International Trade Committee on May 31st, 2016

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'll tell Pat that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You might throw that question to one of your colleagues for the next round, but we're going to move to the NDP now.

For three minutes, Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much.

Farmers are linked to what we're talking about. Farmers in my riding can't afford their medication, so this is an issue that is very important to farming communities. When we look at the cost of drugs, it's upwards of $24,000 a year for something like Enbrel for someone who has rheumatoid arthritis, and that can be a farmer too.

My question is for Mr. Labonté.

You mentioned something in your presentation about a carve-out and it was around tobacco labelling. I wonder if you could speak to us about that particular carve-out and its implications on public health and why you think it's significant that it is a piece of what was actually negotiated.

[Ronald Labonté]

Okay, and thank you.

Well, it's not a carve-out in a legal sense. It's an exclusion, and it's a voluntary exclusion. If the TPP is ratified and enters into force, countries can voluntarily exclude all of their tobacco control measures from an investor-state dispute. That's written into the ISDS, so they can do that voluntarily. But it doesn't prevent a state-to-state dispute settlement or a panel from being created. If there's a tobacco transnational that sort of lobbies one of the TPP countries somewhere and says it's going to object to a tobacco control measure, let's say in Canada, maybe perhaps with plain packaging, it could still initiate a dispute under the state-to-state dispute provisions of the TPP. So it's not a full carve-out.

As well, tobacco transnationals can shop around and try to find a different investment treaty to which Canada might be a party and could still try to launch a dispute under that investment treaty. The TPP does not exclude potential suits. I think the significance of it is a recognition when the TPP was being negotiated—highlighted because of the problems that were happening with Australia's plain packaging at the time and with Uruguay with some of the challenges it's been facing—that these investor-state dispute chapters actually oppose challenges or regulatory chill around tobacco control measures.

Our concern extends beyond that, because you have obesogenic food items, alcohol, sugar, and other globally traded commodities that we know increasingly are posing long-term health risks. Our question was that, if it was important enough to try to allow or create and send a signal about a tobacco control exemption under investor-state dispute, why was that not extended to all non-discriminatory public health measures that were intended to essentially deal with the problems we face now, but also to anticipate the problems we're going to be facing down the road?

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Labonté.

Your time is up, Ms. Ramsey.

We're going to move over to the Liberals.

Mr. Fonseca, you're up for five minutes. Go ahead, sir.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask Mr. Prouse and Ms. Cox about these coffee drinking binges, these meetings, these trips you were on, and anybody else who might be involved in those trips, about the TPP and the negotiations.

We've heard criticism that Canada was late to the table. The United States had been there in 2008. These negotiations with some of the other countries in the TPP had started back in 2006, and Canada was one of the last involved, in 2012. Were there some concerns about that? Were there chapters that were closed? Were there parts of the TPP that you could not look at reopening or negotiating and putting your voice on the table?

[Dennis Prouse]

I'm certainly not aware of any of those concerns. Our members are concerned about all trade agreements. This is one. Obviously, there was a great deal of interest in CETA at the time that CETA was going on, so at any—

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I'm talking about the TPP. The U.S. came on in 2008, and we came on in 2012, four years later.

[Dennis Prouse]

I think our members' biggest concern, and it was pretty focused, was on making sure there was a science-based regulatory part of this. I think the fall of the tariffs was one part. I think our focus was pretty singular, and we felt it was met, notwithstanding when we may or may not have come in.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Go ahead, Ms. Cox.

[Jody Cox]

I would say that when Canada entered the negotiations, certainly from our perspective, I believe there were certain provisions that may have been tabled by different parties, but they hadn't actually been substantially negotiated, or the countries hadn't landed anywhere on those particular provisions.

In terms of the areas of focus for our industry, I think everything was available for discussion for Canadian negotiators—at least that was my understanding—and also for other countries that were joining at the same time, Mexico, for one.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

From the brand side, can you remember the brand drugs? From your global head offices, were you already hearing about the TPP? Were you getting wind of it, and what were you hearing prior to being called and asked for your opinion on it from the Government of Canada at the time?

[Mark Fleming]

Certainly, our organization watches and looks closely at all international trade agreements, as they may have an impact on our business, whether it's the movement of goods or whether it's related to research and development or intellectual property. Our company was around the table and closely observing the TPP as it developed, as were many of our sister companies that we compete with.

I would say, as we watched the intellectual property chapter, certainly from a Canadian perspective, our observation was that it was essentially piggybacking on CETA, so that there really was no significant or dramatic change in the TPP from what we were already seeing in CETA. That enabled us to continue our support of CETA.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Most Canadians that I speak to in my riding, in Mississauga, and we were just in Winnipeg speaking to some people on the street.... What they want to know about the TPP, or the little that they do know is that it's going to bring us some good, paying jobs to Canada. Is this going to make us more competitive? What will it do for our trade? Most of the witnesses we've heard from talk about pure trade in terms of imports and exports. This is a very different type of meeting that we're having here today, talking mostly about IP, and how competitive you would be.

Going to the jobs, on the brand side, how many direct jobs do you have here in Canada?

[Mark Fleming]

Our employment is 15,000, and indirect is up to 31,000 employees in Canada. Perhaps I could just add to it, because I think I understand where your question is going.

In addition to the research and development we do, we have a major manufacturing plant in Guelph that manufactures 2.1 billion tablets on an annual basis that we export to the Middle East, to Africa, and as well to the U.S. There is the potential of an opportunity from an enhanced international trade, enhanced jobs, etc., from that Guelph plant to countries in the TPP region.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

If I may, I think Mr. Keon wants to....

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Keon, yes.

[Jim Keon]

Just briefly, one of the problems that joining late made perhaps, is that the focus on pharmaceuticals is all about intellectual property: let's increase intellectual property around the world. For a generic pharmaceutical industry in Canada and globally, that has a lot of problems in terms of when we can enter the market.

What we would like to see more focus on in the future is regulatory harmonization, trying to make it available so that when you develop a drug for Canada you can sell it elsewhere without having to redo tests and increase costs.

That's something I'd like to table with the committee going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

That wraps up the Liberal time and that round. We have a half round, I guess, and we're going to move over to the Conservatives for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Ritz.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to build on that point you were making, Jim. We have begun that process with our major trading partner, the U.S.—beyond the border and regulatory co-operation—and a lot of that discussion also happened with CETA, and could then spill over into the TPP as well. There's nothing stopping businesses within the TPP envelope or the CETA envelope from talking about this regulatory co-operation, recognizing each other's science. Rather than reinventing the wheel, you just add air and go again. That's an excellent point to make, and something that we should highlight in our report going forward.

One of the other issues that has come up, that seems to be quite a sore point with certain groups, but not with others, is labour mobility. I think it was Mr. Fleming who made the point that you have 15,000 people, 31,000 overall.

Is there the ability, or do you see the ability to bring in expertise from around the world for a specified period of time, a month or two or three, to do certain things, and then also export that expertise to other countries within the trade zones?

[Declan Hamill]

First of all, I have to say I'm not an expert on labour mobility. That said, we have had a number of member companies who have spoken positively about the labour mobility provisions particular in the CETA, because there are a number of member companies that are based in the European Union, so, yes, it does help when Canadians can move to Europe more easily, and vice versa. There's no question that it is helpful.

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

Okay. I know in the agricultural sector, Dennis, that's something that seems to be important as well.

[Dennis Prouse]

Oh, no question. Not so much directly for us, but certainly for the grower groups in the GrowCanada partnership, that is an issue with which they're always wrestling.

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

There's a tremendous amount of mentorship required. In a lot of the growing markets, Vietnam, Malaysia and so on, they're looking for Canada to come in with certain expertise on land use and different things like that, so it's a matter of being able to do that, and of course under the TPP we can.

[Dennis Prouse]

Every time I turn around one of our member companies is making a trip to those kinds of emerging markets that you're discussing, absolutely.