International Trade Committee on May 27th, 2013

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I want to move to transparency.

We're often told that treaties must be negotiated strictly in private. One of the main concerns about the TPP has been the lack of information given to the Canadian public, or even parliamentarians, about what's being negotiated. This is exacerbated by the fact that we can't get a clear answer from the minister. When the minister was before our committee, he appeared to tell us there was no formal consultative body. We hear from other people who are members of that consultative body that there is one, in fact, where private actors in Canada are being consulted and briefed by the ministry, whereas Canadians and parliamentarians are not.

I'm going to ask you about the transparency. Can trade negotiations be conducted in a more transparent manner, and are there any examples where that's been the case?

[Scott Sinclair]

They certainly can and they usually are. Even though documents are formally classified, they are usually more transparent than the TPP. They do tend to be circulated, and someone who has a strong interest in these matters can usually get access to the relevant texts. That's certainly been the case in all the negotiations that I've followed closely.

If you want to look at alternative models for negotiating treaties, especially ones that, as I said, increasingly deal with regulatory matters, you could look at the UN process, say, the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Kyoto protocol. Those negotiating sessions are completely open. Commercial interests and non-governmental organizations can observe the negotiations. They're on the basis of public proposals and public texts.

I would like to see trade negotiations move more in that direction rather than the other way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll move to Mr. Keddy for seven minutes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome our witnesses. It's always good to have a few dairy farmers in the room. In the interests of full disclosure, my wife grew up on a dairy farm, so it's near and dear to me, and I think there's a few committee members who have some dairy experience.

I have a couple of questions. One is an overall question surrounding the importance of confidentiality when you're negotiating agreements and especially international agreements. Sometimes these agreements can take years, if a lot of information that gets out is, quite frankly, wrong.

The Dairy Farmers of Canada sat on the committee. You signed a waiver, which you mentioned, on confidentiality, but you were part of the process and you were briefed, and therefore your membership was briefed.

What's your membership? How many dairy farmers across Canada do you represent?

[Richard Doyle]

Twelve thousand farmers—

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

So there are 12,000—

[Richard Doyle]

—farms. There are more farmers than that.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I like the word “farmer” rather than “producer”, but 12,000 farmers across Canada have some representation for an industry. You said yourself, Mr. Doyle, that not just our government but previous governments have signed a number of free trade agreements, and every one of them was a doom-and-gloom scenario: the dairy industry would never be supported; it would never survive; we were going to lose; This needed to be out in the open.

In every single one of the trade agreements that Canada has signed, the dairy industry and supply management sector have been protected. I think part of that is because of your own lobbying effort, but I think part is a representation from the dairy industry to work with government in a proactive way, quite frankly in defence of your own self-interest, which all of the proponents who are on these committees do.

Is that an exaggeration?

[Richard Doyle]

I'd like to believe that, yes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

But not that it's an exaggeration, though.

On the TPP, there's a lot of discussion here about how we joined after the ninth round. Quite frankly, I think there's some surprise in the lack of forward momentum. You have to realize that there's a lot of talk about the United States steering these meetings, but the United States wasn't a founding member. A number of countries decided to open up the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

There's a lot of work to be done here. I think most of us who believe in free trade welcome this group, but none of us is so foolish as to think they're going to be able to negotiate an agreement by the end of the year. If they can, good luck, but it's a huge undertaking.

Mr. Cannan wanted a couple of questions, but I have one before I wrap up.

With your association with the government—not just our government, but previous governments—in briefings and in having the dairy industry and the supply-managed sector as a whole understand what our free trade agreements are about, are you satisfied with your briefings and the amount of input you have with government?

[Richard Doyle]

Well, we'd say yes, but I want to build on the point that the lack of access to the documentation is a bit of a concern. There has been....

I'll go back to the Uruguay Round, where at the time we had SAGIT, which was a sectoral advisory group to the Minister of International Trade. That was functioning fairly well in the sense that people could decide on and discuss their own situation. It was all very confidential, but there was a lot more content on discussing the text and the impact on each of the different sectors so that everybody around the table could understand.

What we've moved into now is that we all sign confidentiality agreements, but there is no real access other than the regular briefings. The real confidential discussion that we can all benefit from is maybe lacking a bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Cannan, you have a little over a couple of minutes.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

I only have a couple of minutes, so I have a couple of quick questions for you, Mr. Sinclair.

What trade agreements has the Centre for Policy Alternatives supported?

[Scott Sinclair]

We raise concerns about trade agreements. We don't take firm positions like that.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Have you come out and supported anyone to date over the last 20-plus years?

[Scott Sinclair]

I have a critical perspective on trade and investment treaties, and what I see in this negotiation affirms me in that view.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Okay.

For innovation, technology, and patent protection, do you support an intellectual property regime of patent protection?

[Scott Sinclair]

Yes. My position is that the push for WTO-plus patent protection, particularly from the pharmaceutical industry, is basically a bottomless pit. They will never be satisfied unless governments—as I think your government is feeling now in the Canada-European negotiations—take a very, very firm position that 20 years of patent protection is more than sufficient. Also, there are legitimate issues of blockage and other issues. In that 20-year term, there has to be flexibility so that innovation is not actually hampered by legal shenanigans in the patent system.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

What's the main difference in pharmaceutical patent protection, then, between Canada and other TPP countries, most notably the United States?

[Scott Sinclair]

Well, when you combine all the different elements, Canada has one of the strongest systems of patent protection in the world, particularly for pharmaceuticals.

As I mentioned in my remarks, one important difference is that Canada alone of the G-7 countries does not have a patent term extension system. Patent term extension refers to the desire of patent holders to add the time that it takes for regulators such as Health Canada to approve a drug, on the basis that it's safe and effective, to the 20-year term patent protection. Canada does not have that. But we have other elements that are combined, such as patent linkage and data exclusivity, and which protect drugs at a very high level. So if you put those in combination, I would argue, and I think most experts would agree, that we have one of the highest forms of patent protection for drugs in the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Easter, the floor is yours, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both of you for your presentations.

Just spinning off of Mr. Cannan's questions, Mr. Sinclair, I would suggest, and I'd suggest the government should welcome this, we certainly appreciate the kind of critical analysis that you do of trade issues. You've done it all your life. I think that's important. It's a side of the equation that we need to look at. The government should take much of that analysis to heart so that we don't go down a rat hole that we obviously should not go down.

On the investor protection aspect of the agreement, this is something you've been on for a considerable time, I know, and as it relates to chapter 11 in NAFTA as well. Do you have the numbers with you in terms of how often Canada has lost cases under investor protection and how often we have won in other countries? Have we won at all in other countries? I know we've lost lots.

[Scott Sinclair]

A Canadian investor, unless it's happened very recently—I've been on leave for a few months, as you may know—has never won an investor-state arbitration. I think it's only a matter of time until that happens.

In NAFTA chapter 11, yes, we have lost or settled I think six or seven cases at a total of around $160 million in monetary damages, plus tens of millions more in legal costs to defend ourselves against the more than 30 claims that have been filed against Canada.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Scott.

Mr. Chair, I wonder if it's possible for the Library of Parliament to come back with some figures. This is an important point. Canada seems to be losing under this part of the agreement rather than winning.

Perhaps you could give a quick answer, Scott, on the drug patents that have been negotiated under the TPP. Are they similar, or do they give more patent protection to drug companies, as they do under the CETA negotiation?

[Scott Sinclair]

They go beyond the WTO TRIPS. The proposals, in particular demands from the United States, would go beyond Canada's existing system of patent protection.