The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Part I: A deal too far
The release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement last fall has unleashed a heated debate over its costs and benefits.
With the release of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a debate has been growing over the so-called “trade” agreement among twelve Pacific Rim countries.
Should governments ratify the deal? Will it expand trade in a significant way? Who will be the winners and losers?
But defining winners and losers only in trade terms misses the much broader impacts of the TPP and hide the basis required for assessing its real impacts. In effect, it ignores the fact that the TPP's non-trade provisions, such as in the areas of investment and intellectual proper rights, threaten to exacerbate inequality.
It is time for Canada to say that this is a deal too far. Rather, Canada should use this as a jumping-off point to lead a new global dialogue on the right directions for trade agreements. Part 2 of this commentary will focus on how trade agreements should and can be instruments to support, rather than impede, achieving the globally adopted Sustainable Development Goals.
You might also be interested in
Unpacking National Investment Laws
This report explores how national investment laws regulate dispute settlement and suggests how to reform them to align with sustainable development and 21st-century policy objectives.
Leveraging Trade Policy for Climate Change Adaptation in Viet Nam’s Agricultural Sector
Identifying adaptation goods and services for Viet Nam's agriculture and strengthening coordination between trade and adaptation policy-makers.
Smallholders and the European Union Deforestation Regulation
This report examines smallholders’ compliance challenges related to the European Union Deforestation Regulation and identifies pathways to support their continued inclusion in deforestation-free supply chains.
Preserving Tax Sovereignty
As countries negotiate the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, this report examines how its provisions can be shaped to prevent tax disputes from being redirected into ISDS, ensuring they are addressed through tax-specific mechanisms.