Earlier this week, I was invited to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade to discuss the benefits of the Trans Pacific Partnership, a proposed trade agreement involving the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a handful of other Asian and South American countries. My comments were critical of the proposed agreement as I focused on two issues: copyright and secrecy. The opening comments sparked a lively debate, with the NDP MPs tabling documents I obtained under the Access to Information Act detailing inside access to TPP information for select stakeholders and the Conservative MPs alternately questioning the validity of leaked texts and providing assurances that draft text could change before the final agreement is concluded. I’ll post the transcript once it is available. In the meantime, my opening remarks are posted below.
Post Tagged with: "tpp"
Canadian Government Establishes Two-Tier Approach for Trade Talks: Insiders and Everyone Else
As the future of the proposed Canada – European Union Trade Agreement becomes increasingly uncertain – the EU has been unwilling to compromise on the remaining contentious issues leaving the Canadian government with a deal that offers limited benefits and significant costs – the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is likely to emerge as the government’s new top trade priority.
The TPP has rapidly become of the world’s most significant trade negotiations, with participants that include the United States, Australia, Mexico, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Japan, and Canada. There is a veil of secrecy associated with the TPP, however, as participants are required to sign a confidentiality agreement as a condition of entry into the talks. Despite those efforts, there have been occasional leaks of draft text that indicate the deal could require major changes to Canadian rules on investment, intellectual property, cultural protection, procurement, and agriculture.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes the Canadian government has adopted several measures to guard against leaks by departmental officials. According to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, a November 2012 email to government officials noted that their access to TPP texts was conditioned on “Secret” level clearance, an acknowledgement that all texts are watermarked and can be traced back to the source, and confirmation that no sharing within government is permitted without prior approval.
Canadian Government Establishes Two-Tier Approach for Trade Talks: Insiders and Everyone Else
Appeared in the Toronto Star on May 4, 2013 as Canada’s Two-Tier Approach to Trade Talks As the future of the proposed Canada – European Union Trade Agreement becomes increasingly uncertain – the EU has been unwilling to compromise on the remaining contentious issues leaving the Canadian government with a […]
Industry Committee Report on Intellectual Property: A Case of Policy Laundering for CETA and TPP
The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology released its report on the Intellectual Property Regime in Canada yesterday. The report is the result of lengthy hearings that focused on a wide range of IP issues including patent reform, trademarks, counterfeiting, and pharmaceutical protection. While most the recommendations are fairly innocuous – the committee identifies many issues for further study – there are essentially three main legislative reform recommendations. One involves limiting the scope of official marks, which appears to be the result of comments from Dalhousie law professor Rob Currie (echoed by CIPO’s Sylvain Laporte) expressing concern with governmental abuse of official marks in a way that may stifle innovation.
The other two are particularly interesting as they set the stage for the Canada – EU Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. First, the report recommends anti-counterfeiting measures similar to those required by CETA and found in Bill C-56. Should criticism arise over Bill C-56 or CETA, the government will likely point to this report in support.
The second involves a classic case of policy laundering as the government has manufactured support for CETA and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) provisions that were not even raised at committee. The report recommends:
Cave or Cancel?: The Future (or End) of the Canada – EU Trade Agreement
Last November, Maclean’s columnist Paul Wells wrote a piece on the Canada – EU Trade Agreement in which he expressed doubt about the ability to conclude the deal (“Everybody connected to the negotiations assures me there will be a deal. Every public sign I see makes me think there won’t.”). I was skeptical about the prospect of years of negotiations falling apart and expected the political level meetings in November to wrap things up. They didn’t. Last month, International Trade Minister Ed Fast and his European counterpart Karel de Gucht tried again. Still no deal.
While Fast wants everyone to believe that momentum is building toward an agreement, it clearly is not. Over the last year, Canada’s lead lawyer on the negotiations resigned, Canada’s lead agricultural negotiator was re-assigned, and the EU’s lead negotiator has added the EU – Vietnam agreement to his responsibilities with rumours that he will head the EU – Japan trade talks. Fast says he won’t negotiate the agreement in the media and then proceeds to do exactly that by staking out positions on agriculture and investment. The same business groups that have been lobbying for the deal issue a public letter on the agreement that does little other than promise “future support.”
All of this adds up to missed deadline after missed deadline. In 2010, officials said the deal would be completed in 2011. In early 2011, they said it would be completed by the end of the year. By late 2011, the deadline had moved to 2012. Yet it is now 2013 and Fast admitted this week that there may not be an agreement this year.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 200: Colin Bennett on the EU’s Surprising Adequacy Finding on Canadian Privacy Law 
Debating the Online Harms Act: Insights from Two Recent Panels on Bill C-63 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 199: Boris Bytensky on the Criminal Code Reforms in the Online Harms Act 
AI Spending is Not an AI Strategy: Why the Government’s Artificial Intelligence Plan Avoids the Hard Governance Questions 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 198: Richard Moon on the Return of the Section 13 Hate Speech Provision in the Online Harms Act
