to have a deal in hand before an expected election call this weekend, in order to burnish its credentials on the economy.

The briefing, which was obtained and released by Wikileaks, states that a “majority of TPP countries” have agreed that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) will have to “act on the basis of commercial considerations.”

The document — which makes clear that final decisions on these issues hadn’t been made at that time — also indicates that state-owned companies may be subject to all the rules of the TPP.

If that were to be the case, governments would not be able to fund Crown corporations with taxpayers’ money if that funding has “adverse effects” on another TPP country, says Jane Kelsey, a professor of law at the University of Auckland, in an analysis of the document she prepared for Wikileaks.

“It looks like SOEs are not allowed to get government support or noncommercial assistance. … That kind of support is often essential for SOEs that provide public functions that are not profitable or are even loss-making.”

Kelsey says the U.S. is pushing to have state-owned businesses covered under the TPP’s investor-state dispute mechanism. This would mean that foreign entities could sue the government of Canada for subsidizing a Crown corporation if that foreign entity can prove it’s at a competitive disadvantage because of those subsidies.

She describes the proposal as “intrinsically problematic.”

State-owned corporations “are almost always state-owned because they have functions other than those that are merely commercial, such as guaranteed access to important services” or social and cultural functions, Kelsey wrote.

She also suggested that the rationale for the existence of state-owned enterprises would be undermined by the TPP rules.

"Once SOEs and private firms are 'competitively neutral,' the advocates of privatization will say there is no justification for retaining state ownership because the private sector can bring efficiency gains, choice and competition to the provision of the public service."

However, the document also states that negotiating countries will have to decide about “exceptions or other forms of flexibility” for the rules for state-owned companies. This opens the door for Canadian negotiators to protect the status of Crown corporations, if they choose to pursue that course.

All the same, many activists have come out with harsh criticism of what they expect will be part of the 12-country free trade deal.

“The TPP will hinder our state-owned enterprises from acting in the public interest,” said Sujata Dey, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, which has a long history of opposing trade agreements.

“The very mission of the CBC – telling the bilingual and multicultural story of Canada – will be reduced to simple profit making. Likewise, Canada Post will no longer function as a nation builder, but as a private company. The essence and mandate of our Crown corporations are being traded away in favour of private corporate profit.”

Talks on the TPP have been ongoing since 2008, under what critics call an unprecedented veil of secrecy. Canada joined the talks in 2012.

The other negotiating countries are Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. China is not a part of the talks.

It’s being billed as the largest free trade area in the world. The negotiating countries together comprise nearly 800 million people and a combined GDP of $27.5 trillion, or 40 per cent of the world economy.

A poll released last month found three-quarters of Canadians had never heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
From: Huffington Post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 4:43 PM
Stryker Stryker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,720
The cbc for profit FUCK THAT SHIT!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 4:48 PM
Trans Canada's Avatar
Trans Canada Trans Canada is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 694
All speculation on the contents of TPP aside, I see no reason why the government of Canada should be producing entertainment and sports TV in competition with the private sector. Like any Crown corporation, if the private sector can do it better, why should the government get involved (other than just assuming a regulatory role)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 4:55 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 9,127
The future of CBC = PBS.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 4:57 PM
Stryker Stryker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
The future of CBC = PBS.
LOl you can't be serious, more like cnn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 4:58 PM
Stryker Stryker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trans Canada View Post
All speculation on the contents of TPP aside, I see no reason why the government of Canada should be producing entertainment and sports TV in competition with the private sector. Like any Crown corporation, if the private sector can do it better, why should the government get involved (other than just assuming a regulatory role)?
People they don't do it better.

Profit news is shit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:01 PM
1overcosc's Avatar
1overcosc 1overcosc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kingston, ON
Posts: 5,242
Quote:
The document — which makes clear that final decisions on these issues hadn’t been made at that time — also indicates that state-owned companies may be subject to all the rules of the TPP.

If that were to be the case, governments would not be able to fund Crown corporations with taxpayers’ money if that funding has “adverse effects” on another TPP country, says Jane Kelsey, a professor of law at the University of Auckland, in an analysis of the document she prepared for Wikileaks.
Wait, what?

Governments can't fund SOEs with public money, if "if that funding has “adverse effects” on another TPP country", because "state-owned companies may be subject to all the rules of the TPP"? If these rules apply to all enterprises... wouldn't this treaty basically ban the corporate welfare "economic development" grants and such that governments in Canada dole out like candy?

This TPP stuff is getting kinda crazy. It was one thing when the TPP would make us get rid of our supply management systems for agriculture (which the urban majority doesn't really care about).. but the CBC and Canada Post? Now the whole deal is bound to become politically toxic in Canada.

If anything it would in Harper's interest to NOT have a deal finalized before the election. With a finalized text, all these things could be used by the Libs and NDP against TPP and against Harper; without a final text, Harper can continue to claim/pretend that any potentially unpopular parts of the TPP won't happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:03 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,765
The underlying principals of the TPP are a flat competitive structure that allows countries to compete on equal footing with the markets in question. It's meant to be "pure" capitalism. Once you know that the trade agreements start with that as a first principal these somewhat provocative and inflammatory tidbits without context such as "CBC must be required to operate on a for profit basis" make more sense.

One of the main concepts it's meant to snuff out is the concept of unbalanced competitive advantage owing to operating within a country's borders. Such as if domestic electronic companies that are exempt from certain taxes that foreign companies aren't, that gives domestic companies an unfair competitive advantage in their operations, and limits the ability for countries to partake in "free trade".

The model it's based on is in stock markets, companies are beholden to their shareholders, and shareholders generally want the long term value of their companies to improve, and that is done through maximizing profits. How that is actually done is up for interpretation of course and at the end of the day it's quite hard to argue "this particular move or initiative did not meet the goal of maximizing long term profits". Having everybody follow the same set of rules all ties back into the ideal of creating a flat competitive marketplace between the countries.

I think there is a lot of context-less tidbits and one liners which are being used to spread a lot of misinformation about the nature and details of the TPP. I'm not saying it would be a positive benefit to Canada as a whole, but maybe don't get all your information about it from places like, say, the Huffington Post. The editorial narratives of Bloomberg, Economist, etc. have their own journalistic slant on things as well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...deal-explainer

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2...whats-big-deal

http://www.economist.com/news/united...faces-showdown

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-2...ic-partnership
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:04 PM
Stryker Stryker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Wait, what?

Governments can't fund SOEs with public money, if "if that funding has “adverse effects” on another TPP country", because "state-owned companies may be subject to all the rules of the TPP"? If these rules apply to all enterprises... wouldn't this treaty basically ban the corporate welfare "economic development" grants and such that governments in Canada dole out like candy?

This TPP stuff is getting kinda crazy. It was one thing when the TPP would make us get rid of our supply management systems for agriculture (which the urban majority doesn't really care about).. but the CBC and Canada Post? Now the whole deal is bound to become politically toxic in Canada.

If anything it would in Harper's interest to NOT have a deal finalized before the election. With a finalized text, all these things could be used by the Libs and NDP against TPP and against Harper; without a final text, Harper can continue to claim/pretend that any potentially unpopular parts of the TPP won't happen.
Yes well if this goes ahead in the open, it's likely the final fuck you from the last days of the government as it collaspes.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if harper fucked canadians over for not accepting him.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:06 PM
mistercorporate's Avatar
mistercorporate mistercorporate is offline
The Fruit of Discipline
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Toronto / Miami / My private self-sufficient fiefdom
Posts: 1,091
I'm fine with that. Increasingly, CBC has been promoting a vision of Canada quite different to what I see on the ground and has been absolutely reeking of public service, lazy, entitled types. Very low quality writing and vision given the financial infusion, other networks have been producing better quality Canadian programming. If it means another transformation, more choice and an increase in our competitiveness like NAFTA then I'm all for it.
__________________
Future Summer Olympic Games: Rio 2016, Tokyo 2020, Toronto 2024.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:07 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver-Yaletown
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trans Canada View Post
I see no reason why the government of Canada should be producing entertainment and sports TV in competition with the private sector. Like any Crown corporation, if the private sector can do it better, why should the government get involved (other than just assuming a regulatory role)?
Sport and entertainment perhaps not, but there is a core mission that CBC should continue to provide with ful funding and without bias. Otherwise we will soon find ourselves in the Newstainment world of the United States with strongly biased channels like MSNBC and Fox News.

From the article:

Quote:
“The very mission of the CBC – telling the bilingual and multicultural story of Canada – will be reduced to simple profit making. Likewise, Canada Post will no longer function as a nation builder, but as a private company. The essence and mandate of our Crown corporations are being traded away in favour of private corporate profit.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:10 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver-Yaletown
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
If anything it would in Harper's interest to NOT have a deal finalized before the election. With a finalized text, all these things could be used by the Libs and NDP against TPP and against Harper; without a final text, Harper can continue to claim/pretend that any potentially unpopular parts of the TPP won't happen.
This is a good article exploring the topic:

Huffington Post: Harper Hoping To Sign Off TPP Deal Before Election Campaign Kickoff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:13 PM
Stryker Stryker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Wait, what?

Governments can't fund SOEs with public money, if "if that funding has “adverse effects” on another TPP country", because "state-owned companies may be subject to all the rules of the TPP"? If these rules apply to all enterprises... wouldn't this treaty basically ban the corporate welfare "economic development" grants and such that governments in Canada dole out like candy?

This TPP stuff is getting kinda crazy. It was one thing when the TPP would make us get rid of our supply management systems for agriculture (which the urban majority doesn't really care about).. but the CBC and Canada Post? Now the whole deal is bound to become politically toxic in Canada.

If anything it would in Harper's interest to NOT have a deal finalized before the election. With a finalized text, all these things could be used by the Libs and NDP against TPP and against Harper; without a final text, Harper can continue to claim/pretend that any potentially unpopular parts of the TPP won't happen.
This scares the living hell out of me.


As some one who's generally against unions, protectisism and industry subsidies, this deal looks like its severly gonna fuck up canadas ability to do smarter less costly forms of governing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:16 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver-Yaletown
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistercorporate View Post
If it means another transformation, more choice and an increase in our competitiveness like NAFTA then I'm all for it.
This kind of cases are only going to increase with the TPP’s investor-state dispute mechanism. Interesting read on the topic below. Note from which country most of the suing companies are from.

Huffington Post: NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:17 PM
Stryker Stryker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
This kind of cases are only going to increase with the TPP’s investor-state dispute mechanism. Interesting read on the topic below. Note from which country most of the suing companies are from.

Huffington Post: NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals
So the bigger party is always right and canada is always wrong.

It's bad enough with western democracies, however with asian partners this seems extreme.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:25 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is offline
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 7,600
From Australia...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...30-ginuor.html

Quote:
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade broke with its usual practice of not commenting on leaked documents to say that national broadcasters such as the ABS and the SBS will not be affected by the provisions because they are not recognised as state-owned enterprises for the purposes of the TPP.

The proposed restrictions on state-owned enterprises are designed to prevent countries such as Vietnam with large state-owned sectors from competing unfairly against foreign firms.

[The Trade Minister]'s office said they would not require government-owned firms to be privatised and would not restrict Australia Post's universal service obligation
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:27 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver-Yaletown
Posts: 3,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
Yes well if this goes ahead in the open, it's likely the final fuck you from the last days of the government as it collaspes.
Perhaps that's why there are special components like this to the deal and negotiations:

Quote:
The public criticisms of the TPP have been vague. That’s by design—anyone who has read the text of the agreement could be jailed for disclosing its contents. I’ve actually read the TPP text provided to the government’s own advisors, and I’ve given the president an earful about how this trade deal will damage this nation. But I can’t share my criticisms with you.

Politico: I’ve Read Obama’s Secret Trade Deal.


Quote:
Our own MPs do not have access to the text. Not only that, many chapters and articles will continue to be secret four years after the deal goes into effect.

Huffington Post: Canadians Need to Know the Truth About the TPP
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:29 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,765
I think the criticism of the TPP is really symbolic of the inability of some people to accept the realities of the global economy. It isn't just criticized in Canada, it's criticized in America (alledgedly the "big winners"), and other countries as well. If you talk to the critics enough you might get the sense that North Korea is their ideal state. Making everything for themselves, being self sufficient, not depending on trade deals, etc.

Like it or not Canada will be dragged kicking and screaming into the realities of what "a connected global economy" really means. It means we need to get more competitive, and we have every advantage to benefit from the consequences of flat trade deals to compete in markets that consist of over a billion people and 40% of the world's economy. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we can't make it work, and sticking your head in the sand and implying that Canada is somehow better off not being involved in these types of deals is only doing harm to our future competitiveness by protecting our unsustainable policies that artificially inflate certain domestic industries.

Again, I'm not saying that the specific instance of TPP will be the answer, but in general rejecting any sort of trade partnerships on this scale will result in at best short term gain for long term pain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:36 PM
TorontoDrew's Avatar
TorontoDrew TorontoDrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Riverside/Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,192
The CBC needs to do a better job of balancing it's books but it should never be private. The thing I love about the CBC is that no matter where you are in this country you can get it's broadcast (except the far north). I love the notion that I can drive from coast to coast and listen to the same broadcast for the entire trip. It keeps us all connected, it has no hidden agenda as the Cons would like us to believe. If it were to go private the towns in small town English Canada that seem to be Harper's biggest supporters would suffer the most. I really wish people would get a little more educated on the facts before they vote and not just trust what they are told or just vote for one party because that's the way they've always voted. I've voted for all three parties and will always vote for the one that I think will do the best job.

Harper must go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:42 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver-Yaletown
Posts: 3,875
More of the few details that are known about this deal.

Quote:
Canadians Need to Know the Truth About the TPP

This week, ministers from 12 countries representing 40 per cent of the world's economy will meet to discuss the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the largest trade agreements ever. As talks are rushed to conclusion, Canada is still fighting to have its supply management system excluded from the deal.

We wish the government well in its quest to protect supply management, but we wish it would go to bat for other core Canadian values and industries.

Unlike our European and even American counterparts, Canadian discussion on the TPP has been limited to chickens, eggs and milk. There has been virtually no parliamentary debate on the merits or pitfalls of the deal. According to a Trade Justice Network poll conducted in June, three-quarters of Canadians hadn't even heard of the TPP.

There's a good reason for that: the TPP has been negotiated completely in secret. The agreement is accessible only by participating negotiators and advisors, who are forbidden from talking about it. As one advisor told Politico, "Anyone who has read the text of the agreement could be jailed for disclosing its contents. I've actually read the TPP text provided to the government's own advisors, and I've given the president an earful about how this trade deal will damage this nation. But I can't share my criticisms with you."

Our own MPs do not have access to the text. Not only that, many chapters and articles will continue to be secret four years after the deal goes into effect.

What we don't know can't hurt us, right? Wrong.

From the few sections that have leaked, a pattern emerges: business lobbyists and elites are carving out a deal in the interests of billionaires at the expense of the public interest. A cursory glance at the affected sectors tells a chilling story.

Health care: Patent protections will be extended through the agreement, significantly delaying the arrival of cheaper generic medicines Estimates are patent extentions could cost our public health care system at least $2 billion a year. For less developed countries in the accord, this could be a severe blow.

Jobs: As with NAFTA, low-wage countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia will become beacons for further displacement of manufacturing jobs. Even many proponents' figures show negligible economic growth as a result of the TPP. Many of the same models that promised huge growth and job gains under other trade agreements such as NAFTA have been discounted.

Foreign investment screening regulations: Canada is being pressured to give up its regulation of foreign investment, an essential tool to maintaining economic sovereignty.

Food security: Supply management protects local food systems and ensures that Canadian farmers in northern climates are given the ability to price according to demand. This protects small farms and locally sourced agriculture. Observers expect Canada to lose the battle to hold on to supply management.

State-owned enterprises: According to a document leaked on Wikleaks, the CBC and Canada Post could be jeopardized. State-owned enterprises in the TPP could be severely restricted and subject to rules which force them to give up their public service mandates in order to become purely profit-driven organizations. They would also be prohibited from sourcing services from local or national sources exclusively.

Democracy and the environment: The investor-state dispute settlement clause in the TPP, like in NAFTA, allows corporations to sue countries if their regulations interfere with profit. To date, countries have been sued for banning neurotoxins, disallowing quarries for environmental reasons, putting health warnings on cigarettes, implementing minimum wage regulations, protecting public health, and banning nuclear energy and fracking. Canada is already the most sued developed country in the world, costing us hundreds of millions of dollars.

Opponents of trade agreements are not flat-world theorists out of touch with the new global realities. Nor are they de facto against profit or progress or the future. But they are justifiably concerned.

In the U.S., Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have voiced significant opposition, to the point that the Senate has filibustered the deal. Even some Republicans are opposed to the deal, concerned about its effects on the American economy. In Australia, a caucus composed of Labor, Greens and independents are opposing the TPP. Prominent economists such as Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman are voicing their concerns.

Trade deals work when they protect and encourage jobs and the social good, not when they privilege the interests of corporations and the one per cent. In our upcoming federal election campaign, no Canadian political party would campaign against health care, employment, and democracy. But if they adopt this secretive, under the radar agreement, they will be doing just that.

From Huffington Post: Canadians Need to Know the Truth About the TPP
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:34 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.