By far.
Evidence of meeting #24 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #24 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB
As a foreign investor in one of the member countries under TPP, if Scotiabank is active in that market, would Scotiabank help a Canadian entity mitigate the risk of working with foreign partners?
9:40 a.m.
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, Scotiabank
That is part of our value proposition to our clients. We do that. We have expertise on the ground in the various countries we are in. We know the industries, sectors, and players; we can and do open doors; and we bank them in the way they need to banked.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Being one of the most diversified banks in Canada, operating in nine out of the 12 TPP countries, how competitive would Scotiabank be if you did not have a diversified labour force in Canada?
9:40 a.m.
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, Scotiabank
Every firm would say this, but in the service industry the labour force drives your ability to make money.
We have a labour force that represents the diversity of our client base and of the countries we operate in. We view that as a key strength in our ability to provide value to our clients.
I don't think we would be as successful as we are were it not for the fact that we have a globally integrated labour force. We we very much think of it in those terms. We have global human resources. It's not Canada human resources and it's not Mexico human resources; it's global human resources.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB
My next question is for Doctors Without Borders.
On May 31, Mr. Hamill, the chief of staff and vice-president of legal affairs for Innovative Medicines Canada, came before the committee. He said the TPP would not increase the cost of Canadian medicines, for the following reason:
Intellectual property protection does not drive the cost of new medicines. Besides, nothing in the TPP will prevent the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments from doing exactly what they do now....
How would you respond to that?
June 7th, 2016 / 9:40 a.m.
Humanitarian Affairs Advisor, Doctors Without Borders
As I understand those comments, they are specific to the Canadian context. Our concerns relate more to the countries in the context in which we work.
I don't feel I can comment adequately on the analysis of the impact on domestic prices of medicines in Canada. I'm not sure if my colleague in New York has any comments.
9:40 a.m.
Judit Rius Sanjuan Access Campaign Manager & Legal Policy Advisor, Doctors Without Borders
Thank you for the opportunity.
We strongly disagree with any assessment or statement made about the impact of stronger intellectual property protection on the prices of medicines. It's been amply demonstrated. We will provide written testimony where we highlight data that has been produced over the last 15 years showing how intellectual property protections that go beyond international agreements, like the TRIPS agreement, have a negative impact on the prices of medicines.
There is ample evidence of the impact of those provisions on the Canadian health system. We have more evidence from the United States health system. The U.S. system is currently paying the highest prices in the world for medicines and new technologies. This is because it provides longer periods of monopoly protection for pharmaceutical companies.
We will be happy to provide data explaining that link between intellectual property and high charges. This has also been heavily demonstrated by the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the World Trade Organization. The three organizations with a mandate on intellectual property and health have all released different studies and analyses that show that link. We will be happy to provide that information.
When you look at the impact of the TPP in Canada, it is important to consider not only the national interests of Canada from the impact of the TPP on the Canadian health system, but also across the world. We will provide data that shows that it's not in the national interest of Canada to promote a trade agreement that will do little for innovation and do more to deepen the rising crisis of high prices around the world. This is not only an issue for developing countries, but a global issue.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
We're going to move over to the Conservatives now for five minutes.
Mr. Van Kesteren, you have the floor. Go ahead.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
It's been an interesting discussion this morning.
Mr. Cunningham, what you're doing is obviously working. I think we've seen the numbers being driven down.
What's the Canadian Cancer Society's position, and are they planning for legalization of marijuana? Will they be pushing for the same kind of warnings on their packaging if the government gets involved in the sales?
9:45 a.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society
We don't have a position on whether or not marijuana should be legalized.
With respect to second-hand smoke, for many years we had a policy that wherever smoking is banned, you should ban smoking of anything, whether it's herbal cigarettes, hookah shisha, or marijuana cigarettes.
We've said to the government and others that there's a lot of experience with respect to tobacco control that can inform potential regulations on marijuana federally and provincially, and we're available to provide that experience to you.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Good. Thank you.
I'm looking for a short answer here, because I want to go to Mr. Perrault as well.
Mr. Nickerson and Ms. Sanjuan, thank you for what you're doing. It's an incredible mission that you do.
I want to lay out a suggestion. I don't want you to really elaborate on too much of an answer, but just on this position. If pharmaceuticals are allowed to make a profit, doesn't it stand to reason that they would have more money to invest, and aren't some of the discoveries...? I'm going to take something like hepatitis C, which in the past would result in a liver transplant, but in terms of finding a drug that can take away, isn't that an argument as well that if we impede too much...? I understand that you're not in the business of profit. You're in the business of service. Doesn't that possibility exist as well?
Could I have a really short answer?
9:45 a.m.
Access Campaign Manager & Legal Policy Advisor, Doctors Without Borders
Thank you for the opportunity to further elaborate.
MSF completely supports the capacity of pharmaceutical companies to make profits and to profit from bringing out new breakthroughs in pharmaceuticals. We have medical operations on hepatitis C, so we very much benefit from the new treatment and cures for hepatitis C.
What we think is unconscionable is to create a strategy for longer pharmaceutical monopolies beyond what currently exists under international law already. Just to give you the example of hepatitis C, for this new hepatitis C treatment, there are different prices around the world. In the United States right now, it's around $1,000 U.S. per pill. That's $84,000 per patient per treatment, while the same drug is available in generic competition and is available for less than $1 per pill.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Thank you. I was really looking for a short answer. I know that we could discuss this, but we really don't have the time to do that.
Here's what I want to do, Mr. Perrault. In essence, what we're finding here is that there's a pushback, but without exception—and when I say this, I always have to say “except Ford”—everybody in industry and everybody in business says this is a good idea.
I want you to elaborate to the committee and maybe just explain what would happen if we would do the reverse. I'm thinking about something like the real possibility of the United States becoming protectionist. What would the result be for Canadian businesses if we were to move in the opposite direction?
9:50 a.m.
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, Scotiabank
I think it would be quite dramatic, actually. The global economic and financial system, and ours in particular, has evolved to be one in which we are integrated with each other. In Canada's case, we are particularly integrated with the United States.
If we end up in a world in which the United States alters the rules of the game and decides to put up walls and put up borders, whether they're physical, regulatory, or legal, I think you are fundamentally altering the economic landscape. That, I think, would have very significant economic impacts for a very long period of time. It could be that after 10, 20, 30, or 40 years we will have adapted to a world in which that works very well. It's pretty hard to see that in the near term it would be anything other than fairly traumatic.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
I think we could probably look at examples. I'm going to take the example of Brazil, which has practised walls and tariffs there. It's quite a tariff system. Can we point to a jurisdiction and say, look, there's a jurisdiction that's thriving with moving in the opposite direction? Do you know of one?
9:50 a.m.
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, Scotiabank
No. Up until a couple of years ago, I think people thought Brazil was the example. What we've seen is that as you erect those barriers and shield your economy from competition to the extent the Brazilians have, it can have long-term consequences, in the sense that things aren't sustainable and eventually they can blow up. They don't necessarily need to blow up, and Brazil was a representation of a whole bunch of different issues, but it's certain conceivable that it would be the case.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, sir.
We're going to move over to the Liberals now.
Madam Lapointe, you have five minutes. Go ahead.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses very much for being with us today. Given that I know Mr. Shrybman needs to leave at 10 o'clock, I'd like to ask you a question.
You referred to chapter 15, which is about labour law. Would you have any comments you wish to add, since you weren't able to finish what you were saying earlier?
9:50 a.m.
Member of the Board of Directors and Partner at Goldblatt Partners LLP, The Council of Canadians
Are we talking about the temporary-entry-into-Canada provisions, or the labour chapter?
9:50 a.m.
Member of the Board of Directors and Partner at Goldblatt Partners LLP, The Council of Canadians
Chapter 19 is the labour chapter of the agreement. My comments are that while the inclusion of a chapter about labour in the TPP is a step forward, it isn't a meaningful one because the standards that a country must adopt and put in place are so ill defined as to be incapable of enforcement. While the labour provisions of the TPP are ostensibly enforceable, a country complaining about the failure of another to respect its obligations under the agreement must establish that there's an ongoing and recurring pattern of non-compliance, which is a far different standard from what applies to the enforcement of other provisions of the TPP.
There is ultimately nothing against which a country's efforts can be measured, because in respect of core labour rights, the authors of the TPP pointedly rejected including compliance with the conventions, rather than simply the broad principles of the declaration.
With respect to conditions of work, not only is there no floor, but under the TPP a country may derogate from what limited protections it puts in place, other than in free-trade zones. We don't have any of those in Canada. So while—
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you very much. I'm sorry to interrupt you and to not be able to continue this discussion with you, but I don't have much time.
Mr. Cunningham, my other questions are for you.
You worry that the places where cigarettes are produced will change when plain packaging is introduced. You said that Hong Kong and Australia changed the location of their production to get around the regulations. Is that right?
9:50 a.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society
The real fear is the tobacco companies launching legal proceedings against Canada.