Evidence of meeting #11 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Rich Smith  Executive Director, Alberta Beef Producers
Bryan Walton  General Manager, National Cattle Feeders' Association
John Weekes  Trade Consultant, National Cattle Feeders' Association
Doug Robertson  President, Western Barley Growers Association
Gil McGowan  President, Alberta Federation of Labour
Sandra Azocar  Executive Director, Friends of Medicare
Matthew Young  Member, Prairies and Northwest Territories, The Council of Canadians
Janelle Whitley  Manager, Policy Development, Canadian Canola Growers Association, Alberta Canola Producers Commission
Greg Sears  Chair, Alberta Canola Producers Commission
D'Arcy Hilgartner  Vice-Chair, Alberta Pulse Growers Commission
Leanne Fischbuch  Executive Director, Alberta Pulse Growers Commission
Kevin Bender  Vice-Chairman, Alberta Wheat Commission
Caalen Covey  Manager, Business Development and Markets, Alberta Wheat Commission
Erna M. Ference  Chair, Alberta Chicken Producers
Tim McMillan  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Allistair Elliott  International Representative, Canada, Canadian Federation of Musicians

9:55 a.m.

Trade Consultant, National Cattle Feeders' Association

John Weekes

I'd hate to think we're getting worse. I think the world is getting better, frankly. If you look at the GATT in 1947 and what was included in that and then look at all the agreements that have been negotiated since, we're identifying where more of the problems are. You look at where the trade disputes are, and that's where we have to put more focus on how to negotiate better agreements to deal with those issues. Both our negotiators are getting better and more experienced—and I'll admit that the TPP is an improvement on the NAFTA in many respects—and so are other countries' negotiators. This is really a reflection of what their populations want, of the kinds of agreements that the political process needs to produce. That is the major incentive for the negotiators to do what their political masters and electorates wants.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Thank you very much, sir.

We've been doing pretty well for everybody to get a question in, but we're down to the end on time and we have about four minutes left. We're going to split two minutes between Mr. Hoback and Ms. Ludwig.

Do you want to go first, Ms. Ludwig? Go ahead.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you very much for being here today.

I'll be very quick. I'm going to ask the questions that have not been asked to have a balance here. What threats and opportunities are you anticipating from imports?

9:55 a.m.

General Manager, National Cattle Feeders' Association

Bryan Walton

You know, if you just start with the North American context, a few years ago we imported almost $1 billion worth of U.S. beef. We send twice that much south. In that context, we are doing that right now.

10 a.m.

Liberal

Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB

What about imports from the Asian market?

10 a.m.

General Manager, National Cattle Feeders' Association

Bryan Walton

In terms of imports of beef, we are not too concerned about the Asian market. The Australians are world traders. The Americans are our biggest customer and our biggest competitor.

I think it comes back to picking the market that works best for us. The importance of this is not so much a concern over imports as it is to provide more opportunities for more parts of that animal to go to more places more often, and bring that money back into this country.

10 a.m.

Liberal

Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Okay.

I have a question for Mr. Smith. You mentioned the difficulty with food processing plants and getting enough employees. How would your sector likely benefit from increased labour mobility, and which sectors would likely benefit?

April 19th, 2016 / 10 a.m.

Executive Director, Alberta Beef Producers

Rich Smith

Well, all of our sectors of agriculture would benefit from any increased labour mobility, particularly in Alberta. Alberta is a relatively lightly populated province. Certainly the ability of workers from other parts of Canada or other parts of the world to come to Alberta, become employed, and become citizens here would be a great benefit right through the supply chain. It would be noticed first of all at the processing level, because that's where the shortages are the most acute, but right through.

The common misconception is that there are two types of farms—the really small, quaint family farms and the big, arrogant corporate farms. The reality is that almost all farms are in-between. They're family operations. Some of them are quite large, and some of them do require employees.

So labour mobility and access to labour would be a tremendous benefit for our whole sector, right across it.

10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

We'll have to stop at that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hoback.

10 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning.

Mr. Weekes, I'm going to take advantage of the fact that you were part of NAFTA negotiations. One of the complaints with ISDS was that it allowed these big multi-corporations to sue Canadians or Canadian governments. How do the new rules in TPP override NAFTA in the form of ISDS?

10 a.m.

Trade Consultant, National Cattle Feeders' Association

John Weekes

They're somewhat different. Exactly. I think it's still an open question. You hear about people still examining implementation issues. I think this is one area where it still has to be clarified, frankly.

In a Canada–U.S. dispute, for instance, if a Canadian company is bringing a case against the U.S. government or vice versa, can they have their choice of doing that under NAFTA or the TPP? Or do they have to do it under the TPP? That's not entirely clear to me. I think it would be useful to clarify that, frankly.

10 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

With COOL, we used the WTO as the regulator rather than NAFTA.

10 a.m.

Trade Consultant, National Cattle Feeders' Association

John Weekes

Well, COOL wasn't an investor-state dispute settlement. That was an intergovernmental dispute.

10 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

That's right. Okay.

10 a.m.

Trade Consultant, National Cattle Feeders' Association

John Weekes

We used the WTO because—well, I can't say why, as I wasn't an official—the WTO dispute settlement process, backed up by a team of legal experts in the WTO secretariat, tends to work better, frankly, than the dispute settlement processes under bilateral agreements.

10 a.m.

Conservative

Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK

Then again, it comes back to saying that there is a mechanism to settle these disputes without these trade agreements. Mr. Robertson talked about some of the non-tariff barriers and other barriers they have in Japan. Right now, we have no really strong dispute settlement mechanisms other than government-to-government ones. Is that fair to say?

10 a.m.

Trade Consultant, National Cattle Feeders' Association

John Weekes

Yes, except for the investment provisions. Of course, there is this choice a government has between whether they're going to use the WTO or a bilateral agreement.

If you're going to the WTO it has to be about a dispute that's covered by the WTO provisions. If it's one of these new provisions in TPP, for instance, then obviously you'd have to use the TPP because you can't litigate something if it's not part of the system.

10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Thank you.

It was a good panel, and it was a good dialogue. We ran about 5 minutes over the time. On that point, I don't want to cut into the next panel. We're going to have a short break of 10 minutes at the most, and then we'll get back to it.

Thanks again, folks, for coming and presenting here, and good luck with what you're growing.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

We're starting our second panel here this morning in the wonderful province of Alberta.

For anybody who has just joined, we are the Standing Committee on International Trade from Ottawa and we're travelling across this country. This is our second stop. We were in Vancouver, British Columbia yesterday and we're going to try to do every province within the next few months. We are also going to do the territories, probably via satellite from Ottawa.

The other thing is that we are hearing witnesses in Ottawa but also from Canadians across this country who can give us submissions up until the end of June. We'll be analyzing and putting them together so we can see them all in the fall when we go back. We're trying to get this report done this year; it's an ambitious report. Trade is so important to Canada and it affects everybody.

We have a couple of housekeeping items. This is like the House of Commons, so we have both official languages. We have headphones on the side if you want them. If you cannot hear us properly, the headphones also help. We have tea and coffee here for anybody who wants some.

When we're in session, you cannot take pictures, but when when I hit the gavel in between, you're free to take pictures of whomever.

Welcome, everybody. We're going to start our second panel right now, and each witness has five minutes. With us, on this panel, we have the Alberta Federation of Labour, we have Friends of Medicare, and we have the Council of Canadians.

Welcome, folks. We're going to start off with the Federation of Labour, with Mr. McGowan for five minutes.

Welcome, sir. You have the floor.

10:15 a.m.

Gil McGowan President, Alberta Federation of Labour

Good morning. My name is Gil McGowan. I am president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, which is Alberta's largest worker organization.

I don't have to tell you this committee has been getting an earful from Canadians. You have been hearing about how the Trans-Pacific Partnership will affect important Canadian industries. You have been hearing about health care and prescription drugs, about intellectual property and environmental protection, and about procurement policies and investor-state provisions. We at the AFL share many of these concerns, but I am not actually going to talk about those concerns today.

Instead, I am going to spend my time discussing an issue that most people are not talking about, but should be. Specifically, I want to talk about how the labour mobility provisions laid out in chapter 12 of the TPP are going to distort the Canadian labour market and seriously undermine the interests of Canadian workers.

Like other Canadians, we at the AFL got our first look at the full text of the TPP in the fall. One of the first things that caught our attention was the section of the agreement pertaining to temporary foreign workers. The way we read it, at the time, the agreement seemed to give sweeping new powers to employers, powers that would allow them to dramatically expand the use of TFWs to displace Canadian workers and suppress wages.

We almost couldn't believe what we were reading, so we reached out to a prominent Canadian labour and trade law firm to ask for their expert analysis. I am tabling that legal opinion for the committee today. I have given copies to your assistants. According to the team of trade and labour specialists at Goldblatt Partners, chapter 12 is even worse than we had feared. Based on their analysis, the effect of the TPP's labour mobility [Technical difficulty—Editor].

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Okay, try it again. Go ahead.

10:15 a.m.

President, Alberta Federation of Labour

Gil McGowan

I'll quote from the legal brief. The effect is essentially “to prohibit Canada from imposing any limit on the number of foreign workers entitled to enter the country so long as they fall under one of the broadly defined categories of workers Canada has agreed to admit”.

What are the categories of workers that would fall under the TPP labour mobility provisions? There are four: business visitors, intra-corporate transferees, investors, and professionals and technicians. For three of these four categories, and I quote directly from the TPP text, it says that Canada has agreed that it will not (a) “require labour certification tests” for these workers; and (b) they've agreed to not “impose or maintain any numerical restriction relating to temporary entry”.

For the other category, business visitors, and again I quote from the agreement, Canada has also foresworn the right to “impose or maintain any numerical restriction relating to temporary entry”.

According to our legal opinion, these constraints effectively remove the ability of Canadian governments to impose a needs test on employers wanting to bring temporary workers into the country. This means that foreign workers covered by Canada's commitments under the TPP will be entitled to take jobs in Canada even if Canadian workers are readily available to fill those jobs and regardless of the prevailing unemployment rate.

Some might say, “Don't worry, it's only four categories. We'll only be taking a few temporary workers”, but that's simply not the case. Under the agreement, business visitors are defined as any citizen from a signatory nation, hardly a narrow definition. Similarly intra-corporate transferees are defined as “anyone who has worked for a company in the signatory nation for more than a year, again, hardly a narrow definition. The category of professionals and technical workers is made up of an extremely long list of occupations that includes everything from nurses and lawyers to construction and trades people and oil field workers.

To make matters even worse, TPP-sanctioned workers in all of these categories will be able to have their so-called temporary permit renewed indefinitely, and most of them will be able to bring their spouses, who will also be able to work in the country under similar conditions.

At this point, I want to make two things abundantly clear. First, these TPP-sanctioned workers will not be immigrants. There will be no paths to citizenship for them. We submit that this is not how we build our country and it is not how we should structure our labour market going forward.

Second, it's important to understand that these workers will not fall under the existing temporary foreign worker program. People who know me know that I've been a leading critic of the TFWP. The program's rules to protect the interests of Canadians workers are weak, but at least they exist. With the TPP-sanctioned workers, even these minimal rules, designed to protect the interests of Canadians and stop the abuse of foreign workers, won't apply. Employers bringing workers into Canada under TPP will not have to prove that they've offered the job first to Canadians; they will not have to pay a prevailing Canadian wage; and in most cases they will not have to demonstrate that the workers in question have been properly trained.

The trade lawyers we hired say that there's even some question as to whether Canadian minimum wage and basic employment standard laws could be applied to these workers, because it would be hard to enforce these rules on companies that operate outside Canada. For me, one of the most frustrating aspects of this situation is that the current federal government has signed this agreement and is seriously considering ratifying it at exactly the same time that they say they have announced a comprehensive review of the TFWP.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Sorry, you'll have to wrap it up. You're over time.

Go ahead, sir.

10:20 a.m.

President, Alberta Federation of Labour

Gil McGowan

If the TPP is ratified, the TFW program will be the least of our worries. That's because the labour mobility sections of TPP are like the TFW program on steroids. The TPP will take the worst aspects of the TFW program, magnify them, and make them effectively irreversible, because they will be entrenched in a complex and binding international treaty. There won't be any room for redos or reviews. It will be a done deal and a disaster.

We urge you, for the sake of Canadian workers, to reject this agreement.

Thank you.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Thank you very much, sir, for that presentation.

We'll move now to Friends of Medicare. We have with us Sandra Azocar.

Go ahead, ma'am. You have five minutes.