Thursday 16 February 2017

This week the Canadian government enacted legislation to implement CETA.

Throughout the last five years our governments have resolutely refused to listen to the many, articulately presented  arguments against CETA.  Research detailing how CETA would  harm our economy, our environment and democracy itself was always ignored.   Government just ploughed ahead  with glib one-liners about the benefits of free trade and trade agreements.

It's now up to the Europeans to rescue us from CETA.  That's not right.

We, at Citizens against CETA,  aren't about to give up.  We believe we need to simplify our message.  We've done that in this short, simplistic, four minute video on the pitfalls of CETA.  Check it out.  

Thursday 3 November 2016

How the Walloons stand against CETA got twisted in our mainstream media

Wallonia's principled opposition to CETA has been misrepresented by both the Canadian government and  much of the corporate  media in Canada.  The wounded elephant in the CETA room that none of them want to talk about is democratic governance.

That stands in stark contrast to what's been happening in Belgium.  Here's the message we think the Walloons wanted us to hear.    

Wednesday 19 October 2016

With Gratitude to the Walloons

The Wallonian parliament has rejected CETA as it stands, which means that Belgium can not sign on to CETA.  As a consequence, unless the Walloons have a change of heart CETA will not go forward.  

This is tremendous news for all of us who view CETA as an assault on our democratic right to govern ourselves.  

Here are two links worth following on the current situation:

Monday 3 October 2016

Trade Agreements: The Conflict between Evidence and Ideology

Click here to read about our assessment of how things went down at the Trade Committee meeting in St. John's last week.

Wednesday 28 September 2016

Today we presented to the parliamentary committee on the TPP

Today three civil society groups, Citizens against CETA, the Council of Canadians and the Social Justice Cooperative made presentations opposing the TPP to the International Trade Committee.  Did we have any effect?

A first impression is that we did not.  In fact one of the independent observers felt compelled at the end of the presentations to point out how obvious the bias of most MPs appeared.

In fairness, it is probable that most of our arguments had been heard before.  On the other hand, with the exception of the NDP's Ms. Ramsey, the focus was clearly on the economic benefits as opposed to the democratic and constitutional constraints of trade agreements like the TPP.

Thus, we presented  from the perspective of democratic values, but we ended up answering questions from an economic perspective.

Here's what we said.


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present. Citizens against CETA is a rather grandiose sounding name for a local group of concerned citizens.We submitted a brief last June filled with statistics refuting the supposed benefits of the TPP. But today I would like to talk about values.

In his meticulously researched book on wealth and income, Capitalism in the 21st Century, French economist, Thomas Piketty, concluded that we were heading into a period of inequality such that the world has never seen. If we are to change that, he said, "we have to bet everything on democracy." 

I believe that inequality continues to grow precisely because, around the globe, democracy is under attack. The aggressors aren’t terrorists or rogue nations. The aggressors are international corporations backed by financial elites. The weapon used is a contract. 

The TPP and CETA are gigantic contracts that define, not what corporations can and can’t do in our country.  Instead, these contracts define what government itself can and can’t do. Any government action, present and future, that is not clearly defined or not written into the contract can be challenged by corporations in those infamous investor-state tribunals where the public good and environmental protection count for nothing. There, all that matters is entitlement under the contract.

According to Osgood Hall investment treaty expert, Gus Van Harten, these contractual agreements have succeeded in doing what no parliament has been previously able to do under our English common law system, and that is fetter or straitjacket future parliaments

I believe that government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to acknowledging the threat trade agreements pose for our democratic rights.  But then, so too are the passengers in the back seat, the Canadian public. The reason in both cases is that we live in an age where economic values trump everything.

I’m a retired social studies teacher. Around the turn of the century every single course that allowed a discussion of democracy and politics was deleted from the high school curriculum  in my province and replaced with economic education courses.  There was a consequence. In the 2011 federal election the last election for which we have a breakdown by age, only 29% of young people under 25 bothered to vote. 

I’m going to suggest that the same neglect of our democratic values has happened in government. Economic values now dominate, more precisely the economic values of neoliberalism with its emphasis on free trade.

This Committee now has all sorts of hard evidence disputing the Liberal Party`s claims about the benefits of free trade. But two  important reports came out last week that I want to highlight.

The first was a Tufts University study on CETA. “CETA", and this is a quote, "will cause unemployment, inequality, welfare losses and a reduction of intra-EU trade.” 

That certainly suggests that CETA is not the “Gold Standard of Trade Agreements” that Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Freeland maintain that it is. Will the prime minister and his trade minister now reverse direction and call for a halt to the provisional acceptance of CETA?  It all depends on what their true values are, doesn’t it? 

The new OECD report is even more interesting, in spite of its blinkered call for more trade liberalization.  Trade as a driver of GDP has fallen steadily since 2009. In fact, trade growth is now lagging growth in the broader world economy this year and that lag is likely to persist Emerging countries in particular are pulling back from a dependency on exports and choosing, instead, to develop internal markets as a means of  increasing GDP.

As for OECD countries, governments are increasingly being forced by their citizens  to question  the benefits of a free trade model that has heightened inequality,caused job losses, and straitjacketed  government`s ability to deal with either.  

Consider the way that the TPP unexpectedly became a major campaign issue in the US elections. Consider Brexit - or last week when  320,000 Germans in multiple cities demonstrated in the streets against the TTIP and CETA. 

These aren’t going to be isolated incidences. According to the recent OECD report, election results and polls in OECD countries are pointing to a shift away from the traditional left–right divide among voters towards anti-and pro-globalization electorates. That`s a very significant development to consider.

As members of the trade committee, you hold an enormous responsibility.  I`m sure  you’ve been watching closely how public opinion is coalescing against these trade agreements elsewhere. But you are also affected by the unwavering, ideological enthusiasm those who control policy in our two major parties still have for free trade. 

How do you choose between ideological faith in free trade on the one side and substantial evidence on the other side that our trade policy will hurt Canadian value added industries, increase inequality and fetter democratic governance?    

Surely it`s with values. What do you value most? Do you believe that you have a responsibility to your children and grandchildren and community to preserve democracy and fight initiatives that promote inequality. Because I ‘m hoping if you do, you will say  a resounding and public NO to trade agreements like the TPP.    

Marilyn Reid   for Citizens against CETA

Tuesday 27 September 2016

An opportunity to tell government what you think of the TPP and CETA

Tomorrow the International Trade Committee will be in St. John's to hear submissions on the TPP. The location is the Sheraton Hotel, Salon B. 

 There will be  an opportunity for the public to speak between 11.30 and 12:30.  Come along and help us alert government about the perils of  the TPP, CETA and other trade agreements.

Friday 23 September 2016

The Power of Public Protest

Last week 320,000 Germans in different cities took to the streets to protest the TTIP and CETA.   There were also demonstrations in other parts of Europe. 

Watch this amazing video of people protesting the TTIP and CETA in Brussels.

Thursday 22 September 2016

Here's the Brief sent to the International Trade Committee from the St. John's chapter of the Council of Canadians

What trade agreements like the TPP mean to us.

I would like to first thank the Committee for giving us the opportunity to submit our opinion.

We have read the TPP briefs submitted to the International Trade Committee over the last few months and are confident that both the purported pros and cons of the TPP have been comprehensively addressed. What is interesting from our perspective is where the support for the TPP lies and where it does not.

Not surprisingly, the pro TPP submissions came from Big Business. The majority, we noticed, were written in support of the export of agricultural commodities. There were almost no pro TPP submissions from Canada’s value added industries with production in Canada. That is very telling, is it not?

It is in the anti TPP camp that you will find the family farmers, the unions, civil society groups and, above all, ordinary citizens. Their priorities are very different.

Overwhelmingly, these submissions assert that trade agreements like the TPP constrain government’s ability to protect the quality of life of Canadians. Whether it is issues around affordable health care, the outsourcing of jobs, environmental protection, government procurement and so much more, the point is being repeatedly made that the TPP and its predecessor, CETA, are a corporate assault on Canada’s legislative and judicial sovereignty.
The big question is: Which perspective is government going to favour? Will government come down on the side of keeping our democratic institutions strong? Or will you choose the side of Big Business?

We cite two reasons for our inclination to think the voice of ordinary Canadians will not win out.

The Brexit Reaction: Roughly one third of Canada’s trade with the European Union (EU) is with Great Britain1, a country whose citizens have just voted to exit the EU. In light of this development, one might have expected our federal government to choose to reassess CETA.

Instead, Canada, along with the unelected European Commission, has pushed for the preliminary or provisional ratification of CETA as quickly as possible. To use a business analogy, imagine a corporation has negotiated a 20 year contract at a fixed price. Then, unexpectedly at the 11th hour they discover that the other party can only deliver two thirds of the promised market access. Would the company respond by rushing through the deal?

No way, yet thats exactly what has happened. We think it unequivocally suggests that government is not logical in its ideological enthusiasm for free trade.

Excessive power in the hands of the few2. In an interview before her 2014 Mallory Lecture at McGill University, Elizabeth May made two very strong statements to clarify her claim. She referred to “the excessive control by the unelected top party brass in all three main parties” . It’s flip side, she pointed out, was that “MPs are expected to toe the party line on every issue, big and small.”

By extension we can’t help wondering whether the International Trade Committee, (and this is not a critique of the hard work and integrity of individual members) will ultimately be required to toe the line. International trade was the top lobbying topic for Canada in 2015.3 Clearly, powerful business interests want this deal to go through.

Indeed, it has occurred to us and others that the Trade Committee might be merely a side show, conveniently filling time while the top party brass waits to see what happens with the TPP in the U.S. After all, it would be embarrassing if we rushed the TPP through and then found that the American people succeeded in having it rejected, in spite of President Obama’s enthusiasm for the deal.

For the last 15 years the international business community and their advocates within government have pushed Canada into signing multiple trade agreements. The results have been, to put it mildly, disappointing. Exports to countries with which Canada does not presently have a free trade agreement (FTA) grew six times as fast4 as to those with whom we do have an FTA during that period.4 Meanwhile, imports from our trade agreement partners grew twice as fast as our exports to them. And Canada’s export performance has been the 2nd worst5 of any OECD country.

As if that is not bad enough, respected simulation studies predict that the TPP will

It seems irrational to us that any democratically elected government, aware of all of the above, might want to ratify a deal as huge as the TPP.

Unfortunately, we Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have learned the hard way how easy it is for bad deals to irrationally proceed. Our province has a hydro-electric project in Labrador that is massively over budget, is economically unfeasible, will extravagantly raise NL electricity rates, and could come close to bankrupting the province. It was imposed on us by a provincial government that chose to refuse any meaningful consultation process with the public but listened intensely to the advice of powerful business interests.

There is another potential problem. In spite of the fact that most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to shut down and cut our losses in this massive boondoggle of a project, that could be difficult to do. That’s because our contractual obligations with big international corporations could conceivably leave us open to huge NAFTA, and future CETA or TPP ISDS lawsuits challenges.

We raise this point because past and present Canadian governments have tended to portray ISDS lawsuits as a necessary and acceptable risk of engaging in trade agreements. This view continues in spite of mounting international evidence of the extensive economic and political damage these ISDS lawsuits have caused in other countries. Presumably, it’s more ideologically convenient to believe all those corporate lobbyists who assert that the trend towards multi-billion dollar lawsuits is not something that could happen in this country.

Civil society groups understand very clearly that ISDS lawsuits -- and there will be lots under the TPP -- are an unnecessary corporate assault on the democratic right to govern. Government is in denial on that point.

We would also suggest that, at this point in time, civil society groups apparently understand what’s better for the Canadian economy than the international business interests that push so hard for the ratification of these trade deals. Government again appears to be in denial of the evidence that supports this assessment.

In conclusion, we believe the International Trade Committee has an enormous responsibility to do what’s right for the citizens that elected you to office. That would be, in our opinion, a recommendation against the TPP.

Ken Kavenagh
Andrea Furlong
Marilyn Reid

for the St. John's chapter of the Council of Canadians

  1. Why the Canada – EU Trade Deal is in More Trouble Than the Government Admits
  3. Council of Canadians: Michael Butler’s Blog
  4. Stanford, Jim. Signing trade deals is not synonymous with promoting trade. Progressive Economics (2016)
  5. Ibid
  6. Capaldo, Jeronim, Izurieta, Alex and Sundaram Jomo Kwame Trading Down:Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.GDAE Working Paper 16-01 January 2016
  7. Ibid
  8. Rashmi Banga. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA): Implications for Malaysia's Domestic Value-Added Trade

Tuesday 2 August 2016

Brexit, Trumpism and the Challenge to Globalism

There has been a lot of media coverage on the displays of xenophobia surrounding the Brexit vote in the U.K. and Donald Trump's presidential campaign.  These are deplorable actions and should be condemned.

An unfortunate consequence, however, of both the focus on Trump's more outrageous statements and the isolated acts of racism in the U.K. has been to divert attention away from what discouraged  Brits and Americans are saying about our globalist experiment of the last 30 years.  

Here's an article that explores their point of view.

Wednesday 27 July 2016

Our submission to the International Trade Committee on the TPP

Here's what we submitted to the House of Commons International Trade Committee on the Trans Pacific Partnership.  We took it as an opportunity to also express our displeasure about the CETA agreement.



The House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade

Marilyn Reid


Citizens against CETA
St. John’s NL
July, 2016

First let me thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit this brief.

There are four concerns we would like to express. They relate to the impact of trade agreements like the TPP on our parliamentary democracy, our judicial sovereignty and the Canadian economy. Finally, we would like to address the inherent imbalance of the lobbying process.

1.       The impact of the TPP and other trade agreements on democratic governance.

It seems to us that there is an invisible elephant on the table in discussions about the merits of trade agreements that the Prime Minister, elected MPs and civil servants, particularly in the Department of International Trade, rarely acknowledge.  That elephant is democratic governance.

Trade agreements like the TPP and CETA are a clever back door way of getting around one of our most important democratic principles. It’s called the No-Fettering Rule.

“In Canadian law (based on the English common law) there is a democratic principle called the no-fettering rule that bars one elected government from making commitments to bind another.

    However, the principle does not exist in international law and an international agreement cannot be trumped by the laws of Canada.”
                                    from Sold Down the Yangtze by Gus Van Harten, Osgood Hall Law School 1

Thus, a government, driven by ideology or corporate interests, can surreptitiously use a trade agreement (which falls under international law) to fetter future governments for decades. That can happen through targeting highly specific policies for elimination (such as Minimum Processing Requirements in our province of Newfoundland or Labrador). But the fettering language can be more general, and therefore open to interpretations that government never intended.  We’ve chosen to focus on just three of the many ways in which this type of fettering can take place.

Regulatory Fettering: Under trade agreements like NAFTA, the TPP and CETA, corporations are able to legally challenge the right of future governments to create and amend regulations. They can do this by claiming their “legitimate expectations under the Fair and Equitable Treatment2 clauses have been violated.

The most frequent targets of these legal challenges have been, and probably will continue to be, government attempts to protect the environment and manage our resources. However, the TPP is notable in that it goes beyond NAFTA in also making it harder to regulate the financial sector.3 The reasons for the 2008 financial collapse have apparently been forgotten.

The most troubling aspect of regulatory fettering is invisible. For example, there is evidence that the mere corporate threat of an ISDS NAFTA lawsuit has caused government to modify or reconsider planned and needed new regulations.4

Fettering Public Services: Both the TPP (at the federal level) and CETA (in sub-federal jurisdictions as well) use a “negative list5 approach to protect public services. That means that any attempt by future governments to introduce a public service that has not been already protected on the “negative lists” can be legally challenged by TPP or CETA investors.  Furthermore, under the Ratchet6 mechanism, if government decides to privatize a public service, that privatization becomes locked in. The service cannot be brought back into the public sector

What about Pharmacare? Under both CETA7 and the TPP8 it will be very difficult for future governments to introduce a national “Pharmacare” program that will not have costly restrictions placed on it by the big pharmaceutical corporations.
Fettering Government Procurement: 50 municipalities9, including the largest in the country, petitioned their provincial governments asking that public spending at the municipal level be excluded from CETA. Their argument was that the right of governments to use “Buy Local policies” to stimulate local economies should not be tampered with.
Government’s response was, in essence, to side step the core issue of the fettering of government authority by simply raising the threshold beyond which CETA’s procurement restrictions would kick in. We find it significant that, by contrast, TPP countries, chose to protect ``Buy Local``10 policies in sub-federal jurisdictions.
Are we exaggerating our claim that the TPP and CETA are a long-lasting assault on the traditional power of government? Not according to Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz. He asserts that the intent of many TPP provisions is to make it hard for governments to conduct their basic functions - protecting their citizenshealth and safety, ensuring economic stability, and safeguarding the environment.” 11 We would say Ditto for CETA.

2.       The impact of the TPP and other trade agreements on Canada’s judicial sovereignty

What happens if a future government rebels and chooses not to be fettered by the TPP or CETA? Under the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) regime they can be sued by investing corporations in offshore tribunals. These tribunals can demand that governments pay huge (multi-billion dollar) compensation to corporations.
These ISDS tribunals can also override Canadian courts and profoundly fetter future government actions.
A salient example is the Exxon Mobil Murphy Oil lawsuit.12 Three levels of Canadian courts rejected arguments made by US oil companies that a tribunal in Newfoundland and Labrador could not lawfully tighten requirements related to oil company research and development in the province. When the oil companies took the lawsuit to the NAFTA ISDS tribunal the tribunal chose to ignore the interpretation of the Canadian courts. Not only did the government have to pay generous compensation to the corporations. The tribunal ruled that Canada would continue to be liable as long as the restrictive regulations stayed in place.
 Also, of notable significance is the current Eli Lilly NAFTA lawsuit13 against Canada. Eli Lilly is challenging decisions by Canada’s federal courts to invalidate the company’s patents for two drugs. Canadian courts had decided that Eli Lilly had presented insufficient evidence to show the drugs would deliver the promised long-term benefits. According to Ottawa University law professor, Michael Geist, “If the pharmaceutical giant succeeds, it will have effectively found a mechanism to override the Supreme Court of Canada.”14

Canada has been sued 39 times under NAFTA. That’s more than any other developed country in the world. Expect an acceleration of ISDS lawsuits if the TPP is ratified. It may even be dramatic. That’s because, at present, disputes over procure­ment contracts or public-private partnerships are typically resolved in Canadian courts. The TPP would allow multinational corporations who enter into contracts with the federal government (either to supply goods and services or to deliver or operate privatized services and infrastructure) to pursue ISDS lawsuits15. This is a very significant extension of the definition of what kind of investor is entitled to use the ISDS mechanism.
The silence of our judiciary on the impact of the TPP and CETA stands in contrast to what’s been happening elsewhere in the world. Even before this latest development was revealed, internationally there has been substantial and growing judicial and legal opposition to the ISDS regime. That includes:

The European Association of Judges16  (representing 44 judicial associations across Europe)

We applaud their stance. Our position is that Canada should be working to reform the ISDS obligations ceded under NAFTA, rather than signing trade agreements that will further fetter our court system through enlarged concessions to huge international corporations.

3.      The impact of the TPP and CETA on the Canadian economy

Did you know that between 2001 and 2015:

·         Exports to countries with which Canada does not presently have a free trade agreement (FTA) grew six times as fast as to those with whom we do have an FTA? 21
·         Our imports from our trade agreement partners grew twice as fast as our exports to them.
·         Canada’s export performance since the turn of century has been the 2nd worst of any OECD country?22

In spite of these sobering statistics, economists and lobbyists from the powerful corporate think tanks continue to enthusiastically push for the ratification of the TPP and CETA. Canada has to participate, we’re told, because so many other countries do. Our poor performance to date is rationalized by the claim that there is always a lag period while countries adjust to a different economic reality. If we are just patient, we are told, the benefits will eventually flow to Canadian businesses and Canadian workers.  

In response to the argument that we have no choice but to participate, we would point out that there is  substantial and growing opposition to NAFTA style trade agreements23 in both the United States and the EU.

As for the claim that the benefits of free trade will come if we are patient, some well-respected research, as well as dissent from Canadian entrepreneurs, suggest exactly the opposite.

Jobs: According to a study out of Tufts University 24 which used the UN Global Policy Model, the TPP is going to increase inequality and cause job losses in all 12 participating countries. The model predicts highest per capita job losses in Canada.25 CETA will also provoke job losses, particularly in manufacturing and processing sectors, according to a 2010 CCPA report.26

Canadian Businesses: A United Nations UNCTAD study27 (Table 2, pg. 24) predicts a 26% drop in Canada’s value-added exports as a consequence of the TPP. Particularly hard hit will be innovative industries.
“Once ratified, the (TPP) agreement will make our markets less free and less competitive, and it will particularly hurt innovation-based entrepreneurship.” 
Dan Breznitz, Monk Chair of Innovative Studies, University of Toronto.28

Canadian business leaders who have spoken out against different aspects of the TPP include:

The National Farmers Union which represents family farms33

As for the CETA agreement, the obligatory opening up of provincial and municipal procurement to corporations based in Europe is a one way concession. Canadian companies will find it very hard to penetrate the European market given both the linguistic and diverse regulatory challenges in place there.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): It seems to us that the big question with respect to FDI in Canada is not how much money will come into the country, but rather what it will be used for.

Measurement of FDI in Canada in the 16 years after the CUFTA and NAFTA were signed (1985-2001) showed that 96.6% of investments34 were used for the acquisition of existing businesses. Less than 3% was used for the introduction of new industries.

Does government really believe that FDI under the TPP and CETA is going to be used to start up new industries that will benefit our economy? Isn’t it much more likely that the objective of international corporations is greater access (either through P3s or increased privatization) to that enormous cash cow, the delivery of public services? How does guaranteeing them that access through trade agreements benefit the Canadian economy?

4.       Lobbying: Which voices most influence government?

According to Statistics Canada, international trade was the top lobbying topic35 for Canada in 2015. While we were unable to find out just how much money is spent on lobbying governments in Canada, we are pretty sure that a minuscule fraction of the total amount spent comes from civil society groups.

Government will, no doubt, argue that civil society is already represented by the MPs we elect. However, it`s a very selective representation. MPs do an excellent job at responding to constituency issues but trade is not considered a constituency issue. How many MPs outside of the trade committee have been briefed in a comprehensive and unbiased manner on both the pros and cons of these trade agreements? How many have been encouraged to bring trade issues back to their constituents for discussion?

As for the promised public consultations on the TPP, they were, in our opinion, initially structured to avoid having to talk with the public. For a long time there was no schedule posted on the government website as to where and when public consultations would take place with the result that interested civil society groups either missed the “presentations” or were given less than 24 hours’ notice.36 That’s since been corrected but only after civil society groups went public with their disappointment.

With respect to CETA, we would like to remind the Committee that civil society groups had minimal access to government during the excessively secretive CETA negotiations. This stood in stark contrast to the access corporate lobbyists37  were granted to negotiators. Thus, while presentations were accepted by the International Trade Committee early on in the negotiation process, civil society groups, unlike the corporate sector, were at the considerable disadvantage of having to rely on leaked and outdated material to make their case.

Civil society groups hoped and expected that that bias would be corrected with the election of a new government committed to more openness and reform. The decision not to hold public consultations or revisit CETA through the Parliamentary Committee profoundly surprised us.  It`s hard not to conclude that government wants the general public to know as little about this trade agreement as possible.

Our conclusions

The Liberal Party of Canada strongly supports free trade as this is how we open markets to Canadian goods and services, grow Canadian businesses, create good-paying jobs, and provide choice and lower prices to Canadian consumers.”38

Could it be that the political enthusiasm of our mainstream parties for free trade is based more on ideology than evidence?  Studies analyzing or estimating past and future performance suggest that the TPP will not open markets for our value added industries.  Nor will it grow genuine Canadian businesses. And it will not create good paying jobs. 

As for the CETA agreement, restrictions on the procurement of goods and services at the sub-federal level represent an enormous concession to the giant corporations that have lobbied so heavily for this agreement.   CETA also includes a “zombie clause” that will allow these corporations to continue suing government for up to 20 years even if a future government chooses to withdraw from the agreement. 
We would like to end with three questions for the committee.
1.      What possible justification could the Canadian government have for ratifying two trade agreements that will so significantly fetter the legislative and adjudicate power and authority of future governments?
2.      Where is the positive economic evidence justifying the ratification of either the TPP or CETA?
3.      Is it not time to reassess Canada’s free trade policy?

Our group is aware of all the time and effort Committee members must put into reading briefs like our own. This is a huge responsibility.

We hope that, in diligently examining all the evidence, you will come to the conclusion, as we have, that the ratification of these trade agreements is not in Canada’s best interest.

Marilyn Reid
for Citizens against CETA

1.         Van Harten, Gus. Sold down the Yangtze. 2015: p 27
2.        Alvarez, José E. Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Investment Chapter the New “Gold Standard”? Institute for International Law and Justice. 2016.
3.        Van Harten, Gus and Scott, Dayna Nadine . Investment Treaties and the Internal Vetting of Regulatory Proposals: A Case Study from Canada. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, volume 7(1) (2016)
4.        Van Harten, Gus. Foreign investor protections in the Trans-Pacific Partnership CCPA. 2016
5.        Robinson, David. CETA and Services
7.        CETA costs, Pharmacare saves; which did Harper choose? Council of Canadians. 2015.
9.        Municipal Governments need a Say on CETA, Council of Canadians.
10.     Buy American provisions maintained. The Canadian Press, 2015.
11.      The Trans-Pacific Free-Trade Charade. Yale Global Online 2016.
12.     Van Harten, Gus, Foreign Investor Protections in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 2016
14.     Ibid
15.     Van Harten, Gus. Foreign Investor Protections in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. 2016, p 13.
16.     Statement from the European Association of Judges (EAJ) on the Proposal from the European Commission on a new Investment Court System.
19.     Opinion on the Establishment of Investment Tribunal in TTIP.
21.     Stanford, Jim. Signing trade deals is not synonymous with promoting trade. Progressive Economics (2016)
22.     Ibid
23.     Dearden, Nick. How TTIP and CETA got a little bit less likely last week.
24.     Capaldo, Jeronim, Izurieta, Alex and Sundaram Jomo Kwame Trading Down:Unemployment, Inequality and Other Risks of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.GDAE Working Paper 16-01 January 2016
26.     Jacobs, John and Culpepper, Roy. CETA undermines Canada’s ability to benefit from increased international trade.
27.     Rashmi Banga. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA): Implications for Malaysia's Domestic Value-Added Trade
28.     Breznitz, Dan . Trans-Pacific Partnership is a wonderful idea – for China.
29.     Balsillie, Jim. For Canadian innovators, will TPP mean protection – or colonialism? Globe and Mail 2016,
32.     Lepan, Don. Copyrite, the TPP and Canadian Election.
33.     Trans Pacific Partnership, an agreement to benefit multinational corporations.
34.     FTAA negotiators should heed lessons from NAFTA. CCPA (2003)
35.     Bad Medicine, Part 2.
36.     Dey, Sujata. Chrystia Freeland's 'Public' TPP Consultations Are Anything But.
38.     Statement by Liberal Party of Canada Leader Justin Trudeau on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Oct. 5, 2015.