
Balsillie fears TPP will cost Canada billions - kspaans
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/balsillie-fears-tpp-will-cost-canada-billions-may-be-worst-ever-policy-move/article27171764/
======
tareqak
It is mentioned in the article that the Minister for International Trade,
Chrystia Freeland, wanted Canadians to send her comments about it.

Here is her tweet about it:
[https://twitter.com/CanadaTrade/status/662397645722361856](https://twitter.com/CanadaTrade/status/662397645722361856)

It would be nice if there was a website breaking down what exactly is bad
about the TPP, complete with links back to the draft text and if people just
replied back with that. I think something like genius.com would be useful for
this purpose, but I don't have the knowledge to highlight what is bad.

Edit: Well, I'm getting started putting stuff up on Genius.com:
[http://genius.com/albums/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-
negoti...](http://genius.com/albums/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-negotiating-
parties/Trans-pacific-partnership) .

Here is where the PDFs are: [http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-
International-Law/01-Tr...](http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-
International-Law/01-Treaties-for-which-NZ-is-Depositary/0-Trans-Pacific-
Partnership-Text.php)

Another edit: I am just dumping the text for now. Not sure if I will get to
formatting it nicely.

~~~
tareqak
Update 10:47 AM EST: I put up chapters 0-30. I still have the annexes from
chapter 2, 12, and 15 to do (I am doing them next). I made a few mistakes with
chapter 20 (Environment), and I cannot delete them. I used the "Contact Us"
link to ask to have those pages deleted. Here are the links to be deleted in
case someone with links to genius.com is reading:

[http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-
negotiating-p...](http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-negotiating-
parties-20-environment-chapter-annotated)

[http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-
negotiating-p...](http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-negotiating-
parties-20-environment-ch-annotated)

[http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-
negotiating-p...](http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-negotiating-
parties-20-environment-annotated)

Edit: Initially, I had the chapters categorized as X (other), but I started
changing them to Law. genius.com doesn't seem to let me change it after the
fact.

Update 11:37 AM EST: It seems like I have hit a limit as to how many "songs"
(chapters) an album ("document") can have. Any new ones I make do not appear
in the album. I am going to have to stop for now since it will be hard to keep
track. These are the two I made before I noticed:

[http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-
negotiating-p...](http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-negotiating-
parties-2-d-peru-tariff-elimination-schedule-annotated)

[http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-
negotiating-p...](http://genius.com/Transpacific-partnership-tpp-negotiating-
parties-2-d-singapore-general-notes-to-tariff-schedule-annotated)

Update 12:38 PM EST: No word yet on the issue with genius.com . I did find the
contact information for Minister Freeland [1], and search page for Canadian
Members of Parliament (you can search by postal code) [2].

[1]
[http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Chrystia-F...](http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Chrystia-
Freeland)

[2]
[http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/Constituencies/Fin...](http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parliamentarians/en/Constituencies/FindMP)

~~~
tareqak
Update 4:53 PM EST: I only managed to reformat the Preamble and Chapter 1.
Still no word from genius.com about the issues I am having. I tweeted for the
first time:
[https://twitter.com/TeeAyKay/status/663830955971338240](https://twitter.com/TeeAyKay/status/663830955971338240)
. I kept the language of the tweet neutral to see who participates. I know I
am potentially opening the flood gates to abuse on genius, but hopefully the
dry subject matter will keep the trolls away and attract people who can bring
insight and foresee potential consequences. I am biased towards lawyers in
this regard, but they might just be like too much of "I am not _your_ lawyer"
to participate.

Thanks, to genius.com for providing the platform for this endeavour (I hope
you get in touch with me!).

------
olalonde
> contains “troubling” rules on intellectual property that threaten to make
> Canada a “permanent underclass” in the economy of selling ideas

Why?

> He fears it would give American firms an edge and cost Canadian companies
> more money because they would have to pay for someone else’s ideas instead
> their own.

What?

> On top of that, Balsillie believes the structure could prevent Canadian
> firms from growing as it would also limit how much money they can make from
> their own products and services.

Again why?

I don't think this article ever specifically explains why TPP is bad for
Canada.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
>I don't think this article ever specifically explains why TPP is bad for
Canada.

Does any TPP article do more than fearmongering? Its clear there are people
who are against low barriers to trade by principle. They believe in strict
isolationist protectionism as being economically superior. Historically
they've been wrong, but they have an activist voice on the web. Stuff like
this should give people pause on how things get popular on the web and who is
selling you what message.

From a larger perspective, I feel that TV and print media had guys like Neil
Postman and Marshall McLuhan, but the web doesn't really have anyone giving a
critical message about how untrustworthy and unreliable communication like
this is.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Of course, it's the people _against_ convoluted, multipronged trade agreements
who are the neo-mercantilists! The Ludwig von Mises Institute are all a bunch
of reds!

~~~
chiaro
You do understand what mercantilism is, right? Less free trade is a central
part of it.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
And by definition omnibus bills like "free trade agreements" are a central
instrument in curtailing it. Micromanagement of every detail is the
_antithesis_ of freedom. You don't seem to be well versed in what free trade
is.

------
walterbell
Jeffrey Sachs commented yesterday about the U.S. fast-track requirement for a
bundled all-or-nothing vote,
[http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/08/jeffrey-
sachs-...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/08/jeffrey-sachs-tpp-
too-flawed-for-simple-yes-vote/sZd0nlnCr18RurX1n549GI/story.html), _" TPP is
too flawed for a simple ‘yes’ vote" … the 12 signatories should slow down,
take the pieces of this complex trade agreement in turn, and work harder for a
set of international standards that will truly support global sustainable
development … The agreement, with its 30 chapters, is really four complex
deals in one.

The first is a free-trade deal among the signatories. That part could be
signed today. Tariff rates would come down to zero; quotas would drop; trade
would expand; and protectionism would be held at bay. The second is a set of
regulatory standards for trade. Most of these are useful, requiring that
regulations that limit trade should be based on evidence, not on political
whims or hidden protectionism.

The third is a set of regulations governing investor rights, intellectual
property, and regulations in key service sectors, including financial
services, telecommunications, e-commerce, and pharmaceuticals. These chapters
are a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Their common denominator is that
they enshrine the power of corporate capital above all other parts of society,
including labor and even governments.

The fourth is a set of standards on labor and environment that purport to
advance the cause of social fairness and environmental sustainability. But the
agreements are thin, unenforceable, and generally unimaginative. For example,
climate change is not even mentioned, much less addressed boldly and
creatively.

… The up-or-down vote therefore raises two questions. First, are the bad parts
indeed bad enough to vote down the package, thereby jeopardizing the undoubted
good of other chapters? Second, do we truly face an all-or-nothing
proposition, or rather could we agree with our negotiating counterparts on
certain chapters while reconsidering others? … Congress should vote “no’’ on
the current TPP, while simultaneously endorsing its trade provisions as well
as continuing the work with our counterparts on the other chapters.
Globalization is indeed so important for our common good that it’s of
overriding significance to get it right."_

~~~
snowwrestler
The reason all these things are glued together into one deal is that they will
not pass on their own, because international trade is not symmetrical.

Consider a wealthy post-industrial nation A trading with a poor industrial
nation B. Raw materials and simple goods flow from B to A, so tariffs will be
the primary concern. Capital, complex goods, services, and IP flow from A to
B, so investment, IP, and regulatory issues will be of concern in that
direction. A tariffs-only deal will not be balanced and therefore not succeed.
Likewise a regulations-only deal.

Trade issues are not even balanced between industries. A tariffs-dropping deal
will find support from manufacturers, but opposition from materials companies.

So to succeed, a trade deal must balance the various interests of many
stakeholders. That means gluing a bunch of stuff together so that to any given
person, some parts will look good and some parts will look bad.

The reason Congress created fast track is that different people will see
different parts as good and bad. Fast track ensures a simple vote on the
balance as a whole. If enough people see more good than bad--overall--it
passes.

A trade deal will never look ideal to anyone. The question is whether it's a
net gain for most.

~~~
walterbell

      > The reason Congress created fast track is that different
      > people will see different parts as good and bad.
    

That's one perspective. Public Citizen has another,
[http://www.citizen.org/documents/fast-track-
chart.pdf](http://www.citizen.org/documents/fast-track-chart.pdf)

 _" When Richard Nixon was president, he cooked up Fast Track to seize power
from Congress. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to
“regulate commerce with foreign nations” (Art. I-8). Fast Track was a
mechanism that delegated away to the executive branch Congress’ authority to
control the contents of U.S. trade pacts, as well as other important powers.

Fast Track empowered executive branch trade negotiators, advised by more than
600 official trade advisors who mostly represent large corporations, to choose
trade partners and negotiate and sign trade pacts, all before Congress voted.
Once signed, Fast Track put such deals on a legislative luge run: no matter
how many domestic non-trade policies were implicated or threatened by the
deal, Fast Tracked agreements hurtled through Congress within a set number of
days, with normal democratic checks and balances iced over.

Fast Track ensured that Congress’ role came too late to influence trade pacts’
contents: Congress only got a yes or no vote after a pact was signed and
“entered into.” That vote also OK’d hundreds of changes to U.S. non-trade law
to conform our policies to “trade” deal terms. Federalism was also flattened
by Fast Track via a form of international pre-emption: state officials had to
conform local laws to expansive non-trade domestic policy restrictions in Fast
Tracked “trade” pacts. State officials did not even get Congress’ cursory
role.

… Fast Track should be relegated to a museum of inappropriate technology.
Congress, state officials and the public need a new modern procedure for
developing U.S. trade policy, one that takes into account the realities of
21st-century globalization agreements."_

~~~
jcranmer
The first president to bend the Constitution to reduce Congress's role in
making trade deals and treaties was... George Washington, of all people.

Note that the Constitution says "[The president] shall have Power, by and with
the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of
the Senators present concur." At the time this was written, the intent was
clearly to have the Senate be as intimately involved in the treaty negotiation
process as the president. George Washington started his first treaty by
basically asking the Senate what the negotiators should be aiming for. Neither
the Senate nor Washington was happy with the process, and so Washington (nor
any subsequent president) attempted a repeat. (See
<[http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate...](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf>)).

~~~
walterbell
These days, revolving doors and web-based access to TPP drafts give corporate
lawyers many advantages over the legislative branch, as members of Congress
are restricted to reading TPP drafts in a locked room, without taking notes,
without their trade/legal staff, without a phone.

The executive branch delegated trade negotiations to former bankers, e.g. the
lead TPP negotiator is ex-Citibank,
[http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-
wal...](http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wall-street-
crony-groups-demand-transparency), _" Noting deep ties between the country's
top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions
of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications
between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial
institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals."_

For more on lobbyists, see [http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-
ustr-emails-...](http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-
show-close-industry-involvement-in-tpp-negotiations/), _".. Many of the
industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi
of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and
remarked, 'Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules … This is
a very pleasant surprise.'"_

The end result is an expansion of ISDS, which benefits corporate lawyers,
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU](https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU)

------
shmerl
TPP should be opposed already for the single fact that it's an undemocratic
backdoor agreement that attempts to circumvent proper legislative process to
shape law.

~~~
cyorir
Barbara Weisel, chief negotiator for the US, works in the USTR, which answers
to the President, who was democratically elected.

Koji Tsuruoka, chief negotiator for Japan, answers to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, who is appointed by the Prime Minister, who is designated by the
Diet, which is democratically elected.

For most parties involved ( _cough_ Vietnam _cough_ Brunei) negotiators
ultimately answer to democratically elected officials, and approval follows
the respective constitution of the involved party. If I had not wanted a
President who supports free trade agreements, I would have voted for someone
other than Obama in 2012.

This may be a "backdoor agreement," but it is not an undemocratic backdoor
agreement.

~~~
shmerl
They are from executive branch. TPP is clearly a legislative effort (of
monstrous proportions), so it should be controlled by the legislative branch,
including ability to amend and discuss the agreement in advance in
_transparent and public fashion_.

It is clearly undemocratic, because executive branch here usurps the power to
create law.

~~~
Amezarak
How do you propose coordinating the amendment processes between a dozen or
more legislatures?

It doesn't really make sense to let any legislature amend a treaty under the
current system, where the President and his designated functionaries do the
negotiating - then you have Congress modifying a _negotiated_ agreement which
would make treaties wildly impractical, especially when multiplied by all the
member-legislatures.

It doesn't make sense under an imaginary primary-legislature system either.
The US Congress has different rules for amendments and debate than say, the
Japanese Diet.

If Congress doesn't like the TPP, it is entirely in their power to refuse to
ratify the treaty and send it back to the negotiating table. And it was
entirely in their power to not grant the President the Trade Promotion
Authority.

~~~
shmerl
_> It doesn't really make sense to let any legislature amend a treaty under
the current system_

Not just amend - they have to be involved in designing it (that would avoid
the problem you described). And of course in the public fashion. If they
aren't - it's already undemocratic corrupted farce.

~~~
Amezarak
How could multiple legislatures design a treaty together?

You have the same problem, it can't be done. Each legislature has different
rules and completely different cultures. What would happen is each legislature
would appoint individual legislators to negotiate for them and you'd have
exactly the same system you have now, except with the negotiators being
members of the legislative branch instead of the executive branch.

Even on the microscale, the US House and the US Senate have the same problem,
for which they invented conference committees, which is where the House and
the Senate appoint a couple representatives and senators to negotiate for
their interests. [1] The results of the committee are sent to both houses for
an up-or-down no-amendments vote.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee)

~~~
shmerl
_> except with the negotiators being members of the legislative branch instead
of the executive branch._

That's already better in a case when agreement involves laws. As long as those
negotiations are transparent, and legislative branch can weigh in during the
process - things can be fixed in timely manner. When they are completely
opaque and results are shown post factum - that's where potential for
corruption grows.

To put it shortly - evil things like to lurk in the dark.

~~~
Amezarak
> That's already better in a case when agreement involves laws.

Why on Earth would it be better to have Jeff Sessions (R-AL) representing US
interests during the TPP negotiations rather than a US trade rep? Actually
that seems exactly the _opposite_ of a good thing, since any individual
Congressman or set of Congressman is going to favor their state(s) over the
country as a whole; they are directly accountable to the people in their state
who elected them. At least a US trade representative is accountable to an
elected official who represents the entire country.

> When they are completely opaque and results are shown post factum - that's
> where potential for corruption grows.

That's how Congress already works. Staffers and legislators produce the text
of a bill and the results are shown after the deed is already done. All that
enters the public record is some of the amendment history and the conference
report, if there is one. And often amendments change huge portions of a bill,
and you again see only the after-the-fact result. It's not a write-commit-
write-commit cycle, it's a write-write-write-write-write-commit.

> To put it shortly - evil things like to lurk in the dark.

A lot of effective governance also works in the dark. The reality of life is
that completely transparent, open negotiations are very difficult and close to
impossible except for small, very tight-knit communities.

~~~
shmerl
_> The reality of life is that completely transparent, open negotiations are
very difficult and close_

And closed ones are prone to corruption. I prefer hard to finalize agreements
to those which serve various crooks.

It's not like TPP is even needed to begin with. Trade is already pretty much
free. TPP is designed to make it less free in practice.

------
btilly
I am surprised by this line, _Alternatively, the treaty can also take effect
if it’s ratified by half the countries representing 85 per cent of the zone’s
economy._ Is this something that the negotiators really had the power to agree
and bind their countries to???

The US constitution is very clear that the negotiators lack that power.
However the question can't come up because the USA is about 16% of the world
economy, so you can't get to the 85% of the economy figure without the USA.

But Canadian law is not entirely dissimilar. Specifically Canada may have
signed it, but according to
[http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2008-...](http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2008-45-e.htm#a5),
Canada is not bound by the agreement until it is ratified. And even then it
does not have any force in Canadian domestic law until Parliament has passed
specific bills to implement it. So Canada shouldn't be bound by this, and the
negotiators were in the wrong to promise what they had no authority to
promise.

I'm sure that the US and Canada are not the only two countries where the
negotiators did not rightly have power to bind their countries to that term.
So why is this term considered binding rather than being pointed to as a clear
example of overreach??

~~~
dragonwriter
> I am surprised by this line, Alternatively, the treaty can also take effect
> if it’s ratified by half the countries representing 85 per cent of the
> zone’s economy. Is this something that the negotiators really had the power
> to agree and bind their countries to???

Of course the negotiators don't, only the ratifying authorities have the power
to bind, but that's true of all of the rest of the treaty (and _every_ treaty)
as well: note that, in that case, in comes into effect _between those who
ratified it_. So, only for those for whom those with the power to bind the
country did so (including agreeing to that condition for it going into
effect.)

NOTE: This type of minimum threshold clause is common in agreements (many
multilateral treaties have something like it.) The idea being that the
prospective parties don't think that the restrictions are worthwhile unless
there is a sufficiently-large group joining the arrangement.

~~~
btilly
That sounds very reasonable.

OK, TPP doesn't. But that term does.

------
dgrant
A very smart friend of mine on Facebook with lots of ties in the tech industry
described Balsillie as "Canada's Donald Trump."

He says "I’m not a partisan actor, but I actually think this is the worst
thing that the Harper government has done for Canada." The worst?

He says "It’s a treaty that structures everything forever – and we can’t get
out of it." Forever?

Later in the article we find out,

"The deal must be ratified by all 12 countries, and then it would come into
force six months later. It would require a parliamentary vote in Canada.
Alternatively, the treaty can also take effect if it’s ratified by half the
countries representing 85 per cent of the zone’s economy. A country can
withdraw any time, on six months’ notice."

So not only can we get out, but it's not forever if you can get out. So
Balsillie is full of $hit, alarmist, and possibly still butthurt over losing
out to a patent troll that RIM never took seriously enough.

------
nisse72
> “It’s a treaty that structures everything forever – and we can’t get out of
> it.”

> he noted treaties like this one set rules that must be followed forever

But a few lines further down:

> A country can withdraw any time, on six months’ notice.

I'm confused; which is it?

------
XFrequentist
I'd love to see the TPP text annotated on Genius (or a similar site). Is that
a thing?

~~~
medecau
There's a copy of the TPP on Documentcloud.

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2507281-tpp-
complete...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2507281-tpp-
complete.html)

------
junto
No shit. This goes for everyone else apart from the US too. That's why it was
kept a secret.

If we can prove that these politicians signed these agreements after receiving
backhanders, can we declare it null and void?

~~~
pwim
For some interesting insight into why trade agreements are negotiated in
secret, listen to this planet money episode:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-
deal-confidential).

Part of the problem of any trade deal is that you'll end up pissing off one
group at home to make another one more happy. Trade negotiators argue they
need to have the deals be negotiated in secret or special interest groups will
cause too much noise and trade deals will never get done.

~~~
junto
Maybe we should democratically vote for representatives that keep their
policies secret until we've voted for them.

~~~
greeneggs
Yes, sometimes secret negotiations are needed to get things done. Look at the
recent budget deal in the US Congress. [1] The media and the public had no
idea what was going on behind the scenes when Boehner announced his
resignation. If Obama or key Republicans had talked about the negotiations, no
deal could have been made.

[1] [http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9619214/budget-deal-
congress](http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9619214/budget-deal-congress)

------
ChuckFrank
I and a lot of others have been talking about the dispute resolution processes
and how they shift power to corporations over and above all sectors of
government. In the domain name space they are called Rapid Dispute Resolution
Processes (DRRPs) and around, in particular, intellectual property, they are
fraught with danger. They allow corporations to overrule national laws around
environment, climate, working conditions, you name it.

I hope we can slow this train down enough so that people can understand what
is on the table here. At almost 6 thousand pages there are also a lot of
devils in the details.

------
tome
Rather light on details.

------
joesmo
"A country can withdraw any time, on six months’ notice."

Why not give notice now? Who exactly has this power? This is incredibly vague.

------
cdnsteve
6,000 page document? It feels anything that long is purposely hiding as much
as possible.

~~~
briandear
Kind of the same thing with Obamacare.. Nearly all the politicians who voted
for it didn't even read it.. By their own admission. John Conyers of MI comes
immediately to mind.

~~~
DasIch
Politicans generally won't read most of the laws they sign and why would they?
There are many laws on incredible wide range of different topics and you only
have so many representatives. You can't possibly expect every lawmaker to be
an expert on every of these topics. That's why they have experts and
colleagues that they can talk to and why lobbying exists and is not an
entirely bad thing.

------
aianus
Canada's already lost at innovation. Almost everyone I know who graduated with
a STEM degree moved to the US immediately upon graduation.

My favorite example: Apoorva Mehta invented Instacart in Waterloo, Canada
because it was too cold to go grocery shopping and too expensive to own a car.
Then he immediately went to San Francisco (a city with warm weather and cheap
cars?!) to start his unicorn.

Waterloo students still go shopping in the snow. #fail.

~~~
jbob2000
I don't know how you can dismiss an entire country because of one person's
move. Toronto and Montreal both have big tech scenes and plenty of investors
(albeit a bit on the bearish side). As much as we lose talent to the states,
we also pull a lot up as well.

~~~
tjl
Waterloo itself has a pretty big tech scene. There's a number of incubators
and a few big companies have opened local offices (e.g., Google and Shopify).

~~~
xexers
Ottawa has a large tech scene too.

~~~
jgn
As does Vancouver.

------
DeBraid
I suspect Mr. Balsillie still owns a chunk of BBRY stock, which in turn claims
ownership of a massive (multi-billion dollar)[1] patent portfolio. Some might
argue that these patents represent the majority of the residual value of his
former company, hence the alarmist rhetoric. The absence of any concrete info
on how this will harm innovation is laughable.

[1]: Patent buy in 2011: "Apple, RIM and their bidding partners control over
more than 6,000 patents and applications that cover wireless and Internet
technologies" which cost $4.5 Billion.
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-01/nortel-sells-patent-portfolio-
for-4-5-billion-to-group

~~~
JamisonM
You took the time to look for something about Blackberry patents, you could
have also taken a moment to confirm that he has long since sold off his
Blackberry shares.

[http://business.financialpost.com/fp-tech-desk/rim-co-
founde...](http://business.financialpost.com/fp-tech-desk/rim-co-founder-jim-
balsillie-has-sold-all-his-shares-in-blackberry)

