Feds Muzzled Me on Free Trade Deal: Minister Bell

[Punchy MacEconomics]

The British Columbia government is barred from talking publicly about a proposed free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, Jobs, Tourism and Innovation Minister Pat Bell told The Tyee this week.

Asked about a recent meeting he attended on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Bell said, "Can't make any comment on CETA. We are bound by a confidentiality agreement with the federal government."

He added, "Any provinces participating in those discussions are obligated not to reveal the ongoing communications. Love to do it, but you'd be talking to a new minister if I did."

Both Bell and Premier Christy Clark had previously said there would be public consultations in B.C. on the CETA, but this week Bell said he's totally restricted from outlining the province's positions. "Our options were to sign the non-disclosure agreement or to stay out of the negotiation and I think what we're doing makes the most sense," he said.

The refusal to speak about the CETA came in a week when the federal government is making a push to sell Canadians on the deal. The premier of at least one other province is on record expressing concerns.

James Moore, the federal minister of Canadian heritage and official languages and the senior cabinet minister for B.C., was to be in Vancouver today "to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the fish and seafood and renewable energy sectors," according to a press release from International Trade Minister Ed Fast's office.


Federal trade minister denies Bell's claim

A spokesperson in Fast's office, Rudy Husny, said it is up to provinces what they want to say about the negotiations, which are ongoing. Negotiators do sign a non-disclosure agreement saying they won't talk about the substance of negotiations, but there's nothing to prevent a minister or other politician from talking about their province's interests, he said. "No, there's no such thing."*

"I'm concerned," said B.C. NDP Leader Adrian Dix. "We have an agreement conducted in secret that's going to sacrifice public health care to private interests and the government doesn't want to defend public health care or talk about it. That's disappointing."

Europe reportedly wants among other things to extend patent protection for pharmaceuticals, which would increase costs for Canadian provinces, Dix said. "Clearly B.C. hasn't done what it needed to do to protect our public health care system, especially on the issue of prescription drugs."

He noted that Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger has spoken publicly about the deal.

When asked about the CETA in a February interview with CBC Radio, Selinger said, "Manitoba's position is that our Crown corporations, hydro and auto insurance, should be protected, and we should have the capacity to do regional economic development."

He also mentioned patent protection for drugs, water, waste and hydro. "There are issues that are live and have to be addressed," he said.

Tyee waiting for non-disclosure agreement

The Tyee has asked the ministry in B.C. for a copy of the non-disclosure agreement Bell says the province signed, but has yet to receive it.



In October, after the ninth round of CETA talks, Bell had been willing to talk about some of the details. At the time he told The Tyee B.C. had been active in the negotiations. "There's a few key areas that are very important from our perspective," he said then. "Certainly, our supply managed industries we're very sensitive about. That's the dairy industries, poultry industries, those sorts of industries."



He also noted the concerns municipal governments have about the deal. "The ability for municipalities to make sure they can protect their interests over what they have to tender out, and of course water is a huge one for us as well," he said.



Last spring, Premier Christy Clark promised there would be public consultations on the CETA. Responding to a question from NDP Leader Adrian Dix during debate of the budget for her office, Clark said, "There will be, I'm told, consultation on this agreement. There will be many avenues for the public's input."

She later told The Tyee that people were welcome to contact her through the government's website regarding the CETA.

Source: http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/27/CETA-Muzzling/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=280412

[Punchy MacEconomics]

Why do these BC Liberals feel they have to obfuscate and mislead on everything?

Some honesty would nice, once and a while.

[Urbane]

"I'm concerned," said B.C. NDP Leader Adrian Dix. "We have an agreement conducted in secret that's going to sacrifice public health care to private interests and the government doesn't want to defend public health care or talk about it. That's disappointing."

How does he really know that? Actually, if our health care moves toward the model in many European countries we might be better off. We're stuck with our current system that's almost a religion in Canada and it's time that we look at other models of delivery. Universal health care without long wait times sounds good to me.

[The Green Barbarian]

How does he really know that? Actually, if our health care moves toward the model in many European countries we might be better off. We're stuck with our current system that's almost a religion in Canada and it's time that we look at other models of delivery. Universal health care without long wait times sounds good to me.

Exactly. What the hell is Dix talking about? Just plain fear-mongering, playing to his base, without the slightest clue what he is talking about. Dix really is a giant disappointment as opposition leader, and showing without a doubt how badly the NDP screwed up when they knifed James in the back, and then allowed all the backroom dirty-dealing to knife Farnworth in the back at their convention. All of the back-room dirty dealing, just to get this lemon as their leader? Why?

[Urbane]

Exactly. What the hell is Dix talking about? Just plain fear-mongering, playing to his base, without the slightest clue what he is talking about. Dix really is a giant disappointment as opposition leader, and showing without a doubt how badly the NDP screwed up when they knifed James in the back, and then allowed all the backroom dirty-dealing to knife Farnworth in the back at their convention. All of the back-room dirty dealing, just to get this lemon as their leader? Why?

Further to that:

"Unfortunately, anti-trade activists continue to spread falsehoods about trade,"said International Trade Minister Ed Fast.

"These are the same falsehoods spread about the NAFTA negotiations a generation ago by the same groups.

"They were proven wrong then, and they are just as wrong now. We must fight their fearmongering with facts, and their falsehoods with reality."

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business ... z1tTF2o4ME

[Punchy MacEconomics]

Proven wrong? The demise of our manufacturing industry and a return to drawers of water and hewers of wood is the legacy of NAFTA.

As for healthcare, Dix's point is on prescription drugs and applying EU patent rules,here. That said, if we adopt the EU labour,environmental and tax regimes then I am fine with this deal.

[Urbane]

Well, Punchy, we could both provide links about the positives and negatives of NAFTA but overall in my opinion it's been a success.

[Punchy MacEconomics]

Well, Punchy, we could both provide links about the positives and negatives of NAFTA but overall in my opinion it's been a success.

It's been great for resource companies but terrible for manufacturing, too bad high levels of industrialization/manufacturing are a hallmark of 1st world nations. As a nation, manufacturing supplies more economic benefit then any resource industry.

[NAB]

It's been great for resource companies but terrible for manufacturing....

Somehow I think you may have that a bit backwards Punchy.

Nab

[erinmore3775]

While the following article does show that NAFTA has benefited the agricultural industry in particular, it also points out some of the shortsigtedness that the federal government may be showing at this time.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... K2HiJ6AH9A

In order to maintain this continued growth in the agricultural industry and its exports to the US, CFIA food inspection is a key. If the inspections decrease in number or effectiveness, these exports are in danger during these negotiations. Could this be a repeat of the past?

While resource exports have increased, in value and in number, manufacturing exports have decreased. The Mulroney/Campbell governments at the time, the negotiators, kept everyone in the dark about the negotiations, but assured Canadians that it would improve the standard of living for everyone. However, in the election in 1988, the Conservatives maintained aslime majority, but more Canadians voted against NAFTA than for it. The Conservatives lost the next election and the approved agreement was signed into law by the Chretin Liberals. Eighteen months later, the industrial base of the St Lawrence corridor was decimated. Factories owned by Westinghouse, GE, GM, Ford, Phillips, and numerous steel fabricators permanently closed their doors. Literally thousands were out of work.

The lack of transparency in these negotiagiozns parallels those of nearly 30 years ago. Canadians have a right to know what is going on: the possible benefits and the possible negatives. In this case it is our agricultural industry that may be in peril. I would hate to see us repeat history simply based on an attitude "that we know what is best for you" or "lower prices justify fewer well,paying jobs."

[Punchy MacEconomics]

It's been great for resource companies but terrible for manufacturing....

Somehow I think you may have that a bit backwards Punchy.

Nab

Ya sure, read above.

[GordonH]

Canada has manufacturing sector where outside auto-industry in Ontario. :131:

[NAB]

Ya sure, read above.

...and the source of that assertion is...????

Edit: ...and as for this..

.....the approved agreement was signed into law by the Chretin Liberals.

Nonsense.

Nab

[Punchy MacEconomics]

...and the source of that assertion is...????

Edit: ...and as for this..

.....the approved agreement was signed into law by the Chretin Liberals.

Nonsense.


Nab

The source is contained in the post and Liberal, Tory same old story.

While the following article does show that NAFTA has benefited the agricultural industry in particular, it also points out some of the shortsigtedness that the federal government may be showing at this time.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... K2HiJ6AH9A

In order to maintain this continued growth in the agricultural industry and its exports to the US, CFIA food inspection is a key. If the inspections decrease in number or effectiveness, these exports are in danger during these negotiations. Could this be a repeat of the past?

While resource exports have increased, in value and in number, manufacturing exports have decreased. The Mulroney/Campbell governments at the time, the negotiators, kept everyone in the dark about the negotiations, but assured Canadians that it would improve the standard of living for everyone. However, in the election in 1988, the Conservatives maintained aslime majority, but more Canadians voted against NAFTA than for it. The Conservatives lost the next election and the approved agreement was signed into law by the Chretin Liberals. Eighteen months later, the industrial base of the St Lawrence corridor was decimated. Factories owned by Westinghouse, GE, GM, Ford, Phillips, and numerous steel fabricators permanently closed their doors. Literally thousands were out of work.

The lack of transparency in these negotiagiozns parallels those of nearly 30 years ago. Canadians have a right to know what is going on: the possible benefits and the possible negatives. In this case it is our agricultural industry that may be in peril. I would hate to see us repeat history simply based on an attitude "that we know what is best for you" or "lower prices justify fewer well,paying jobs."

[NAB]

The source is contained in the post and Liberal, Tory same old story.

LOL, did you follow the link and read the document? Were the assertions following the link a quote from it? If not, what or who are they to be attributed to?

Nab