Skip to main content

Trade ministers from Japan, Vietnam, Peru and Singapore attend a press conference after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation trade ministerial meeting in Hanoi on May 21, 2017.

Hau Dinh/AP

Canada and 10 other countries agreed this weekend to re-evaluate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the controversial trade deal that has been assumed dead since the U.S. pulled out in January.

However a Canadian group opposed to the TPP says the deal should not be revived.

Trade officials said the deal would change significantly without American involvement, although leaders from the 11 remaining countries are still figuring out what a revised trade plan would look like.

Story continues below advertisement

In its current form, the partnership requires U.S. participation before it can go into effect. But a revised TPP wouldn't be as simple as taking the U.S. out of the existing deal: each of the 11 remaining countries will have to re-evaluate its own trade needs absent of American involvement.

Ministers attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) in Hanoi, Vietnam this weekend discussed taking another look at the terms of the deal. Officials from the countries involved, which include Australia, Malaysia, Mexico, and Singapore, among others, have agreed to present assessments to their leaders when they meet for an annual APEC summit in Vietnam in November, which will also include U.S. President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Since the U.S withdrawal, Japan and New Zealand have been spearheading efforts to revive the deal. Both countries have ratified the agreement and moved forward on legislation related to the deal. But Canadian officials stress that even the countries most enthusiastic about the previous agreement understand that it must be significantly altered before it can move forward.

New Zealand Trade Minister Todd McClay said the remaining countries are open to others joining provided they accept the trade agreement's high standards on labour and environmental protection. He said the door remains open to the U.S., even after President Donald Trump withdrew from the pact in January, saying he prefers bilateral free trade deals.

Supporters of the agreement argue that opening the Canadian economy to foreign markets could benefit sectors including forestry, manufacturing and agriculture, especially production of canola, beef and pork. But there are also concerns about intellectual property provisions, including patent extensions, as well as the potential for job loss within Canada.

Sujata Dey, trade campaigner for the social action organization The Council of Canadians, called the TPP "a huge corporate power grab" that should be abandoned completely rather than re-worked. The group takes particular issue with the policy's investor-state dispute settlement, which allows companies to sue governments over any regulations that reduce their profits.

"These trade agreements are old-school because our world problems have changed," Dey said, citing environmental crises. "Until we stop copying and cutting the old trade agreement that we've been doing for the last 30 years, it's not going to be a trade agreement that works for our new reality."

Story continues below advertisement

In response, a Liberal government official who did not want to be named indicated that the concerns of Canadians will be taken into account in formulating a new deal. Trying to sell a new version of the TPP to the public that doesn't include free and progressive fair trade would be an uphill battle for the federal government, he said.

The China-led 16-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership will meet Monday in Hanoi to further discussions on a separate deal seen as an alternative to the TPP. It is expected to be finalized by the end of this year.

With files from the Associated Press

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.