International Trade Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[Mary Boyd]

I'm just about finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay, then go ahead, sorry.

[Mary Boyd]

I wanted to go into the draft chapter, but I only have a few comments. I don't know if—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have a half a minute, so perhaps you could wrap it up.

[Mary Boyd]

In a half minute, I might.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You might be able to get some of your comments in when people are asking questions later on.

[Mary Boyd]

All right, I'll mention just two things then, quickly.

We're concerned about article 7.1 of the chapter on technical barriers to trade where it says:

Each Party shall allow persons of another Party to participate in the development of technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures by its central government bodies on terms no less favourable than those that it accords to its own persons..

We ask, where is the sovereignty?

Finally, we are concerned about the international scene. We're concerned that groups like Médecins Sans Frontières have been warning about the extensions on patents on drugs and what that's going to do all over the world to people who are dying now from curable diseases because they don't have medicines.

I would end by saying that Canada has always been a country that cared about those things, and to sign these trade agreements is going to not only hurt Canadians and our ability to care for our health care system, but it will also have repercussions all over the world, especially for the people in poverty in the global south. It's just not the way to go. For that reason, we cannot support the ratification of the TPP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We're going to move on to the Sierra Club. We have Mr. Reddin. If you could keep it to five minutes, we would appreciate it.

[Tony Reddin, Atlantic Chapter Executive Committee, Sierra Club Canada Foundation]

Thank you.

My name is Tony Reddin. I'm a volunteer with Sierra Club here on P.E.I. As hopefully you already know, Sierra Club is the oldest environmental public interest organization in North America. I want to speak especially about environmental issues, and in particular climate change and how the TPP will have a negative effect on action that we can take to mitigate climate change which, as we understand it as citizens, is a big priority for this federal government.

To begin, I think it's worth remembering that our planet is in trouble. Widespread deforestation has accelerated and creates biodiversity loss and soil erosion. World fisheries are on the verge of collapse. Climate disruption stands to destabilize world food supplies, undercut economic development, and threaten communities with extreme weather and sea level rise. It already does threaten communities, and we've seen many examples of that, including here on P.E.I.

As we move toward these planetary tipping points, strong climate policies, ambitious environmental laws, and decisive government action are desperately needed, and “action” is the key word here. I appreciate this chance to speak and have you listen, but action is what we need, and the sooner the better.

Unfortunately, right when we need active policy-making most, investment rules in these trade agreements such as the TPP are restricting the ability of governments to set policies in the interest of the public.

While foreign investment in international trade can help to drive economic development, current rules go way too far in granting broad privileges to corporations at the expense of public welfare and the environment, and the most harmful of those rules are due to be expanded in the TPP.

The Sierra Club in the United States has done some terrific documents on these issues, and I'll forward you the main one that I'm quoting from. It's on the TPP and various environmental agreements, especially multilateral environmental agreements that Canada and the U.S. have signed. The TPP environment chapter fails to honour those agreements. They're international agreements we've signed, and yet the TPP could weaken or destroy those agreements which are critical for environmental protection.

I won't talk about all of them, of course. There's the agreement on climate change, which we are all familiar with. It was signed in Paris. There's a standard that's set for agreements like this, and earlier ones, in terms of whether we're going to honour them. For that, it would require countries to live up to their commitments in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed in Paris, or is in the process of being signed. It would require them to explicitly protect the ability of countries to adopt, maintain, and implement rules and policies to address climate change, including greenhouse gas emission standards, feed-in tariffs, a carbon cap or tax, and any related border tax adjustments, renewable energy programs, government programs that cultivate local production of clean energy and green goods, and energy efficiency standards or labels.

The TPP environment chapter doesn't even mention the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and yet, as we can clearly see, increased trade, as is expected, would significantly increase climate-disrupting emissions because it would spur increased shipping. It would increase consumption, which is again going to increase emissions, and would increase fossil fuel exports. There are some really enlightened examples of this that I hope to get to. Despite those connections and the likelihood that the TPP would increase emissions that cause climate change, the TPP fails to even mention the words “climate change”. An earlier draft did include that, but it was changed in the final agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

If you could wrap up, we'd appreciate it.

[Tony Reddin]

Okay.

Instead, it includes the non-binding assertion that transition to a low-emissions economy requires collective action, but it requires nothing to require such action—and again action is the key here—or to prevent the TPP from increasing climate-disrupting emissions. The TPP environment chapter also fails to require TPP countries to adhere to their UNFCCC commitments, despite the fact that all the TPP countries are party to the climate convention.

Finally, it offers no protection from TPP rules that would allow foreign investors and governments to challenge climate and clean energy policies in unaccountable trade tribunals. It includes no safeguards for green jobs programs that could run afoul of the procurement rules or fossil fuel export restrictions that could violate TPP rules on trade in goods, energy-saving labels that could be construed as technical barriers to trade, or to adjustment mechanisms that could conflict with TPP rules, despite boosting the efficacy of domestic greenhouse gas mitigation, or an array of climate change policies that could be challenged by foreign fossil fuel corporations as violations of the TPP special rights for foreign investors. With no protection for such policies from the TPP's polluter-friendly rules, the TPP could not only spur increased climate-disrupting emissions, but also inhibit domestic efforts to curb such emissions.

We must therefore reject the TPP in order to avoid its negative impacts on action to mitigate climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

We thank you, sir.

We're going to move to the dialogue with the MPs.

We're going to start with the Conservatives. Mr. Van Kesteren, go ahead, sir.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you all for attending our final meeting here on beautiful P.E.I.

Mr. Reddin, I think everybody appreciates groups that keep industry and business people honest, making sure they're doing the right thing and guiding them along the right way. I have a couple of questions.

Which would you say are the worst nations for producing carbon emissions?

[Tony Reddin]

I'm not sure of the relevance, but of course Canada has to accept its place in a—

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

No, I'm asking for the worst. You must grade them. You must be able to name number one, number two.

[Tony Reddin]

Well, it's not something that I worry about. What Canada is doing is my concern. But the United States and China are probably the two highest. That would be my guess.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

As for fish stocks, we heard from the seafood processors and we heard from the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association. They still use “fishermen” when they should probably be saying “fishers”. We talked about fish stocks. That concerns me, and I think all of us around this table are concerned. When we were in New Brunswick, we had an opportunity to talk to a group involved with fish farms. They can have a very positive effect on fish stocks, too. The P.E.I. Fishermen's Association told us that the stocks were good here. The lobster stock is starting to increase. Would you agree with their analysis?

[Tony Reddin]

I agree that there are plenty of lobsters. The reasons are complex, and I'm not an expert on that.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

We're doing a pretty good job here in Canada as far as—

[Tony Reddin]

Oh, no. One of the major factors for that is that there are so few cod to eat the lobster.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

But they're coming back, too, aren't they?

[Tony Reddin]

The lobster, I mean that's—

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

We're all cognizant—

[Tony Reddin]

Just because there's a lot of one species doesn't mean that the balance is there, that's for sure.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Do you think that our fishing industry is in bad shape, and that it's depleting? They don't agree with that.