A Tufts University study claims that signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) would cost Canada 58,000 jobs, while the benefits would amount to less than the cost of compensating the seriously affected stakeholders.

This is gloomier than the World Bank projections — which themselves suggest an underwhelming result.

Econometric projections are only as good as the assumptions. Assumptions will be determined by what the analysts consider to be important. At the best of times and with the best of assumptions, predicting results of a multi-dimensional chess game is extremely difficult.

The results are talking points to be used by protagonists in selling their position. There are simply too many variables and uncertainties to predict the outcome with any reasonable degree of accuracy.

The Tufts team has focused on changes in competition, which will force shifts between labour and capital in higher-wage countries as duty-free access intensifies competition.

What Tufts does not measure is what would happen to Canada if it were to opt out of the TPP and face increased competition in the other 11 countries.

This is why Canada is in the TPP — for defensive reasons, and those reasons are not limited to manufactured goods.

Our farmers, ranchers and food processors operate in very low-margin industries. Tariffs of even 3 per cent can kill a deal.

Then there are our services providers in insurance, banking, accounting and a wide range of environmental and consulting activities. They all need the best access available.

Trade and economic partnership agreements are all about details. In some cases, the base of preferential free access to major markets like the U.S. and Japan will outweigh the costs hidden in the details. Being inside the tent is often better than being outside. Trade and economic partnership agreements are all about details. In some cases, the base of preferential free access to major markets like the U.S. and Japan will outweigh the costs hidden in the details. Being inside the tent is often better than being outside.

Our manufacturing industries need to grow, and the advantages of lower labour rates based on the currently struggling loonie can be more than offset by increased input costs — also due to exchange rates.

Unless Canada has free and competitive access to markets for its farm goods and manufactured products, there is a real risk that its export focus will be rocks and logs.

Staying out of the TPP does not mean Canada will have more jobs or more economic growth than it would as a member.

Canada, of course, has not decided whether to sign the TPP. No doubt newly-elected federal cabinet ministers are having some difficulty coping with the mass of information involved. Frankly, I have not written about the pros and cons to date — and not only because I’m saving it up for the eventual parliamentary committee hearings.

There are over 6,000 pages of textual material in the TPP. Tariff phase-outs and rules of origin are very important — and decipherable only to experts.

But the deal is about more than the text and the tariffs schedules. Each of the 12 countries has different expectations. Some of those expectations have been made available in English – others have not. But it makes sense to try to understand what everyone expects in order to make one’s own assessments.

What are others doing to take advantage of market openings, or to defend against opening their own markets? A case in point is Japan’s stated plans to its own farmers, which will both make it difficult for North American producers to benefit from liberalization and shift some Japanese farm products into export markets. The U.S. National Pork Producers Council has expressed concern about Japan’s market distorting plans.

So where does Canada’s interest lie in all of this? Tufts is not the only critic pointing to the potential for increased inequality. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz has been on this line for years. (See his latest article, titled, “In 2016, let’s hope for better trade agreements — and the death of TPP”.)

Trade and economic partnership agreements are all about details. In some cases, the lure of preferential free access to major markets like the U.S. and Japan will outweigh the costs hidden in the details.

Being inside the tent is often better than being outside. The WTO is effectively non-functional as a multilateral negotiating forum.

Multilateral negotiations where benefits must be shared with China (and others like India, Russia and Brazil) do not suit the U.S. agenda. And regional agreements like the TPP make it easier for Washington to write the rules.

The Government of Canada must consult broadly and intensively to try to determine Canada’s interests. We need to understand what Canada will gain or lose as a signatory — and what would be lost by opting out.

Peter Clark is one of Canada’s leading international trade strategists. His clients, in Canada and around the world, include governments, corporations and trade associations. He is a frequent media commentator and columnist for iPolitics.ca.

More from Peter Clark available here.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.