International Trade Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Lana Payne]

I think we've done a very good job of keeping jobs in Canada, despite all of the adversity that we've faced, including from the previous government in the last 10 years.

We have to be smart about how we do this. It's not going to be done with just the union and the company working together at a bargaining table. You need to have government involved in this.

If we care about a sector, whether it's the auto sector, the forest sector, or any sector in this country, we need a proper strategy to develop an industrial strategy for the nation. You can't leave this off on its own and assume that you can leave it up to the marketplace or leave it up to these trade deals. Build in supports in the deals to make sure, for example, that we can have a prosperous auto strategy, forest strategy, or sector in our country, instead of giving away the shop every damn time that we sign these deals. It's unacceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Mr. Van Kesteren, you have one minute if you want to get a question in.

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

When the Detroit Three—actually, the two—were just about going broke, the federal government forked $4 billion into that. I didn't have enough time to talk about our auto plan, but you and I both know that if one of these foreign companies—and they're foreign companies—says they're moving to Mexico, we can't stop them. You and I both know that.

[Lana Payne]

We just brought investment to Canada back from Mexico. The Silverado, which now will be produced in Oshawa, is currently being produced in Mexico. It can be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Your time is up. I'm sorry, sir.

That ends our panel. That's the last panel in our travelling.

Thank you very much, panellists. It was a very good discussion amongst all, with very different perspectives. Thank you again for coming. You represent a lot of people—a lot of people with regular jobs and in industry.

Before I suspend—I think we're going to try to get in an hour here with the audience—I will remind the audience to keep comments to two minutes. Then I'll be able to get in everybody who wants to be on the list and say a few words.

We're going to break for five minutes. The first one going to the mike when I return will be Cordell Cole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Everyone, please come to the table.

Now we go to the open-mic period with the audience. We've done this in every city or every province we have visited and it has gone quite well. We have a good list here today, which is good to see. We have around 16 speakers. We'll keep remarks to around two minutes. I ask you to try to keep your applause very short or refrain from applauding, because you're cutting into the next person's time.

We are here to listen. We are not going to be responding to you. We're here to listen, and our clerks are taking down the notes. Part of your submissions will be in with our report, along with those of many others.

If you feel you could not convey everything you wanted to convey, we have an email address so that you can submit your comments later on. You might think of something that you didn't say. Just send it to us and it will be all part of our study.

Without further ado, we're going to start off with Cordell Cole and Tom Griffiths.

Cordell, you've got it. Go ahead, sir.

[Cordell Cole, As an Individual]

Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Cordell Cole. I'm an international representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and, first of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

Today I rise against the TPP. This is the first trade deal to specifically mention construction workers. Regarding chapter 12 of the agreement, there was no consultation by the Harper government with the Canadian building trades unions, which make up a significant amount of the construction workforce in Canada.

In our view, this agreement would allow foreign contractors to come in here and bid more aggressively than our Canadian local contractors can. Furthermore, in chapter 12, there is no policy to hire Canadians first, and therefore, regardless of the unemployment levels in your city, your region, or your province, foreign contractors could come in and bring a totally foreign workforce to perform the work in your area. To me that's certainly wrong.

Entry of foreign workers wouldn't require trade-specific certification tests, and the length of stay for the foreign workers would be up to one year with the possibility of obtaining extensions. Also, it appears that there will not be any extensive enforcement requirements under the agreement, which leaves it open for foreign contractors to pay substandard wages and provide substandard working and living conditions for foreign workers.

Mr. Chair, Nova Scotia has a long, proud history of producing and providing a highly skilled, highly productive, and safe workforce to the users of construction. We have been doing this for over a hundred years. The unions of the Nova Scotia building trades have a strong commitment to trades training and spend millions of dollars each year on apprenticeship and journeyperson upgrade training. The workforce here is world class, and we've completed everything from the smallest commercial jobs to the biggest industrial sites, including offshore platforms. Simply put, we do not need foreign contractors to come into Nova Scotia to do work that we have qualified people to do, so we're asking that the Liberal government have a long look at this, and at the end of the day, say no to the TPP.

Thank you very much, and good luck in your deliberations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

Can Darlene Mcivor go to mic number one?

Tom, you're up. Go ahead, sir.

[Tom Griffiths, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. My name is Tom Griffiths and I'm a business representative for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 625. I represent 1,000 electricians in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. I'm also a delegate to the Mainland Nova Scotia Building Trades Council. Together we represent 14 construction trades and over 14,000 construction workers in this province.

I speak today in opposition to the ratification of the trans-Pacific partnership. This deal was agreed to by a defeated Conservative government just 14 days before they faced the wrath of Canadian voters, voters who were fed up with their anti-worker agenda. In their rush to pass this trade deal before being swept from power, this former Conservative government failed to consult with Canada's building trades unions, who together represent nearly one-third of the skilled tradesmen in Canada. Mr. Harper knew we would oppose this deal.

However, they did find the time to consult their friends, the Merit Contractors Association of Canada, a group of open-shop contractors who employ less than 1% of the construction and skilled tradespeople in Canada. Merit supported this deal because they knew it would drive wages lower in this country, a less than honourable motive.

The TPP allows for foreign companies to bid on contracts in Canada with the labour rates and working conditions common in their third world countries, and after they underbid Canadian companies for those projects, they're allowed to bring their own workforce in to Canada to do the work, with no regard for prevailing wages, licensing and certification, or typical worker benefit packages. They're not even subject to the labour market impact assessment currently used to control the temporary foreign worker program. The so-called business visitor class permits them to bring installers, repairers, and maintenance personnel into Canada to work without requiring them to attain a work permit. What kind of government—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I'm sorry, sir, but your time is up. If you have more comments or thoughts, you'll have to send them in.

On mic number two, can we have Susan Hirshberg?

Darlene, you're up. Go ahead.

[Darlene Mcivor, As an Individual]

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak at these hearings.

My name is Darlene McIvor, and I am the chair for Unifor Local 2215 and the manufacturing chair of the aerospace sector for the Unifor national executive board. I am also a member of Nova Scotia's north shore chapter of the Council of Canadians.

I wish to start by stating that neither I nor the organizations I represent are anti-trade, protectionist, or opposed to trade agreements. However, I am concerned about the bias inherent in the TPP's investor state dispute settlement provisions, known as ISDS, which create an imbalance between corporate rights and the rights of citizens, workers, and other groups.

Under NAFTA, Canada is considered the most-sued developed country in the world, and all indications are that under the TPP, the frequency will increase.

What seems apparent is that the laws and standards that aim to protect the things we value make us the most vulnerable to suits by foreign investors. This puts our policies around labour, the environment, agriculture, health, and social programs at risk, and threatens our social fabric, our communities, and our national sovereignty.

As a brief example, Bilcon, a U.S. corporation, proposed to construct and operate a quarry and marine terminal in Digby County. In 2007, a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment panel recommended that the project be rejected because of potential negative environmental impacts. Bilcon sued Canada under NAFTA, seeking more than $100 million in damages, and a split panel ruled in their favour. The tribunal concluded that the government's actions frustrated the investor's legitimate expectations and that Canada violated NAFTA's fair and equitable treatment obligations.

In conclusion, I thank the committee again for listening, and I hope that what they have heard in Nova Scotia and across the country will encourage our federal government to reject the TPP and pursue more just and fair trade agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Darlene.

Michael Bradfield, could you go to mic number one?

We have Susan on mic number two. Go ahead, Susan.

[Susan Hirshberg, As an Individual]

Hi. I'm Susan Hirshberg. I am here as a private citizen, or perhaps as a mother, and I am against the TPP.

I'm sure that in other testimony there have been all kinds of things about the possible environmental impacts of passing this treaty. I'm sure there has been discussion of the social impacts and labour impacts.

I think the most defining issue of our time is climate change. As a mother, I watch my children growing up, and I know that what's out there with regard to climate change is an enormous challenge, both for Canada and for the world.

I know that the Government of Canada needs to be incredibly active to come up with a plan that can guide our entire society on how we deal with this issue. I think it is very clear that the TPP will interfere with our ability to engage in long-term planning as a country, as a society, and as a member of this world.

The four major killers caused by climate change are natural disaster, food and water scarcity, social unrest, and disease. Any one of those is a huge issue, and they all work together. It is absolutely imperative that our government maintain its ability for long-term planning in order to face this tremendous issue in the future, and the TPP will very much reduce that ability.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Susan.

Brian Bennett can take mic number two, and we'll go to mic number one.

Michael, go ahead, sir.

[Michael Bradfield, As an Individual]

Thanks for the opportunity.

As an economist over more than 50 years of study and teaching, I oppose the TPP because it's about neither “free” nor “trade”. I'll give you a 55-minute lecture in two minutes.

The point that I think people have to realize is that when you cite economists and economists' models, the model of free trade that predicts some benefits from free trade does not predict any increase in jobs from free trade. It predicts that we will produce more of the goods that we're relatively good at producing and import goods that we're relatively bad at producing, compared with other countries. Therefore, the model does not predict any job growth.

What the model does say is that you'll get efficiency benefits from producing the things you're good at. The problem here is that it's also a job situation. To make that prediction of growth in efficiency, you have to assume that you have a full-employment economy. Tell me two countries in the world that have had full employment in the last 10 years or can predict it.

First of all, that doesn't exist. Second, when we have growth in some industries and losses of jobs in other industries, what's the job content of those industries? The so-called petrostate, which one government wanted us to become, pushed the oil industry or the fossil fuels industry, which is highly capital-intensive—i.e., the number of jobs per million dollars produced is very low—so that we ended up both encouraging an industry where there are very few jobs and losing industries, as Ontario knows, where there are a lot of jobs.

I will end by citing the Macdonald royal commission, the first big promoter of trade in Canada. They said it's a leap of faith, and the only benefit we would get from it is the psychological benefit of feeling that we are one of the first countries to adopt free trade.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Shauna Wilcox, you can go to mic number one.

Brian, you have the floor.

[Brian Bennett, As an Individual]

Good morning.

My name is Brian Bennett. I work in a dairy plant here in Halifax. There's been a lot of talk about auto and everything else, but I just want to let you know that dairy is all across the country. We all drink milk and eat cheese and yogourt.

One of the main things I want to ask is why this government would want to support a deal brokered by Ed Fast and Stephen Harper and his cronies. I have no idea why you would want to do that. That's number one.

We really feel under threat here in Atlantic Canada. We're under threat from Quebec and Ontario. We got bought out here three years ago by a company called Agropur. They're always coming down and telling us, you know, this plant is more efficient than that one, or this one's going to close. I can guarantee you that there'll be fewer of us working, especially if they open up the borders to more cheese and whatever. That means we'll be processing less milk, which means fewer jobs.

The big picture is this: yes, the farmers will get compensated for their lost quota for a little bit, but I can guarantee you that it will be the end of the rural farms here in Atlantic Canada. We're all scared. This is unquestionably a 100% bad deal for Atlantic Canada and all of Canada.

That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

To mic number two we will get James Pollock.

Go ahead, Shauna. You're on mic number one.

[Shauna Wilcox, As an Individual]

I just want to say thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here.

I have to mention that I am disappointed in the lack of town hall meetings taking place. We didn't have one in Cape Breton, and to my knowledge there was none in Nova Scotia. I think that was promised to us. It would have given other people the opportunity to attend, people who may not be able to be here today.

I am going to start at the end, in case I get cut off. I am standing in opposition to the TPP, and I expect you folks to make the same decision. There is no point in signing a trade agreement that has no economic benefit for Canada but does have major political and social implications, including the potential to diminish the health of Canadians, the people who voted you folks in.

With regard to the policies, legislation, and regulations that we do have in place to protect us from harmful products, the TPP can take that away from us. It can give companies the ability to freely market products that could be harmful to our health. That's because of the ISDS. We've already seen that under NAFTA, with the Ethyl Corporation and MMT, which is suspected to be a carcinogen. A lawsuit took place, and it is no longer banned. We also paid $13 million out to that company.

Another concern is the future legislation and policies, and the unwillingness of policy-makers to make health and other regulations in fear of litigation.

Those are some of the concerns I have. We need to be careful with the regulations we have, and we shouldn't be pushed into something we don't want because of fear of being sued.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Angela Giles, please go to mic number one.

James is on mic number two. You have the floor, sir. Go ahead.

[James Pollock, As an Individual]

My name is Jamie Pollock, and I am from Cape Breton.

One of the things I am not is a fluent speaker or slick with my words, but one of the things I love to do is say that I'm a Canadian. As Canadians, I and the people I've talked to are not in favour of the TPP.

I would like to talk today about prescription drugs. I've spent the last 29 years in health care, working in long-term care in the nursing home sector. In the last five years, I've transferred over to a program called the adult day program. Our job is to keep seniors out of the nursing home as long as possible so that they can enjoy the last years they have with dignity and respect.

I see our clients coming to the adult day program, on average, three times a week. They can't afford their medications. They're not taking medications because they don't have the money. With the pharmaceutical companies and the patent extensions that will be part of the TPP, the generic drugs will now be delayed when this whole process takes place.

They can't afford it now. People say that in Cape Breton the seniors eat toast and tea because that's what they like. I don't believe it's geographical; I believe it's because they don't have the money. You're going to take these seniors, citizens of Canada, who can't afford it now....

Drug companies are getting richer, and everybody else is getting poorer. We deserve better than that. I really feel that, as was mentioned before, we don't have a level playing field. It's not there. The seniors, Canadian citizens, deserve better.

I really wish you guys would reconsider this. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you.

Karl Risser can go to mic number two.

Angela, you are at mic number one. Go ahead, Angela.

[Angela Giles, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Thanks so much for hearing our concerns here. I just want to say that I hope this is a true consultation and that you actually listen and make decisions based on the feedback you've heard across the country at these consultations.

My name is Angela Giles. I work for the Council of Canadians, for the Atlantic region. We are a social justice organization promoting progressive policies. I won't go into it, because you've already heard from several of our supporters, staff members, and board members from across the country, including Ken Kavanagh yesterday in St. John's, who spoke about ISDS and the concerns around what has already happened in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador with the two ISDS challenges that took place there.

I was happy to hear Darlene speak about the Digby Neck quarry, which is an investor state dispute settlement that has impacted us here in Nova Scotia.

I wanted to raise these because despite all the pronouncements of improving the middle class and job creation with these trade agreements, on the back end of these deals, the huge amount of compensation that has already been dished out under ISDS chapters comes out of the government coffers. When we don't have enough money for public health care, when we don't have enough money to support indigenous communities that have been on boil water orders for years, and when we can't afford something as crazy as free post-secondary education, the links are never made.

I want to point out that these links need to be made. It's not just about the front end of the trade deal. It also needs to be about the full lifespan. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Angela.

Timothy Carrie is at microphone number one.

Karl, you're up. Go ahead, sir. You have a couple of minutes.

[Karl Risser, As an Individual]

I am Karl Risser, Marine Workers and Boilermakers Industrial Union Local No. 1, and the ITF inspector for Atlantic Canada.

I would like to start by saying the same as everybody else. We're in favour of fair trade, and we want good trade deals.

For a worker, collective bargaining draws some lines. In collective bargaining, there are good collective bargaining agreements and there are bad. This is a bad agreement. When we look at the past agreements under the Conservative watch, there were 500,000 manufacturing job losses in 10 years. These are the best jobs that we create, with nine or 10 spinoff jobs in the economy. These are the jobs that we need to protect. These are the jobs that people rely on. These are community jobs. These are the jobs that things are built around.

I love blueberries too, but for blueberries, they're bring in temporary foreign workers by the busload. We're talking about good jobs. We need to protect good jobs, and to do that, we need to plan.

There is Canada's shipbuilding procurement strategy, creating thousands of jobs in the area that needs it most in Halifax. That shipyard is booming. We have new technology and innovation. There are great things that are going on there. This deal will stop us from taking the next step.

We have a shipyard in Marystown that's empty. The workers are all laid off. We had 1,000 workers there. We want those guys working. Whoa, let's start creating a domestic fleet. Let's start working at the marine section. Let's start building ships. Let's start creating jobs in Newfoundland. Wow, we can do those things, but we can't do them under bad trade deals, so we need to protect that.

In closing I will say this: manufacturing matters, good jobs matter, and we rely on you guys to protect them. Eighty people control the same amount of wealth as 3.5 billion people. I think politicians should be like NASCAR drivers. You can guys can decide to put 80 names on your jacket or 3.5 billion names.