International Trade Committee on April 20th, 2016

[Catherine Gendron]

SEIU-West is comprised primarily of health care workers, and we're already seeing the sector being sorely drained. We know first-hand that it really does have an impact when people are not able to afford their medications. We know with the TPP that these extended patent rights will allow our pharmaceutical companies to maintain high prices until generics are able to get to market.

As Jennifer mentioned, evergreening is certainly an issue as well. We may see 20-year patents or 40-year patents, so the longer you're not able to get those generics, the more expensive medication becomes.

As I see it, right now one in 10 Canadians can't afford their medications. These increased costs are only going to increase that number. That's only going to increase the burden on our health care system when people are subject to having to go to emergency because they can't afford the medications they need.

I can only predict a much higher strain on our health care system with the passing of the TPP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Ramsey. You're right on time. I appreciate that.

We're going to move it over to the Liberals for five minutes, Mr. Fonseca.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all the panellists who are here before us right now, and all the panellists we've met with, for the passion they have brought to these consultations—the knowledge, the experience. The presentations have been excellent and they've been great for us.

I have to say that I'm so proud of this committee and the way we've worked together collaboratively—all parties and staff—to open this up to the public. There are a number of ways that we do that. We do that here through our committee work as we travel across the country, as well as through our website with the portal. As Mr. Van Kesteren said, many of you represent tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Canadians, through your presentations.

My first question is to Mrs. Neal.

In a letter that your organization wrote to Minister Dion, Minister Freeland, Minister Philpott, and Minister Bibeau, you expressed that if the TPP is ratified, it would be the most harmful trade agreement ever for access to medicine. Before you answer that, we've also heard from others. We had the canola people here earlier in the first panel, and we asked them to quantify how many jobs this would bring to their industry. In an industry of about 250,000 today, they said it would bring in another 22,000 good-paying jobs to that industry.

Have you quantified what this would cost in terms of health care costs, in dollars?

[Jennifer Neal]

No. That quote you gave was from the Médecins Sans Frontières. That was their quote.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

It was a different brand.

[Jennifer Neal]

Yes. We were requoting.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Oh, you were requoting. Okay.

[Jennifer Neal]

Yes. That is the truth. We don't know. I couldn't say. I don't know how many jobs. Anybody who works like they do, in countries all over the world, realizes this is the most damaging trade agreement they've ever had for access to medicine. It is the most damaging for Canada, as Catherine has been saying, but also worldwide. This is something you cannot ratify it in its present form. It is the most damaging access to medicines that we have anywhere. I can't put a figure on that, or jobs on that, but that is the truth.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

That's why we're trying to get to the numbers, because it is such a big statement: the most harmful trade agreement ever. What would that mean in terms of millions, or billions, or whatever of dollars that would—

[Jennifer Neal]

To me it's more important to look at people's lives, instead of the millions and trillions of dollars.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

How many lives?

The other thing, you know...and thank you for the work you've done in Africa. The TPP countries are not African countries. How would this TPP agreement affect Africa? I'm trying to make that correlation.

[Jennifer Neal]

Well, because most of the generic drugs at the moment come from India, and we have to thank India tremendously for that. It has lower patent laws than most other countries, so it is the one that manufactures drugs, but it relies on drugs that are not on patent. As you know, the infection rate is going down.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

India is not in the TPP.

[Jennifer Neal]

No, I know it's not, but that's where people in Africa get the drugs, and mainly across the world. That's why PEPFAR is getting the drugs from India, but it relies on things that are not on patent, so it is relying on companies all over the world to supply it with the drugs. This is a large...whatever it is, 800 million people, or 36% of the GDP. This is going to affect its ability to get generic drugs.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

This question is for Mr. Boehm and then maybe Mrs. Gendron.

With organized labour in other TPP countries, including the United States where SEIU has a big presence, and your counterparts in other countries, what have they been saying about the TPP? Have you kept up to par to as to what is happening with your counterparts in the other TPP countries?

[Terry Boehm]

Yes, we have, not in specific numbers, but certainly in terms of the opposition of affiliated groups. The National Farmers Union is part of an international worldwide group called La Via Campesina, of which we are a founding member, and it is comprised of a large number of people.

At the end of the day what we are talking about is the capacity for us to govern in our own interests, and I keep emphasizing that. Ms. Ludwig mentioned corporate social responsibility but that's voluntary. The things in this agreement are enforceable, and that is where we are particularly worried.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir. That ends the first round. We have another round, and we're going to start off again with Mr. Peterson for five minutes.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the participants for being here and for their very informative presentations.

My first question is for Mr. Boehm.

You mentioned your concern with the ISDS and the mechanism in place for any dispute resolution. My understanding of the application of ISDS and how it's been applied in other international trade agreements is that it's the foundation usually for an investor or a company to bring a grievance under the ISDS mechanism, if they are being treated in a different manner than a local domestic company would be treated, which to me sounds like a reasonable threshold to meet for them to bring an action against the state.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're position is, but you seem to be implying foreign investors can bring actions against the state just because they don't happen to like some regulation that might impede their economic progress. I don't think that's what the intention of that provision is. Maybe you can clarify for me the confusion I'm having with reconciling what I think is in the agreement and what reading you're taking of that provision.

[Terry Boehm]

What I was referencing in terms of the second part of your question was the issues around “tantamount to expropriation”. These sorts of actions can be launched if a regulation or, for example, if the offsets, which are forbidden, require local content or address a balance of payments or those kinds of things.

You are correct in saying that the “most favoured nation” status qualifications mean that you cannot favour a supplier of a good or service differently from a local supplier of a good or service. This, of course, we question because in some respects—and again I go back to the offsets, and things co-mingle here—if you disallow the ability to encourage local development and to address balance of payments issues and the fundamental economic levers of monetary policy, and then they call those actions “tantamount to expropriation”, you're required to compensate and then an action can be launched against you.

The issue is the purpose government has. I think we're blurring the lines here. For me, government is a democratic institution that is elected to represent the interests of its electorate, not international corporations.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I don't think I disagree with that. Thank you for that insight.

How many farmers do you represent? You might have said that and I missed the number. How does your membership work?

[Terry Boehm]

We generally don't disclose our membership.

I'm a former president. I'm no longer on the board, so I'm not up to date. However, we represent thousands of farmers. There's a very small number of farmers in Canada, unfortunately. We're the largest voluntary farm organization. Farmers actually have to join us. Other organizations call themselves farm organizations, but if someone sells a commodity like canola he gets included as a member. I get included in all kinds of organizations as a farmer because I grow all kinds of different crops, but they don't really represent me. They just include me in their membership.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you for that.

Ms. Gendron, how many members are in your union?

[Catherine Gendron]

At SEIU-West there's about 13,000 in Saskatchewan.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Were you able to get feedback from all of them before you made the presentation today?

Is there a consensus in your group, or is there some dissent? I'd like to get your opinion. I'm just trying to get a sense of....

[Catherine Gendron]

Our members are very strong advocates of the public health care system, and this will certainly put a strain on that. So yes, there's certainly been—