International Trade Committee on May 11th, 2016

[Martin Fournier]

It's domestic ship owners.

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

You're talking about the navigational part of shipping.

[Martin Fournier]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Sir, thank you for your presentation. It will be documented in our final report. Thank you.

We'll move on to our second speaker, Tomas Feininger. Go ahead, sir.

[Tomas Feininger, As an Individual]

I have two quick questions.

First, why is Canada being suicidal by signing agreements that adversely affect the country and make it lose its own voice?

Second, I know that the previous government had signed a free trade agreement with Japan with a time frame of up to 31 years. The world is changing very fast. I want to know what the time frame for this proposed TPP is. I find this agreement to be really bogus.

That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir. You had a couple of questions, and we have your email address. We'll find out those answers and we'll get back to you. Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Patrick Kerr.

[Patrick Kerr, As an Individual]

Hello. My name is Patrick Kerr. I'm just a concerned citizen. I don't represent anybody. I'm not being paid to be here.

I don't have a lot of time to speak, so I'll just say right off the bat that I am against this agreement. I would be very much for discussing it, if that were an option, but unfortunately, as I understand it, we've been given an ultimatum, and Canada cannot renegotiate this. As it stands, I am against it.

Why am I against it? Because of a number of things. Obviously, there's probably quite a bit in those 6,000 pages, but I'll speak to the things that cause me the most fear.

With respect to the investor state provisions, I'm not sure that all of you are aware of what is involved, but the potential implications are the things that I am the most concerned about. I say “fear” because none of these things has actually happened and the agreement doesn't exist at this point, but we can look at other agreements that are in place, such as NAFTA . I can't remember what the Chinese agreement is that was passed recently, but we already have a hearing on board with respect to that one.

These types of provisions allow these companies or corporations to sue our government, essentially, or to sue our people and take our money, if they don't agree with our environmental policies or our safety and security policies or if they deem them to be unfair and cutting into their profits. They're allowed to do that. On that, I am concerned that in order to appease these companies and these corporations for the sake of profits, we will undermine our environment and our health, and I don't think that is a wise idea in the long term.

It's a question mark. It's an unknown. We don't know what types of lawsuits are going to be put against us, but we can look at some of the things that have already been put against the country as far as NAFTA is concerned. I won't get into those details. I don't have that much time, but those types of lawsuits are cause for concern, and that's the number one reason I'm against the TPP.

Other reasons have to do with extended patents and the implications for pharmaceuticals. Canada is the only country in the world that has a national health care program without a national pharmacare program, and it's going to make it a lot harder to have a national pharmacare program if the prices of pharmaceuticals are even higher than they already are, amongst other things.

I could go on, but I don't have time. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Thank you for coming. I see that you've brought your family with you. Thank you very much for spending your time here.

We have one final person at the mike. He was already here, but in a different capacity.

Mr. Serinet, you're going to speak as a citizen, I take it?

[Pierre Serinet]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to respond to some of the comments I have heard this morning, as a citizen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Go ahead.

[Pierre Serinet]

My name is Pierre Yves Serinet and, as a citizen, I would like to respond to some of the comments made this morning about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.

I first want to point out that Mr. Lebel is thumping his chest over the Conservative government's great transparency, but that's not true. No one, aside from the business sector, has really been consulted with regard to the TPP.

His colleague is giving us figures, and we are talking about billions of dollars and lawsuits in the millions of dollars. We do have to compare oranges to oranges, and not oranges to potatoes. I think that the dispute resolution mechanism between investors and states limits governments' ability to regulate in the areas of the environment, labour law and even the economy. This mechanism prevents governments from prescribing results, ensuring that they are supporting local job creation and regional development, and promoting policies on innovation and the environment.

A study is lacking—and this is an appeal to the government—on NAFTA's consequences over the past 20 years. I think we need to move away from this rhetoric whereby free trade is inherently good. Let's carry out the study.

We conducted such a study on NAFTA's impact. The government promised more jobs, more prosperity, better wealth distribution, enhanced environmental protection and better protection of labour rights. The report card indicates a big fat zero in all those areas, whether we are talking about job creation, job quality or wealth concentration.

Under this economic model, we have not seen an expansion of healthy social safeguards over the past 25 years. We see that by looking at the figures. We will submit our brief on the topic. I think that Canadians can submit briefs to the committee to raise its awareness of what aspects of the economic model have a negative impact and must be reconsidered.

These kinds of international dialogues must provide an opportunity to rethink the economic model. The government must make sure that the economy is serving Canadians and creating jobs. Most importantly, it should promote the fundamental principles of cooperation and complementarity. The idea of competition at any cost and profits at any cost must be rethought. We are facing challenges in terms of the environment, quality of life and distribution of wealth. The discussion on the free trade economic model must enable that reflection. I think that we have much to gain by broadening the debate and making it public.

It's pretty appalling. I don't know how much the committee has done to attract more people, but I did not see a press release inviting Canadians to participate. I think that the public debate must be broadened and be based on rigorous numbers and studies. The public debate must also be expanded so that people can act on the decisions our elected officials are ultimately making.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thanks, everybody, for coming here today.

That ends our panel, and it ends our consultation in Quebec City and the province of Quebec.

The meeting is adjourned.