International Trade Committee on April 20th, 2016

[Jennifer Neal]

I think it's clear, from what I've said already, that I don't feel it's putting the people.... I don't think it's doing that. It's doing exactly as my friend here is saying. It's big corporations that are benefiting.

One thing that worries me is big pharma, because big pharma is extremely strong, extremely powerful. It's for big pharma. The pharmaceutical companies are winning, hands-down, with this agreement. I don't think this agreement is for the people at all.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Catherine, you said it's a bill of rights for corporations. When we signed the free trade agreement with Colombia, we had discussions back and forth. We had side agreements on environment, child labour, and the displacement of individuals. Is there anything in this agreement that we can modify, if we ratify it, to make sure those concerns that you have are addressed?

[Catherine Gendron]

For SEIU-West it's certainly the investor-state dispute settlement that really outlines the corporate bill of rights.

We have in our written submission, for example, that in Poland, they had much of their health care insurance provided by a company called Eureko. They had a state share. When the Polish government put forward the idea to open the shares more so to the private company, Eureko could have had a majority stake. There was public outcry because they did not want to privatize their health care. This was the people speaking, saying, “We don't want this.”

The Polish government then responded, taking back that proposal. Eureko then took this decision to ISDS, and Poland ended up paying, out of their taxpayers' money, $1.6 billion U.S. to Eureko. They didn't even have their shares at that point. That was just the potential for profits.

Eli Lilly, in Canada, has now gone above the Supreme Court of Canada, so how is that democratic? TPP, this agreement, how is that a democratic means when you can go above our law? It's only foreign investors that can do this, so how is that for the well-being of Canadians? It's not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have one minute left, sir.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Raymond.

[Raymond Orb]

Yes, thanks for the question.

I would just like to say that, first of all, I'm an elected official and I'm a municipal official. We always have the process of being able to consult with provinces. In my case it's the Province of Saskatchewan, and we have consulted with them. Not too long ago, before the provincial election, we sat down with the Ministry of Agriculture people and talked about this.

Farming is made up of a lot of small business people. We have a lot of family farms now that are incorporated. People sometimes think these are big corporate entities, but actually they're still family farms. A majority of the farms in Saskatchewan still are.

The benefit to this is that it does create jobs. If you look at what's happened in Saskatchewan over the last decade or more, a lot of value-added entities have come on stream as well because of manufacturing and a lot of the spinoffs. For the people who are paying taxes, where does the money come from in this country to pay for their medical costs, for medicare itself, on behalf of the federal government and the provincial governments? It comes from taxpayers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, all.

Sorry, Mr. Dhaliwal, your time is up. Mr. Orb, that was a good closing on his question, though. Thank you.

We're going to have to move over to Mr. Hoback for the last questioner on this panel. Go ahead, Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair and witnesses. You only have five more minutes, so we're almost done.

Mr. Orb, you touched on this, that the taxpayer pays the bill. The taxpayer pays the medicare. The taxpayer pays the wages of Catherine.

Jennifer, it probably pays into your pension.

Terry, if you get any farm subsidies, they pay for the subsidies, correct? If the taxpayer doesn't have the revenue, which comes from the private sector and from taxpayers....

I'll use the example. Right now we have a $30-billion forecasted deficit, and we're doing that to basically improve our economy, grow our economy and jobs. How do you propose we grow our economy if we don't sign trade agreements, if we don't actually embrace the world, and actually go out there and find these markets so that our creative people in Canada can actually make an income, have a good quality of life, and pay those taxes so that you can have the things that we take for granted here in Canada?

If you don't want the TPP or any trade agreement, well, then what are all these farmers in Saskatchewan supposed to do, Terry? Are they supposed to just raise buffalo and watch them go off into the sunset? What do you propose? What would you suggest that government do if you don't do trade agreements? How else are you going to generate this economic activity?

[Terry Boehm]

Thank you.

First of all, one of the fallacies about many of these trade agreements is that somehow trade is going to come to a crashing stop if we don't sign them.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Boehm, wait a minute. We have heard from many organizations that have basically told us that if we don't get a proper trade deal with Japan and other regions in the Asian market, and if we didn't have a proper trade deal with the U.S. in NAFTA—I'll use canola, for example—the cost is substantial.

Take the little town of Nipawin. If they can't export oil outside of Canada—if that town doesn't have a crush plant—that town wouldn't exist as we see it today. If Canadian farmers don't have those opportunities, what are they to do?

[Terry Boehm]

There is—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Trade has proven that it brings up our quality of life—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Hoback, if you could let the witness just.... We can have a good debate, but just let it go back and forth.

[Terry Boehm]

There is absolutely no problem on my part, and many of the farmers I represent, with trade. However, these agreements have a very small trade component and the trade-offs inside these agreements for the democratic process, investor-state invasion, etc., is critical.

We trade, and we have traded before these agreements, which have gone wild in the last 20 years.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You know what, Mr. Boehm? You are right. We have traded, but as other countries have leaped ahead and taken the market.... For example, I'll use Korea and the cattle situation. The U.S. and Australia got into the market in Korea before we did. We have lost a substantial market share in that market.

If we are not to do these trade agreements, if we don't keep up with other countries that are doing these agreements, what do our producers do? How do they react?

[Terry Boehm]

Well, one of the problems we ran into, particularly in the cattle sector in Korea was actually BSE, and we are recovering from that one.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You talked about cattle producers. We have heard from all the organizations, and they are saying the exact same thing, that they need to have a level playing field in order to compete. If they don't have a level playing field, they are out of the market. That means we lose ranchers and we lose small communities. How do you propose we replace that?

[Terry Boehm]

Why are we losing farmers at an accelerated rate since we have engaged in these things? Why is the debt load increasing? Why can't we negotiate individual trade arrangements without these massive, thousand-page packages that have so much harm contained inside of them?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You talked about NAFTA and ISDS, and you talked about the $220 million that Canada paid out, but our trade went from $4 trillion to $12 trillion under NAFTA.

Well, $220 million is a big number for me; it's huge. However, when you put it in relation to the trade and the benefits that Canada as a whole has received.... Did you know that $180 million of that is because one provincial government nationalized a pulp mill? One provincial government decided they were going to nationalize. Don't you think that if they wanted to nationalize something, the people who own it should have a proper chance to get back their investment? I invest $2 million in one of the TPP countries, and all of a sudden that country says, “You know what, Mr. Hoback? Because you are not in my country, I am not going to do business with you.” Don't I have the right to have protections under the trade agreement that says you will deal with me?

[Terry Boehm]

If you have a $2-million investment in a foreign country and you want to launch an ISDS action, you can't afford it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Hopefully, I don't have to, because I have the protection in the agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

That wraps up the time, Mr. Hoback, and it wraps up this panel.

It was an exciting panel, to say the least. We appreciate that all of you came in. I know you wanted to say a lot more, and I am sure the MPs wanted to ask a lot more, but we have a new set of panellists coming in next.

Again, thank you very much for spending time out of your day to come here, give your submissions, and give answers. Thank you very much.

We are going to suspend for 10 minutes, and then we are going to try to get right back at it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I'd like to welcome anybody who just entered our room or entered into our committee hearing. This is the final panel we'll have today in Saskatchewan. The panels we have had so far were very informative. We had good questions, good answers, and good statements from the witnesses.

On this final panel we have with us Canpotex, the Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce, the Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership, and Viterra.

We're going to get right at it and start off with Canpotex. We have Natashia Stinka, manager. Welcome.

[Natashia Stinka, Manager, Corporate Services, Canpotex]

Thank you for holding the committee hearings here in Saskatoon and providing the opportunity to share our views on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Canpotex and the export of Canadian potash benefits the Canadian government, opens new markets, and encourages freer trade. It will also do this with the TPP.

I'd like to give you a bit of background on our company. I'm confident you won't come across many companies with our wealth of experience in exporting to, and operating in, TPP overseas markets.

Canpotex is one of the world's largest potash exporters. We're one of Canada's largest exporters to the TPP markets overseas. Our company is Canada's largest exporter to Malaysia, where we account for 27% of Canada's exports to that country. We're also Canada's largest exporter to Vietnam and New Zealand, and we're the second largest Canadian exporter to Australia.

Canpotex, on behalf of our shareholders—PotashCorp, Mosaic, and Agrium—markets and delivers approximately 10 million metric tons of Canadian potash each year to approximately 100 customers in 35 different countries.

Saskatchewan is home to the world's largest reserves of high-quality potash. Potash is the key ingredient in fertilizer for crops. It's a completely natural mineral, and there's no synthetic substitute for potash. It is used for industrial purposes such as electronics, plasma TVs, and intravenous drugs, but the vast majority of potash, between 90% and 95%, is used for agricultural purposes. As a fertilizer, potash can help a plant grow, resist drought and disease, and improve the quality of a farmer's crop. For many users of Canpotex potash, including small farmers in developing countries, potash makes food security possible by improving plant health, increasing crop yields, and achieving greater incomes from crops.

While Canpotex employs almost 120 people in Canada, of whom over 100 are here in Saskatchewan, the overseas export of potash accounts for almost 3,000 jobs in Saskatchewan.

In our 44-year history, Canpotex has successfully operated in and sold potash to all 10 of the TPP overseas markets. Potash is in the fortunate position of already being tariff free in the TPP. However, the benefits of the agreement go beyond the question of tariffs. In Canada we're used to a system of government that offers predictability, fairness, transparency, and a high standard of business integrity.

That's not always the case, however, in foreign countries. As a company that operates in 35 different countries, we adhere to Canada's high standards for business integrity in all locations. Agreements like the TPP create a level playing field so that companies like Canpotex can expect clarity and predictability in foreign markets. This way, the bar for integrity is raised for all businesses. There is also value in having a set of agreed-upon rules between countries that include consequences for non-compliance.

I'd like to touch on the key benefits that TPP offers beyond tariffs.

First, transparency provisions in the TPP ensure that the rules businesses must adhere to are easily accessible and up to date. This takes away the guesswork and the opacity involved in seeking out government regulations that could affect a foreign business.

Second, the TPP offers a dispute settlement process that may be more open and accessible to a Canadian company than going through a foreign country's court system. In Canada we have a judicial system that is rigorous and generally well understood. The TPP dispute settlement system, particularly one that's accessible to companies and investors, offers an avenue for resolving problems in a foreign country, using a rigorous, expedited, and rules-based mechanism outside a country's court system.

Third, in some countries state-owned enterprises have a significant influence in their economy. The TPP introduces a high bar to deal with state-owned enterprises competing unfairly with foreign businesses.

For those reasons, Canpotex supports the TPP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much. Thank you for doing that on time.

We're going to move over to the Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce.

Before you start, sir, we enjoyed your town last night. The only problem is that all of the restaurants are so popular around here it's hard to find a place to eat. We enjoyed the hospitality of your community. It's good to be here. It's good to be in Saskatchewan.

It's good to have you here, of course, so for five minutes, sir, you have the floor.