Tag Archives: Canada

TPP: BETTER WITHOUT AMERICA

A CANADIAN ON TPP

“What was a blessing for Western Canada–Asian markets finally opening–could be even better without the presence of U.S. competitors.”

Carlo Dade
July 26, 2017  (publication date) 

CONTEXT

On January 23, 2017 — just three days after taking the oath of office — President Trump issued a memorandum that announced America’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. While that action provoked a great deal of consternation around the world, it has not killed the TPP agreement. And not everyone is unhappy. Carlo Dade is among those who, to the contrary, see a world of advantages for Canada, especially Vancouver and environs, to a TPP that does not include the United States.

Mr. Dade is the Director of the Trade and Investment Centre at the Canada West Foundation. Today’s featured quote is from an article of his that was published in the Vancouver Sun on July 26. Yes, Canada’s ranchers and other agricultural producers should be able to gain market share in Asia at the expense of the U.S. if Canada and the other other ten TPP countries can conclude a revised TPP agreement. But that is only part of the potential Canadian advantage of a TPP without the U.S.

For Mr. Dade, there is more to the story. “It is not just beef and other commodity exporters that stand to gain,” he writes. “There are bigger opportunities on trade in services.” And, he adds, “For Vancouver, a TPP 11 is a chance to accelerate the movement of production, especially in services like high-tech, from the U.S.”

That is assuming, of course, that the remaining eleven can come to a final agreement on a new TPP, that is, one without the United States. Mr. Dade seems comfortable with that assumption. “All indications from media in TPP countries are that TPP 11 will indeed go ahead,” he writes.

COMMENT

Our guess — and it is only a guess — is that there is indeed a strong likelihood that TPP or some not too different successor to it will in fact come into being before too long. Whether the eleven will be able to wrap things up by November is another issue. It is their widely reported goal to have the deal essentially done by the time of the APEC Leaders’ meeting, which will be held in Da Nang, Vietnam, in early November.

Whether TPP is a done deal then or not, it should be an awfully interesting set of discussions. President Trump is planning to attend the Leaders’ meeting, though, obviously, not the side meetings of the TPP countries.

And, of course, one can only guess at how much intervening events will complicate things. Just as a taste, there was the July 28 announcement by Japan of a new “emergency tariff” on frozen imported beef. America is Japan’s largest supplier of that product and will be the hardest hit by that action. Even so, it has left countries that do not have a free-trade agreement with Japan — including Canada — envying countries like Australia that do have such an agreement. It has also given an added impetus to the TPP negotiations for those for whom they are still relevant.

***

Portland, Oregon, was not directly in the path of the full eclipse. But we were awfully close, which is to say that we did manage a brief twilight in the midst of an otherwise bright morning. That experience is over, but the metaphor lingers. With the signing of President Trump’s TPP withdrawal memorandum on January 23, we entered of a period of eclipse for America and TPP. U.S. policy makers and trade negotiators are now focused elsewhere, namely on the effort to revise and upgrade NAFTA.

But — thought for the day — maybe this fading of TPP is only a temporary eclipse. Certainly, if the other eleven manage to pull together enough to pull off a final deal, TPP will be an agreement that America will need to confront anew. If that happens, we will, with some enthusiasm, be dusting off an old adage: if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

SOURCES & LINKS

TPP – The Vancouver Advantage is a link to an op-ed in the Vancouver Sun by Carlo Dade of the Canada West Foundation. This was the source for today’s quote.

Beef Tariffs Up is a report from the Omaha Herald on Japan’s decision at the end of July to impose “emergency” tariffs of 50 percent on frozen beef, mainly from the United States.

Focused on Getting it Done is a Nikkei report of August 9 highlighting the commitment of Australia and other remaining TPP countries to get the deal done this year.

TPP Issues for Congress is a 2013 paper on TPP by the Congressional Research Service, which is quite useful. .

Withdrawal Announced takes you to the President Memorandum of January 23, 2017, which announces and explains America’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Canada West is the website of the Canada West Foundation. The Foundation is based in Calgary, Alberta, the province’s largest city.

Originally published on August 21 as TTALK Quote No. 52 of 2017.

©2017 The Global Business Dialogue, Inc.

U.S. NAFTA GOALS

A CONJECTURE

“We want to claim or reclaim some manufacturing employment that has settled itself in Mexico.”

John Magnus
June 23, 2017

CONTEXT

Like our last entry,  today’s is from the preliminary comments made by TradeWins president, John Magnus, acting as a panel moderator at GBD’s June 23 event. Earlier we shared with you his thumbnail estimation of the U.S. trade posture towards the European Union. He offered similar comments on America’s apparent goals for a revised NAFTA. The first round of NAFTA renegotiation got under way in Washington yesterday [June 16], beginning with a fairly challenging opening statement from the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert Lighthizer. We shall turn to that in a moment.

First, though, this is as good a time as any to review the assessment that John Magnus offered back in June. “Okay, what about NAFT?,” he asked. These points were his answer:

Content, Rules of Origin. “We apparently would like to wring out non-North American content as fully as possible from the goods that have NAFTA eligibility.”

Jobs. “We want to claim or reclaim some manufacturing employment that has settled itself in Mexico.”

Trade Deficits. “And we would like to have a smaller, bilateral merchandize trade deficit with Mexico.”

Dairy. “We want to extract concession from Canada on some offensive issues, most notably dairy trade. I’ll let you decide what the word offensive modifies in all of that. It could be our behavior in relation to dairy trade.”

Investment and Trade Remedies. “We want to overhaul some of the NAFTA’s institutional provisions and dispute resolution provisions and most notably the ones that sit in chapters 19 and 11”.

Government Procurement. “We want to really have a new or continue our new mania for Buy American, meaning that we want to, apparently, refrain from deepening the NAFTA in regard to government procurement. And that matters because our NAFTA partners have some interesting requests and proposals in that category.”

The Cases. “And we seem to want to continue to treat even the highest profile trade remedy proceedings – examples: softwood lumber for Canada, sugar for Mexico – as basically matters of pure law enforcement as opposed to some part of our trade policy that we would be prepared to bargain over.”

COMMENT

Doubtless you have already read or read about Ambassador Lighthizer’s opening statement yesterday. Certainly, it was important, but its importance is bound to fade somewhat as the negotiations — and all that is said and written about them — move on to specific issues. But while it is still fresh, here are a few thoughts on the statement and on the negotiations now in their second day.

First, of course it was a tough statement. It had to be. It was the United States that called for these negotiations, and in a sense that was a fallback from President Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA, to tear it up. And the essential toughness of the statement was in this paragraph:

“The views of the President about NAFTA, which I completely share, are well known. I want to be clear that he is not interested in a mere tweaking of a few provisions and an a couple of updated chapters. We feel that NAFTA has fundamentally failed many, many Americans and needs major improvement.”

That was near the end of his statement. The beginning was somewhat different. There he talked about the many Americans who have benefited from NAFTA. “For many of our farmers and ranchers,” he said, “Canada and Mexico are their largest export markets.” And, he added, “Many are particularly vulnerable today because of low commodity prices.”

***

In short, at least as we read it, it was a tough speech with a major concession: America too needs NAFTA. Yes, there is some leverage in the belief if not the fact that the other two, Canada and Mexico, need NAFTA more. But America needs it. Think of NAFTA as a leaky lifeboat in an unforgiving sea. It’s three occupants — Canada, Mexico, and the United States — may have, will have, trouble agreeing on the best way to patch it. But agree they must. Scuttling it is unthinkable (or should be).

Much as we would like to end on that rhetorical flourish, it doesn’t quite capture the larger point. NAFTA may have been a mistake. A better set of policies set in motion in the 1990s might have preserved more U.S. manufacturing jobs and led to a stronger U.S. industrial base. The challenge for today’s NAFTA negotiators, however, isn’t to rewrite the 1990s. That can’t be done. Their challenge it is to improve a system that is now deeply embedded in the economies of all three countries and to do so without disrupting the lives and livelihoods of those who have successfully adapted to it.

SOURCES & LINKS

An Educated Guess is a link to the YouTube video of the Diplomatic Panel at the GBD EU Outreach event on June. This was the source of today’s featured quote.

Opening Statement takes you to Ambassador Lighthizer opening statement at the start of the first round of negotiations toward and an updated and revised NAFTA.

Objectives is a link the U.S. negotiating objectives for the new NAFTA negotiations, which USTR published on July 17, 2017.

About Dairy is the TTALK Quote for June 14, 2017, which focuses on the issue dairy in U.S.-Canada trade, beginning with comments from Shawna Morris of the U.S. Dairy Export Council.

Originally published on Augusut 17 as TTALK Quote No. 51 of 2017.

© 2017 The Global Business Dialogue, Inc.

 

NAFTA AND THE U.S. PORK INDUSTRY

AMERICAN PORK: AN EXPORT POWERHOUSE

“The U.S. pork industry is the poster child for expanded trade.”

Nicholas D. Giordano
May 25, 2017

CONTEXT AND COMMENT

Nick Giordano is the Vice President and Counsel for Global Affairs at the National Pork Producers Council. He was the last of nine speakers at the GBD NAFTA event on May 25, NAFTA, From Car to Carrots. As we noted in the TTALK Quote published earlier today, the fear that the United States might withdraw or otherwise scrap NAFTA has lessened in the last couple of months.

That is a welcome development. So too is the clear and steady movement toward an orderly process of renegotiating and upgrading NAFTA. The most recent step in that process was taken earlier today [July 19, 2017] when USTR announced that John Melle, Assistant USTR for the Western Hemisphere, will be America’s Chief Negotiator for the NAFTA negotiations and that the first round of talks will be held in Washington from August 16 to August 20.

As the NAFTA countries prepare for that first round, it is important to keep in mind that, as important as NAFTA is for the United States, it is as or more important for Canada and Mexico. Each of the three NAFTA countries has an enormous stake in NAFTA and in the success of the NAFTA negotiations.

That said, the picture Nick Giordano painted back in May of NAFTA and the U.S. pork industry was an exceptionally useful illustration of that point from the perspective of one segment of the North American economy, American pork producers. After transcribing his remarks, we could not decide what to include and what to cut. So here in its entirety is the speech Mr. Giordano gave at GBD on May 25. (The inserted headlines and added emphases are ours.)

REMARKS OF NICK GIORDANO — MAY 25, 2017

Thank you, Dave.* Thanks to Judge and the Global Business Dialogue* for having the National Pork Producers Council participate in this important event. It’s a great pleasure to be up here with my colleagues from agriculture, who I’ve gotten the opportunity to work with on various issues over the years.

As David knows, I’ve never met a microphone I didn’t like. Don’t worry. I’m going to make your job easy. I’ve written my comments out. So, I can keep us on schedule here. So we can get to questions and Judge can get everybody out in a timely manner.

ON THE COUNCIL
The National Pork Producers Council is a federation of 43 state pork producer organizations, representing the national, global interests of 60,000 U.S. pork producers, who generate $23 billion annually in farmgate sales. The U.S. pork industry supports an estimated 550,000 domestic jobs and generates more than $39 billion a year in economic activity.

U.S. PORK EXPORTS
The U.S. pork industry is the poster child for expanded trade. As recently as 1995, the United States imported more pork than it exported. But, in the past ten years, thanks to new market access through trade deals going back … before NAFTA — the U.S. pork industry, on average, has been, the past ten years, the top pork exporting nation in the word.

In any given year, we ship pork to more than 100 countries. But, because of trade deals, and specifically FTAs, we ship more U.S. pork to the twenty nations with which we have FTAs than to the rest of the world combined. Exports contribute significantly to the bottom line of all U.S. pork producers, adding more than $50 to the value of each hog marketed last year, when about $6 billion worth of U.S. pork was exported.

It’s been noted [that] on May 18th, the Administration notified the Congress of its intention to enter into negotiations with Mexico and Canada to modernize the NAFTA. Today, NPPC [the National Pork Producers Council] released a paper on the NAFTA. The paper is intended to provide background and insights regarding benefits generated by the NAFTA.

In addition, the paper details the costs associated with erecting new import barriers through renegotiation or withdrawal from the NAFTA. The paper is available on our website, nppc.org. The focus of the paper is economy wide, but today I’ll limit my comments, for the most part, to the pork sector. Mexico and Canada represent, in value terms, our second and third largest export markets for pork.

In 2016, we shipped $1.4 billion in pork products to Mexico and $800 million to Canada. Together, these two markets represent 36 percent of our global pork exports and over 15 percent of our total pork production.

THE NAFTA RISKS
According to Iowa State University economist Dermot Hayes, who Judge has had as a panelist in past GBD activities, U.S. pork exports to Mexico have created more than 9,000 U.S. jobs. Dr. Hayes, who, I might add, has forgotten more about the global pork industry than most people will ever know. According to Hayes, if Mexico were to place a 20 percent duty on our pork, and allowed the EU and Canadian pork duty free access, which is likely to happen if there is a termination or duties put on pork, then we would — the United States — would lose all of the Mexican market.

In his assessment, Professor Hayes also looked at the possibility of U.S. pork finding alternative markets and concluded that the U.S. pork industry would be left with a net loss of about 600,000 tons or 5 percent of our production. This would cause a 10 percent reduction in live hog prices. At today’s hog prices, that’s about $14 per animal. Now, with 118.3 million hogs harvested in the United States last year, that means the loss of the Mexican market would translate to an aggregate industry loss of about $1.7 billion annually.

A loss in exports to Mexico of that magnitude would be cataclysmic for the U.S. pork industry. Now, make no mistake, pork producers do and will support updating and improving the NAFTA but if, and only if, duties on U.S. pork remain at zero and pork exports are not disrupted. The prospects of going back to pre-NAFTA tariffs are daunting, not just for pork producers but for the entire U.S. economy. And we have history as our guide.

LESSON FROM HISTORY
After the stock market crash in October 1929, when unemployment began to rise, Congress decided it would be a good idea to impose additional tariffs on imports “to save jobs.” Despite the pleas of over 1,000 mainstream economists for President Hoover to veto the bill, the so-called Smoot-Hawley tariffs were introduced in 1930. Jobs were immediately lost in trade related fields and beyond, including dock workers, transportation, distribution etc. And within three months, unemployment nearly doubled to 14 percent. Over the next two years, unemployment soared to 27 percent, as jobs were lost to other factors, including higher inflation, reduced disposable income, and, of course, foreign retaliation against our exports. The Great Depression was then in full force, and became global. The rest, as they say, is history.

COSTS OF FAILURE
Now, I’m not suggesting that a NAFTA renegotiation gone awry would result in another great depression, but it could result in unintended consequences. Mexico will elect a new president in July 2018. The NAFTA renegotiation could have a significant impact on both the presidential election in Mexico and the long term relationship between our two nations. The NAFTA has created jobs to the benefit of both the United States and Mexico. In 1994 our trade with Mexico was roughly in balance at about $50 billion each way. By 2016, our exports to Mexico had nearly quintupled to $231 billion, and these now support some 6 million jobs.

And while imports to the United States from Mexico were $294 billion, those too supported millions of U.S. jobs, and nearly 40 percent of Mexican imports include U.S. content. In short, NAFTA created jobs in both the United States and Mexico. Now, I won’t deny that jobs did go to Mexico as the result of plant closings, but it’s misleading to say that trade under NAFTA resulted in a net loss of jobs in the United States.

We should also keep in mind that as a result of NAFTA, Mexico made substantially deeper cuts in tariffs on U.S. goods than did the U.S. on Mexican goods. If NAFTA were to be terminated, Mexico would have the right to reimpose those much higher tariffs on our goods, thus making the trade deficit bigger.

Mexico has free-trade agreements with many other countries and is pursuing even more. Without NAFTA, those countries would immediately secure huge competitive advantages over potentially thousands of U.S. products, including pork of course, in the Mexican market.

NAFTA is an old trade agreement–23 years. But it has accomplished a great deal. And, it certainly can be modernized. But, if I’m making one point [and] you’ve been listening, there are enormous risks associated with the notion that withdrawal from NAFTA could be an attractive alternative if efforts to negotiate a more modern agreement fail. Thank you.

NOTES, SOURCES AND LINKS

*On Referenced Personalities. Dave Salmonsen of the American Farm Bureau Federation served as moderator for the panel discussion on agriculture. Judge Morris is the president of the Global Business Dialogue, which hosted the event.

The Carrots Part takes you to the YouTube video of the full agriculture panel at GBD’s May 25 event on NAFTA. This was the source of today’s featured quote and the above transcript.

First Round Announced is a link to today’s USTR press release, which included both the dates for the first round of negotiations and the name of the U.S. Chief Negotiator for the NAFTA talks, namely, John Melle.

###

Originally published on July 19, 2017, as TTALK Quote No. 44 of 2017.

NAFTA AND AMERICAN AGRICULTURE, PART II

DAIRY AND THE NEXT NAFTA

“Our NAFTA modernization goal, when it comes to dairy, would be Maintain Mexico and crack Canada.”

Shawna Morris
May 25, 2017

Shawna Morris is Vice President for Trade Policy at the U.S. Dairy Export Council and holds the same position with the National Milk Producers Federation. Speaking at GBD’s May NAFTA event, Ms. Morris painted two dramatically different pictures of NAFTA as seen through the eyes of America’s dairy farmers and processors. We shall share some of what Ms. Morris had to say about both of America’s continental trading partners, but the first point to note is what she had to say about NAFTA itself.

Ms. Morris described the dairy sector as one of NAFTA’s biggest supporters, adding that her members “have absolutely no interest in doing away with this agreement.”

She went further in the Q and A session. “Even with our appetite to see significant improvements in this agreement,” she said, “we very much agree that withdrawal from it is not an option and would be absolutely catastrophic.

U.S. Dairy and Mexico. The Mexican component is critical, but we’ll let Shawna Morris tell the story.

MS. MORRIS:
Twenty years ago, we had a visionary dairy farmer chairman of the U.S. Dairy Export Council and the National Milk Producers Federation. He made the decision that our industry had to look outward, not inward, and offered the necessary leadership to be able to move the industry in that direction. [The Industry leader she was talking about was Tom Camerlo of Pueblo, Colorado.]

So now it has been almost two decades that we have been focused primarily on the benefits that trade can offer, and so looking forward, not backward, when it comes to that. The U.S.-Mexico agreement, together with the Uruguay Round, is really what offered the opportunity to be able to shift our vision toward the export market. After riding out some hiccups earlier on in the tariff elimination years, Mexico … has become a strong and dependable trading partner. It’s frankly where … a lot of the U.S. companies that are now exporting all around the world first got their feet wet, [where] they came to realize that trade can offer opportunities and, from the dairy side, not only concerns.

Today, Mexico accounts for roughly a quarter of U.S. dairy exports around the world, and those sales total roughly $1 billion dollars a year. In turn, they support tens of thousands of jobs all across this country that are involved in the production and processing of the product that goes to Mexico.

When it comes to Mexico, our primary focus is ensuring that the integration and partnership that’s been built up over the years doesn’t take any steps backwards. That’s critical in the broader NAFTA discussions, which is why we believe those talks need to be focused on moving forward from the existing foundation of trade openness that has already been put in place. … [That is] extremely important as Mexico negotiates with other countries.

Homework with Canada. At one point in her June 23 remarks, Ms. Morris referred to “unfinished homework with Canada.” The key to the Canada portion of her comments was this simple statement about the NAFTA negotiations generally. “In terms of market access,” she said, NAFTA was “a series of bilaterals between the countries involved. So, in the negotiations between United States and Mexico, dairy was part of the deal and trade between the two countries is essentially duty-free.

In the U.S.-Canada negotiations, however, dairy was not included, and there are dairy tariffs on both sides. “Tariffs of 200 to 300 percent still hold back ¬¬¬¬U.S. dairy exports to Canada,” Ms. Morris said. “If that’s not the best opportunity for modernizing this agreement, well, it’s hard to think what would be a good candidate.”
The heart of the U.S. dairy dispute with Canada is Canada’s supply management system. The system applies to milk, cheese, eggs, chicken and turkey, but it is the dairy sector – milk, cheese, and other milk products – where the clash with U.S. interests is most acute.

“Even more grating than being one of the only sectors that still faces exorbitant tariffs has been Canada’s repeated use of policy tools to try to thwart dairy trade, Ms. Morris said. “Canada seems to have its cake and eat it too, by shutting down import avenues and dumping extra product on global markets.”

We took Ms. Morris’s comments to be a reference, at least in part, to the tortured story of ultrafiltered milk. This relatively new product did not have the protection of super high tariffs in Canada, and so, for a while, U.S. ultrafiltered milk was doing well in Canada. Then a regulatory change effectively undercut that market.

COMMENT

We are rather cynical when it comes to phrases like “I make a difference” or politicians selling “change” without any real discussion of what that change might be. But there are people who make a difference, a very positive difference. Some of them do it by spotting opportunities and then encouraging others to make the changes necessary to turn those opportunities into real benefits. From what we have been able to learn about him over the last few days, James P. “Tom” Camerlo was such a person. He was the Colorado dairy farmer and former head of the U.S. Dairy Export Council who saw clearly the untapped potential of export markets – including Mexico – for U.S. dairy. He died in December 2009, and part of his legacy is the big difference he made in the way American dairy farmers see themselves and their industry.

Talking about the dairy industry today, Shawna Morris said, “My members’ view is that trade done right can be a tremendously positive thing, both for farmers and for processors.”
For us, the most important fact about NAFTA is that it was one thing as a proposal in 1993. It is a very different thing as a functioning reality in 2017. The top line of this chart from the U .S. Dairy Export Council is one illustration of the current reality.

We’ll conclude with another platitude, verity – call it what you will: Nothing is static. Even if there were no NAFTA renegotiation in the offing, the nature of NAFTA is bound to change, if not from within then from forces outside of NAFTA. Among those outside forces are the agreements that Canada and Mexico are forging with other trading partners, most notably the European Union.

Those agreements have two obvious effects. One is that, to the extent that America’s trading partners grant preferences to others, the value of the preferences they extend to U.S. producers is diminished. It’s called “preference erosion,” and there is really nothing you can do about – especially if you believe in free trade.

The introduction of new restrictions vis-à-vis specific products is another possible result from the EU’s recently concluded deal with Canada and their recently launched negotiations with Mexico. That is the issue of geographical indications, which Ms. Morris mentioned in her comments in May. It is bound to come up again at the GBD event on June 23.

RELATED EVENT – FRIDAY, JUNE 23

Endless Outreach: The EU’s Trade with the World and with North America. This event will lead off with a keynote address from Ambassador David O’Sullivan of the European Union and will include panel discussions from the diplomatic and business communities. This event will run from 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon on Friday, June 23. The title link will take you to the notice for this session, including registration options.

SOURCES & LINKS

The above video link takes you to the discussion of NAFTA and U.S.  Agriculture at the GBD event on May 25, 2017.

Contentious Milk takes you to the TTALK Quote for April 27, which discusses Canada’s treatment of “ultrafiltered milk,” a product that U.S. producers were able to sell in Canada, only to see that market evaporate as the consequence of new regulations.

Top Markets is a link to a list of America’s top export markets for dairy, prepared by the U.S. Dairy Export Council.