Free trade has figured prominently in Canadian elections since Confederation.

Many of us recall the fast and furious claims around the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in the 1988 federal election and the somewhat more muted debate around the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1993 election.

Viewed from that perspective, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is the dog that didn’t bark in the current election cycle.

Part of the reason is that the text of the agreement reached on Oct. 5 is being finalized among 12 nations and will only be released when the legal wording is finalized in the weeks to come, following Monday’s election.

But in the absence of having a legal text to target, some union critics and self-described “progressive economists” are stoking fears that the TPP will create a rush of Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) from low-wage countries flooding Canadian labour markets.

They point to the outcry in 2013 when details of an RBC program were made public that led the federal government to tighten the rules.

The fact is the RBC case did not arise under any of our existing regional trade agreements like NAFTA, or with Columbia and Peru.

If anything, it occurred under our existing multilateral trade in services (GATS) commitments that Canada has made to our partners in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Significantly, none of our existing trade agreements prevented the government from tightening the rules for TFWs in 2014.

Here is what people should keep in mind as they listen to the arguments presented by these critics.

Modern trade agreements deal with trade in goods and services. That is not surprising since the service sector now accounts for close to 70% of Canada’s GDP, by far the largest part of Canada’s economy.

There is no turning the clock back. All trade agreements going forward will involve trade in services.

To be against trade in services is to be against trade itself.

Canada has both offensive and defensive interests in liberalizing trade in services.

We stand to benefit when our banks, insurance companies, engineering firms and other service providers can function in foreign markets and can send their Canadian managers and skilled professionals to support their foreign activities.

In return for that opportunity, we have to provide similar opportunities for our trading partners in Canada under these trade agreements.

Contrary to what the critics suggest, this is not a free-for-all dystopian world where evil multinational hamburger chains send servers on “intra-company transfers” to displace local employees.

Trade agreements carefully specify which management and skilled occupations we want to be covered.

There is no need for labour certification for business persons granted temporary entry, but they do need to follow normal immigration procedures.

Federal officials have confirmed the existing “wage-floor” rule will apply to ensure workers are paid the prevailing amount for the position in particular regions of Canada.

Once the terms of the TPP are publicized, it will be important to look closely at all of its provisions including the chapter on trade in services and temporary entry for business persons.

However, at this point, political attacks on the TPP appear to be stealth attacks against all of our existing and future trade agreements.

If that’s what the deal’s critics really want, they should say so clearly and directly.

In reality, the fact that the fight against free trade has been reduced to this very narrow point shows the progress that has been made.

The sky did not collapse from our past trade agreements, and won’t because of the TPP.

— Warner is a Canadian international trade and competition lawyer

twitter.com/MAAWLAW