Archive for March, 2016

The Prime Minister and I talking with a Ford employee by Terence Young (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/dNKunv

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.

Read more ›

March 8, 2016 2 comments News
I think I need a Lear Jet by JoshNV (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/3eaugw

The Trouble With the TPP, Day 45: Limited Economic Gains for Canada

The Trouble with the TPP series has spent the past two months examining dozens of provisions in the agreement and their implications for Canadians and Canadian law. Yet beyond the new restrictions, missed opportunities, and business uncertainty, lies real doubt about the actual gains from the TPP. While certain groups were prepared to support the TPP sight unseen, the evidence continues to mount that there are very limited Canadian benefits from the deal. The next few days will consider the economic and employment implications of the TPP.

At a recent Standing Committee on International Trade hearing on the TPP, Brian Kingston, a Vice-President with the Business Council of Canada (formerly the Canadian Council of Chief Executives) was asked if there were any negatives about the deal. Incredibly, Kingston responded that he could not think of any, a position that was rebutted in the next hearing as agricultural groups talked about billions in losses. Further, Kingston was also asked about studies on the TPP. He indicated that the main study he had seen was from the Peterson Institute.

Read more ›

March 7, 2016 2 comments News
110/365 What's on TV? by Joe (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/9AkLAy

Giving Pick-and-Pay a Chance: Why Skinny Basic Is Just the Start of More Competitive TV Pricing

Canadians appear to have become so accustomed to an uncompetitive cable and satellite market typified by frequent price increases and restrictive options that many are failing to recognize the arrival of greater consumer choice. Last week’s launch of the new $25 basic “skinny” cable packages mandated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) left many underwhelmed, as the patchwork of channels and hidden fees seemingly confirmed critics’ claims that consumers would be better off sticking with their existing, pricier packages.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) acknowledges that there is plenty of room to criticize the cable and satellite companies. They have no intention of actively promoting the cheaper options and some seem determined to make them as unattractive as possible. However, the reality is that the combination of basic television service and the pick-and-pay model that must be offered by the end of the year is changing the marketplace for the better.

Read more ›

March 7, 2016 3 comments Columns

Why Skinny Basic Is Just the Start of More Competitive TV Pricing

Appeared in the Toronto Star on March 7, 2016 as Skinny TV Packages Jump Start Competition Canadians appear to have become so accustomed to an uncompetitive cable and satellite market typified by frequent price increases and restrictive options that many are failing to recognize the arrival of greater consumer choice. […]

Read more ›

March 7, 2016 Comments are Disabled Columns Archive
Farm by Zach Stern (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/bdLL3X

The Trouble With the TPP, Day 44: Canada’s Terrible ISDS Track Record

The Trouble with the TPP has discussed how the agreement’s investor-state dispute settlement provisions do not meet the standard set by the Canadian government in CETA, do not address key concerns over policy making as illustrated by the Bilcon case, and raise enormous risks as demonstrated by the ongoing Eli Lilly dispute over Canadian patent law. This final ISDS post points another problem for Canada with ISDS rules: our track record is terrible.

According to the UNCTAD dispute resolution database, Canadian investors lodged 39 claims between 1998 and 2016 using ISDS provisions found in trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties. With all those claims, Canada has only won three times: a 2013 mining case against Kyrgyzstan, a 2011 mining case against Mongolia, and a 2009 mining case against Venezuela. The record is even worse in claims involving NAFTA as Apotex lost in 2008, 2009, and 2012; Canadian Cattlemen lost in 2005,  Grand River lost in 2004, Glamis Gold lost in 2003, Thunderbird lost in 2002, ADF lost in 2000, Methanex lost in 1999, Mondev lost in 1999, and Loewen lost in 1998. Canadian companies just doesn’t seem to win NAFTA claims.

Read more ›

March 4, 2016 3 comments News