The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), negotiated in secret, has been facing massive public opposition.
In opposing the TPP, some have incorrectly argued that the TPP will pit migrant workers against Canadian workers. In fact, this trade agreement will greatly harm migrant workers. It will do so in two key ways.
First, TPP will result in lower protections, wages and working conditions for workers primarily in the poorer countries that are signatories to the TPP. This will force many of them to move from rural areas to urban areas, and then to migrate out of their countries for basic opportunities.
Second, when those low-waged and racialized migrant workers arrive in Canada, they will largely do so through the temporary foreign workers program, without permanent status, and be tied to their employers and excluded from basic protections. At the same time, they will face a miseducated public who has been incorrectly led to believe that migrant workers are taking Canadians jobs.
The TPP is an agreement between 12 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the USA and Vietnam. While touted as a free trade agreement, it is in fact the opposite.
"It's called free trade, but that's just a joke," according to MIT Linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky. "These are extreme, highly protectionist measures designed to undermine freedom of trade. In fact, much of what's leaked about the TPP indicates that it's not about trade at all, it's about investor rights."
Only six of the 30 chapters of the TPP are about trade at all.
In fact, as many have argued, 97 per cent of Canada's exports to these 12 countries are already duty free, or tariff free, which is the key barrier trade agreements are supposed to remove. Only six of the 30 chapters of the TPP are about trade at all.
To understand what TPP may do, consider NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), signed between the U.S., Canada and Mexico in 1994. As a result of NAFTA, article 27 of the Mexican constitution was cancelled. This section of the constitution protected collectively owned Indigenous lands from being privatized. Once cancelled, Indigenous lands faced mass privatizations and hundreds of thousands of people were pushed out of their communities. For example, Indigenous people made up seven per cent of Mexican migrants in 1991 to 1993 in California, the years just before the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. In 2006 to 2008, they made up 29 per cent -- four times more. The TPP will do that at much greater scale
The TPP entrenches ISDS (investor state dispute settlement), which allows corporations to sue countries if environmental or other protections result in loss of corporate profit. Of the 77 known NAFTA investor-state claims, 35 have been against Canada, 22 have targeted Mexico and 20 have targeted the U.S. While Canada has been sued more, as a country with five times Mexico's GDP, the impacts in Canada are bad but proportionally lower than those felt in Mexico.
One of the reasons Mexico is sued less is because Mexican authorities have swiftly downgraded environmental policies before they can be sued. This has downgraded working conditions, wages and the ecology of large regions, forcing out-migration and the creation of migrant workers. The same can be expected from the TPP.
Canadian retailer Lululemon threatened to leave Canada over foreign worker rules.
The limited analysis of the TPP and migrant work available has focused on the labour chapter in the agreement itself, rather than analyzing the TPP in the context of the entire immigration system. The labour chapter of the TPP largely pertains to ease of access for short-term and high-waged workers coming or leaving from Canada.
These provisions are already in place, and under the Trudeau government are being expanded. Just last week, Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced plans to waive short-term work permits for high-waged workers who would be in Canada for less than 30 days and announced the creation of a fast-track system to waive Labour Market Impact Assessments (LMIAs) for select companies.
This announcement came within days of Lululemon threatening to leave Canada if its demands weren't met. The TPP will not result in any massive access for high-waged foreign workers -- those pathways already exist.
Indefensibly, some in opposing the TPP have called for greater use of LMIAs. The LMIA process' stated purpose is to ensure that corporations have made efforts to find Canadian citizens or permanent residents before hiring non-citizen workers. This might seem appropriate in principle, but it goes against basic economics and fairness.
Tied permits debilitate migrant worker human rights causing immense suffering.
For LMIAs to work, workers must not be able to change jobs, in effect, be tied to their work and their employers. The idea of labour mobility -- or being able to switch jobs that make you sick, or make you feel unsafe, or make you unhappy -- is a basic right. Not allowing it to be so creates a system of indentured servitude that gives employers immense advantage and control to abuse workers without facing sanction.
When coupled with limited or absent labour protections, lack of permanent residency and institutional racisms, tied permits debilitate migrant worker human rights causing immense suffering. Lack of labour mobility also skews the jobs market and reduces wages across the system.
If the opposition to migrant workers is that they are "foreign" and "not from here," then that's simply racism. But if the opposition is because it reduces work protections and wages, untying workers and giving them permanent residency rights will immediately correct for that as workers will leave bad jobs allowing the market to adjust.
Incorrectly suggesting that the TPP should be opposed because it will mean greater numbers of migrant workers is a form of dog-whistle politics that further entrenches the dangerous anti-immigrant sentiment that exists in Canada and continues to grow.
We should instead oppose the TPP because it will impoverish and displace some of the poorest in the world and take away their rights to decency and dignity. We should insist on solidarity amongst workers everywhere -- in Canada, or in the Global South or those from the Global South in Canada. Not only is this morally right, it is the only strategy at our disposal if we are to protect ourselves and the generations to come.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook
Also on HuffPost:
The trade pact needs the consent of Canada's provinces and EU member states to become law. So far, it's looking good on the provincial front: Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan's leaders have all praised the deal, and Ontario seems open to it assuming it can get compensation for some of its industries that will be harmed by the deal. Pictured: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso shake hands following a joint media availability Friday, October 18, 2013 at the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium.
Canada will partially extend patent protection for brand-name drugs, which would delay the introduction of cheaper generics by up to two years. Officials say it will be eight years before any impact of these changes show up as higher costs for provincial drug plans. Earlier reports have suggested the cost to the health care system of extended drug patents could run between $1 billion and $3 billion annually. Jim Keon, president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association: The EU trade deal will "delay market entry of cost-saving generic prescription medicines in Canada in the future, increasing health-care costs for provinces, employers that sponsor drug plans for their employees and Canadians who pay for their prescription medicines out-of-pocket." The federal government has suggested it will compensate provinces for higher costs as a result of the agreement.
Domestic car producers will be able to increase sales into Europe to 100,000 units from about 10,000 today under relaxed rules. The EU will phase out its 10-per-cent tariff on imports, and Canada will phase out a 6-per-cent tariff on European car imports. That could be good news for Canadian fans of European luxury cars, as those vehicles will be cheaper. But that, in turn, could be bad news for Canadian auto manufacturers. Dennis DesRosiers of DesRosiers Auto Analysts: "I don’t think anyone can definitively know what the impact of the current EU Agreement will be on the automotive sector. ... The [Canadian] industry peaked in the year 2000 and has been struggling since and, indeed, just finished one of its worse decades in history and continues to deteriorate. Was this the long term result of FTA and NAFTA? We don’t know but it could be."
Canadian beef farmers increase their quota by 50,000 tonnes, in addition to 15,000 tonnes for high-quality beef. Pork farmers will see their quota rise to 80,000 tonnes from the current 6,000. But producers will have to convert to hormone-free product for the European market, which experts say can add about 15 per cent to costs. Martin Unrau, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association: "The removal of long-standing barriers in this agreement, such as high tariffs, finally enables Canadian beef producers to benefit from the high value that the European beef market represents." Dairy Farmers of Ontario: "It will take income from Canadian dairy farmers and their communities and give it to the European industry."
Companies will be allowed to bid on major government procurement contracts right down to the municipal level. A joint study showed the new access will give European companies leeway to bid on federal contracts worth between $15 billion and $19 billion an year, and municipal contracts worth $112 billion a year. Critics say that, because of the common practice of "hiring Canadian" in government contracts, EU access to them could mean job losses in Canada. Trade Justice Network: "Canadian governments would lose a powerful tool for spurring job creation and economic development."
Foreign takeovers of Canadian firms now require a formal federal government review if the deal is worth $1 billion or more, but this agreement will raise that to $1.5 billion.
Labour and consumer groups fear CETA could lead to the privatization of Canada's water supply and infrastructure. According to early leaks from the negotiations, Canada did not try to protect water resources as part of the trade deal. The Council of Canadians writes: "This deal will give French companies Suez and Veolia, the two biggest private water operations in the world, access to run our water services for profit. Under a recent edict, the Harper government has tied federal funding of municipal water infrastructure construction or upgrading to privatization of water services. Private water operators charge far higher rates than public operators and cut corners when it comes to source protection."
Follow Syed Hussan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hussansk