International Trade Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[Andrew Lush, As an Individual]

Hi, my name is Andrew Lush and I'm going to be speaking about the investor-state dispute mechanism particularly related to hydraulic fracturing. It's a good follow-up to what Colin was talking about, especially as one of the companies involved in potentially drilling in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is the company that spilled radioactive toxic fracking fluid on P.E.I. in 2007.

I was going through some information on the web about the ISDS, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, and I came across a paper from Columbia University and I thought, well, it's all here. They have analyzed it and they have all the answers, and it's full of problems. When I finish talking a little bit about hydraulic fracturing related to the ISDS, I'll read the conclusion of the report and I'll leave that with you.

Our group was formed at the end of 2012 to educate people about the risks of fracking, or slick water high volume hydraulic fracturing, on P.E.I. A lot of people can't believe that we would ever have fracking here, but if you look at the map, you will see we are surrounded by exploration and drilling leases out in the ocean and in all the other provinces, from southern Quebec, as we've talked about earlier, through the whole of the maritime region.

Right now, P.E.I. is enacting a water act, and that act is hopefully going to put a ban on fracking. We're the only province in the whole region that doesn't have a ban or a moratorium right now. In fact, companies can buy, for 40¢ an acre, fracking investigation leases, which in other provinces automatically convert into drilling rights. So we are really exposed to this right now. A company could come in tomorrow, buy the leases for an area, and start doing the test drilling. A mechanism like the ISDS that is already in NAFTA, but will also be in the TPP, could allow those companies to sue the federal government to allow them to carry on with fracking, even if our water act or any municipal laws actually put a ban on fracking.

With that in mind, as my two minutes are up, I'm just going to read the conclusion of this report.

Overall, the US claims to have made a number of improvements to the ISDS system and investment protection standards included in the TPP. While reforms would of course be welcome, the changes that have been made to the TPP do not address the underlying fundamental concerns about ISDS and strong investment protections; in some cases, the changes represent just small tweaks around the margins, while in other cases, the provisions represent a step backwards. At their core, ISDS and investor protections in treaties establish a privileged and powerful mechanism for foreign investors to bring claims against governments that fundamentally affect how domestic law is developed, interpreted and applied, and sideline the roles of domestic individuals and institutions in shaping and applying public norms. For this reason, the TPP should drop ISDS altogether, or replace it with a new and truly reformed mechanism that addresses the myriad concerns that are still lurking in the TPP.

I'll leave this paper for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir, and leave it with us. That's good.

We are going to go to Leo next, and then if Teresa Doyle could be on deck for microphone two, I'd appreciate it.

Okay, go ahead, Leo.

[Leo Broderick, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to this committee. My name is Leo Broderick and I'm with the Council of Canadians, and I do know that the Council of Canadians has made presentations to your committee across the country.

For all the reasons we heard today, we support anyone who is against the TPP, and we have identified the reasons why.

I want to identify one additional concern that has not been raised, and that is this. President Obama not too long ago said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is more than a trade deal. He went on to say that the United States must write the rules of the global economy, and if it didn't, it would be left in the hands of the Chinese government. Our concern with the TPP is that it is closely linked with the rising U.S. militarism in the Asia-Pacific region. We do know that the United States is significantly changing its international foreign policy regarding Asia. It's moving out of the Middle East.

We do know that the people in these 12 countries, including Canada, do not want the TPP, and if we do sign the TPP, we will be engaging in more militarism led by the United States of America. Let us not forget that the U.S. is still trying to cling onto global power, and Canada must not be a partner with what the U.S. has planned for Asia. It is the policy to isolate China. We do know that in this country we produce military weapons, and there is a huge secrecy with military production in the United States.

We say no to the TPP for many reasons, but in particular, we stress this afternoon that we fear the rise of militarism and the threat to people's peace and security.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

We're now going to mike number two. Teresa Doyle is going to be there.

Perhaps Devan England could be ready at mike one.

Go ahead, Teresa.

[Teresa Doyle, As an Individual]

Thank you. I am Teresa Doyle, a musician.

According to Global Affairs Canada's recent analysis, the TPP would increase GDP by a mere 0.127%, but not until 2040. We're gaining virtually nothing in this trade deal by giving away so much. In fact, there are few barriers to trade left in the world.

This is not an agreement about trade. It's an agreement about investment and it is a cash grab by the billionaire class.

This ISDS mechanism, in many countries, like Australia, they don't include it. Since 2011 they have no longer included it in their trade deals. Many Europeans are backing away from it. I don't understand why Canada is being so lax about this, because we are the most sued country in the world. That's prohibiting us to have our say in our own democracy and our own environmental and labour laws. It hamstrings democracy and environmental action on climate change.

Who stands to gain? It costs an average of $8 million to launch a suit under an ISDS. Of the companies that are suing governments, 90% are making in excess of $1 billion a year. This is a cash grab by the billionaire class and it has to be stopped in its tracks, because environment and democracy are not externalities.

We need to take a hard core look at all of the trade deals we've signed to see if they're actually working for Canadians, because when the Liberals gained power last year and threw out Stephen Harper, we expected a change in policy. We expect real action on climate, on trade, and democracy.

If you do want to take down an unfair tariff barrier, look at what Canadian musicians face. American musicians flood up here, and have done so for decades. We open our arms, no tariff, but for me to go into the United States, I have to apply for a visa at a cost of $450, and wait 120 days before I go in. There's one little tariff you could work on, but in the meantime, leave us our democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. England.

Darcie Lanthier, could you be ready at mike number two.

Go ahead, Mr. England.

[Devan England, As an Individual]

My name is Devan England. I'm a software developer who has been part of the Canadian software industry for over nine years.

I would like to start by thanking the committee for granting me this opportunity to speak today in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to share my perspective on why it should not be ratified.

The TPP is a large agreement with many parts to it. It calls for changes to regulations that affect not only trade, but also things like environmental protections, pharmaceuticals and online privacy.

One of the areas that is of particular concern to me as a technologist is the section on intellectual property. For example, copyright terms in Canada generally last for the life of the author plus 50 years. The TPP would require increasing this term to the life of the author plus 70 years. The argument in favour of increasing the term is that it would encourage more innovation, but this is completely wrong.

Think about it. Would you be discouraged from writing a book because you would have exclusive rights to it for only 50 years after your death, instead of 70? Of course not. Changes like this do not benefit innovators of the present. They only benefit rights holders of long dead innovators of the past.

Cambridge University researcher Rufus Pollock has calculated the ideal copyright term to be around 14 years, period. This is the balance between incentivizing innovation by granting exclusivity and fielding further innovation by terminating it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I'll give you a little extra time, but you have to slow down. We have translators and they have to be able to translate. Take your time and I'll give you two and a half minutes in total, but just take your time with it.

[Devan England]

Thank you.

The TPP also seeks to introduce anti-circumvention measures into our copyright laws. In a nutshell, this means that any software limitation which is in some way related to copyright may not be bypassed without breaking copyright law.

A real-world analogy would be that the law that makes it illegal to, say, steal a car would also make it illegal to unlock the car by any means other than the original key. If you locked the key in the car, you could not open it with a coat hanger. You couldn't call a locksmith to open it for you. There wouldn't even be a locksmith because the tools of that trade would be illegal. You wouldn't even be able to make a backup copy of your key in case you lost the original.

Anti-circumvention laws have been in place in the United States for some time now, and they have been widely abused to prevent their abuse and eliminate healthy competition in the market and further business goals that have nothing to do with copyright.

These all come at the expense of consumers and the general public. If the intellectual property provisions of the TPP were tabled independently, I have no doubt they would be shot down quickly. They are objectively not in the public interest, so why are they here? Perhaps because in a document that is thousands of pages long the intellectual property changes feel relatively small.

Consider what would happen if the entire TPP had been presented, not as one monolithic agreement but as a collection of focused proposals that could be evaluated individually. For every country involved, the changes that were accepted would better reflect the values of their citizens. If that public interest were truly the priority, then the TPP would have been presented this way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We are going to go to mike number two with Darcie Lanthier.

Go ahead.

[Darcie Lanthier, As an Individual]

Darcie Lanthier en français, but here on Prince Edward Island we say “Darcie Lanthier” and hope for the best.

I just wrote my talk while I was sitting there, so it's probably shorter than two minutes.

I am an energy systems engineering technologist—quite a mouthful. I work in the renewable energy sector, mostly with solar. It is the primary function of governments to protect citizens from corporations. The TPP is the tool to protect corporations from citizens. Trade deals are made nation to nation to remove little barriers, as in music and manufactured goods. Investor-state dispute mechanisms are not about trade. This one specifically is about corporate profits. As a renewable energy specialist, I attended the energy ministers' conference when it was last held in Charlottetown, and I listened to the VP of Suncor call the tar sands “an Asian investment opportunity” 14 times in 15 minutes.

The VP of Irving told the room to be unashamed, “After all, we are not big tobacco.” They are worse. The oil sector has been standing in the way of renewable energy for decades. They have been working against progress on climate change. They have killed more people than big tobacco, and they will eliminate the generations to come. They cannot be able to go to a little group of corporate lawyers and insist that their right to profit supersedes our right to a future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

We have a gentleman who just arrived. Welcome.

We are going to squeeze you in, sir. Is it Cameron? Go ahead, for two minutes. As soon as you have reached two minutes, I'll put this up and you have to make final remarks. As I said, if you don't get all your comments in now, you can submit them to us, and our clerk will take them.

Go ahead, sir.

[Cameron Macduffee, As an Individual]

Thank you very much. My comments will be brief.

I am not representing any organization. I am just here as a concerned citizen who wants to make a statement for the public record.

My name is Cameron Macduffee. I am a resident of Prince Edward Island. I am not in favour of the Canadian government ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because I believe that it undermines our democracy by placing the rights of foreign investors above the rights and needs of Canadian citizens.

The TPP, as I understand it, gives power to foreign investors to sue the Canadian government if it puts the health of our citizens, our economy, or our environment ahead of foreign investors expecting profits. As I read through different parts of this agreement, it strikes me again and again that it places the right of foreign investors and multinational corporations to make a profit above the well-being of everyone else. I think this sets a dangerous precedent, for I believe that corporations should be responsible to people and societies, and not the other way around.

I believe that if the Canadian government is serious about upholding the integrity of our democracy and preserving the health of our economy, our environment, and the well-being of all Canadian citizens, it should not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

That wraps up our consultation process in P.E.I.

We are heading to Newfoundland right now, Nova Scotia tomorrow, and then back to Ottawa, where we have more submissions. We should be done by the end of October and have the report in front of the House of Commons by next year.

Thanks, everybody, for coming. We really enjoyed being here in P.E.I., and we are bound to come back.

Thank you.