This past March stretched even a seasoned traveler like me me out of my comfort zone, as I undertook my most arduous journey yet. First, I visited the most important scientific meeting of the year on hypoxia (not getting enough oxygen supply to the tissue of a body part, or your whole body) in Whistler, BC from March 3-8. From there, I continued to travel west across the Pacific, visiting Seoul, Korea and Taipei, Taiwan from March 10-17.

The logistics of traveling around China in 10 jam-packed days

While that alone would have been considered a lengthy and busy trip by most standards, I was still building up to the busiest section of my travel schedule. On March 18, I continued by flying into Beijing, China to start an epic “10 City tour” (10 lectures in 10 cities in 10 days), to promote Ruskinn’s Life Sciences products to select universities in China. If you can believe it, this lecture series was originally supposed to be 3 weeks long, and we had to “shorten” it down to this length!

The lectures were set up by our Chinese partner, Beijing Longfujia.

The travel schedule from March 20-31 had to be intense to save money, but this meant traveling to a new city each day for 10 days, as follows:

Over 21,000 miles by plane, train and automobile

In total, from when I left Ottawa March 3 to go to Whistler to when I arrived back there from China in the beginning of April, I travelled a total of 21,270 miles. While it wasn’t quite enough to equal the 24,901 miles it would take to circumnavigate the entire planet, I came awfully close!

In China alone, I travelled 3,913 miles, took 5 plane journeys and 3 high-speed train journeys, gave 10 lectures, and visited 261 total customers. What a trip!

Travelling in China was often stressful, as reaching an airport or train station by car required anywhere from 1- 2 hours each night. The journey itself by air or train would come next, with varying transit times. Finally, traveling from the destination airport or station to the next hotel required yet another 1-2 hours of driving. Traffic is so dense in most Chinese cities that a commute that would normally be a 30 minute car journey in Canada or the U.S. can take 2-4 times as long in the cities mentioned above.

It’s key to find your “zen” and get some massages when enduring this type of travel

I was fortunate to not have a single major snafu during the entire trip, just a handful of travel delays. When I ran into those, I found the best way to deal with it was to internalize, and not let myself get outwardly annoyed. Once or twice we also didn’t have the proper AV equipment for our lectures, but our distributor was miraculous at sourcing whatever items we needed from “down the street” in those instances.

I also had many positives to focus on. One of the things that stood out the most throughout this whirlwind tour was the level of interest shown by the students at the universities. My Sunday seminar had more people than a regular seminar in Canada or the U.S., and it was exciting to see their willingness to learn.

To combat the exhaustion of so much travel for business, we also tried to go for massages whenever there were facilities near our hotel. It was very relaxing and allowed me to share some friendly banter with my traveling companions.

Final assessment – should you embark on such a trip?

If you’re considering a similarly ambitious trip, I should note that, because the experience was so exhausting, I would not take on a trip in China like this again – I’ll plan to stick with seven days next time.

In assessing whether the trip was successful, we certainly got “the nod” from several professors and other researchers indicating they are going to start the buying process with us in mind. While we have a buying cycle of several months, once these clients agreed I knew it was a matter of when, not if they would purchase.

The first orders from that lecture series should start to come out of tender in the next few weeks, and we are confident in gaining somewhere between $100-150,000 in sales from this lecture series alone. All in all, it was a very successful trip.

If you’re interested in seeing more of my time in China, please take a look at the slideshow video that I’ve put together, which you can view by clicking this link.

Please also take a look at the following infographic on some of the most interesting numbers from my trip:

The post Here’s what it’s like to travel for business to 10 different Chinese cities in 10 days appeared first on Trade Ready.

There’s been a lot of excitement around this major milestone on both sides of the Atlantic. You may be wondering, though, how exactly the implementation of this deal will affect businesses in both regions.

Thankfully, the EU International Trade Department has created a series of helpful infographics detailing the benefits of CETA for several specific industries, and shared them via their Twitter account, @Trade_EU. Take a look!

????Thread: 1. It’s #CETA Day! Now the EU-Canada trade deal starts, helping EU firms export ??& create jobs ?‍??‍??https://t.co/uNoPR5vgY4 pic.twitter.com/ydB2wnacoW

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 2. #CETA will save EU businesses – like small wine producers in Austria – up to €590m/year in customs duties ?https://t.co/5CHcFd7tKq pic.twitter.com/NiNFRxdNXW

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 3. Thanks to #CETA EU cheesemakers can export 18 500 tons each year tariff-free – twice as much as before ?????https://t.co/5CHcFd7tKq pic.twitter.com/KZRFNGJq2x

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 4. #CETA‘s the tariff beater. It slashes Canadian import tariffs on EU cars & trucks ??from 9.5% to 0% ?????https://t.co/pD5zb28OXU pic.twitter.com/qkqthsqmRb

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 5. #CETA‘s the tariff beater ?On EU-made clothing ?? it cuts Canadian import duties from up to 16% to 0% ??https://t.co/pD5zb2qqmu pic.twitter.com/nyhKWTb4Ub

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 6. #CETA – the tariff beater. It’s cut Canadian import tariffs on furniture ?? from the EU from 8% to 0% ??https://t.co/pD5zb2qqmu pic.twitter.com/uqyQHHIA82

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 7. #CETA – tariff beater ?Canadian import tariffs on EU chocolate ? were up to 10%. Now they’re scrapped ??https://t.co/pD5zb2qqmu pic.twitter.com/aYMoORP0hk

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 8. #CETA‘s the tariff beater. Before, Canadian customs charged 12.5% on jam ?? from the EU. Now – nothing. ????https://t.co/pD5zb2qqmu pic.twitter.com/0MPEnlGcxO

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 9. #CETA is a progressive agreement. Both sides pledge to uphold labour rights & protect the environment ?‍???https://t.co/7dVCRSWQxC pic.twitter.com/bkO1nlpK2p

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 10. #CETA comes with 6 key safeguards ?. They protect EU public services, food safety standards & more ?? ??https://t.co/rTba7UZAz2 pic.twitter.com/tfvpNh8YYt

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 11. With #CETA the EU & Canada are forging even closer ties?, & helping shape globalisation so all benefit ????https://t.co/p53gFJONdS pic.twitter.com/Ore4cQKqlm

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 12. #CETA protects 143 flagship EU hams, cheeses & other food & drink products from imitations in Canada ??????https://t.co/046c5Am3lf pic.twitter.com/nuXCMhUYJa

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

????13. ?#CETA means new opportunities in Canada for EU services firms, from finance to telecoms. ?? Details here: https://t.co/bGdvpP9vv1 pic.twitter.com/s8duhHyMfR

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 14. With ?#CETA, EU firms can bid for more public contracts in Canada – federal, provincial & municipal ??? ?https://t.co/bGdvpP9vv1 pic.twitter.com/tNt3D9ZIQi

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

???? 15. ?#CETA cuts tariffs & eases trade barriers ??, so small ?? firms like these can export more easily to ?? ??https://t.co/5CHcFd7tKq pic.twitter.com/pZBBevlxS6

— EU Trade ?? (@Trade_EU) September 21, 2017

Let us know what you’re most excited about with CETA’s implementation, and please feel free to add any other helpful information or stats in the comments below!

The post These CETA infographics explain exactly how the free trade agreement will help businesses appeared first on Trade Ready.

The city of Vancouver is one of the most important trade areas in BC, and indeed across Canada, with Port Metro Vancouver standing as the largest and most diverse port in the country, and one of the busiest in North America.

Trade relationships between Canada and the Pacific Rim countries, as well as a general increase in Canadian exports, has pushed Vancouver into the spotlight as Canada’s capital of trade.

Wallace Chan, an international trade instructor at Ashton College in Vancouver, explains:

Since relationships between Canada and the Pacific Rim countries are rapidly developing, there should be an increase in demand for our seaports: definitely a good thing for Canada (and for Vancouver specifically).

“This will help us, as a city, diversify our business and industries and create more work opportunities for those involved in global trade.”

Vancouver’s importance as a contributing factor to the growth in Canada’s export industry should not be underestimated. As Wallace notes, the Canadian export market is currently in a transitional period.

“It seems like the combination of goods and services that are being transported from Canada to other countries is gradually changing. In the past, Canada used to rely mostly on exporting natural resources, like coal and timber, especially on the west coast. Now, however, we are talking more about made-in-Canada products and Canadian services.”

Check out more information about the importance of trade in Vancouver in the infographic below:

The post Vancouver is Canada’s gateway to the Pacific appeared first on Trade Ready.

Some policies included in the TPP have critics and proponents more divided than others.

In getting to the bottom of the issues that matter, we bring you the main arguments for and against one of the most controversial provisions in the agreement – the Investor State Dispute Settlement and Investment Chapter.

ISDS: Peaceful conflict resolution mechanism or threat to domestic policy?

According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the ISDS included in the TPP aims to provide an “impartial, law-based approach to resolve conflicts.”

The USTR points out that there are ISDS policies in more than 3,000 trade agreements currently in existence.

“Because of the safeguards in U.S. agreements and because of the high standards of our legal system, foreign investors rarely pursue arbitration against the United States and have never been successful when they have done so…We believe that providing a neutral international forum to resolve investment disputes under international law mitigates conflicts and protects our citizens,” The USTR website claims.

Further, the USTR states that the ISDS in the TPP agreement will ensure freedom from discrimination for Americans doing business abroad, protection against property theft by foreign governments, protection against denial of justice for investors, and the right to transfer capital freely.

However, these protections for investors may come at a steep price for domestic policy, including environmental, health, and financial policies, and cost at least some of the nations involved in the TPP a lot of money in dispute settlement payouts.

An article released in The Globe and Mail shortly after the TPP text was published summed up the concerns:

“Negotiating partners assured the stakeholders that the TPP’s investment chapter would respond to the legitimate concerns about expansive investor protections and ISDS. The actual text, however, when made public, showed the opposite: a further evisceration of the role of domestic policy, institutions, and constituents.”

“In their current form, the TPP’s substantive investment protections and ISDS pose significant potential costs to the domestic legal frameworks of the US and the other TPP parties without providing corresponding benefits.”

1. TPP’s ISDS chapter allows foreign investors to sue governments over policies that harm their interests – thereby perpetuating a private justice system that overrides democracy

In support of ISDS: Proponents of the ISDS emphasize that the TPP text improves upon the language in previous agreements, such as NAFTA, making sure that nations will still maintain the ability to make policy decisions based on what’s best for the citizens, rather than foreign investors.

The USTR states that “New TPP language underscores that countries retain the right to regulate in the public interest, including on health, safety, the financial sector, and the environment.”

The Canadian government has issued the following statement:

“International arbitration does not restrict any level of government from legitimately regulating in the public interest. This includes regulations with respect to health, social, environmental and national security issues. Disputes are a normal part of every trade relationship. However, they represent a very small portion of the billions of dollars in investments that Canada attracts and the billions of dollars that Canadian companies invest abroad.”

Global Affairs Canada (GAC) also states that the TPP:

Provides access to an independent international investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism that is prompt, fair and transparent, and subject to appropriate safeguards.

Opposed to ISDS: According to a report by the Columbia Institute on Sustainable Investment (a joint venture between Columbia University’s law school and environmental institute):

“Unfortunately, while the TPP might ‘underscore’ that countries retain the right to regulate in the public interest, the agreement does not actually protect that right. In article 9.15, the TPP states, ‘Nothing in [the Investment Chapter] shall be construed to prevent a Party from adopting, maintaining, or enforcing any measure otherwise consistent with this Chapter that it considers appropriate to ensure that investment activity in its territory is undertaken in a manner sensitive to environmental, health or other regulatory objectives.’”

2. All disputes should be solved in domestic courts

In support of ISDS: The USTR argues that the domestic courts are far more costly to U.S. government.

“Though the U.S. government regularly loses cases in domestic court, we have never once lost an ISDS case and, in a number of instances, panels have awarded the United States attorneys’ fees after the United States successfully defended frivolous or otherwise non-meritorious claims.  The U.S. federal government defends challenges to U.S. state or local government measures in ISDS disputes.”

Opposed to ISDS: Lise Johnson and Lisa Sachs, coauthors of the Columbia Institute of Sustainable Investment report, stated in a their article in The Globe and Mail:

“A forthcoming analysis shows that less than 20 per cent of the 34 claims filed against Canada under NAFTA would have any case for damages in domestic courts, and only half of those would have had an arguable case for the equivalent damages.”

3. ISDS clauses cost governments millions from settlement payoffs

In support of ISDS: USTR: “The United States has never lost an ISDS case. We have had only 13 cases brought to conclusion against us, and the United States has prevailed in every case. And in part because we have continued to raise standards through each agreement, in recent years we have seen a drop in ISDS claims, despite increased levels of cross-border investment.

More than half of the companies that initiate ISDS cases are small- and medium-sized businesses or individual investors, so the millions of American workers they employ stand to potentially benefit from strong ISDS protections.

Global Affairs Canada: “Investment is a key driving force for economic growth and competitiveness in Canada. It plays a crucial role in spurring innovation and linking Canada to global value chains. Canada has a clear interest in ensuring the stability, transparency, predictability, non-discrimination and protection of Canadian individuals and companies that invest abroad.”

Opposed to ISDS: While ISDS chapters in other trade agreements haven’t brought many dispute claims against the U.S., the same cannot be said of Canada.

“The dozens of times that Canada has already been sued, largely under the North American free-trade agreement, show that private arbitrators have been very willing to second-guess Canadian policy-makers and administrative enforcement, extracting damage awards. While Canadian governments have insisted that the tribunals have gotten it wrong on many issues, they have had little recourse,” Johnson and Sachs explain.

According to the Canadian Council on Policy Alternatives, Canada is the most sued government in the industrialized world. In an article for the Public Policy and Governance Review, Jordann Thirgood states:

“Since 2005, over 70 per cent of NAFTA claims have been made against our government. We have paid out $172 million in damages, with 35 outstanding cases that could add up to another $6 billion.

4. Disputes are often frivolous

In support of ISDS: The USTR states that fears over unfounded, frivolous disputes will be brought to governments’ doorsteps any time corporations feel a decision has been made against their interests are unfounded under the TPP’s provisions.

“The Mechanism for expedited review and dismissal of frivolous claims and claims outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction: This mechanism enables respondent countries, on an extremely expedited basis, to move to dismiss (1) frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious claims (akin to provisions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and (2) claims the tribunal is not empowered to resolve.”

Opposed to ISDS: Jake Schmidt, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s international program says:

There are other legal risks that TPP raises, regardless of its improvements over NAFTA. Because TPP is a more widespread deal, it gives more companies more grounds to sue if a participating government interferes with their projects.

“Even if the United States ends up winning under those circumstances, it still provides another avenue for companies to pursue if they don’t get what they want. Even if you made ISDS perfect, you’re doubling the number of companies that have the potential to bring lawsuits,” Schmidt was quoted in an article on morningconsult.com.

5. Disputes through ISDS brought against developing countries can be devastating to their government coffers, and often target environmental, health care and safety policies

In support of ISDS: According to the Canadian Government, The ISDS “Preserves the full rights of governments to legislate and regulate in the public interest, including for public health and environmental reasons.”

Opposed to ISDS: Rachel Wellhausen, author of Recent Trends in Investor-State Dispute Settlement argues:

The possibility of being sued by a major corporation through ISDS might create a chilling effect, especially among poor countries already at a disadvantage when it comes to cutting back pollution. Governments might think twice about updating regulations in order to avoid getting sued.

In support of ISDS: However, last word on this issue goes to Ezra Klein from his article on Vox.com:

“This is a key point, and it’s worth stopping on for a moment: ISDS agreements are there because developing countries, in many cases, want ISDS systems. They may have corrupt court systems or unpredictable local governments, and that makes it hard for them to attract the foreign investment necessary to level up their economy.”

Do you think ISDS provisions are beneficial to the countries who sign on to them through trade deals? Does the incentive to invest outweigh the risk of being sued?

The post FACE OFF: Two sides of the TPP – Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) appeared first on Trade Ready.