International Trade Committee on April 21st, 2016

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

What could we do to help labour going forward in any trade deal?

[Kevin Rebeck]

Keep the labour perspective involved and evolving, and offer some protections for worker rights, worker standards, and health and safety standards, so that those aren't sacrificed to profit. Then, when we deal with a dispute, the profitability of a company isn't the sole determining factor that an arbitrary body is dealing with and we look at the full perspective of what benefit they bring to the communities and countries involved in the deal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

We're going to move over to the NDP now with Ms. Ramsey for five minutes.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you to the presenters.

I think what my colleague is expressing is the difficulty of this. To answer Mr. Tingey's question, we do not have an economic impact assessment. We don't have that to guide the work we're doing here, so while we hear people sitting in front of us say that this is good for their industry or that this is is not good for other aspects of Canadians' lives, on balance we have nothing to base that on, other than a Tufts University study that tells us we'll see 58,000 jobs lost out of Canada.

That's on balance. That's taking into account the industries we'll lose and the industries we'll gain: 58,000 jobs lost and a 0.02% gain in our GDP by 2030. In today's Globe and Mail, there is an article from the C.D. Howe Institute saying essentially the same thing, that there will not be a net gain for Canada in the TPP.

Also, we aren't here to renegotiate. We can't negotiate. We have to deal with what we have.

Here's what I'd like to go back to. What I'd like to say is that the TFW program we currently have is far from ideal, but there are provisions in place to limit what is able to happen under that program. We can change it. We can fix it. If we enter into the TPP, that will not be the case. We cannot change it. We cannot go back and try to legislate. As parliamentarians, we cannot go back to our ministry of labour to try to improve the conditions that we will sign on to in the TPP. I want to note that the U.S. is not included in this annex. The U.S. opted out because they didn't want to subject their immigration policies to binding international treaties. It's an issue of sovereignty.

I'd like you to speak to that. Now we have an imbalance with the U.S., because they're not even part of this provision that will see an inflow of workers.

[Kevin Rebeck]

Yes, absolutely, the temporary foreign worker program is something we can fix. It has its flaws and problems. We absolutely are in favour of immigration. We need more people coming to Canada to work with us and get jobs, but we need them to come as permanent citizens. We lose that ability under the TPP. There are provisions in there that don't give them even the base protections that we grant temporary foreign workers, and they limit our ability to grant them those down the road, because once we enter this deal we're signed on. It will be an across-the-board immutable program that's in place, so it's a very big concern of the labour movement.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

How do you think that provision would impact Manitobans? In what sectors would you see a loss or wages driven down by that?

[Kevin Rebeck]

That's a great question. It's a big one and tough to answer, because it's open to any company to start accessing this program and bring foreign workers in without having to meet the test balances, or even do workforce development assessments on whether there are people here who could do those jobs. They don't have to do any of that under the TPP program like they do under the temporary foreign worker program.

It's a huge concern.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

I'd like to speak to Brigette, because I think what you mentioned about the bottom up is so incredibly important.

We heard earlier from a member on the panel that hundreds of people were consulted under the previous government, but there are thousands of people whose lives will be impacted by this. This didn't go to any indigenous community. This didn't go to youth. This didn't go to large sectors of our society that will be impacted in the future.

Can you speak to that?

[Brigette DePape]

That is a fantastic point. Thank you for bringing it up.

As you mentioned, there are many people who have not been consulted on this trade deal, yet it will definitely impact them.

You mentioned indigenous communities. One of the first ones that come to mind is Lelu Island and the LNG terminal being proposed there by PETRONAS.

I also think about young people across the country who really believe that change is possible. Many of them mobilized in the last federal election to see a change on issues that we care about, whether it's about public services or the environment, education, ending racism, these sorts of issues. I think all those voices are so critical and important. Another one is temporary foreign workers. Making sure that those voices are heard and taken into account when we are talking about this trade deal, and what a trade deal that was for the people would look like....

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Yes. I think when we look at our young people, it's a really big consideration for those of us on the committee, because this deal will be permanent. We won't be able to go back and change it in any way. What are we leaving our youth? If we're driving down the cost of their wages, if they're going to be faced with even more precarious and low-wage employment....

We heard earlier from the building trades that they won't be able to have the input they currently have into aboriginal youth, into other youth, around training programs. Our hands will be significantly tied, I think, going forward.

Thank you for bringing that perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Ms. Ramsey. Your time is up.

We'll move over to the Liberal side.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the panel.

Ms. DePape, I too would like to acknowledge, as you did, the indigenous first nations territory we are on.

Your group is considered a grassroots organization. Is that true?

[Brigette DePape]

Yes.

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

By consulting today with you, as you're representing the grassroots, are we listening to and consulting with the grassroots?

[Brigette DePape]

I don't represent all of the grassroots. I am just—

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

But you are some.

[Brigette DePape]

I am one of the grassroots, but I do think there are many more grassroots people to be consulted. I definitely feel that I am part of a grassroots community.

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

My question is to the Manitoba Federation of Labour. You have an extensive organization with over 100,000 people, so when we are consulting with you, are we consulting with those 100,000 Canadians or Manitobans?

[Kevin Rebeck]

There's policy that we debate. This is an area that we haven't had a lot of information on, so we do the best job we can to consult with our leadership. It's a representative democracy of course that we speak for, but these are huge concerns.

The fact that we're asking the question about that consultation now, when we're talking about a deal that ultimately is a yes-no deal.... It's not about what should be in the deal. I appreciate those questions and they're good ones. What should a deal have? This one doesn't have it. There are lots of answers to what it should have.

We have to vote no on this.

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

But do you realize that signing that deal does not mean we have ratified that deal? This is why we're having these meetings. The minister is out there. The parliamentary secretary is out there. The government's intention and this committee's intention is to reach out to as many individuals as we can. That is what we are trying to do.

My question to you also is on temporary foreign workers. I'm a big supporter of permanent immigration as well. I myself came in as a permanent immigrant 32 years ago. My concern on the other side is that when farmers come to us, they complain about not having enough short-term labour solutions. If we go to the hospitality industry, they have to meet their demands during the peak seasons as well.

How would you address the concerns of those individuals?

[Kevin Rebeck]

There are two answers to that. One is that largely our labour shortages are real shortages, and we need a better immigration stream to have families come and set roots in Canada and contribute to our society. We should do everything we can to make that as much of a reality for people who want to come to our country as possible.

Two, you're right, there are some areas where it really is a temporary fix that is needed for a short period of time. That's why we have a program like the temporary foreign worker program. We should work with that. We should fix it and have the ability and the flexibility to make adjustments if we know we didn't get it quite right.

If we enter the TPP deal, there is a new mechanism for workers to come to our country that we don't get to tinker with, that we don't get to say we didn't get it quite right and we need to make some adjustments. In fact, under the existing TPP, they get no kinds of rights. Nothing has been negotiated for what those standards should be, and that's a real problem.

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

When it comes to public safety and health, isn't it governed by the provincial bodies?

In B.C., we have WorkSafeBC. Wouldn't those standards apply to those workers who will come here to work?

[Kevin Rebeck]

That's an excellent question. I should hope so, but I think sometimes health and safety labour standards are seen as impediments to trade or not being able to be competitive with other regions. Then it starts becoming a discussion at the federal table, “Well, does that get covered by provincial legislation or not?” I've not seen anything in TPP that says those workers will be given employment standards as reflected in health and safety standards in the provinces. That is something that needs some clarity for sure.

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

We listened to a lot of organizations, including those for pulses, canola, beef, and pork. They're all going to create jobs and opportunities. Would it create opportunities for indigenous young people in the rural areas as well? What is your take on that?

[Kevin Rebeck]

I think the potential is there. We have, particularly in Manitoba, many indigenous people who need employment. The TPP allows them to go without checking to see whether there is a labour market, whether there is unemployment, whether there are people here in Canada who could do that work. It says that if you want to bring in foreign workers, you can go right ahead and do it, and it protects it in a trade deal, which is again a huge concern.

We should have the ability, in provincial governments and federal governments, to give some priority to creating training and development programs and supports for our indigenous population.