International Trade Committee on May 12th, 2016

[Natalie Mehra]

I see that the consensus among the provincial premiers is growing to move towards a national pharmacare program. There are more premiers who are supportive now.

I realize it's not an easy thing in Canada to achieve major steps forward in federal-provincial-territorial negotiations, but I think if there were serious leadership on the part of the federal government—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Usually that means money on the table, but yes.

[Natalie Mehra]

Because the provincial governments pay the cost and the federal government controls—

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

There are federal transfers to—

[Natalie Mehra]

—the introductory drug pricing and much of the regulation regarding drugs, it makes sense.

I'm reminded of Ralph Klein saying that the federal government should take the whole responsibility since it sets the prices and the regulatory framework. It was astonishing but very true what he said about the federal government needing to take the leadership on that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Sorry, that wraps up the time there.

We only have time for two more three-minute slots.

Madame Ludwig, and then Mr. Hoback.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

In April 2016, the United Steelworkers union in the United States was pressing President Obama to apply a 50% tariff on incoming aluminum products.

If NAFTA were not in place, do you think that discussion could have taken place and that the tariff discussion would have been dropped?

[Troy Lundblad]

The appeal that was made and then rescinded by the international union in Pittsburgh is really a result of domestic policy in the United States. If it's in the United States, they can look at various import levels for certain goods and the trends of those import levels and can make a case that free trade in those goods is impacting American workers in a negative way.

We don't have that right. We wouldn't have been able to file such an appeal to the Canadian government.

It really has more to do with American domestic trade policy and the relationship between the unions and the United States trade representatives than it does with NAFTA.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Wouldn't that also be a part of the relationship that we have within that trade agreement between our three countries, that there would be that open and collaborative discussion between the two governments?

[Troy Lundblad]

Actually, the discussion happened internally within the union, so if anything it demonstrated the capacity of our union for democratic decision-making. When our members in Quebec wrote to Leo Gerard, our president, and said this would have an impact on them as well, not China, we then pulled it back. So it's actually the international nature of our union that made it possible.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

My next question, if I have time, is for Natalie.

Since 1867 when the British North America Act was signed and health responsibilities were assigned to the provinces, certainly a lot of money has been transferred from the federal government to the provinces.

If in fact we did not ratify the TPP and other member countries did, a significant loss of jobs is forecast because fewer tax dollars would be collected. How might that impact a national health care strategy if the provinces and the federal government didn't have as much money to contribute to the cost of goods and the health care strategy?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It must be a quick answer.

[Natalie Mehra]

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure I accept the premise of that question. The analysis I've seen indicates that the impact on our GDP and economy would actually be very minimal if the TPP were not signed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Now we're going to move on to the Conservatives.

Mr. Hoback, for three minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mark, I'm going come back to you.

The agriculture sector out west has been very clear about what they want to see happen. In fact, I think it's one of the unique times when we've seen all sectors of agriculture say, yes, we should move forward. Even the supply management sector is okay with this deal, providing there's the transitional payments to them to help them transition into the environment of some more competition coming for them.

What would you recommend to this government right now as they move forward? Would you say we should wait and see what the U.S. does, or should we move forward and show leadership? What would your association want us to do?

[Mark Huston]

I think one of the challenges we have is that as we've seen governments transition within TPP, the push and the urgency that we've had to get the deal ratified has faded away because there isn't that leadership factor.

I would hope that Canada would take a leadership role in getting the deal ratified. We have to address some of the challenges we may have, but we need to be at the leadership table in order to be able to do that. If we sit back and wait, I don't know if we would have as much of a play as we would if we were there trying to push it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Of course, we're seeing other countries doing just that. In Mexico it just has to go through their senate now. Australia and Japan are moving forward rather quickly with legislation. So your encouragement here is for us to do the same?

[Mark Huston]

That's what would benefit us most.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Chair, I think I'm going to leave it at that, because I think that's the point that needs to get across to this committee. It's good to have debate and good to have consultations, but you also have to take action. You actually have to start moving out the project and moving the ball along. I think if you talk to a lot of our producers and manufacturers, they'd say, let's hurry up and get it done.

I'll just leave my comments there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

That wraps up our fourth panel. It was a very active morning and it was good to see panellist here and to have their briefings and the dialogue back and forth.

We're just going to break for five minutes at the most. We have two mikes set up. I have three more added to our list here, so I have nine speakers right now. We're going to give you all three minutes each.

We've got speaker one and two. I'm going to Douglas Hayes and Kurt Powell just so that you are ready at mikes one and two.

We're going to suspend now just for five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Could Douglas Hayes come to mike one and Kurt Powell to mike two.

We've had a few situations over the last few days where a speaker would have a question. There's no dialogue between MPs and the speakers. We're here to listen.

Also, if you have a certain question and it's not answered, if we have your email address, we'll look it up and get back to you. You're up for three minutes. When you hit your two-and-a-half minutes, I'll just give a little reminder so you can gather your last thoughts and go from there.

We're going to have Douglas Hayes up on one, and Kurt Powell at number two.

Go ahead, sir, for three minutes.

[Douglas Hayes, As an Individual]

I'm with the Windsor-Essex chapter of the Council of Canadians. As you know, we've been involved with trade agreements right from the cusp of the first one, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and every one of those trade agreements has seen a little more erosion of our democracy in Canada. As someone said, we are the most sued country under NAFTA, and 70% of the suits have been against Canada. Someone said also on this panel, “Yes, but if they sue us, we sue them”. How is that good for citizens? What is all this doing? How is it good for us? It's not good for citizens. We have a perfectly good court system that any country could go to if they wanted to sue our country. Why do we have these panels of three members that are chosen by...? Well, I guess it switches back and forth, two by the company and one by Canada, and vice versa. All of these lawyers that they use switch back and forth from one group to the other. One time they're defending the country and the next time they're defending the corporation.

We try to protect our environment. One of the things that comes to mind is the St. Lawrence Seaway. We're trying to prevent the fracking industry from contaminating the St. Lawrence River. It's the only major river of that size going out of Canada, and it drains all of the Great Lakes. The upper Great Lakes are being contaminated even worse than that, but we should be protecting that river right from the source.

We have trade tribunals, and they're a farce as far as I'm concerned. They're above the law. They give these corporations more power than our government itself. Taking into account the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that we walk on, all of these things are being affected by these tribunals and by these trade agreements. We have no control over that. What is the main purpose of our government? Its main purpose is to work for the citizens of our country. What I saw in the last election was that these corporations didn't vote. Why are they making rules that affect all of us citizens of Canada?

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

We're going to go to Kurt Powell. Is he here?

If not we're going to move on to Margaret Villamizar.

[Margaret Villamizar, As an Individual]

I'm here as a representative of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada. I ran in the last federal election as a candidate for my party in the riding we're in here, Windsor West.

My party in general opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and other so-called “free trade agreements”. Through free trade agreements, the global monopolies legally gain direct control over key aspects of the economy, and they deprive the people of their right to exercise control over those affairs that affect their lives. This lack of control runs directly counter to the modern trend towards democracy by which the people are fighting for democratic renewal so that we can gain the position to exercise the legal will to exercise control over the economic, political, social, and other affairs that affect our lives.

“Free trade agreements,” as they're called, introduce the competition, power, and control of the global monopolies as the dominant element in both international and domestic trade. This stands in opposition to trade and the movement of social wealth based on mutual benefit and development, friendship amongst the people, and everyone's well-being and security.

When assessing the TPP, several specific aspects also bear consideration, and I'd like to just dwell on one. This U.S.-led initiative—if anyone thought it wasn't—for a free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region excludes China. Several trade organizations and bilateral as well as multilateral economic partnerships or agreements already exist in northeastern and southeastern Asia, one of them being the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN.

TPP seeks to introduce the monopolies of the U.S. and its military ally Japan into the legal mix as dominant participants, whose private interests would be considered in most existing economic relationships there. This stands in opposition to the peoples of Asia and their independent efforts to move forward from the colonial era.

The TPP comes within the context of the U.S. military pivot to Asia, specifically to east Asia and Southeast Asia, where the U.S. plans to base 60% of its overseas military forces. The pivot is well underway, with the construction of new and expanded bases in Japan and South Korea and the introduction there of the latest weaponry. War predict preparations are intrinsically linked with economic considerations and penetration of these regions to control their labour, trade, natural resources, and so on.

Rejecting the TPP, in our mind, is linked to opposing Canada's participation in U.S.-led predatory wars around the world and to our need for an anti-war government to extricate Canada from, not link it more closely with, the aggressive U.S.-led military bloc, NATO, and the U.S.-dominated fortress North America.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We're going to go to Verna Burnet, and on deck next would be John S. Toth.