Thank you, Chair.
Let me first of all thank the Standing Committee on International Trade for the opportunity to make these few brief remarks with respect to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In case there is any doubt, let me say unequivocally and with the strongest conviction, right from the start, that I do not support the TPP.
On September 16, 2016, I did submit a written submission on behalf of the St. John's chapter of the Council of Canadians. I'm here today to express the concerns of my chapter on this controversial trade deal. While I represent a local chapter of the Council of Canadians and the council in general, I wish to state that I am not simply and blindly regurgitating the official position of a much-respected and widely supported, citizen-led organization. The council did not come to us. I and my chapter or colleagues came to the council, because it represented our values and views on a number of critical issues, including trade. The views expressed here today on the TPP are not just the views of the council; they are my views and those of my chapter compatriots.
The Council of Canadians was founded in 1985 to bring Canadians together to act for social, economic, and environmental justice here and abroad. We are Canada's leading social action organization, mobilizing some 100,000 Canadians and a network of 60-plus chapters across the country. Through our campaigns we advocate for clean water, fair trade, green energy, public health care, and a vibrant democracy. We educate and empower people to hold our governments and corporations to account.
Let me be very clear: the Council of Canadians, contrary to the stated opinion of some political and corporate leaders, is not anti-trade. We are for fair trade. We support trade deals that respect the rights of people, labour, and the environment and that reduce inequality between and among nations.
An early definition of “trade” was the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities within or between countries. Modern-day trade deals are no longer just about the exchange of goods and services between countries or about the reduction of tariffs. No, modern-day free trade agreements have morphed into a comprehensive and complex bill of rights for huge and powerful multinational corporations that desire to enshrine and protect their right to maximize profits at the expense of the rights of people and the environment.
Perhaps the most offensive and insidious aspect of FTAs is their investor-state provisions or investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I am quite familiar with investor-state provisions as a result of chapter 11 of NAFTA.
In 2011 Stephen Harper paid a record $130 million to AbitibiBowater to avoid a chapter 11 challenge. In 2012 ExxonMobil won its challenge to premier Danny Williams' insistence that it spend a few paltry million dollars on R and D.
Under NAFTA, Canada has twice as many claims against it, 34, compared with the U.S. and Mexico. Canadian investors have zero successful claims, while we have paid out nearly $180 million. There is some $2.5 billion in eight outstanding claims, including a $500-million challenge by Eli Lilly.
Investor-states are an infringement on the right of nation-states to enact laws, policies, and programs that are in the best interest of citizens. The underlying premise in such laws, policies, and programs interferes with a corporate entity's right to make profit. Fundamentally, the concept of investor-state provisions is an affront to democracy and an assault on the sovereignty of a nation.
A further affront to the oft-promised open transparency and accountability of our democracy is the ultra-secretive manner in which the TPP and other trade agreements have been negotiated. Canada first engaged in discussions on this mammoth deal in October 2012. Then, for years the Harper government continued negotiations in absolute secrecy. That's a far cry from what happened in New Zealand, which held a series of stakeholder sessions with the country's chief negotiator to keep business groups and the public informed. There are many other issues with the TPP that others have dealt with, all of which are of concern to ordinary Canadians.
Most Canadians are very busy earning a living and living a life. The matter of an international trade deal may not seem important or top of mind most days. But the more they learn about TPP, the more they oppose the deal. Interestingly, citizen opposition to the deal is growing steadily on both sides of the political spectrum. Both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump attracted millions of supporters because of their respective positions on trade deals in general, and the TPP in particular. Clearly, citizens are waking up to the false promise of these new generation trade deals. It is also very interesting that both U.S. presidential candidates oppose the TPP.
With all due respect to committee members here, I can't help but wonder if this whole process of conducting these cross-country hearings is nothing more than a charade by the Trudeau government in the hope that the U.S. will scuttle the deal in due course anyway. There is some irony in the fact that I find myself depending on the U.S. government to save Canadians from a trade deal that is not in their best interest.
Thank you, Chair.