International Trade Committee on May 10th, 2016

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Leo.

Could Keith Race come to mike number two?

Judith, go ahead, for two minutes.

[Judith Shapiro, As an Individual]

I'm going to submit my statement. I just want to make two points.

First, Bombardier was here. Bombardier received a $1 billion U.S. investment this fall from the provincial government to rescue the C Series because our provincial government decided it was important to do that.

As you know, under NAFTA, chapter 11, right now Resolute Forest Products, which was formerly AbitibiBowater, is suing Nova Scotia for unfair advantage to a domestic corporation because they are giving a seven-year, $125 million loan to restart a paper mill in Port Hawkesbury that supports 1,400 local jobs. The revenue represents 2.5% of the provincial GDP.

Now, Bombardier talked about its potential competitors. Basically, the ISDS provisions are pretty much the big problem for everyone you're seeing in the room today. This is not really a trade deal, but these provisions would allow any competitor to sue my government here in Quebec for having chosen to invest in Bombardier.

It's a very concrete example that's relevant to what was discussed today about why we are so concerned as citizens. This agreement will hamstring you as well as my municipal and provincially elected representatives from acting in the public interest.

We have already seen under NAFTA that we have been sued in Canada for bans on the sale of toxic substances for health reasons, for refusal to issue operating permits on environmental grounds, and for acting to encourage local research and development and job creation efforts.

We all understand trade. We understand the old version of comparative advantage and tariffs and trade barriers and the need to negotiate international agreements. There's very little in this agreement that actually addresses these issues about trade that we all care about.

As it stands, I ask you to reject this deal. You're basically going to lock your hands.

Thank you.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Judith.

I would ask Sydney Bhalla to come to mike number one.

Go ahead, Keith, for two minutes.

[Keith Race, As an Individual]

I have a question for our Liberal MPs. How does the government plan—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I'm sorry. You can ask a question and we'll get back to you, but there's no back-and-forth with us. We're here to listen to you guys, and that's it. We're going to take it into the report and we can get back to you, just to let you know.

[Keith Race]

I will pose the question anyway.

How does the government plan to offset job losses in domestic-oriented, labour-intensive production caused by the preferential treatment that TPP gives to capital-intensive, export-oriented industries?

Does the government have any concern about the increase in wealth inequality that this dynamic produces?

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

I would ask Shaen Johnston to come to mike two.

Sydney, you're up for two minutes.

[Sydney Bhalla, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

My name is Sydney Bhalla. I am a building engineering student at Concordia University. I am part of a coalition of students who are very concerned about the direction the economy is taking.

You must surely be aware that TransCanada has a pipeline project that crosses 600 Canadian waterways.

For example, a Canadian corporation, TransCanada, is suing the U.S. government for $15 billion under the NAFTA agreement, demanding compensation for the Obama administration's rejection of the Keystone XL.

Should TransCanada's Energy East project not see the light of day, governments of other countries might sue the Canadian government if it does not allow the project to go through, which is creating a lot of public controversy.

This is my concern, which is shared by many students. We see that we are on a path that will only degrade the environment. There is talk of moving to renewable energy, but we are sinking more and more into fossil fuels, while we have to change our economy. The TPP will only push us further down that road. I am really against this, and I am asking you to think about your children and future students who will suffer the consequences of this treaty.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We're going to ask Johan Boyden to come to mike number one.

Shaen, you're up. You have two minutes.

[Shaen Johnston, As an Individual]

I'm Shaen Johnston, an ecologist with the Coalition Climat Montréal.

I'm tired of trade deals that hand over our sovereignty. The government can't protect our rights and environment, as everyone earlier has said repeatedly. What's in the best interests of the powerful industrial magnates is not in the best interests of the majority of Canadians.

To start with, the majority of Canadians are employed by small and medium-sized businesses, not these monster-sized ones. Already, a similar agreement squelched solar panel industries in Ontario, because they were taken to court for favouring locally produced elements. This will be much, much worse.

The partnership will end up being entirely against the COP21 objectives. We can't continue to make decisions based purely on economics. We're facing annihilation by climate change. We have to change the way we do business. We must not be uselessly stripping and shipping everything all over the world.

Canada is back to being a colony, supplying the world with finite natural resources at basement-sale prices, while the future is in small and local businesses. It's immoral to be bringing in merchandise that's produced by people with no acceptable salary, health, or safety, and we're going to end up being in exactly that position ourselves.

I repeat: this agreement is not in the best interests of the majority of Canadians. We need to change the way we think. We need partnerships that are win-win, not dominant and controlled, where one is dominant and the other loses.

No, we have to change. We are in a partnership in this world. We share this world with everyone around us and, with the natural environment being destroyed, we won't have much to share.

It's up to us and to you, and no, it's not acceptable: do not accept this agreement. It's not in the best interests of anyone but a small minority that is taking the lion's share and leaving us not only destitute but facing annihilation together.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Shaen.

Can Kristian Gareau come to mike number two?

We're going to have Johan for two minutes.

Go ahead, sir.

[Johan Boyden, As an Individual]

Thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Johan Boyden, and I'm a central organizer of the Communist Party, which has a 95-year history of fighting for social justice.

I would like to begin, if I may, with a reflection, a reflection about who is here and who is not. In fact, I think many of us gathered in this audience found out about this at the last minute, and that “Mr. Bombardier” seemed to know about this a long time ago. On your agenda, I couldn't see one trade union, yet I saw countless representatives of big corporations. I think that is a reflection not just on your consultation, but on this agreement itself, which amounts to a bill of rights for the big corporations around the world.

I would ask, where are the mechanics with Aveos? Where are the Mohawk people? Why are so many of us speaking English today in La Belle Province? This is a reflection on the quality of outreach that has gone on and the preconclusions of this consultative committee and a consultative committee process that I think is something of a sham.

I would like to underscore the reality that, as you have skirted across this country, you have come through countless communities that have the potholes and destruction of free trade: the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. It is a reality, and you cannot pull it over the eyes of the people that free trade is good for us. You cannot convince working people any longer that free trade is a benefit to working people.

We are insisting—we are demanding—that Parliament reject this platform and reject the trans-Pacific partnership. We are demanding free trade that is based on the principles of democracy, sovereignty, respect for the International Bill of Human Rights, solidarity, raising living standards, and good union jobs, and not on creating a context—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

[Johan Boyden]

—that facilitates a situation of war.

Thank you.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Johan.

Could Sidney Klein come to microphone number one?

Now we have Kristian.

[Kristian Gareau, As an Individual]

Yes, hello. I just wanted to thank all of the citizens who came out today. I also wanted to emphasize some of these issues of asymmetry and inequality.

In the past 30 or 40 or 50 years, under neo-liberalism, we've seen that global inequality has skyrocketed, so we're no longer in these myths of trickle-down economics creating jobs. We're in a situation where there are super jobs, but people in their twenties and thirties no longer find a place in the economy and see that the fossil economy that we're in today is not only drastically unsustainable and bad for the environment but also that the way we are organizing labour is really at odds with the thermal, dynamic realities of the planet. When we think about these types of deals, we see they really are more in favour of the corporations and the so-called 1%.

Now, I understand that this sort of language might sound alarmist to you. I'm sympathetic to that, but at the same time I do really urge you to realize that we're in a completely different ball game. What would have worked with comparative advantage, trade, and all these sorts of things that go a bit beyond my head has changed. We're in a really different world right now, a world where rising fossil fuel emissions are causing a systemic instability in the heart of the economic system, and we really have to rethink some of the old, tired truth. We want to make sure that we don't lock ourselves into an obsolete framework.

In the sociology literature, we see all the time the talk about how corporate power is eclipsing public power, and I really want to empower you as elected officials and civil servants to think twice about this and about protecting some of the last safeguards that our people, institutions, and environment have in the face of predatory, transnational, fossil-fuel-intensive capital.

Please, I implore you to think more than twice about this agreement.

Thank you.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Kristian.

Can Abdul Pirani come to microphone number two?

Sydney, you have the floor for two minutes. Go ahead, sir.

[Sidney Klein, As an Individual]

I have been a member of the investment banking community since 1982, and since then I've largely been a financial writer. I have somewhat more in common with my Communist friend here than any of those who purport to be part of the political community or business community who are fed a lot of these questions.

I want you to understand that the TPP cannot be understood in isolation. It has to be understood in connection with other events that are taking Canadian sovereignty.

There are three aspects of sovereignty: a distinct military, borders, and currency. Now, when you have American workers who can work here, and when those corporations can choose to have them work here ahead of Canadians, this is a clear expansion of borders. We don't even know where they're going to end up living or paying taxes.

One thing we do know is that you have no right to do anything that gives away any aspect of sovereignty, just as an individual cannot enter into any contract that signs away any of his human rights. Even though he signed it, it's illegal. You have no right to engage in any contract that gives away any constitutionality. That is a fact.

Now, Canada has sold off all of its gold—yes, I will take 30 seconds—and with that...[Technical difficulty]