International Trade Committee on May 13th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Grant Orchard.

[Grant Orchard, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Mr. Wildeboer has echoed the whole sentiment of the proponents of NAFTA, that we have to be in the club or else we're going to be left out in the cold. This is like what John Crosbie said in 1988, that we have to be in the club, that we have to be in the tent pissing out rather than outside pissing in. That is just another one of the fallacies.

What's happened to the World Trade Organization? We're in that. That's an international body with a dispute settlement mechanism. Professor Bhagwati from Columbia University said that these trade agreements represent “a ‘spaghetti bowl’ of preferences and chaos in the world trading system” and the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO.

Mel Clark is a former chief negotiator at the Tokyo round of the GATT. He's written an excellent book called Independence Lost: How Mulroney and Harper Gave Control of Canada to the United States. He said these trade agreements, the NAFTA and these other trade agreements are moving away from free trade. Another writer said that many aspects of the TPP reflect U.S. business.

Let's take a quick look at NAFTA. Estimates are that we've lost around 350,000 jobs over the last six years. Other people have said Canada is the most sued country in the world. We now have a majority of workers in Ontario with precarious work, part-time, no benefits. These companies move wherever they want, and they expect to sell back to us. And where are our jobs?

This has prompted Heather Mallick to write in her article the other day, where can I shop Canadian? What's left?

I will ask the question again. Where is the mandate for this? This is an expansion of NAFTA. We know what NAFTA has done to Canada. This is just neutering the federal government's ability to set in place legislation for the national interest of the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

Go ahead, Simone Romain, for two minutes.

[Simone Romain, As an Individual]

My name is Simone, and I came down here to speak today because I just actually found out about this hearing last night. I can't believe that I just heard about it last night. I took the day off work today to come down here to speak even though I'm going to be losing my wage for coming down here to speak. But I needed my voice to be heard because I feel that the education around the TPP and the consultation around the TPP have been completely inadequate. I just needed to come down here and lodge my opposition in person. I'm not much of a public speaker, and I'm very nervous, but I'm doing this anyway.

My main concerns with the TPP are in terms of my access to healthy food and food security. I feel really proud of my country's being able to provide for me dairy that I can drink with confidence. I don't have to buy organic milk in Canada, and that means a lot to me. If the TPP goes into place, I will no longer be able to have confidence in my dairy supply and my food supply in general.

I'm very concerned about bovine growth hormone being in my dairy, not being labelled, and me not being told, so that's a big concern.

I'm also very worried about the ability of the TPP to be influencing our government's ability to make decisions that support public opinion and being pressured by private corporations and international private corporations instead of public opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Over the last few days there have been a lot of people who came to the mike for the first time at this session, and it's a hard thing to do, and we appreciate what they're doing in coming to the mike.

We have Gail Ferguson next.

[Gail Ferguson, As an Individual]

My name is Gail Ferguson and I have worked as a librarian for most of my life, so I know the importance of information, information sharing, and community engagement.

I would say that there are a lot of things that I'm learning today from coming here and hearing different people speak about their concerns about the TPP. This afternoon I'll probably have some conversations with neighbours and friends, and this evening over a glass of wine we'll talk about some of the issues that I learned about today.

I appreciate my two minutes here. I think it's an opportunity for the government to engage their community, the broad community across Canada, in talking about the TPP. Someone mentioned earlier that there are a lot of new MPs who were just elected last fall. This is a huge learning curve for them, as it is for all of us.

However, to have one hour for the people of Toronto, the GTA, and the surrounding communities to come to speak is insufficient. Secrecy and democracy are incompatible. We need to open this up further and have more opportunities for people to get together to engage about this very important topic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

I'd just like to remind the audience that there are going to be a lot of members of Parliament doing round tables in their own ridings over the next few months, and we're going to take their submissions also.

We have Josephine Mackie here.

[Josephine Mackie, As an Individual]

Yes, I'm also known as Josephine Grey, and in that name I was appointed by the Liberal government in 1995 as Canada's observer on domestic issues to the World Summit for Social Development.

I'm doing my job by coming to the microphone, although it's for such a brief time.

What I want to put on the record is that not only does the TPP and its provisions threaten all of the various agreements in which Canada has been engaged in terms of the millennium development goals, sustainable development goals, world summits for social development, and the like, it also violates previous international law treaties that involve human rights.

For example, if we look at the treaty on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was signed in 1976, we can see how TPP violates that treaty by just going through the first couple of articles of that treaty, the first being that we must have the right to self-determination on how we dispose of our resources. This puts the predatory investor class ahead of our right to democracy.

Under article 2 you are supposed to invest a maximum of available resources, which includes our tax dollars, in reinforcing, supporting, and upholding our human rights. If you allow for corporations to sue, and our tax dollars are spent defending our country in court, then you have violated that article as well.

Under article 3 we have to have non-discrimination. That means for those who are poor in this country—like the people I represent: new Canadians, children, youth, and low income people—you are discriminating against all of those who are vulnerable in this country by allowing investor-state corporation class people to overrule and override our sovereign right to make our own rules.

Lastly, if you look at the agreements Canada has signed, we have also committed to the notion that all elected officials' first duty is to uphold, support, and promote our international human rights. That is your first duty as an elected official.

You have this as a way in which you could counter this kind of agreement, and you have every right and a duty to do so.

Lastly, I would say—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

William Halliday, you're up.

[William Halliday, As an Individual]

The TPP is a secret trade agreement that will only benefit multinationals, multi-millionaires, large law firms, lobbyists, and our big brother, the U.S, which has ravished its own and depleted its own country.

There will be more and more censorship on the Internet and in the packaging of goods. We will not be allowed to label foods with MSG, GMOs, growth hormone foods, etc.

We will not have the freedom to choose. Secrecy is the number one order of business. Don't let the people know until it is too late.

Past trade deals have not benefited most Canadians.

We have seen big losers in manufacturing where companies have gone overseas and to Mexico. With them have gone good paying jobs and also some average paying jobs. Telemarketing, office work, call centres, and everything are going overseas. There are more unemployment and big losses in full-time work. More workers are being told to become contractors, or independent businesses, or corporate businesses, and being forced to take jobs or not work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Wrap it up, sir.

You have half a minute, go ahead.

[William Halliday]

Companies don't have to pay for insurance, health benefits, holidays, or pensions. The Canadian government and the people will have less and less to say about how Canada is run. Canada will be run even more by multinationals and multi-millionaires through their highly paid lobbyists and lawyers. They have more clout than 98% of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

Go ahead, Tali Chernin.

[Tali Chernin, As an Individual]

I want to thank everyone who came here today to speak, and I want to echo your anger, your fear, and your frustration. I think it's telling that in the two hours the corporations had to speak, most of them spoke positively about this, whereas every single person from the community who has spoken about this has had nothing but concerns.

In reading through the TPP, and specifically speaking to the dispute settlement mechanism, I find it so dangerous, so undemocratic, and so harmful to Canadians. It is going to harm our efforts to better our environmental policy and our strong local economic growth, and it will harm third world countries, as well.

The TPP was a driving force against Harper in the last election, and I want to remind you of that, because if you ratify it, that same driving force that pushed Harper out of office will likely cost you your jobs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Richard Grace.

[Richard Grace, As an Individual]

I think for a moment we should concentrate outside of Canada and look at other jurisdictions particularly with respect to the ISDS private arbitration mechanism.

There was an article in The Guardian a year ago, so it may need updating. It was on June 10, 2015. It catalogues the experiences of several other jurisdictions, in particular, Bolivia, South Africa, Australia, Germany, and India. All of these jurisdictions have come away sadder and wiser men in connection with the ISDS mechanism. India and Bolivia in particular and South Africa have said that they will not enter into future agreements like this that have ISDS provisions.

By the way, in terms of whether you have to be in these agreements or not, The Guardian points out that Brazil has never signed up for this system. It has not entered into a single treaty with these investor-state dispute provisions, and yet it has no trouble attracting foreign investment. In fact, it is booming.

The last point I urge, in terms of the government's priority for environmental protections, is that you should at least look seriously at a carve-out for the environmental protections, because the foreign investors are going to have a field day. I refer the committee to the article by Osgoode Hall Law School professor Gus Van Harten, who called for an ISDS carve-out to support action on climate change. I can provide the committee with copies of that, and I think you should look at it very carefully.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We appreciate that. We'll take that into consideration.

Go ahead, Dunstan Morey, for two minutes.

[Dunstan Morey, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Forgive me if you've already heard this numerous times, but I think it bears repeating. I don't understand why this even needs to be said.

I don't understand why everyone in this room is not in complete agreement about a few basic things. I would have thought that everyone here would agree that democracy is a bottom-line value. Whether it's our parliamentary democracy or some other form of democratically elected government, at the end of the day, the people have the right, through their elected representatives, to jointly write the rules to which we all submit.

I don't understand why everyone in this room is not upset to think there should be a set of rules that will trump the will of the people, as expressed by their democratically elected representatives. I don't understand how anyone in this room can think it's okay that foreign investors get to be above the law as determined by elected governments, and, worse, that it's okay for these investors to be able to take our government to court for making decisions the investors don't like, even though we elected the government to make those decisions on our behalf—decisions like restrictions on tobacco in Uruguay or on nuclear power plants in Germany, or on fracking here in Canada. I don't understand how anyone in this room can think it's okay that foreign investors aren't bound by the decisions of our courts, that they are able, under the TPP, to seek compensation for those decisions, that they can challenge those decisions in tribunals adjudicated by arbitrators who make their living by ruling on claims that can only be brought forward by those same investors.

I was going to make a comment about how it's evidence of democracy that I'm here speaking, but it was a previous government that negotiated this deal, and 60% of the electorate rejected that government. I implore the current government to respect the mandate it received and reject the parts of this deal that entail that elected governments in Canada must submit to the will of foreign investors.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Go ahead Aby Rajani.

[Aby Rajani, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, my name is Aby Rajani. I'm a mother and a grandmother, and I care passionately about Canada and its legacy to our children and grandchildren. I also care deeply about the plight of the poor, not just in this country but around the world, and that's why I've plucked up the courage to speak to you today.

There are so many issues that concern me about the TPP, but there are two that I would like to focus on: medication, and the investor-state dispute settlement.

Starting with the effect of the TPP on the cost of medication, according to The Globe and Mail, December 6, 2015, the TPP would lead to three major problems. First, pharmaceutical companies would be able to evergreen their patents, making small changes to a drug to extend its protection from competition. Second, they would be able to extend patent protection if there are delays in the regulatory approval of a new product. Third, developers of advanced drugs, biologics, would be able to keep their clinical data private for up to eight years, thus making it difficult for competitors to create similar drugs.

All three of these accommodations to the pharmaceutical companies would involve delaying the introduction of lower-cost generic drugs, so that medication would be more expensive both in Canada and in poorer countries. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives states that extending patents because of regulatory delays in approving drugs would add an additional $636 million to the price of drugs in Canada, making drugs and pharmacare more costly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Go ahead, James Westman, you have the floor.

[James Lorne Westman, As an Individual]

Climate scientists agree that human civilization cannot survive the 6°C of warming we are in trajectory for by the end of the century. Globally and in this country, we are not reducing emissions quickly enough to reach the Paris target of remaining under 1.5°C or even 2°C. Climate change progresses non-linearly. The rate of warming itself increases, especially when we reach what climate scientists call “runaway” or “irreversible” climate change. After 1.5°C, natural feedback mechanisms kick in, and skyrocketing temperatures cannot be stopped.

Under the TPP's investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, fossil fuel corporations can sue states for hurting their profits. Hurting the profits of fossil fuel corporations is a political, economic, and moral necessity, because we cannot afford to burn 80% of the world's fossil fuel reserves. The last thing Canada and the global community can afford is to be sued for making the utterly necessary transition to a green economy.

The polluters should be made to pay, but under the TPP, not only does the polluter not pay, we, the taxpayers, the citizens, pay for the polluter. It's simply absurd.

While Alberta burns from wildfires intensified by climate change, with far worse disasters to come, we can debate whether or not Canada will be left behind in the global economy if we don't ratify the TPP, but you can't argue with the climate: 10, 20, 30 years from now, that will be abundantly clear.

We don't have time to be sued by corporations for saving the planet and all chance of decent life on it. That alone is enough to say no to the TPP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Anna Kosior, you have the floor.

[Anna Kosior, As an Individual]

Number one, we are on stolen indigenous land. There has not been a single mention of that, and it's going to continue to happen if this deal is ratified as it is.

Number two, we should not sink to the level of the mentality of the nerd trying to get into a fraternity who is pressured to sexually abuse a drunk girl at a party—the drunk girl being our natural resources as well as our sovereignty. We shouldn't think that if we can just join that club it will be better for everyone. Probably not.

Number three, show respect and dignity for the intelligence of your voters by holding these hearings in public. This is not public. This is a hotel with security where 70 people, at best, are in attendance. That's appalling. Don't call this public. This is private.

[Stephanie Sturino, As an Individual]

I'd like to say that, leading up to October 19, there was so much hope. It was like watching a hockey game. We were cheering as Canada turned red. Now the hope—