Evidence of meeting #15 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tpp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
That's the same in NAFTA and other agreements that we've had in place.
9:10 a.m.
Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual
No, the ISDS in NAFTA stays in Canada. Under TPP, it goes to the plaintiff country, which is invariably the U.S.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
You still have that option of [Inaudible—Editor] as a country, to use either NAFTA or TPP.
9:10 a.m.
Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual
I guarantee you there will never be another Canadian tech company like RIM under the framework of TPP.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
We have to move on. Time is up for the Conservatives for that round. We're going to go to the Liberals, Mr. Dhaliwal, for five minutes.
I'd like remind all members to try not to get into a big dialogue in the last five seconds, because it's very difficult for me to shut you down.
Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Thank you, Professor Geist and Mr. Balsillie. I'm very proud of the work that both of you do. I'm going to carry on with Mr. Hoback's conversation. You stated that Canadians create world-class innovations, but we fail to commercialize them.
Could you sum up, so ordinary Canadians can understand, how the TPP will negatively affect innovation, when it comes to commercialization?
9:10 a.m.
Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual
Number one, innovating a company is about managing the principle called freedom to operate. That's the core management construct. It's managing the rules, the regulations, the IP, the standards, and all the agreements and treaties that make you stronger or weaker. These things create the environment that you participate in. We don't have those strategies, and every other country does that in collaboration with their innovators. We keep the two separate, when it has to be an incredibly active, ongoing, daily dialogue. We don't get the first principle right, and TPP is written in a way that the other countries get strong, but there's nothing in TPP that is specifically advancing any Canadian companies.
Number two, the nature of the ISDS provision means that in the structure of this agreement ownership of technologies is decided in the United States through their district court systems, enforced in Canada through the TPP obligations. If corporate interests abroad, principally in the U.S., are not happy, they pull us back into the U.S., in a panel that's not governed by Canada anymore. What do we have to do about it? It's a seismic loss of autonomy and authority.
When you say it gives us certainty, it gives us certainty that we will never be strong, that we will never be supported, that we'll never have sovereignty. The best thing for a Canadian innovator to do under TPP is to move to the United States.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Is there a way that we can improve the TPP agreement so our innovators succeed and they don't have to move south?
9:10 a.m.
Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual
Yes, through some strategic amendments to the deal, and not take it as an up-or-down deal. There will never be a large Canadian tech company again under TPP.
9:10 a.m.
Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual
Take on the CETA ISDS provisions, make substantial modifications to the IP and transparency provisions and e-commerce.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Thank you.
Professor Geist, you mentioned Uber. It's been a pretty hot topic where I come from in British Columbia.
Could you expand on how the TPP will decide what happens with Uber and how it would negatively affect our taxi industry and consumers?
9:10 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
There's this notion that somehow the TPP and NAFTA are all the same. They are dramatically different. Certainly in a scope perspective, TPP addresses a far broader range of issues than NAFTA does.
Even beyond that, its approach on services is quite different from some of our traditional trade agreements. Many trade agreements look at services, and you identify specific service areas and say that you'd like to liberalize or open those up. TPP flips that on its head by saying we going to open everything and then we're going to seek to identify certain things that we ought to exclude.
As smart as the negotiators may have been, they were not possibly going to be able to identify every kind of service that we might say ought to be excluded from the process, especially when we see newer ones emerging. In the context of ride-sharing services like Uber, we have rules in place that effectively lock in the rules as they stand now, either at a municipal level, so it's exempted as of now but not for the future, or similarly at a provincial level.
B.C. actually has ride-sharing legislation at a provincial level, which is unusual within the country. Usually, it's just at the municipal level. It's actually shared both provincially and municipally. Once the TPP is in place, it will become more difficult for those legislatures to change their existing rules and frameworks.
That applies for Uber, but even more fundamentally—and this speaks to Mr. Balsillie's concerns about innovation—as new innovators come into the space in other areas, we start thinking about rules that are already locked into place due to the TPP.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal. Your time is up.
We're going to move over to the NDP for five minutes, Ms. Ramsey.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you so much for your presentations.
It's been highlighted to this committee many times that this deal is about far more than just trade in the traditional way that we think about it. I think it's clear that only certain groups were included in the consultations that took place under the previous government.
I have to respectfully disagree with my colleague, because this deal began in 2008. There was more than enough time prepare for it before we found ourselves in a position that we are now signed on, and it's yes or no at our current juncture.
Mr. Balsillie, I appreciate that you would indeed make money under the TPP, but you recognize that it's so inherently flawed that it would be bad for Canadians and for our sovereignty.
I wonder if you can speak specifically to the reference you made to the study by Dan Ciuriak from the C.D. Howe Institute basically about the GDP impact...not ratifying the TPP would be negligible. I think there is an idea out there that if we don't sign, we're going to lose.
Global Affairs has no economic impact study. We know that. The studies we've see from Tufts University and out of the Peterson Institute in the States show .2% and 0% growth by 2030. There's no economic modelling that supports us signing on to the TPP.
I wonder if you can speak to that.
9:15 a.m.
Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual
I have a very sophisticated set of networks, globally and domestically, and very smart people in my office who support me in what I do. I have six Nobel Prize winners whom I work with in the Institute for New Economic Thinking that I founded with George Soros.
Canada has the most superficial innovation discourse that I've seen in the world. We take these articles of faith that more intellectual property enforcement is good. Free trade is always good. We have these false myths and orthodoxies that we just take on, unchallenged.
To answer Dan Ciuriak, quite frankly, the benefits of trade under TPP—modelled, peer-reviewed, nobody has challenged—are a rounding error. The costs of being out of TPP are a rounding error.
He also says, and you have it in the notes I put here, that the two most important things aren't even modelled. It's like buying a house or buying a business or entering into a marriage with absolutely no facts whatsoever about what you're getting into, because houses are good and businesses are good and marriages are good. No, they're not good any way, any time, any how. It's a function of understanding what somebody is looking for and making sure that it works.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you.
Professor Geist, I wonder if you can expand on this for us. You have the article that was referenced, “Canadian Officials Admit TPP IP Policy Runs Counter To Preferred National Strategy”.
Can you please speak to us about that and maybe inform the committee a little on what you found?
9:15 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Sure. The reference to the document, and Mr. Balsillie referenced it as well, is found in documents obtained under access to information from the briefing notes that were provided to Minister Freeland.
What is speaks to is that Canada, I think, has long recognized—and it is still the case today—that we are most effective when developing rules around digital policies and intellectual property policies in international fora. We make significant contributions. We did, for example, on the Marrakesh treaty, and we've just seen a bill tabled to try to implement that, and the Conservatives tried to do the same. Canada played an integral role at the World Intellectual Property Organization, where it worked with other countries in multilateral open fora.
In a TPP environment it's a completely different environment, and especially when you're negotiating in large measure on some of these issues directly with the United States. They're not shy about making demands that are in their national interest, and we've already heard from Mr. Balsillie about why that is. As a major exporter, whether it's Hollywood interests or some of the other IP or pharma interests, those don't align necessarily with ours.
What I think the minister was being advised, and what I believe is well known within the government, and frankly, well known by most experts, is that obtaining a made-in-Canada solution, or at least a solution that best reflects our national interests, happens in international fora. That's not what happens in the TPP, particularly in a closed-door negotiation of this kind.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Can you speak briefly to the patent extension and how you feel that would impact pharmaceuticals and our ability to have a national pharmacare program?
9:20 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law and Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Simply on the issue of extending the terms of protection that are possible through this agreement as well as CETA, we see it in the European agreement, and we see it locked in effectively within the TPP. I don't think anybody debates the fact that this will lead to an increase in costs of pharmaceuticals. Indeed, I believe the health minister and officials from that department have acknowledged that indeed that's in fact the case.
Rather remarkably the transparency chapter, of all places, includes rules dealing with pharmacare programs. Why you would have an agreement that towards the very end—chapter 26 on transparency—sets out rules for pharmacare programs? It's not clear why it's there. It recognizes that Canada doesn't have that yet, but what it does is lock us into certain rules were we ever to pursue that. Why we would agree at this point in time to programs that may be of import that we haven't even developed yet and say that we're going to allow someone else to establish those rules boggles the mind, quite frankly.
9:20 a.m.
Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual
If I may just support that one very—
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
I'm sorry, but you might have a chance to jump in later.
We have to move over to the Liberals and Mr. Peterson for five minutes.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, gentlemen, both for being here today and I personally found the presentations informative and I do appreciate your time and effort in that regard.
I have a couple of quick questions, Mr. Balsillie.
I do tend to agree with you that we wouldn't purchase a house or go into any business relationship without an economic analysis that considers all the factors. I'm not so sure I agree that doing an economic analysis before entering into a marriage is necessary, but to each their own on that front. But you assert that IP and ISDS weren't necessarily factored into the analysis.
How would that analysis take place? Have you done any analysis that does factor those in, and what were the results of any of the assessments you may have done?
9:20 a.m.
Former Co-Chief Executive Officer of Research in Motion and Co-Founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, As an Individual
No, I haven't done an analysis and it's not my job to do the analysis. It's our government's job to do the analysis.