International Trade Committee on April 21st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you. You have one minute.

[Douglas Tingey]

I believe you have a copy of the statement, so I'll skip to the most important part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

That's fine.

[Douglas Tingey]

Canada is now faced with a “take it or leave it” decision, ratify or not. We favour rejection of the TPP for various substantive reasons, which Brigette mentioned. We do not believe or know—and this is important—that the TPP is in the best interests of Canadians.

There are also process reasons to reject the TPP, including the manner in which Canadians participated in the negotiations—many did not—the degree of secrecy, and what we view as unbalanced consultation during the negotiation process.

What we would like to emphasize with you, though, are some of the questions that, if we were sitting where you are, we would be asking. For example, how many impact assessments has this committee had access to, and on what topics? Where are all the reports and assessments done by policy specialists from within the government in trade, health, intellectual property, environment, climate change provisions, etc., that are on the opposing side, the con side? When you look at the websites, it is not possible to see any of them.

I am out of time. You are scowling at me...not quite.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

No, no, I am definitely not. It's just that everybody wants to get their time in. We are going to have to cut it off there. You might be able to interject some of your comments when people are asking questions.

[Douglas Tingey]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We are going to move on to the Manitoba Federation of Labour for five minutes. Go ahead.

[Kevin Rebeck, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the TPP. I'm Kevin Rebeck, president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, and we represent over 100,000 unionized workers throughout different sectors here in Manitoba.

We have a number of concerns with the TPP deal that the Harper government negotiated on Canada's behalf.

Corporations get more power to sue countries. Investor-state dispute settlement is a provision in many trade agreements that allows massive corporations to directly sue democratically elected governments in an unaccountable system separate from national courts in order to expand their profits. For example, Canada is currently being sued by a drug company, Eli Lilly, for $500 million after our courts refused to extend patents on several of its drugs.

Another concern we have is labour mobility. Chapter 12 of the TPP lays out the labour mobility provisions in a way that undermines the interests of Canadian workers. This provision takes the worst aspects of the temporary foreign worker program and strengthens them. The agreement prohibits Canada from imposing any limit on the number of foreign workers entitled to enter the country as long as they fall under one of the broadly defined categories of workers that Canada has agreed to admit. Canada is further prohibited from administering a labour certification test before the worker can be given a work permit.

This agreement allows both domestic and foreign companies to bring foreign workers to Canada to take jobs that Canadians are ready, willing, and able to fill. These workers will not be immigrants. They will have no path to citizenship. They won't fall under the existing temporary foreign worker program. Under the existing temporary foreign worker program, employers have to pay those workers the same wages as Canadians' wages and train and certify up to Canadian standards. The TPP will not give even these modest protections to exploitable foreign workers.

We're concerned as well about Canadian job loss.

The TPP puts at risk a number of existing jobs in Canada. A study by Unifor found that the TPP could lead to the loss of 20,000 jobs in the Canadian auto sector by eliminating incentives to manufacture vehicles in Canada and increasing incentives for companies to source auto parts from low-wage countries.

The TPP will give foreign dairy producers an even bigger share of our dairy market, such that 250 million litres of milk and the production jobs that come with that are at risk. While dairy farmer owners—but not workers—have been promised a 15-year compensation package, it's clear that the TPP will hasten the decline of Canada's dairy industry.

We're concerned also with higher prescription drug costs. Canada already has the second-highest per capita drug costs in the world. The TPP gives even more monopoly patent protection to drug companies than they currently have, meaning that it will take longer for Canadians to access cheaper generic versions of the drugs. The TPP's concessions to drug companies could see Canadians paying over $800 million annually in increased drug costs.

The TPP locks Canada into its current level of privatization and commercialization, effectively preventing any future innovation that involves expansion of comprehensive public services, such as a universal national pharmacare program. The extension of drug patents also restricts the availability of generic drugs in developing countries.

As well, on the environment, the TPP will make it harder for governments to set strong environmental targets such as better air and water quality. According to the Canadian Labour Congress, close to 40% of legal challenges under NAFTA have involved corporations challenging government environmental policies, such as banning gasoline additives and PCBs or enforcing water protections. By virtue of the TPP preventing governments from attaching conditions to procurement contracts to foster local economic development and ensure environmental standards, governments will also be restricted from taking needed action on climate change and transitioning to a lower-carbon economy. For example, governments will have less flexibility to encourage the development of local green energy sectors to replace fossil fuel imports.

Finally, the TPP grows inequality. Trade agreement advocates continue to assure us that workers' rights and living standards will be strengthened by trade deals, but the global economy, business growth, and profits cannot be the only considerations when countries enter trade deals. Across the globe, as large corporate profits soar, they do so at the expense of citizens, workers, and consumers. Work has become more precarious, income inequalities have grown, climate change continues to get worse, and labour rights have been eroded.

Say no to the TPP. The merits of Canada joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership have not been demonstrated. The previous government undertook no economic or environmental impact analysis, and no convincing case has been made for participation in the TPP.

The labour movement is not opposed to trade. We understand that we need to compete with other markets and attract investment in Canadian businesses. The question is, at what cost?

How much more should Canada sacrifice as we enter these deals, and what are we truly to gain?

Our new government was elected to do a better job than Harper's secretive government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

I'd like to thank the panel for their submissions.

We're going to start with questioning, five minutes for each MP, and if we can get every MP done, we'd be doing good.

We're going to start off with the Conservatives.

Mr. Maguire, you have five minutes.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the panellists for your presentations, all of you.

My dad had a saying. I came from a farm background, and he said if you look after the land, it'll look after you. I go beyond that. I don't think that's good enough anymore, because consumers are demanding good products, good-quality products, and the best products. I have always stated, and stated earlier today, that we have the healthiest food in the world, and I believe we do.

There's a big expanse here in the types of countries we're dealing with across the trade agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership are more developed countries, but some of them aren't as developed as others. I would say, and I think it's pretty much agreed from some of your presentations this morning, that we have some of the best labour standards and some of the best quality in the world. If we're number one, somebody has to be number 12 in the 12-party agreement. Can you tell me whether you think it's a good thing that we are number one?

I hear the concern about the types of jobs and types of workers. I've always felt we're better off to have more processing and to have more jobs. Overall, we have to make sure that they're quality and that the people are looked after, but we're better off. I think we can all agree that if there's more processing, there are more jobs, and it creates a better standard of living for Canadians. Can we help bring that up with the other 11 countries, and that includes our neighbours to the south?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Does your question go to anyone in particular?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

All the panellists, all three.

[Kevin Rebeck]

Yes, absolutely. I think that's our responsibility in these trade agreements, to be raising the bar. Our challenge and concern is that's not what this protects. It doesn't protect keeping those standards. In fact, it puts them at risk.

Worse, if we negotiate on some of those and aren't keeping it up, then we're locked in at those lower levels continually. Every time we give something up, now it's part of an international deal that we're locked in on. It doesn't make for good jobs in Canada. It transfers jobs out and it takes advantage of workers.

Sure it might do well for those making their profits, but it doesn't do good for the citizens of any other countries.

[Brigette DePape]

I think it's a really great point your dad made, that if you look after the land it will look after you. I really agree with that. I've heard that as well from indigenous elders.

In this instance, I think this would take us further away from protecting the land. Take the example of a pipeline that spills. That would harm the land and the people. With the ISDS provisions, it would actually make it harder to protect the land. It would make it easier for corporate investors to get away with that.

In terms of our living standards, for people all over the globe, I am very concerned about temporary foreign workers and laxing regulations for that, for living standards, for those families, for mothers and fathers, for people who are farmers here, for auto workers here. I think this takes us in the wrong direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Do you want any more comments on that question, Mr. Maguire, or do you want to move on?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I'd just like to add that I think we always assume that there are provisions there for corporations suing or whatever. I'll go back to my experience in the wheat trade, when I was on the Wheat Board advisory committee. Our American neighbours sued us nine times over durum and we won every case. We cannot just assume that we will lose because somebody's challenging something. Because of our standards, and the quality of our products, and the care we've taken in our industry for our workers, I think we will win those cases in many circumstances.

I still have to ask, though, as I think we're better off to have more jobs, if you think we should promote more trade. We just heard this morning from the pork producers that they have 13,000 jobs in Manitoba alone, many of them unionized jobs, and if we don't have these kinds of trade agreements, they believe they will have to lay people off.

Can you just expand on that? I know exactly that there are two sides to every coin, but the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You're going to have to give them some time to answer. There's only half a minute left.

[Douglas Tingey]

Because of all the time that I spent in southeast Asia—Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei—I would be very surprised if this agreement is going to have a material impact on the ways that they regulate themselves and do business in a way that enhances Canada's ability to export or invest there.

Very quickly on the last point, the Canadian government has a very poor track record when it comes to promoting Canadians investing abroad. We do a very good job at promoting trade but not supporting investors. This really isn't going to get at one of the root problems of this process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We're going to move over to the Liberal side.

Mr. Peterson, you're up for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, panellists, for being here. This panel again is an example of the choice this committee has to make, and the different perspectives we're trying to weigh and analyze to come up with some report to Parliament.

I understand everyone is passionate in their positions and obviously believes the veracity and credibility of them. On one hand, we have Mr. Burns here, and other members that have appeared before the committee, saying how important this would be for job creation in Canada, how important it would be for our economy, and how important it would be for certain sectors. Then, on the other hand, we have Brigette, Kevin, Doug, and Anna here, saying this would not be good for Canada for the reasons you've eloquently explained. It is a dilemma we have.

I don't want people to think it's just big corporations against Canadians, because it isn't. We've heard from small family farms that think this would be a good deal. In my riding, I've heard from small and medium-sized enterprises and family-run businesses that want to be able to ship their goods and ship their products into new markets. It's a big choice we have to make, but I want to make sure we characterize it as the choice it really is. It's a choice between competing interests. All the interests on all sides are equally valid, so we have to make sure not to mischaracterize what that dichotomy is. I want to make sure we're all aware of that, because it's a big trade deal. There's a lot in it, and it affects, I think, every Canadian. I'm glad you guys are here to add your input and your insight into that.

I have a couple of questions. Mr. Burns, you indicated that you think these new markets would be beneficial to what it is that you do. Can you explain to me what sort of barriers are there today, why you can't access those markets now, and why this deal is necessary for you to be able to do that?

[Todd Burns]

Yes.

In some cases there's the protection element in certain economies where a significant percentage of duty would be placed on every dollar of the cost of our product to import, and it makes it nearly impossible for us to compete with local companies. In those cases, it's purely a dollar and cents thing. We can demonstrate our value proposition, we can market ourselves, we can promote our brand and our image, but at the end of the day if we're not affordable, it's never going to fly.

I certainly appreciated hearing the statements by all the other witnesses today, but you certainly made a point in that you're never going to find a win-win situation for everyone. In areas where some industries may hurt, companies like mine and other exporters can certainly pick up the slack. We'll be growing our organizations as we continue to grow our businesses and then create those jobs that may be missing from other sectors.

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

Thank you for that.

Brigette, I'll maybe ask you this.

With this deal, we're in a situation where it is a yea or nay right now. Let's just say hypothetically that we were able to start over, what sort of terms, conditions, would you like to see in an ideal trade deal to make sure it can support as many Canadian perspectives and benefit as many Canadians as possible?

[Brigette DePape]

That's a fantastic question.

I think it's really exciting to think about what this could look like. It would involve consultations. It would involve the public coming up with solutions that work for their local communities.

It would be very much a bottom-up approach. We could envision town halls across the country about what would work for communities. Especially in the context of climate change, it could be how we could transition away from fossil fuels in those communities, and really thinking about the next generations.

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

Thank you for that.

Kevin and Anna, on the labour front, I don't think anyone on this committee wants to see Canadian job losses in any sector. I think one of our most important roles as parliamentarians is to help do whatever we can to make sure there are family-sustaining jobs for as many Canadians as possible. I think we're all in agreement on that. In an ideal trade agreement, you said that you're not against trade and that these provisions aren't necessarily, in your opinion, beneficial to the labour market.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Peterson, you only have 15 seconds left.