International Trade Committee on Sept. 26th, 2016

[Paula Tippett, As an Individual]

Thank you. I will read the following comments by Ann McAllister of Rothesay, New Brunswick, an observer at these proceedings.

While many aspects of the TPP alarm me, I am especially concerned about the damage it could do to locally produced food. Here are some examples.

Because corporations in the TPP must have access to bid on most government contracts, Canada can't give preference to local suppliers or enact “buy local” policies without the spectre of a lawsuit under the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.

Also, the TPP will promote global transnational agriculture instead of locally produced food, with the following consequences. Shipping food to Canada produces higher greenhouse gas emissions than moving food from local producers to local markets. This will worsen climate change. Cheap food from overseas will underprice local producers and push them out of business. Cheap food is made possible by paying low wages to overseas workers, and this exacerbates their poverty. Money paid to global transnationals leaves the local economy. For every dollar spent locally, seven dollars are generated to circulate through the community.

I am also concerned about the potential for recombinant bovine growth hormone to enter the Canadian dairy market from U.S.-produced milk. I fear that Canada could be sued under the ISDS if it tries to keep milk with this hormone out of the Canadian milk supply.

In summary, the TPP will discourage the government's policies promoting and protecting local food production. In the face of climate change, it is imperative that Canada build local food security. For this reason, I urge the government not to ratify the TPP.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We have Philip Blaney at mike two. Getting ready at mike one is Gregory Wright.

If you can, please slow down a touch, because we have translators.

Go ahead, sir.

[Philip Blaney, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm going to read from a section of a letter that was sent to Congress in the United States. It's from 223 professors of law and economics. They urge Congress to reject the TPP and other prospective deals that include investor-state dispute settlement. That's the thing I have a major concern with. Here is some of it:

We therefore urge you to protect the rule of law and our nation's democratic institutions and sovereignty by rejecting this TPP as long as ISDS is included.

...ISDS grants foreign corporations and investors a special legal privilege: the right to initiate dispute settlement proceedings against a government for actions that allegedly violate loosely defined investor rights to seek damages from taxpayers for the corporation's lost profits. Essentially, corporations and investors use ISDS to challenge government policies, actions, or decisions that they allege reduce the value of their investments.

I have a comment on that. It seems to me that where it seems to be so broadly open that there's a huge loophole, we could be sued for bringing actions to address climate change, protecting the rights of indigenous people, and stopping human rights violations. But at the other end, it also seems that corporations could sue us because we didn't take any action on climate change, and because not taking action on climate change would threaten their future profits when we get to that point in time when we're screwed, when temperatures rise over four degrees or something like that, when sea levels rise, and there's deforestation and so on. I won't get into that.

They continued:

Through ISDS, the federal government gives foreign investors—and foreign investors alone—the ability to bypass that robust, nuanced, and democratically responsive legal framework. Foreign investors are able to frame questions of domestic constitutional and administrative law as treaty claims, and take those claims to a panel of private international arbitrators, circumventing local, state or federal domestic administrative bodies and courts. Freed from fundamental rules of domestic procedural and substantive law that would have otherwise governed their lawsuits against the government, foreign corporations can succeed in lawsuits before ISDS tribunals even when domestic law would have clearly led to the rejection of those companies' claims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir. Your time is well over.

I'd like to remind everybody that we're not here to respond, we're only here to listen. Thank you for coming to the mike.

We'll move over to Gregory Wright, and at mike two is Jean Marc Ringuette.

Go ahead Gregory, at mike one.

[Gregory Wright, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'm a business agent with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 37.

I just want to say I'm not against trade. There are pros and cons to any deal and the question is whether the pros outweigh the cons.

I'm going to tell you a story. I grew up in the 1980s and 1990s. The big talk at that time was the NAFTA deal. I think we'd all be naive thinking it's all positives and there are no negatives. There are pros and cons.

Recently, I've been studying for my MBA, so I'm observing today.

We're not the European Union, the largest trading bloc in the world; we're not it. The NAFTA agreement didn't work out the way we thought. Just ask our folks in the manufacturing sector. It didn't work out the way that we all thought it would work out.

I'm concerned for my family, concerned for our members, and concerned for our sovereignty. This is more than a trading agreement. I'm concerned with the labour mobility, chapter 12 specifically. There was no consultation with the Canadian building trades. Merit was consulted, which represents 1% of the industry. There is no “hire Canadian first” policy. I'm also concerned about higher prescription drug costs, food quality and labelling, and air and water quality.

I'm slightly disappointed in today, and I'll tell you why. I negotiate contracts for a living. I like to seek to understand and to be understood. There are times when I was frustrated, where there were people strengthening their positions. That's fine. But I expected consultation in the discussion. I'm just trying to understand.

I'm against this trade deal as it is. I would advise the government not to support this deal as it is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Gregory.

We're going to go to Jean Marc, on mike two, and we have David on mike one.

[Jean Marc Ringuette, As an Individual]

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

I'm not against trade, like Greg and the people before me said. I think trade deals that are good and fair make for good business. I'm not against that. I'm not against growing our Canadian economy and lending opportunities for everyone to grow.

I think today I'll speak mostly on chapter 12, mostly on the labour mobility issue, which seemingly opens the door to weaken the middle class. I believe last year Canadians spoke pretty loud and clear that the middle class are the people that we're trying to bolster up. I think chapter 12, with its language as it is, is very, very broad and very, very weak, and really creates a weakening of the middle class by the weakening of laws, the weakening of safety laws.

I believe Canada was built by bricklayers, not lawyers. When I look at this trade deal, what I see are lawyers who are going to have to be involved in litigation, not bricklayers to build our country, not tradespeople to build our country. It's very, very unfortunate. This country does not need 36 million lawyers to settle trade deals, because the money will run out. If you're not getting your money from the workers of Canada to run the government and run the affairs of the government, it's going to run out. Trust me. I can do the math. It's pretty simple. You guys are all very intelligent people, far more than I am.

When I looked at this and I read chapter 12, I thought of the analogy that my kid was going to school and was mowing my lawn for $20, and that $20 would be paid back somehow by him putting it toward his tuition or, God forbid, giving some board money back to the house. But the way I read this labour mobility agreement, if the kid down the street says he'll do it for $15, then I'm obligated to let him do it for $15. I would have to hire him, or my neighbour would go and get a lawyer and sue me. Right?

I find it very ridiculous that we don't see the value, especially in chapter 12, of either taking out that language, which the United States has done, or making it so it is fair for everyone. I do not want to send my kids to Malaysia to go to work. It's a long, damp commute back on the weekend.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you sir.

We're going to move over to David on mike number one and Ms. Adair on mike number two.

Go ahead, David.

[David Beaudin, As an Individual]

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak as a private citizen on this proposed treaty. I think the TPP is just another bad deal for Canada and Canadians, in a long list of bad deals that started with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement under Prime Minister Mulroney.

In the last 30 years, despite promises of economic growth and prosperity under many similar deals, the majority of Canadians are no better off than they were in the 1980s, and many are worse off than when these treaties were enacted. A small elite has profited mightily, and this has led to the disgraceful economic inequality we see across this country, of which this city is a prime example. The free trade agreements may not be totally responsible for this inequality, but they certainly didn't prevent it.

Global Affairs Canada has predicted a permanent GDP increase of 0.127% by 2040, as a result of enacting the TPP. If I were to promise you a profit of just over one-eighth of one per cent over 24 years, you probably wouldn't jump at such an opportunity.

Two aspects of the TPP are of particular concern to me. As a retired physician who practised under medicare, but in a country without a universal pharmacare program, I've seen first-hand the adverse effects of high drug costs. Some patients, because of cost, forgo treatment altogether, or are forced to choose less effective or more dangerous treatments, or sometimes forgo the necessities of life, so as to purchase medication for their spouses or children.

Experts in medical economics predict that the cost of pharmaceuticals will increase significantly if we enact the TPP. I would also like to point out that the government may be constrained in regulating the pharmaceutical industry, and may even be prevented from developing a national pharmacare program.

This brings me to a second major concern about the TPP, namely the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. Under NAFTA, this has been a bonanza for multinational corporations, and the small number of private adjudicators and lawyers who participate in these extrajudicial, secret, and binding tribunals. These tribunals can decide on the terms of the free trade agreement, but a government's laws, policies, and regulations interfere with future profits to foreign investors. As a result, they can impose fines on governments, even when the disputed laws, policies, and regulations, are in place to protect the environment and/or public interest.

Canada has been sued at least 39 times under NAFTA, and Canadian taxpayers have paid over $190 million in known awards or settlements.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that I think this agreement, as it stands, is a bad deal for Canada. As the other speakers have said, I am not opposed to trade, but I want it to be fair trade.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you sir.

Mike Bradley, can you go to mike number one. We're going to go to Ms. Adair.

[Leticia Adair, As an Individual]

My presentation this time is on behalf of myself. For the past 25 years, I have worked with refugees and newcomers to Canada, and from the standpoint of human rights, and as a mother and a grandmother who wants to leave a better world to my children and grandchildren, I'm speaking to you.

The WHO, the World Health Organization, constitution outlines the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical, and mental health of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic, or social conditions. The right to health has also been enshrined in article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which we are a signatory.

In Toronto, in 1966, article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights was signed, as well as various other international treaties to which Canada is a signatory.

In June of last year, UN experts voiced concern about the TPP's potential adverse impact on human rights. I join their call for human rights impact assessments to be done for the TPP, before the negotiations go any further. This panel also drew attention to the potential detrimental impact these treaties and agreements may have on the enjoyment of human rights, as enshrined in legally binding instruments, whether civil, cultural, economic, political, or social saying that their concerns relate to the right to life, food, water, sanitation, health, housing, education, science, culture, improved labour standards, an independent judiciary, a clean environment and the right not to be subjected to forced resettlement.

We, all of us, need to start a discussion and plan of action based on human rights, not corporate rights. I beg you, this agreement should not be ratified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We're going to move to the last member of our audience today.

Mr. Bradley, you have the mike. Go ahead, sir.

[Mike Bradley, As an Individual]

Hi, I'm Mike Bradley, and I'm just representing myself as a citizen of Canada.

I find it appalling that we would lose some of our democratic rights to this deal. In other words, we have the right, as of now, to set our own environmental laws, our own economic policy to some degree, although that's been eroded by NAFTA. It is just appalling that a group of very wealthy investors should demand our resources, our materials, to take them away, and not only take them away, but also avoid the taxes in paying for the resources. The few jobs we'll get will not last long, and the monies will be exported offshore and into tax havens.

It really is an appalling deal, and our trade webs have been appalling deals for Canada. We built a country with our own purpose in mind and now we are opening it up to the world, which theoretically could be a good thing, but it's a bad thing if we are degraded in opening it up to the world; in other words, our citizens have to accept lower standards that we tried to avoid, that we tried to flee from, and now we have to accept them just to make a few people rich.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

I thank the audience for their participation today.

That finishes our first leg in Atlantic Canada, New Brunswick. We're going to move on to P.E.I. this evening. We'll be in Charlottetown tomorrow, then Newfoundland on Wednesday, and then Halifax on Thursday. We'll be going back to Ottawa and finishing our report. We should have it done by the end of the year. Your comments will be entered into our report. Thank you for participating.

That ends the meeting.