International Trade Committee on May 10th, 2016

[Guy Jobin]

The US$223-billion figure comes from the Peterson Institute for International Economics. The 1% increase comes from U.S. negotiators. That's what we found on the U.S. websites.

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

Thank you. We will come back to this.

Ms. Nguyen, earlier, you talked about generic drug patents and the high cost of fighting HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. You were mainly referring to Central American countries.

I would like to hear your thoughts, but please keep in mind that we are talking about the TPP from a Canadian perspective. What would you say the benefits of the TPP are?

[Amélie Nguyen]

In terms of public services here, the TPP could lead to higher drug costs. In fact, patenting gives large pharmaceutical companies more advantages.

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

I understand that we are looking at things from a globalization context, but I had a more Canadian perspective in mind, although I have a great deal of respect for other countries and people from around the world.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You're doing well. You have 45 seconds left.

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

Ms. Gendreau, does Canada need to do a better job of protecting intellectual property for pharmaceuticals? Several years ago, that industry was very strong here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Please give a short answer.

[Ysolde Gendreau]

Pharmaceutical companies provide high-level, highly skilled jobs. It's a major industry. I know that it's not really a virtuous industry, but if we compare the state of our health today with what it used to be 50 years ago, we see that the research comes with a price.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

That is my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, and thank you, Madam Lapointe.

We're going to move over to the NDP.

Ms. Ramsey, you have five minutes. Go ahead.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you all for your presentations today.

There were some interesting threads I picked up in there, and some of the questions that Madame Lapointe asked I would have asked as well.

The basis of the Peterson Institute study you mentioned takes into account full employment. It's not something that exists in Canada, and we haven't seen that for a long time. There are other studies, but our criticism has been that the federal government does not have an economic impact study. We would like to have our own economic impact study to understand if there are benefits to this agreement.

Even the Peterson Institute, I believe, shows 0% growth by 2030. The Tufts University study show 58,000 jobs lost in Canada and 0.2% growth to our GDP. We need concrete numbers and information. Although we don't have a crystal ball, this is our best predictor for being able to understand the implications for Canadians.

I want to touch on the job losses, I want to talk about people, and I want to talk about precarious work.

I wonder if you can pick up on what you were saying in regard to the types of jobs we currently have in Canada. The labour mobility chapter, in contrast to what we hear about accepting only business persons, would allow everyone to come into the country. How would that impact us in Canada, and in Quebec particularly?

[Denise Gagnon]

Thank you.

I'm sorry. We ran out of time earlier and could not finish our presentation.

One of our conclusions was that we needed more documented reviews and a process had to be launched, especially with society planning to make a green shift in terms of infrastructure. Those aspects must also be taken into account.

When it comes to job precariousness, we have made presentations to the Canadian government in the past on the systemic discrimination toward temporary international migrant workers. There are several problems. Quebec's human rights commission commented on that several years ago, and the situation has improved somewhat. The program has been tightened up, but that's not enough. There are still horror stories in Quebec workplaces that could be documented.

That precariousness is putting downward pressure on work conditions. We see a trend toward a reversal of the use of labour in Canada. There are a lot of temporary international immigrants, instead of landed immigrants. It's nearly a two-to-one ratio, and that puts pressure on the pools of available workers.

The CISO represents organizations with more than 1 million workers. Early this year, on International Migrant Workers Day, we shared this concern with the new government. The TPP involves risks in terms of that.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

The temporary foreign worker program, although flawed, has some regulations around it. In the TPP, we would see those regulations removed, so we share that concern.

With the “green pivot” you're talking about and the Paris climate accord, are we going to be able to reach those targets with investor state dispute settlement provisions in place? What are your thoughts on that?

[Amélie Nguyen]

Sufficient flexibility is necessary to implement local measures so as to adapt to climate change. Employment structures are changing. In order to truly change our society, we have to modify our governments' directions to meet the requirements of the Paris agreement. That could result in job and profit losses, or expose us to legal action by companies. The Lone Pine Resources lawsuit is a good example of that, as it concerns shale gas in Quebec. The lawsuit is ongoing. As I was saying, the $250 million of public funding could go directly to that company. Examples of those kinds of lawsuits are multiplying. However, these are democratic policies adopted by legislative assemblies for the public good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have half a minute.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

In terms of IP, I would like to get back to the patent extension.

The patent extension that was extended over 20 years ago came with a provision that they would increase R and D in Canada. We haven't seen that come to pass. There was a spike, and now we're back down again.

We're going to again enter into a position where we potentially won't see any more R and D in Canada, but we're going to extend patent provisions, which essentially extend the ability to profit for these big pharmaceutical companies and increase the cost on Canadians' backs.

What are your thoughts around the extension?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You've used up your 30 seconds. I'm sorry. Maybe they'll have a moment and will want to answer in another dialogue. We're going to have to move over to the Liberals.

Mr. Peterson, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your enlightening presentations and your comments.

My first question is for Professor Gendreau.

Our colleague Michael Geist does not really agree with you on this issue. How would you explain that difference of opinion?

[Ysolde Gendreau]

Between mine and his?

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

Yes, please.

[Ysolde Gendreau]

Well, I'm a believer in intellectual property protection. I find that the wonderful thing about intellectual property is that it protects what makes us very human—what our brains can produce—and I think that's absolutely wonderful. I am delighted that somebody like J.K. Rowling could, because of her imagination, create such success and create the fact that a lot of young people have liked reading and have developed imagination. Also, what's wrong that she made money with it? I see nothing wrong with that. I think it's the same for all those who use intellectual property as a way of creating things that either bring us pleasure or bring us useful things.

He's entitled to his opinions, of course, but the kind of work I do makes me see that there are people who do benefit from this kind of protection. It's a very—how can I say it?—democratic type of protection. Do you realize that IP law makes no distinction between men and women inventors or authors, and no distinction on the basis of age or race?

It's your chance, and if you're better at it, then you get more out of it. If you're not so good, then you're not so good.

Also, of course, we have injustices. Van Gogh didn't sell a painting during his lifetime, and now they're worth a fortune, so yes, unhappy stories happen in any field, but I think the essence of what it's for is a very just purpose. That's why I'm in favour.

I recognize that we need exceptions. I don't think we need them as badly as we have them now. I recognize that IP interacts with other policies and other issues, but when we have a consumer protection act that seeks to protect consumers, I don't see why it's wrong to have IP laws that protect people who create things or who invent things that are useful.

We have success stories based on IP law. Maybe we don't promote them enough. We don't have a PR system the way Hollywood or the Grammy Awards have, but I think we have potential. People around the world study Canadian studies, and if they make copies of books by Alice Munro or Margaret Atwood or Michel Tremblay, what's wrong with these people getting money out of that? I see nothing wrong with that.

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

Thank you.

You indicated that even the changes that are found in TPP, and specifically the extension from 50 years to 70 years, are not that big of a difference. Even in Canada, right now a sound recording already has a 70-year protection.

[Ysolde Gendreau]

Yes, and we know why the sound recording was extended to 70 years: The Beatles. They were about to lose protection, and they're still alive, two of them, and they wanted to have a 20-year term extension. I can see that this is being played out. They extended the term in the U.S. because of Mickey Mouse. Europe was happy to do so too because of other authors and so on.

Yes, of course people use these rules. It's part of life. It's also normal for a work to have a life, a commercial life, when it's in the public domain. I think that is something we have to accept. It makes a lot of sense. Seventy years? I'm not crazy about 70 years, but for the time we're in now, there's no point in getting the wheel back. It doesn't make any difference, and that 20-year extension will apply to a limited number of works in terms of everything that's being created. We're raising a lot of fuss about a small percentage of works. Yes, there are works that have value, but overall, in terms of policy, this is not going to impact a lot of people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay, Mr. Peterson, your time is up.

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

I have one closing comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You're very close.