Evidence of meeting #31 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 change.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Courtney Howard  Climate-Health Lead Board Member, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Craig Yeo  As an Individual
David Usher  Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada
Jason Flint  Director General, Policy, Communications and Regulatory Affairs, Department of Health
Sara Neamtz  Acting Executive Director, Legislative Governance, Department of the Environment
Kim Dayman-Rutkus  Director, Centre for Regulatory and Compliance Strategies, Department of Health

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

I was just giving you a heads-up.

We're going to move on to the NDP now.

Ms. Ramsey, you have five minutes.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Thank you both so much for your presentations.

Dr. Howard, I think what you've just put into words is exactly what I've been saying at this committee: that while there's a commitment to honour what was signed on to in Paris and to look at the way we can improve climate change for all Canadians, ultimately the TPP threatens that.

We've had Jacqueline Wilson here. She's an environmental lawyer. She's broken down the chapters in the TPP and, ironically, in the original version of the TPP, there was actually climate change action that was included in the text. We see in the final text that it's all been eliminated and that the language is extremely weak in the environmental chapter.

I share your concerns that we won't be able to implement anything because there isn't an ability to do so in signing the TPP. Because you're coming to us from the Northwest Territories, I would like to hear more about the impact on the ability of your communities to not be able to legislate to protect your environment.

Certainly public health is included in that as well, but you're speaking to us about the environment today and the concerns around the ISDS which, by the way, nearly every Canadian shares. When you talk to average Canadians, one of the main things that they point out is the ISDS provision and their deep concern that it will tie all of our hands as legislators.

Can you speak to the impacts in the Northwest Territories on your communities if you will not be able to legislate in that way because you'll be under threat of being sued?

11:25 a.m.

Climate-Health Lead Board Member, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Dr. Courtney Howard

Are you asking me or Craig?

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Either one of you. You mentioned a few things, such as your roads and things that need to be repaired already because of climate change. What else would you be looking for protection to regulate and legislate for in the north that the ISDS could potentially cause you to be sued for if you do that?

11:30 a.m.

Climate-Health Lead Board Member, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Dr. Courtney Howard

Well, fracking is an issue up there. We had some test wells drilled two or three years ago. At the time there was no public health input whatsoever. About 80% of the studies that have ever been done on fracking have been done since 2013, so they are now in the peer-reviewed literature. Of the ones that have been done on health, 84% of them show red flags. That just shows how quickly evidence progresses.

We see in this agreement that there is an exclusion for tobacco. You can opt into an exclusion for tobacco, and meanwhile we're saying that there are other public health protections. If there are public health protections within the agreement, why do we need an exclusion for tobacco?

I'm really worried that as the evidence progresses, different things turn out to be public health problems every day. Glyphosate is under scrutiny, and BPA, and all the fracking chemicals. We've only just started doing toxicological analyses of them. We've only just started in the last two years, and we're already fracking. The threat to human health is huge.

I could easily see the N.W.T. coming up with fracking legislation in the same way that they did in Quebec, and that could potentially cause problems. Lawyers are trying to decide whether that's sort of a justifiable public health measure, but who's going to brief them? Who's going to teach them the evidence? Who's paying them? If the agreement has such major consequences for health and health people aren't involved, is it really a trade agreement or is it a health agreement?

To me, having spent this much time going to medical school to learn about health, to think of lawyers adjudicating whether or not something is good for health...I mean, really? We're going to sign on to that? That doesn't make any sense to me.

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

The UN Secretary-General's high-level panel on access to medicines released a report last week, and it highlights the fact that the TPP and similar trade agreements that increase intellectual property protection and enforcement endanger countries' efforts to ensure access to medicines and other health technologies.

11:30 a.m.

Climate-Health Lead Board Member, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Dr. Courtney Howard

Yes, absolutely.

I've also worked with Doctors Without Borders and I believe they have spoken to the panel on this same issue. This is forecast to increase drug prices in Canada. It may pose a problem if we ever try to bring pharmacare through.

Globally, we're already seeing population displacement out of the Syrian conflict that has to do with climate change. We're only going to see more of that. We are going to have more displaced populations. We're going to see more fights over food and water, and when guy number one goes to place number two, that's how TB gets transmitted and that's how Ebola spreads. That's how we've seen different viruses melting and emerging. People get put into contact with animals, and viruses are transmitted. We're going to see more diseases.

We're going to need to be able to respond really quickly to them and we're going to need to be able to provide medicines affordably to different populations here and abroad, and this agreement would limit our ability to do that. I don't see why we would sign on to something that limits our ability to have a health response.

11:30 a.m.

As an Individual

Craig Yeo

Can I speak to that briefly as well?

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

No; you will have a chance in a second, sir. We are going to move on to the Liberals, and you might have a chance to have your comments in that segment.

We are going to move on to the last questioner, the last MP on this section.

Madame Lapointe, you have five minutes.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses who are here with us today.

I know that your main concerns pertain to climate change. Should we have the opportunity to return to negotiations, what in your opinion could be changed to make the Transpacific Partnership Agreement, the TPP, acceptable?

11:30 a.m.

Climate-Health Lead Board Member, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Dr. Courtney Howard

The public health doctors who have written the most about this ask why the exclusion given to tobacco wasn't given to other public health measures. I will quote one of the papers by Labonté and Ruckert: “Why was this exclusion [the tobacco exclusion] not extended to all non-discriminatory public health measures a country might adopt?” I think that would be an important thing to include.

I also think it would be very important.... The notion of lawyers deciding which public health measures are legitimate makes no sense. It is important to realize that the precautionary principle may mean that a legitimate public health measure is one in which evidence is still absent—we think there is a problem, but we are not sure. That needs to be legitimate under the TPP.

11:35 a.m.

As an Individual

Craig Yeo

To respond to the question about alternative measures and perhaps to the Liberal member's question about how this would be replaced, I fundamentally do not understand why we need provisions to provide compensation to risk capitalists for changes in the capital environment, in the operating environment. This is risk capitalism, and if governments decide that there are new priorities as new conditions emerge, they need to be able to deal with those and not compensate people whose business model has become obsolete.

I wonder if I could also respond in part to the previous question about northern conditions that was directed to the NDP member.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Sir, I have to stop you because I would like to share my time with Karen Ludwig, please.

Thank you.

September 22nd, 2016 / 11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Thank you both for your presentations. It is very interesting listening to the voices of people from the north about the experiences there.

My question is for Dr. Howard. It was not long ago that we had a witness from the Canadian Nurses Association. She too stressed the significance of health in terms of trade. What was really clear in her presentation was the importance of the social determinants of health. In what you presented here today, you mentioned social and ecological determinants of health, such as water, food, housing, and education. Are you involved at all with the health authority in the north, focusing on those social determinants of health in terms of making improvements?

11:35 a.m.

Climate-Health Lead Board Member, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Dr. Courtney Howard

I do work quite closely with them. I have been doing a study on wildfires. We had a terrible wildfire season up here in 2014, which meant that we were basically fogged in by smoke for almost two and a half months. That study was in association with our territorial epidemiologist as well as the public health officers, the chief officers of health. When there are discussions on climate change, they usually get me to do the speaking and give the input because I have the most expertise in the area.

I am becoming involved in a food charter initiative, emphasizing food security here in the north, because that is a real issue. Also, there is the environment. That's what this is. I think today is bike-to-work day, and they are using one of my handouts for bike-to-work day.

So yes, I am involved.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Karen Ludwig Liberal New Brunswick Southwest, NB

The other aspect is life expectancy. If we look statistically at countries that are involved with international trade over a 20- or 25- or 30-year trend, we see that there tends to be a higher life expectancy as well as a higher quality of life. What would you say to the other witnesses who have come before the committee and have talked about the significance of the life expectancy in other signatory countries?

As well, there is the significance of trade for businesses. If they were not involved with trade, how would we pay for innovations in climate change or look at different changes and opportunities to help improve the quality of life in the north?

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

You'll have to be quick with your answer.

11:35 a.m.

Climate-Health Lead Board Member, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Dr. Courtney Howard

I'll again quote from Labonté and Ruckert, who had stats in their study—I don't have them in my notes—basically showing that most analyses of the TPP show that it will only improve the GDP by a tiny, tiny percentage in most countries. I think there was one exception, and that might have been Vietnam. It wasn't even going to be very good for trade. Their conclusion, which I do have in front of me, states: “More importantly, there is no evidence that the TPP will substantively benefit most workers in most TPP countries.”

You're right in that economics is usually considered to be one of the primary determinants of health, so if the economic benefits were large, they could potentially increase health and maybe lifespan, but the analyses in the academic literature do not show that the TPP will be substantially beneficial, even from a trade or economic perspective.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Thank you.

That wraps up the time for questions, although we still have a minute or so here.

Mr. Yeo, you had something that was on your mind that you wanted to say. Go ahead and finish your thought.

11:40 a.m.

As an Individual

Craig Yeo

It goes back to the NDP member's comment about conditions in the north. This is Canada-wide, but we do have a very high proportion of aboriginal people in the north who enjoy section 35 rights. Canada recently signed on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which requires free, prior, and informed consent on the actions of government that may affect their interests.

Here the ability of government to honour its constitutional obligations under section 35 and meet the UNDRIP requirements is undermined again. They may meet these, but if there's a penalty under ISDS provisions for having met those duties, then again we're undermining the supremacy of Parliament in meeting its legal and constitutional obligations. It's unacceptable.

11:40 a.m.

Climate-Health Lead Board Member, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Dr. Courtney Howard

Yes. That's a good point. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

I thank you both for joining us here this morning from Yellowknife and giving your comments. There were good questions from the MPs here.

We'll suspend for a few minutes. When we come back, we'll deal with Bill C-13, which was given to us from the House yesterday.

Thank you again.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

We'll get started again.

As I alluded to before we suspended, Bill C-13 has been put in front of us. The bill is going to change six acts, and it deals with the World Trade Organization, WTO.

We appreciate the officials coming here today to give us a snapshot. We have heard some of the changes and the implications in the House, but we'll get it right from you, if you'll give us 10, 15, or 20 minutes, or whatever time you need to explain what this is all about, where it comes from, and how it changes what we have to do here. We're going to be dealing with this clause by clause in a future meeting, but it would be good for the parliamentarians here to have an understanding of this bill.

The floor is yours. Again, thank you for coming. Use your time the way you want.

11:40 a.m.

David Usher Director General, Trade Negotiations, Global Affairs Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, committee members.

My name is David Usher, and I'm the director general for trade negotiations at Global Affairs Canada.

It is a real pleasure to be here today to speak about Bill C-13. This bill is required for Canada to implement the World Trade Organization's Trade Facilitation Agreement, which I will refer to as the TFA.

I'm joined today by colleagues from Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. If I may, Chair, I will quickly introduce them. Jason Flint, director general, policy, communications and regulatory affairs, and Kim Dayman-Rutkus, director of the centre for regulatory and compliance strategies, are both from Health Canada; Sara Neamtz, acting executive director, legislative governance, is from Environment and Climate Change Canada.

I hope they will be able to provide you with answers to specific questions that you might have regarding elements of Bill C-13 in areas related to the mandates of their ministries.

My remarks will cover two main issues. I'd like to start by providing an overview of the provisions of the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the effects of the TFA on merchandise trade; then I will explain why enacting Bill C-13 is required to allow Canada to ratify the TFA. Obviously I and my colleagues will be pleased to answer any questions you might have following my presentation.

First, on trade facilitation, in the context of trade agreements we're talking about simplifying, harmonizing, and standardizing procedures and measures that cover the movement of goods across national borders. In Canada this generally covers policies and measures implemented by the Canada Border Services Agency and other federal departments that operate at the border, such as Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The TFA is designed to make merchandise trade faster, cheaper and more predictable. The lack of transparency, multiple documentation requirements, and lengthy clearance processes increase trade costs. Global value chains, just-in-time delivery systems, e-commerce, and the fast nature of transactions today require quick and reliable border crossing and clearance processes.

Since simplified trade procedures benefit all traders and generate positive effects when more countries participate in such an agreement, trade facilitation reform is best done when many countries are dealing with it on a multilateral basis. This is why the WTO TFA helps to provide a global foundation that will extend trade modernization and facilitation worldwide and ensure maximum benefits to traders once it enters into force.

WTO negotiations towards the TFA concluded in December 2013. The idea of the negotiations goes back to 1996 and they began in 2001.

This major accomplishment was a win for the global trading community and for the WTO. The TFA develops global trade rules to expedite the movement, release, and clearance of goods.

Now, this agreement will have substantive economic effects. The World Trade Organization estimates that when the TFA is fully implemented by all WTO members, it could reduce trade costs by an average of 14%, including an average reduction of nearly 17% for least developed countries. It's expected that global merchandise exports could go up by up to $1 trillion. I think these are probably U.S. dollars, given that it's the WTO that did the study. Of that amount, up to $730 billion of the export gains will go to developing countries in particular, because the agreement will facilitate trade between them. These are important benefits, and they are especially important in a time when the global economy is slowing.

For Canada the benefits are expected to be most significant for our exporters, Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises that may not have the resources to comply with complex systems at the customs in foreign markets and for whom trade costs are therefore disproportionately high.

The TFA will enter into force once ratified by two-thirds of WTO members. So far, 92 of the required 110 WTO members have ratified the TFA. Canada's major trade partners, such as the U.S., EU, China, and Japan have already ratified it.

At the G20 Leaders' Summit in China this past September, the Prime Minister committed that Canada would ratify the TFA by the end of 2016. Canada would be joining the growing international consensus on this matter.

Let me now explain the link between the bill in front of you today, Bill C-13, and the TFA.

Canada is already compliant with the vast majority of the TFA provisions. In other words, the customs procedures and the measures that are applied by the CBSA and other federal departments like those we have with us today are already largely consistent with the obligations under the TFA. However, there are two provisions of the TFA where legislative amendments to Canadian statutes are required for Canada to comply with the obligations in the TFA.

Generally speaking, Bill C-13 will allow Canada to implement the TFA, while maintaining safeguards on the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.

As you stated, Mr. Chair, more specifically, Canada requires amendments to six Canadian statutes, which fall under the responsibility of Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, in order to ensure compliance with the TFA. Bill C-13 will lead to greater consistency in how goods are treated at the border and facilitate the transit of goods through Canada.

More specifically, Bill C-13 deals with two specific TFA provisions: article 10.8.1, which deals with the treatment of non-compliant goods rejected at the border, and article 11.8, which deals with goods in transit.

Let me speak first about article 10.8.1 of the TFA. The amendments being proposed in Bill C-13 would give Canada the necessary authority to take action regarding goods that are shipped to Canada but are non-compliant with our technical regulations. Possible actions dealing with those goods could include returning them, reconsigning them, seizing them, or disposing of these goods as necessary.

Turning to article 11.8 of the TFA, the amendments proposed in Bill C-13 would give Canada the necessary authority to allow Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to exempt goods in transit from certain Canadian technical regulations. These goods are not destined to enter commerce in Canada.

Safeguards are also going to be put in place where needed to mitigate health and safety risks to Canadian consumers and workers, in the event that goods in transit are diverted into the Canadian market; or in the case of handling, accidents or spills involving such goods.

My colleagues and I look forward to answering any questions you may have on Bill C-13 and the WTO TFA.

Thank you.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking

Thank you, Mr. Usher.

We're going to begin questions from the MPs.

Conservatives, do you want to start off?