I'd better get that correct.
Evidence of meeting #27 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 tpp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #27 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 tpp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Director, Government and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
I think what I said was that this committee has had 27 meetings on this subject, not necessarily that I've been to them, but anyway.
9:25 a.m.
Director, Government and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
Maybe I'll get a raise out of that.
I think you're right. We don't sit around and wait for the phone to ring. When we have a view on something, we find out who is working on it and we get engaged.
I was trying to make myself a little note of how many of the TPP negotiating sessions we went to. Certainly we've had lots of meetings with the negotiators here in Ottawa, but we were at the first meeting Canada was at in Auckland. We were in Singapore three times.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It wasn't the government telling you to be there, it was you saying you wanted to be there.
9:25 a.m.
Director, Government and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
Oh, yes, we want to be there because the negotiation goes through a life cycle. In the early days, they're trying to figure out the priorities and what they are trying to achieve. They can only achieve things if people tell them what they are. Then the middle of the negotiation gets into how to achieve that. What are the objections from other countries?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
For example, I assumed you signed a confidentiality agreement so you could actually see in more detail what's going on. What do you say to groups that said, “No, we won't sign it,” and then come to this committee and say, “We haven't been consulted”?
9:25 a.m.
Director, Government and International Relations, Canadian Cattlemen's Association
I've signed so many of those confidentiality forms over the years for this negotiation or that. The government is willing, and in fact eager, to consult with people who have views, who can make these agreements better. My view is, if you weren't consulted, you really didn't try very hard.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, Mr. Hoback.
We're going to move over to the Liberals now.
Mr. Dhaliwal, you have five minutes.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Thank you to all the panel members for your excellent presentations.
My question is for Mr. Sinclair and brother Hassan.
Mr. Sinclair, I noted that in your presentation that you talked about temporary foreign workers coming in, and basically my take from your presentation is that this is going alter our immigration policy. Whether it was the folks of my friend Dave Van Kesteren who came here many years ago, or me, who came to this country in 1984, many people like us who have contributed positively to the economic prosperity and building of Canada.
How do you see this as impacting negatively or positively when it comes to the workforce, as well as building Canada?
9:25 a.m.
Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
The problem with the types of temporary entry provisions that are being negotiated under trade agreements like the TPP is that we give up a large amount of regulatory control. These are essentially rights that are not given to workers to move across borders, but to employers to deploy workers internationally. For those workers, there's no path to permanent residency, or no ability to immigrate to the country. Also, there are quite important regulatory differences even between the temporary foreign worker program, where we have had issues of abuse. Again, in the temporary foreign worker program, a company must demonstrate, through a labour market impact assessment, that it looked for and was not able to find qualified workers within Canada or within that local region. Now those types of economic needs tests or certification are prohibited by these agreements. That's the reason the United States' Congress, when it looked at these types of provisions, which had been negotiated in their previous agreements, said this was not trade policy, but immigration policy, and they forbade USTR from making further commitments. That's why the United States has not made any specific commitments on temporary entry in the TPP.
9:25 a.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
Obviously, I concur with most of the points that Scott has made in this area. We highlighted them because we believe that in this agreement, this will of course allow companies bidding on contracts in Canada to bring in an entire workforce. In addition to that, we will have no ability, as a government, to even determine the credentials of those individuals coming into our country. Clearly, we've always had a fairly open immigration policy, with people coming in through a regulatory process. Whether it's through landed immigrant status, or even as a temporary foreign worker, despite our objection to that program, there is of course very much a commitment to at least assess people's skills, where they're going to be working, and whether there is a need for them in that job market. Under this agreement, it that is completely privy to those companies that are bringing people in. We think it's going to have an dramatic impact on the buildings trade sector, which is involved in much of the rebuilding of our infrastructure across this country. We highlight it because it's one of the issues that have not been properly addressed in the agreement.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Besides Mr. Masswohl, were you fellows consulted, and did you work hard enough to get consulted?
9:30 a.m.
President, Canadian Labour Congress
We were not consulted. Again, we learned there was an agreement during the middle of the election, when the government announced that an agreement has been reached. We met with Minister Freeland shortly afterward—we met with her twice actually—to talk about the TPP agreement and try to find out more details from her what was in the agreement. We met with her trade officials who were involved in the negotiations and learned many things. I think what's been different with the current government compared to the previous government is its desire to have an open dialogue. It's fundamentally a different approach.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Mr. Dhaliwal, your time is pretty well up. You might get a chance later on.
We're going to move to the NDP now.
Ms. Ramsey, you have five minutes.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Mr. Masswohl, I have to respectfully disagree with the thought that folks weren't included because they didn't try hard enough. In all honesty, I feel it's the responsibility of Global Affairs Canada and the negotiators to go out to those who will be included. In particular, we've looked at the chapter on labour mobility. Those folks have never been included in a trade deal. As a result, it's outside the realm of possibility for them to even think they would be included in this.
I'd like to go to Ms. Owen and Ms. Haigh, because here's another piece that we're looking at, an extension to our copyright, which we haven't seen in a trade deal up to this point. You mentioned that this would weaken the public interest. I want you to expand a bit on how you feel it would impact Canadians' lives and their access to cultural materials in Canada.
9:30 a.m.
Chief Librarian, University of Toronto Scarborough, Canadian Association of Research Libraries
We think that a term extension will have a negative impact on people's access. Certainly, libraries that are conducting digitization projects will have to wait an additional 20 years to be able to do that. Scholars, we know, take materials that are in the public domain and write new, critical works that require copying beyond fair dealing, and that will be constrained. Books won't be republished. Once it's in the public domain, books can be republished and disseminated again. New material can be written around that material and promoted in a different context. That will be constrained. Teachers and students won't be able to get permission to scan or photocopy out-of-print books or artwork, mentioned earlier. As I mentioned, the jobs of libraries, archives, and museums in preserving our cultural heritage material will be made more difficult.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I'd like to go to Mr. Van Harten, and possibly Mr. Sinclair will weigh in as well. Mr. Van Harten, you provided us with a deck that shows investor claims that have been brought against us in other countries.
I wonder if you can speak a little about the risks involved in expanding and enshrining these privileges in this agreement. In particular, this one slide shows that in year 2000 we hit a critical point with these awards, which started to dramatically increase after that point. I wonder if you could speak a little about the history of ISDS and why it's such a concern to us.
9:30 a.m.
Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
ISDS exploded onto the scene in the late 1990s. It's probably been the biggest bonanza for large international law firms that we've seen in international law, because you can get access to public money in ways you just can't elsewhere in international law. Canada's the fifth most sued country in the world. Why? We're the only western developed country ever to have agreed to ISDS with the United States under NAFTA. This is 20 years later. No other country has taken that path, that degree of concession of our sovereignty to these kinds of tribunals. It's a meek surrender of sovereignty—that's how I describe what ISDS has entailed for our country.
The TPP would expand it to include coverage of more foreign-owned assets in our economy. If you include the CETA with Europe, almost our entire foreign-owned economy would be subject to the power of these tribunals. As well, there are some elements in the TPP that expand the existing rights of U.S. investors in Canada.
I would draw attention particularly to how ISDS is incorporated into the TPP's financial services chapter. Basically, financial services companies will be able to sue us, using rights called fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security, which they cannot currently do under NAFTA. That's a win for big banks and a loss for financial regulators and anyone they protect, in the case of the TPP.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
What about the ratchet and the standstill clauses? How would they impact our ability essentially to perform our jobs as parliamentarians? We've heard about these things. We've talked about regulatory chill here at this committee, and I think you touched on that a bit.
9:35 a.m.
Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual
I don't want to take too much time to get into the details of specific clauses, but you could think of the entire ISDS as a ratchet, because you are locking in your space to pass laws and make regulations, without this looming risk of a potentially very significant financial cost to the taxpayers.
For example, towards the end of the Conservative government's term, there were proposals for new, tough anti-corruption rules. According to The Globe and Mail, those were reportedly subject to behind-the-scenes warnings that NAFTA ISDS claims would be brought against Canada if the government proceeded with those new rules. I haven't followed the file closely, but I certainly haven't seen any public reports that the government proceeded with those rules. I'm not saying that was due to ISDS, but just that it's an example of how policy interests can conflict with this very potent system.