Evidence of meeting #16 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tpp.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
We've had other witness testimony suggesting that the greatest strategic advantage that Canada could have would be if we could secure the TPP and other trade agreements before other countries do. But there's also talk about China getting involved in TPP.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Would that have an impact on your view of the TPP if China were to join?
4:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Business and Corporate Development, Ballard Power Systems Inc.
No. Interestingly, five years ago, we wouldn't have spent a minute in China. For 2013 we'll do about 8% to 9% of our revenue in China, so we've taken a very different perspective in terms of doing business in China. We see their laws getting much more stringent, so we'd welcome their participation if they were ever to come in.
On your earlier point, for us, we see this as an early competitive advantage if you guys can manage to close it sooner rather than later. As I've said before, it's not as though we're not doing business in these countries, but we do see us growing our business dramatically if some of these things would get resolved in order for us to have a more open capability of doing trade there.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thanks for your testimony. That was very informative.
I'd like to go back to you, Mr. Calvert. When my colleague asked you what you'd like to see in the agreement, you said, “nothing beyond TRIPS”, and I'd like to give you some time to elaborate on that.
4:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Well, one of the things that is quite important in the way in which TRIPS was modified in 2001 with the Doha declaration was the affirmation that countries would have the right to use what are described as the “flexibilities” in TRIPS, namely, compulsory licensing under certain conditions. This is something that I think has not been fully exploited in Canada, really, but one senses, when one looks at what has been released in terms of the TPP, that it could well compromise and indeed limit even the relatively modest gains that were made with respect to the Doha declaration.
I am concerned that we will end up with a tightening, as it were, of the TRIPS-plus regulations, which would undermine protections that were quite consciously negotiated with respect to the Doha declaration, so it would be, arguably, much worse. That's a major concern that I have, and that particularly is a concern also for the TPP partners. We should have some concern about what happens in other developing countries, and they, in particular, are going to need some of those flexibilities, I believe.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
We also know through leaked copies of the negotiations that a number of proposed TPP chapters appear to contain provisions that would increase the role of the food industry in policy-making. This is true in chapters such as the chapter on regulatory coherence. Is it something that's of particular concern to you?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
On the whole area of regulatory harmonization, and there are other ways in which they are expressing it, regulatory coherence, the question is whether this is going to be down to the lowest common denominator. Is that what we are going to see here and to what extent is it going to facilitate challenges to public regulations that we have in place or that we might have in place? My concern is public health, of course, but in other areas as well, that is definitely a concern.
I would be very worried that we would end up with lower standards than otherwise would be the case.
One of the key things that's been happening in the health sector for a number years now is that we're increasingly emphasizing the importance of evidence-based policy decisions in health. That is to say, what government should do should be based on the best possible evidence. That's certainly happening on the medical side.
In terms of public policy with respect to food regulation, to get back to your original question, this is something we should be doing on the basis of what is the best evidence, and not out of concern that we might get sued if we try to do that. That may be, in a way, how the government will be looking at this if it feels that the trade agreement obligations are ones that open the door to lawsuits against the government if it regulates in particular ways. We don't want to see that happen.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Right, and on that, what are the problems that you see associated with investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, specifically with regard to food and nutrition?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
There have been some challenges by us in the U.S. actually under existing WTO rules with regard to, say, hormone use in beef, and things of that nature. One can have different views about that, but in Europe certainly they have taken the view that they're very concerned about the quality and safety of the food that is imported. Again, my sense is that these kinds of decisions are ones that government should make on the basis of the best health policy that's out there. They should not be overturned because they violate a particular trade rule.
In all of this there have been trade challenges aside from tobacco and aside from alcohol. One of the things that we did, which we arguably should be very ashamed of, was in 1996, we challenged France's ban on asbestos. We know that asbestos kills something like 106,000 people a year, according to the WHO. We went to the WTO to overturn a ban on a product that we knew kills people.
4:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
The idea was that this was a technical barrier to trade. There were three different aspects of WTO agreements that were part of the challenge. This should not be something that is even possible, that we could overturn something that is so fundamental to public health based on certain trade rules.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
You talked about cigarettes and alcohol as two that we should be able to regulate.
What about highly processed food, which is a big concern for many people watching TPP?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
There was something even in The Globe and Mail this morning about the fact that sugar seems to be a major factor in terms of increasing heart disease, diabetes, and so on, and that there needs to be much more regulation in terms of how much sugar.... There are many other products of that nature that we are actually consuming that we're not aware of in terms of their health impacts.
Again, these are areas where, if there is good health evidence that the government should take measures to try to reduce consumption, we should be allowed to do that. We shouldn't have to worry about whether that is inadvertently going to lead to some sort of trade challenge.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thanks, gentlemen, for being here this afternoon to share a little bit of your perspectives from the west coast.
As the member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country in the interior of British Columbia, I appreciate the history of Ballard fuel systems. It's something I've been following for a number of years. I spent nine years on the Kelowna city council and have spent just over eight years now as a federal MP.
We briefly chatted before the meeting started, Mr. Kassam, and remembered when Arnold Schwarzenegger and Premier Gordon Campbell connected with the change of the torch and were going to develop a hydrogen highway and all those future exciting opportunities. Unfortunately, that didn't materialize. Still, some of your technology, as you said, has been exported worldwide, and with the TPP you feel that the three points you mentioned will provide additional opportunities.
Do you think there is some potential for growth in employment prospects here, or will that work be transferred abroad to other countries?
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Business and Corporate Development, Ballard Power Systems Inc.
From our perspective I think there are two things. One is where you drive core competency and utilization of human capital. That is really in two areas. One is in the development of the technology from a research perspective. The second is from a product development perspective in terms of applications engineering. Then the third, which is downstream, is the manufacturing and sale of the products.
When you look at the first two areas, those are really the ones for which you need the core competency, the engineering know-how, and the capabilities. Those only come with people who are very much in tune with the development of fuel cell technology, for which, as I stated before, Vancouver is still considered to be the global hub. I see this as a unique opportunity to leverage our current know-how.
If we look at it, over the last little while we have been increasing our hiring here in Vancouver. That's because, as I have said before, we feel there is a great pool of candidates we can draw from. The sector and the industry are great at fostering that, so as we grow our business, we'll certainly see ourselves growing in Vancouver, in addition to growing with our partners in different parts of the world, but really the technology won't get developed unless we're here.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I hope that you have nothing but success in the future and that you continue to grow.
4:10 p.m.
Vice-President, Business and Corporate Development, Ballard Power Systems Inc.
Thank you.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Calvert, I have just a couple of questions.
We briefly had a chance to meet as well before the meeting.
When I look at your CV, you've obviously had a career as an academic. Is that basically working post-secondary on your doctorate?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I did my Ph.D. a long time ago. Then I worked in various capacities. The last major thing I did before joining SFU was with the B.C. government, where I was for seven years. I've been at SFU now for the last 10 years.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I read that not only health but also international trade is one of the classes you've been instructing for a number of years.
So around 20 years ago when we were celebrating the NAFTA, were you supportive of NAFTA?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I was not at the time, because I was concerned about a number of issues that we've actually talked about today. I think my concerns are still valid. It's hard 20 years later to say where we might have been had we not been in NAFTA. The global economy has changed, but I think that a number of the provisions in there were not beneficial to Canada. That is not to say that I oppose trade or that I don't think we should have some arrangements with other countries. That's a different matter. The question is what are the specific terms in the agreement and how do they benefit us or otherwise?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
What would be an example of a trade agreement that Canada has entered into over the last 20 years that you would support? You said you don't oppose trade.
