The Prime Minister and I talking with a Ford employee by Terence Young (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The Prime Minister and I talking with a Ford employee by Terence Young (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)


The Trouble With the TPP, Day 46: Limited Employment Gains or Even Job Losses for Canada

Yesterday’s Trouble with the TPP post canvassed the economic studies released to date on the agreement, finding that the evidence suggests that the economic gains for Canada are modest at best. In addition to efforts to assess the economic growth impact of the TPP, some studies have also tried to estimate its effect on employment.

The Tufts University study referenced yesterday has a specific analysis on job growth. It anticipates that Canada will lose jobs as a result of the TPP, projecting a loss of 58,000 jobs in Canada. That ranks the third highest in the TPP, but the highest of all countries on a per capita basis.

Unifor, the union which represents Canadian auto workers at the big three, estimates that the TPP will place 20,000 automotive jobs at riskNot everyone agrees with that estimate, but other studies have concluded that recent Canadian free trade agreements are leading to lost automotive jobs. Unifor is scheduled to appear before the Standing Committee on International Trade today alongside Ford Canada, which has also criticized the TPP.

In fact, when even the Peterson Institute study, which is currently the most optimistic about the TPP, projects no job growth from the agreement (it argues that the agreement will create job churn in the U.S. and impose adjustment costs on some workers), politicians should be paying attention to concerns that the TPP will create significant costs but do little if anything to spur job growth in Canada.

(prior posts in the series include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension, Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. Users “May”, Day 6: Price of Entry, Day 7: Patent Term Extensions, Day 8: Locking in Biologics Protection, Day 9: Limits on Medical Devices and Pharma Data Collection, Day 10: Criminalization of Trade Secret Law, Day 11: Weak Privacy Standards, Day 12: Restrictions on Data Localization Requirements, Day 13: Ban on Data Transfer Restrictions, Day 14: No U.S. Assurances for Canada on Privacy, Day 15: Weak Anti-Spam Law Standards, Day 16: Intervening in Internet Governance, Day 17: Weak E-commerce Rules, Day 18: Failure to Protect Canadian Cultural Policy, Day 19: No Canadian Side Agreement to Advance Tech Sector, Day 20: Unenforceable Net Neutrality Rules, Day 21: U.S. Requires Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Report Card, Day 22: Expanding Border Measures Without Court Oversight, Day 23: On Signing Day, What Comes Next?, Day 24: Missing Balance on IP Border Measures, Day 25: The Treaties With the Treaty, Day 26: Why It Limits Canadian Cultural Policies, Day 27: Source Code Disclosure Confusion, Day 28: Privacy Risks from Source Code Rules, Day 29: Cultural Policy Innovation Uncertainty, Day 30: Losing Our Way on Geographical Indications, Day 31: Canadian Trademark Law Overhaul, Day 32: Illusory Safeguards Against Encryption Backdoors, Day 33: Setting the Rules for a Future Pharmacare Program, Day 34: PMO Was Advised Canada at a Negotiating Disadvantage, Day 35: Gambling With Provincial Regulation, Day 36: Why the TPP Could Restrict Uber Regulation, Day 37: Breaking Digital Locks for Personal Purposes, Day 38: Limits on Canadian Digital Lock Safeguards, Day 39: Quiet Expansion of Criminal Copyright Provisions, Day 40: Mobile Roaming Promises Unfulfilled, Day 41: ISDS Rules Do Not Meet the Canada’s New “Gold” Standard, Day 42: The Risks of Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Day 43: Eli Lilly Is What Happens When ISDS Rules Go Wrong, Day 44: Canada’s Terrible ISDS Track Record, Day 45: Limited Economic Gains for Canada)


  1. Lots of pain for Canada. So who is pushing this and why? Well it help the third world? Is it about sharing and equal opportunity?

  2. Rob, I’d say it’s more about investors and businesses wanting to secure profits, in the face of local opposition.
    It also seems to be about arbitration lawyers wanting to make money from ISDS claims.