Canada-EU free trade deal a job killer: study


Sparrow
#1
Quote:

Stanford ran three simulations to see what a Canada-EU free trade deal would mean to the Canadian economy, and in every case Canada's bilateral trade deficit with the EU would worsen.

In the best-case scenario - one in which tariffs are mutually eliminated - Stanford foresees the loss of 28,000 jobs.

In the worst-case simulation - one in which tariff elimination takes place along with a further appreciation of the Canadian dollar versus the euro - the job losses could top 150,000.
Trade deficit would worsen: Stanford

"Free trade with Europe will take a bad situation for Canada, marked by large deficits and lost jobs, and make it much worse," Stanford argues.

CBC News - Bing

Here we go again!
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#2
Given that NAFTA was both good for Canada and the US I see no reason this will be any different.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
+2
#3  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Given that NAFTA was both good for Canada and the US I see no reason this will be any different.

NAFTA was never good for Canada on the scale of things. At least now there can be competition on who will Canadian industry, the Americans own it now.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem View Post

NAFTA was never good for Canada on the scale of things. At least now there can be competition on who will Canadian industry, the Americans own it now.

That makes no sense.
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Sparrow View Post

CBC News - Bing

Here we go again!

He missed a detail though. Should the trade deficit be consistent, it would be bound to contribute to an overall devaluation of the Canadian dollar relative to the Euro over time.

And why would we have a trade deficit with Europe unless it's because we consume too much or our industries are inefficient? If that's the case, then it would be good to force inefficient industries to go under to make room for more efficient industries.

Also, one thing that could help protect against excessive dependence on foreign goods without promoting any kind of trade war or protectionism would be to shift our taxes to resource taxes. While this would have little effect on a European exporting a computer program to Canada or vice versa owing to it being sold simply over email, it would certainly hurt European exports of physical goods to Canada and vice versa owing to the gas tax thus making transportation more costly. But again, since it would apply mutually, it would still be fair and avoid trade wars.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

That makes no sense.

It makes sense to me. The Canadian market was opened to its North American partners, the U.S. being the biggest. Since NAFTA, Canadian industry has slowly become less and less Canadian. My remark was tongue-in-cheek regarding the European Union.
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#7
"In the best-case scenario - one in which tariffs are mutually eliminated - Stanford foresees the loss of 28,000 jobs."

Well geez you don't need to do a study to come to similar conclusions.... just look at NAFTA and how it screwed things up compared to how things were before..... now most of our jobs are determined and hang in the balance based on the decisions of foreign nations..... and it's not like we have the same level of impact on the US as they do on us, so I doubt it'd be any different with the EU.

Quite simply NAFTA turned us into a Bi*ch...... this plan will just make us into the Village Wh*re.

And what's worse is that once this goes into action, we're going to be under more EU control where they can twist and force us into doing all sorts of BS crap.... and with their hissy fits over the seal hunt and them poking at our fishing industry, not to mention finger pointing at our environmental contributions (or lack there of)....... guess how that's all going to unfold

We already have the US making our government bend over backwards at the risk of Canadian jobs and business, buying out companies and tossing us bones.... just imagine what it'll be like with the EU.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

That makes no sense.

Sorry Avro, I just re-read my post as I wrote it 10 minutes after I woke up. It made sense to me when I wrote it I meant to say:
At least now there can be competition on who will control Canadian industry, the Americans own it now.
 
Avro
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem View Post

Sorry Avro, I just re-read my post as I wrote it 10 minutes after I woke up. It made sense to me when I wrote it I meant to say:
At least now there can be competition on who will control Canadian industry, the Americans own it now.

You think ownership of Canadian companies was due to NAFTA? Hate to tell you that it's not true. Canada is a branch plant economy and foreign ownership isn't exclusive to the US.

Economists for the last 230 years say that reducing trade restrictions benefits all countries involved.

If NAFTA was so bad why do we have a trade surplus with the US?
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#10
The other item that the anti free trade group does not like to mention is the amount of US companies owned by Canadians because it will ruin their argument. The only problem with NAFTA is that the right wing in the US thinks their own laws supersede international law or any agreements that their government made with other countries.

The problem with dealing with the EU is that so much of their exports are tax payer supported.
 
petros
#11
Is 86% of US business foreign owned like in Canada? What is reinvestment in R&D and Canadian tech like these days? Better or worse post NAFTA?
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
#12
How's that softwood lumber thing going by the way?
 
tay
#13
Lost: Low-skill, Decent-pay, 'Entry' Jobs


Union wages once made retail sales work a viable full-time occupation for many. MP Pat Bell put himself through university working at the Woodward's camera counter for $12 an hour in the early 1970s. That's more than many department store workers earn today. Superstore was paying $23 an hour for cashiers back in the 1990s.

But those wage levels have been whittled back by years of de-unionizing.

Safeway and Save on Foods, both of which offered livable starting wages in the past, negotiated different (tiered) wages for new workers starting in 1997. The last unionized Starbucks bit the dust in B.C. in 2007. Zellars employees, formerly represented by United Food and Commercial Workers 1518, lost their contract in a B.C. Labour Relations Board hearing in 2012, when Target took over the lease. Ikea Richmond is working hard to tier its contract with its workers, offering some less than others.

The retail sector still represents the largest occupational group in B.C. , but average pay for full-time, full-year work -- something only one in three clerks can hope for -- is only $35,468.

Most clerks, working part-time, earn even less. A job at Sears Personalised Gifts (Things Engraved) advertised on the Work BC website, for example, offers minimum wage -- $10.25 an hour -- and part-time hours. High school graduation is required, eliminating many of the most vulnerable young job candidates.


more

The Tyee – Lost: Low-skill, Decent-pay, 'Entry' Jobs
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by tay View Post

The retail sector still represents the largest occupational group in B.C. , but average pay for full-time, full-year work -- something only one in three clerks can hope for -- is only $35,468.

Does this statement not make you wonder how the Province has allowed it's economy to slip so bad that retail is the single largest sector employer in the province?

Shut-down that pipeline Christy... Wouldn't want any high paying jobs now, would ya?
 
tay
#15
By any ones standards 'pipeline' jobs, while better paying, are temporary until the pipe is laid.

We need a new direction............



Unifor Could Shift Canadian Political Debate


With the formation of Unifor, a "new kind of union" and the country's largest private sector union, there is at least a chance that the long slumber of the labour movement is over. An organization that big with a radical new mandate cannot help but influence developments elsewhere in the movement.

One of the strongest motivating factors behind Unifor, and a wide variety of other initiatives now being undertaken, is the desire to rid the country of the Harper government in 2015. If that is indeed a key objective -- and it must be -- then one of the most important elements of this social unionism needs to be to focus as much attention on the economy as possible, to engage the media, the public and political parties -- and workers -- in a broad discussion about the catastrophic economic policies of the Harper government.

There are two good reasons for this suggested focus.

First, the economy simply isn't working for working people and hasn't been for almost 30 years. Wage (and salary) earners have suffered enormously since the so-called free trade deal with the U.S. Incomes have been literally flat since even before manufacturing jobs began to disappear. A high-wage, value-added economy focused on building resilience and addressing climate change could turn things around over time.

There is a second reason for Unifor and labour in general to focus on the economy. It is Stephen Harper's only card heading into the 2015 election. It is stunning that Harper still gets the highest polling marks for economic management given what his policies have done. But that is exactly why he has spent over $100 million of taxpayers' money drilling "Canada's Economic Action Plan" deep into people's consciousness. Even people living in or facing poverty have been brainwashed into this absurdist conclusion.

Take away Harper's advantage on the economy and he has virtually nothing to use to get beyond his core support of 30 per cent. His agenda is one of dismantling, not building.


more

The Tyee – Unifor Could Shift Canadian Political Debate
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#16
Maintenance, operations and upgrades go on all year round not to mention the thousands of full-timers that can work at refineries and the LNG facilities and we haven't even touched on the army of regulatory and environmental folks that will be paid for indirectly (and directly) by the p/l and resource companies

It's a no-brainer tay
 
B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
+1
#17
 

Similar Threads

0
NHL trade deadline: Let's make a deal
by CBC News | Feb 25th, 2008