According to a report by the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada, ratification of the TPP would increase Canada`s GDP by $4.3 billion by 2040.   This situation is mainly due to preferential access to markets in the Asia-Pacific region.   According to the report, ratification by the other signatories to the TPP, but Canada`s failure to ratify the agreement, would lead Canada to face GDP losses estimated at $5.3 billion by 2040.   The TPP trade area would have been larger than the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is currently the largest in the world. When setting investment rules, contracting parties to the TPP establish rules that impose non-discriminatory investment policies and protections that ensure the protection of the rule of law, while protecting the ability of the governments of the contracting parties to achieve legitimate public policy objectives. The TPP provides the basic protection of investments contained in other investment-related agreements, including national treatment; The most favoured treatment “minimum standard of treatment” for investments, in accordance with the principles of international custom; a ban on expropriation that is not done for public purposes, without due process or without compensation; Banning “performance requirements,” such as local content or technology location requirements; Free transfer of investment-related funds, subject to TPP exemptions, to ensure that governments retain the flexibility to manage volatile capital flows, including temporary non-discriminatory protection measures (such as capital controls), which limit transfers related to investments related to a balance-of-payments crisis or its threat , and some other economic crises, or to protect the integrity and stability of the financial system; and the freedom to appoint leadership positions of each nationality. For its part, Beijing insisted that a separate trade agreement, which includes the Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes 15 Asia-Pacific countries, but not the United States. It has also launched its Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to develop commercial and energy infrastructure throughout South and Central Asia. The RCEP was signed in November 2020, after eight years of negotiations. The agreement is not as comprehensive as the TPP: it eliminates fewer tariffs and does not deal equally with trade in people, intellectual property or labour and environmental legislation. In addition, India withdrew from the pact and reduced its size in the market. Yet the RCEP is creating one of the world`s largest trading blocs, and analysts say that with the CPTPP, it`s another sign that countries in the region are continuing without the United States.
The patent agreement would have reduced the availability of cheap generic drugs. This could have increased the cost of many drugs. Competitive pressure from companies would have reduced incentives in Asia to protect the environment. Finally, and not least, the trade agreement could have taken over the financial rules. Fredrik Erixon and Matthias Bauer of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) write that Tufts` analysis is so flawed “that their results should not be considered reliable or realistic.”  You write that the tufts model “is, on the whole, a demand-driven model, which makes no effort to measure the effects of trade on supply, which are the effects that turn out to be the main positive effects of trade liberalization. What is also problematic is that the model is not designed to assess the impact of trade agreements on trade – in fact, the model is deeply unsuited to such an exercise. No commercial economist, regardless of the school of thought he or she possesses, has ever used this model to make trade estimates. The reason is simple: if a model cannot predict the impact of trade liberalization on trade flows and the profile of trade, it is useless. »