Evidence of meeting #16 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.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you very much.
Could Adrien Weise now go to microphone two?
Right now we have Louis-Joseph Couturier.
Go ahead, sir, for two minutes.
2:10 p.m.
Louis-Joseph Couturier As an Individual
The first thing I'll say is hi, and thank you for inviting me.
I'm going to talk today about chapter 9, entitled “Investment”.
Chapter 9 has some very interesting stuff in it coming from NAFTA, mostly the interpretive notes about what constitutes international minimum standards. It also talks about corporate social responsibility, which is good, but in the same sense, we're not getting rid of the whole structure of the ISDS, which is a problem.
What I'm going to say right now is that if we want an ISDS, it needs to be at the same level as the legal system of Canada. That means we need an appellate mechanism. We need a permanent court. We need independence of the arbiters, which we have in our system. If we want ISDS, it has to be as legitimate as Canada's legal system.
As an example, for another agreement that we did, CETA, Europe has a permanent court. It has an appellate mechanism, and it also ensures that arbiters' independence is respected. I think the way we should go is more toward the CETA model, toward a system that is as good as our national system in Canada, which we don't have right now.
I think Canada should take the same position as Australia and ask that we not be bound by chapter 9 of the TPP. It is the very matter of the systematic problem of frivolous claims in the system: 87% of the claims were for indirect expropriation. We're talking about regulation from the government. What is really at stake, what is in the legislation, is regulation. That needs to be judged by a public system of law that is as legitimate as any legal system in the western world.
Thank you.
2:10 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, sir.
Could Fernand Deschamps come to microphone two?
Adrien, you have two minutes. Go ahead, sir.
2:10 p.m.
Adrien Welsh As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the committee for giving me a few minutes to speak.
What has been presented at length this morning and afternoon is not a trade treaty. In fact, in the 6,000 plus pages of the TPP document, only three chapters deal with trade. This is a true custom-made constitution for transnationals. It's a real predatory pact.
Negotiated and signed on the sly behind the backs of Canadians and Quebeckers, only a minority of the population knows what it contains. However, those who do know are strongly opposed to it and are very worried about this document. The Communist Party of Quebec, which is a section of the Communist Party of Canada, shares these concerns.
Regarding employment already strained by other treaties like this, we are concerned about the loss of some 58,000 jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, which will be caused by this treaty. We are concerned about the impact of this pact on food safety because it will allow the full use of the Monsanto-developed bovine growth hormone, or BGH. We are indignant about this treaty, which paves the way to full privatization of public services, including education and health in particular, and its impact on the young and on workers.
We are concerned about the impact of this treaty on drug costs, destined to increase because of the increased duration of pharmaceutical patents. We are indignant about the clause allowing companies to sue sovereign states if they threaten their profits and their potential. This treaty is a true obstacle to the sovereignty of the people and to the rights of people to self-determination. It will have a particular impact on indigenous peoples who have been victims of political genocide for over 500 years. We are concerned about the increased rights of companies, particularly oil companies, which will have carte blanche and can therefore continue to pollute freely under the preceding clause.
Lastly, we refuse to take part in this predatory pact that the U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter says is as important as an aircraft carrier and is participating fully in the policy of “rebalance to Asia”, a true threat to peace in the region.
Instead of a trade policy based on the greed of companies that pits people against each other, we recommend a policy based on international solidarity, sustainable development and the right of people to self-determination.
Thank you.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, sir.
I would ask Michael Fish to go to mike number two and Ronald Ross to mike number one.
I know it's very hard to say everything you want to in two minutes, but keep in mind we have translators trying to translate. It's a very difficult thing.
We're going to go to Michael Fish for two minutes.
May 10th, 2016 / 2:10 p.m.
Michael Fish As an Individual
Thank you, sir.
I endorse several of the points that the people before me have made and undoubtedly will endorse what people following me will say in the same sense, particularly on the makeup of the dispute settlement mechanisms. Having three businessmen decide the rights of a whole indigenous people in a watershed, for example, doesn't make sense.
Life's not like that. There are scientists and humanists who should also be involved in such things, and maybe a special court is warranted to take care of these things. It's an asymmetrical agreement. You basically have very rich countries, and particularly the United States, on one side, and then there's everybody else.
Canada, it seems to me, has a chance to be a conscience amongst the people who are balanced against the Americans, who basically with this particular treaty are just as anxious to isolate China and Russia as they are to advantage their own large corporations, which will be the principal beneficiaries. I'm not against Canadian companies like Bombardier extending their capacity to do work around the world.
I'll just leave it at that and I'll send you my short paper in due course.
2:10 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you very much, sir. Thank you for coming today.
Could Tom Boushel go to mike number two?
We will now have Ronald Ross, for two minutes. Go ahea, sir.
2:15 p.m.
Ronald Ross As an Individual
Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me address the hearing.
I would also like to speak about what I and the others believe is a one-sided legal and governance framework stipulated by this agreement, namely the ISDS.
Large corporations have shown a willingness to bring countries to court for taking steps to protect their populations from such well-known, long-since-proven dangers as tobacco use or to curb damage done to the environment by mining, the use of certain pesticides, and so on.
Thailand, Australia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, and countries of the European Union have all been brought to court. Canada has been brought to court numerous times, namely when a moratorium was established on fracking in Quebec. Just recently a French corporation brought the Egyptian government to court for having raised their minimum wage.
I'm asking what guarantees we have that the additional leverage this trade deal gives corporations through the investor state dispute settlement will allow us to take measures to protect ourselves. What does it mean to our national sovereignty that we even have to ask whether the treaty will allow us to collectively take measures through our governments? Will our governments even be sovereign, or will they be merely managers of jurisdictions working within the guidelines of the largest corporations on the planet?
I'm not against development. I enjoy the benefits. I'm not against facilitating trade. However, this trade deal is entirely focused on protecting the profits and intellectual property of the very largest corporations, and it does not give a fraction as much protection to citizens' well-being, to their health, and to their living standards.
Thank you.
2:15 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Tom Boushel As an Individual
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
I will cut it short because some of my points have been brought up by other people and I don't think I need to repeat them.
I would like to state that free and fair trade can only occur between countries with shared values. The countries involved need to share the following: ecosystems with similar human rights; workers' rights and freedoms, including the right to organize unions; fair and equitable wages for all workers; contract laws that have easily enforced provisions that can be equitably settled in a fair court system; and finally, child labour laws. Right now many of these countries have child labour laws that are not enforced and are pandemic in many regions of their countries, even if they have laws on their books.
Many of the countries in the TPP do not meet these standards, and as such, I'm suggesting that we cannot support this agreement in its current form.
Number two, the U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner and its most important trading partner. The U.S. Congress has stated that it will not pass the TPP, and both presidential nominees—Donald Trump and, it's assumed, Hillary Clinton—have stated that they will not sign the current TPP agreement. That said, if Canada were to sign the TPP agreement and the United States did not sign the TPP agreement, it would put us at a distinct disadvantage vis-à-vis our major trading partner in that many of the other countries in the TPP, if we were part of the TPP, could then come in and undercut our major trading partner with our Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.
Thank you very much.
2:15 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, sir.
Could John Arrayet come to mike number two?
Lyna, you're up. Go ahead.
2:20 p.m.
Lyna Boushel As an Individual
As a Canadian taxpayer, I do not support this deal. Corporations are the winners, and we, as consumers and taxpayers, will be the losers.
Multinationals have the right to sue the Canadian government under NAFTA, but the TPP goes further in this respect. A polluter should pay if a corporation damages the environment. If the Canadian government passes a regulation that restricts a corporation's ability to pollute or they do something that affects climate change, our government could be sued and could end up paying billions of dollars. As a taxpayer, I totally disagree with their right to sue.
Multinationals could use this as a threat to prevent raising minimum wages and to not accept changes in regulations to lending practices, if they go in on the financial side of business as a lender. Those may not be part of their business practices, contrary to our banking laws.
We have strong health and environmental regulations and we are trying to make them even better. Our government could be prevented from doing more to strengthen these regulations, and we would pay the price. Most of our hospitals are public hospitals, with some newer ones based on private-public partnerships. Should they start building private hospitals, which would go against our Health Act, where would that leave our Health Act and what would be our government's position?
This is almost like coming in through the back door to operate their business and complaining that our regulations prevent them from conducting their business for profit, as they would in their country, and suing us for the losses and costs of doing business. Almost anything that affects their future profits leaves our government open to being sued, with taxpayers paying the bill.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
2:20 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Lyna.
Can Nicole Gombay come to mike number one?
Go ahead, John.
2:20 p.m.
John Arrayet As an Individual
I'd like to ask the negotiators if they live in Canada or on this planet, because they're going to have to breathe the air they pollute.
My sister used to live in Alberta at Miquelon Lake, right next to a nature reserve. She had to drive 20 minutes to get her water in 20-gallon jugs. Thirteen of her dogs died of cancer. She eventually moved to Saskatchewan. Alberta will not release its cancer figures to any other government, let alone private people who want that kind of information. Just think of the soup that is there.
I spoke to Philippe Couillard, who worked briefly for SECOR Conseil, where I was a translator. I made some of these points to him. There was the Plan Nord. Part of it was development generally across Quebec, and gas development in the St. Lawrence valley, where there are often thermal inversions. The gas from shale is very dry and has none of the extra—let's say—oils and higher volatiles that bring in extra money. It was pretty much a stripped gas, very dry, and not very profitable. The way it was arranged, most of the profits would go elsewhere, but the pollution would stay here. Just the fracking we felt from Contrecoeur slammed our building in Montreal a few months ago.
If, through this agreement, we allow other corporations to come here and pollute here, we're going to have to breathe that pollution. Just as we're still cleaning up nuclear waste from 60 years ago in the north from the NORAD agreement, we'll still be cleaning up the lake in B.C. The gold mine makes as much money as tourism, but the gold mine can kill tourism. Tourism will never kill the gold mine.
Think of all these consequences you're going to have to live with. The other thing is that the taxpayer is on the hook for everything.
2:20 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, John.
Can Leo Diconca come to mike number two?
Nicole, you're up for two minutes. Go ahead.
2:25 p.m.
Nicole Gombay As an Individual
Hi. I want to raise an issue that I haven't come across being talked about very much in the discussions about the TPP. It is about our relations with indigenous peoples and the impact of the TPP on the indigenous peoples of Canada.
Canada is a treaty nation. Our political and legal legitimacy rests upon the fact that we have signed treaties with the indigenous peoples of this country, starting with the Royal Proclamation. Section 25 of the Constitution recognizes the treaty rights of indigenous peoples, not only now but in the future. Treaties are very important for Canada's existence as a country. The TPP really challenges a bunch of things. I would also say that Canada is in the process of trying to really think about its relations with indigenous peoples.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, respect for which our government right now is talking about, is part of that, along with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The country is trying to think about how to form and renegotiate healthier relations with indigenous peoples, and the TPP really challenges that in many ways, I would say.
Chapter 20, on the environment, is a big problem. It certainly runs the risk of leading our government to have its hands tied in responding to the environmental complaints of indigenous peoples in terms of the use of resources on their territories.
The ISDS is also a problem. In fact, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples earlier this year talked about the fact that ISDS poses a problem for indigenous peoples.
2:25 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you very much, Nicole.
Could Judith Shapiro come to mike number one?
Next, we have Leo for two minutes.
2:25 p.m.
Leo Diconca As an Individual
Good afternoon.
It is remarkably telling that, when asked, corporations have absolutely no objection to the present form of the TPP—of course not. It was drafted for the corporations, not with the public in mind. In fact, the current CEO of the corporate world in the White House, President Obama, during five and a half years, allowed corporations to enter the negotiations, which were carried out completely secretly, while the public was kept on the side.
The TPP is only the first phase of what is nothing short of a corporate world takeover. The TTIP and TISA are part of that idea.
Coincidentally, China, Brazil, India, and Russia are not included in any of these trade deals.
The ISDS is not a problem; it is nothing short of criminal. The ISDS is not a court; it is not a legitimate court. It is run not by judges but by lawyers. Decisions are final.
To finish—although I would like to add a few things—the last act of Canadian political bravery was when Jean Chrétien said no to the American war in Iraq. I wish the present government would say no to the TPP and take this to a referendum. Canadians are not opposed to trade; we are opposed to trading decency for profits.
Thank you.