International Trade Committee on May 10th, 2016

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

With what's going on in elections and nominations south of the border, how do you hedge against the possibility of a new president coming in and changing NAFTA, or severely changing how you operate with that platform?

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

We don't want to speculate. I think Bombardier is politically neutral, and we can work with any government. The U.S. is a very important market and platform for us. I mentioned that we have 6,000 employees and we have suppliers in 49 states. It's a critical link to our value chain.

We've lived through many different types of governments in the U.S. and we've had success in the U.S.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We have just a few minutes left, so we'll have a question from Madame Lapointe and then we'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren for a couple of minutes and then we'll wrap it up.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The discussion is really very interesting, and I have a question for the witnesses.

If we could renegotiate part of the TPP agreement, what would you like to change in it? Ms. Labrie, no doubt you'd like to add a chapter on biofuels. Should we be able to renegotiate this agreement, what would you like to change?

Since there are no responses, I'll assume it's perfect.

[André Coutu]

There is surely one thing that Marcel Groleau mentioned this morning. It involves the reciprocity of import rules. It's a little like a hockey game: the same rules apply to both teams on the ice. At the very least, we should ensure that Canada will be vigilant about this issue. There are a lot of examples in agri-food where this is not currently the case.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I find it interesting that you mentioned reciprocity. We need to make sure we have the same standards.

[André Coutu]

People who do the same work as us must be subject to the same regulations and standards in terms of food safety and traceability. There's also the whole social side to these issues.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You raise something very important. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Madame Lapointe. Those were good questions.

We're going to go over to Mr. Van Kesteren to wrap it up.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I have just a couple of quick questions.

Mr. Pyun, you said something about the economy shifting from investment to consumption. Did I hear that right?

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

I was referring to China in particular.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Okay.

You didn't expand on that, so can you just elaborate on that quickly for the committee so they can understand that?

[Pierre Seïn Pyun]

I understand that China is not part of the TPP, but I was talking about growth in Asia overall. In the last year or two, China has shown signs that the economy is slowing down, but the growth rate is still quite impressive. Currently there's a shift taking place. It's been an export-driven economy, very investment-focused, and there are policies in place to rebalance the economy to focus more on consumption as well.

I was just stating what's happening in the Chinese economy.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr. Coutu, in your graph you talk about the exports and imports and how they're getting close. Of course, you're not including the domestic consumption in that.

What portion of the industry is domestic as opposed to export?

[André Coutu]

I am happy you asked the question.

For Quebec, exports total $18 billion. Of that amount, $7.5 billion goes to international markets, and $5.5 billion of that $7.5 billion goes to the American market. The remaining exports, if I may call it that, goes to the rest of Canada, which amounts to $11.5 billion in sales. It's extremely important, and it is leading the government to be open to pursuing exchange agreements between the provinces. Our industry depends on it, and Mrs. Cloutier can testify to that. I think that is alluded to regularly in her sector.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

That wraps up the fourth and final panel today. I want to thank the witnesses for coming here. It was a good last hour.

I'll ask the MPs not to leave the room if possible, because we're going to go right into listening to the audience in a couple of minutes.

We'll be starting with Nadia Alexan and Joanne Sherwin in a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Is everybody ready?

We're doing something different today. We are going to hear from the audience. We've heard suggestions and we're trying this out.

Right now our committee is getting responses, and we have close to 12,000 emails. Issues people have or suggestions they have are coming to us.

We're going to try to have an open mike. Right now we have a list of 20 who want to come up to the mike, and that's good. We have about 45 minutes, so we're going to keep you to two minutes each.

We're listening. Our analysts will take your brief if you have one. If you feel that you couldn't express everything in your minute and a half or two minutes, you're welcome to send us, through email, any further comments. What you're saying to us will be in the report. We have your email address and we'll be sending you out a report when we get it done at the end of the year.

This is how I'm going to do it. I'm going say, “mike number one”. As soon as mike number two is done, somebody gets on deck, following back and forth. When it's at a minute and a half, I'm just going to put this up. Then you have a half a minute to wrap up so that somebody else gets a chance.

I want to do it this way so that everybody in the room, the 20 who want to say a few words, can say them. Keep it under two minutes. I don't want to cut you off. I'm just going to put that up so we can go to the next mike.

Right now we have mike number one. This is Nadia Alexan, and then we have Joanne Sherwin. When I call Joanne's name, I will ask you to get ready on deck, and the next mike will be Louis-Joseph Couturier. That's how we'll do it.

We're going to start off with you, Nadia. You're the first one. Go ahead for two minutes.

[Nadia Alexan, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm afraid that the trans-Pacific partnership will sap whatever is left of our sovereignty. Our government is deliberately giving away our sovereignty to private companies so that they can attack our legislation and take us to secretive courts and challenge our laws and regulations such as the protection of water, the environment, our public services, our health care, our roads and bridges, and our sewer systems.

Consequently, a transnational can sue our government in secret in private courts without recourse should they consider our laws an obstacle to their profits. There are many examples, which I don't have the time to cite here, of compensation that Canada has paid because of challenges to our laws.

For years, our elites kept hammering that globalization and free trade would be a source of employment and prosperity. Upon verification, this has not happened. Canada has lost thousands of well-paid permanent jobs in the manufacturing sector, wages have stagnated, and outsourcing is spreading everywhere, resulting in precarious part-time jobs and an increase in inequalities.

Women are particularly affected by this downward trend, since they are allotted poorer part-time jobs in the service industry. To make things worse, many unemployed workers are excluded from coverage of state benefits.

These international agreements have nothing to do with the public interest. Under TPP, the cost of our medication will skyrocket, our public services will be up for grabs, and our environmental laws will be challenged. Mark my words: had these trade deals existed in the 1980s, asbestos, a cancer-causing product, would not have been banned and its producers would not have been forced to compensate victims.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Nadia.

Now we're going to move over to Joanne. I'd like to invite Louis-Joseph Couturier to mike number one, please

[Nadia Alexan]

What we need is fair trade, not free trade.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

I'm going to go by your first names, if you don't mind. It just makes it easier for me.

Go ahead, Joanne, for two minutes.

[Joanne Sherwin, As an Individual]

Thank you for being here, everyone.

My concern about the TPP is the impact it will have on access to medicines worldwide, in Canada as well as in developing countries. Canada has invested in health care for HIV/AIDS in developing countries. For those receiving treatment, AIDS has become a chronic but treatable disease. The cost of appropriate medicines has declined rapidly, thanks to competition from generic production.

Thanks, however, to the intellectual property rights, the IP provisions in the TPP, the health investments that Canada has made will be much less effective if the TPP is ratified in its present form. It will put limitations on the production of generic medicines through the questionable means of patent protection. This will be true for us Canadians as well. Joseph Stiglitz, Médecins Sans Frontières, and Bernie Sanders describe the TPP as the worst trade agreement ever.

My second point addresses the investor state dispute settlement process, the ISDS. This allows investors to sue a sovereign nation if they perceive future investments could be compromised by existing laws that are in place to protect health and the public interest. Canada has been subjected to about 35 ISDS challenges under NAFTA, with $10 billion in claims, at a cost of $215 million U.S. to date. Win or lose, in each case millions of dollars will be spent defending Canada from investors.

Who will get to pay? Well, we Canadians, of course, through our tax dollars. We will pay higher costs for our actual medicines and also get to pay the private court challenges brought on by the interested parties. This seems to be a double whammy.

Please do not ratify the TPP in its present form.

Thank you.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!