International Trade Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Brendan, to start with you, I'm not sure if you're aware—you probably are—that Chief Darcy Bear of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation just south of Saskatoon actually has a college on site to train first nations people in the intricacies of mining and give them that first step to move into your hiring practices. It is a great resource. He's connecting now with the union of operating engineers to further that as well. There's a lot work being done by first nations that are pro-trade and that really want to help you move forward. I just wanted to make that point.

To the Yukon Federation of Labour and Ms. Quocksister, you made the comment that you're very concerned about your union being watered down by people coming in for some of these offshore.... Even though they're unionized, it may not be to your standards. I'm not sure how that could happen when you actually do your own certification and the labour chapter within the TPP says that they have to qualify to Canadian levels to come here, so I'm not sure what your point was.

[Vikki Quocksister]

A lot of unions and a lot of negotiation happen through what's come before. Take maternity leave and its history. Maternity leave won by the postal workers has been initiated into other unions to be part of their negotiation practices as well. We're concerned that in the future there might be some sort of a fight to undercut the workers' negotiation practices, and there's always change within that sort of structure.

We're looking at the auto workers in Unifor. Right now, down in Ontario, they're having a whale of a time trying to get decent wages and whatnot and to keep the jobs within Canada. I just feel that these sorts of situations are going to be troublesome in the future.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I'll just have you reread that labour standards chapter, then.

You also made the comment that you're concerned about a flood of workers coming in who will take jobs away from your folks. I actually wanted to point out that since we've had free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, and Korea, in 2015—these are the latest numbers we have—we've had a total number of 14 professionals and technicians from Peru. We had 45 from Colombia and a total of 13 from Korea. Do you consider that a flood?

[Vikki Quocksister]

The Yukon has 37,000 people, and for the most part, 20,000 of them are looking for jobs, or have a job, or whatnot. We don't have a lot of options here for work, so for us it's a flood.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

The whole point, then, would be Mr. Marshall's point, which was that we need this agreement with like-minded countries in the TPP and others so that we can make these investments that will develop the jobs for Yukon and the territories.

[Vikki Quocksister]

I don't know if that would actually develop the jobs for us. I mean, anything is possible. We'll certainly work together as workers to try to make better opportunities for workers and for jobs. I guess the proof is in the pudding.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Ritz.

That wraps up our first session.

We thank our witnesses for presenting to us today. All the information that came back and forth was really beneficial to us. This report will be done at the end of this year or the beginning of next year, and your comments will be in it.

Thank you very much. Good luck this winter up north. Take care.

We're going to suspend right now to get the new witnesses on board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Welcome witnesses, via video conference. Thank you for joining us today.

This is a study our trade committee has been doing over the last many months. It deals with the TPP, which is one of the biggest trade agreements that our country is going to embark on. It deals with 40% of the GDP of the world. It's a deal that probably could affect every Canadian and many business people one way or another.

Our committee has done quite a bit of travel throughout all the provinces. We've had many witnesses—stakeholders and individuals—come here to Ottawa. We had open-mike sessions after each town hall meeting. We also have over 20,000 submissions from the public.

We are doing the territories right now. This is our second day. We'll take all this information we're receiving and we'll put our report together later on this year.

I thank the witnesses for coming forward. We have, and hopefully I'm pronouncing it right, the K'atl'odeeche First Nation, the Nunavut Offshore Allocation Holders Association, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Welcome, everybody. The way we usually do this is each witness gives a presentation for about five minutes on what they think of the trade agreement, and then we open it up for dialogue with the MPs.

We'll start with the K'atl'odeeche First Nation, and we have Chief Roy Fabian and Peter Redvers. Go ahead for five minutes, folks.

[Peter Redvers, Director, Lands, Resources and Negotiations, K'atl'odeeche First Nation]

Thank you.

It's the K'atl'odeeche First Nation, and my name is Peter Redvers. Chief Fabian has asked me to give some opening remarks. He may have some comments to add after that, and he is certainly available for questions. We do have a prepared presentation, although it's not ready to be submitted yet.

First of all, the K'atl'odeeche First Nation is located in the Northwest Territories, south of Great Slave Lake. It is a fairly large traditional territory and is currently in the process of trying to fully implement its rights under Treaty 8, as well as its inherent aboriginal rights. It has never ceded, released, or surrendered control over its traditional territory, either through Treaty 8 or through the establishment of the reserve.

The K'atl'odeeche First Nation's first concern with respect to the TPP from an indigenous rights perspective, which is the key concern, is the secret negotiation process.

Under Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Canada is required to consult and to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Also, under the law in Canada, the duty to consult is triggered and consultation is required when governments are contemplating an action that may infringe rights, not at the eleventh hour. Certainly the TPP could be considered a legislative or administrative measure that has a high potential to affect indigenous peoples.

While Canada claims, or we assume it's claiming, to be consulting first nations and others now that the negotiations are over, that consultation is very weak, and the deal is almost impossible to change now. That's our reading, so this process is clearly an example of too little too late, both under the UN declaration as well as under the laws of Canada with respect to consultation.

A significant concern, which evolved from the first concern, has to do with the TPP chapter on dispute resolution, which has been identified by many others as having a potentially substantive impact on indigenous peoples.

Like NAFTA, the TPP allows companies to sue a country if they believe the agreement has been violated in a way that affects their interests and their profits. That lawsuit can occur in a potentially private arbitration process under an ad hoc tribunal, and it's referred to as investor state dispute resolution.

When I say a potentially private process, under article 9.24.2, although the tribunal is supposed to be conducting hearings open to the public, it also has the ability to close hearings, particularly to protect proprietary types of information, so the tribunal has the ability to restrict others from participating in it. Obviously the cost of participating in that kind of a process would be prohibitive for most first nations.

In theory, the ISDS is there to protect foreign firms from unfair discrimination; in practice, international corporations have used it to sue countries for all kinds of regulations that are in the public interest. For example, regulations to protect the environment, human health, human rights, labour, intellectual property, or others could be challenged.

KFN has a serious concern that the ISDS provisions in the TPP could give too much power to foreign corporations over the laws and policies within Canada, and in our case particularly in relation to land and resource management decisions. This could have a real impact on first nations, especially in disputes over natural resources and development on the land. We do know that certainly among the key beneficiaries of this TPP are Canadian exporters, particularly in the natural resource sectors. That's oil and gas and mining, clearly.

I point out one clause that's of particular concern, and that is 9.29.10: “Each party shall provide for the enforcement of an award in its territory.” This appears to be in the absence of acceptance of any determination by the tribunal and doesn't give much cause for a party, or a country, to challenge that using their own internal laws and jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Excuse me. Are you going to let the chief speak?

[Peter Redvers]

Yes. I'm just about done here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay.

[Peter Redvers]

Essentially, the TPP and the ISDS provisions mean that where Canadian laws or policies provide protection for first nations or the environment, they could be challenged. Again, the challenge would be in an ad hoc quasi-judicial tribunal, which is very difficult for first nations to participate in, and the scope of that participation may be limited. If the company wins, Canada certainly would be required to provide compensation, but might be required to amend its approach to land and resource management. Even if the company doesn't win or there are no lawsuits, Canadian governments may feel pressured by the ISDS clause to minimize or reduce regulation.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, has raised this concern. She says that the TPP grants more rights to transnational firms, often at the expense of indigenous rights. She said the TPP will give more power to companies that want to deal with natural resources on indigenous lands.

We mentioned the concerns about impacts on the natural resource sectors. We know The Economist magazine, which is generally a supporter of free trade, has commented that implementation has been disastrous—and that's relating to the ISDS—and that providing special rights and special processes for international corporations to challenge regulations is unnecessary and counterproductive.

What's really key here is that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Excuse me, sir; you're way over time, and I was hoping that the chief would make some comments in your presentation.

[Peter Redvers]

Five minutes is a pretty short time to speak to natural resource management.

Chief Fabian, if you want to go ahead, I do have some final comments that I would like to make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Go ahead, sir.

[Chief Roy Fabian, Chief, K'atl'odeeche First Nation]

My name is Chief Roy Fabian for the K'atl'odeeche First Nation.

When I first heard about this TPP, it really concerned me, because I had heard some comments about how these foreign companies can actually change the laws in Canada. Here they feel that those laws are impacting on their profits, so these issues are a big concern for us.

As the K'atl'odeeche First Nation, we're impacted by the Government of Canada. A lot of times they make laws and stuff like that, and do not take into consideration our rights under the Canadian Constitution. Basically, the way things have been working in Canada is that we have to go to court to prove our rights. Rather than just following the law, rather than being transparent and accountable, Canada prefers to go ahead and do whatever it wants, and expects the first nation to protect its rights through the courts. I think that is not transparent and it's not accountable to Canada. It's not the right way. It's against the law.

Of all people in Canada who should be following the laws of the Canadian Constitution, it is the government. A lot of times, we have already struggled with these issues. Here we're going to have to deal with a whole bunch of foreign countries that can actually demand that Canada change legislation to allow them to exploit our resources and our traditional territories. This is a big concern for me. I've always been concerned about it, so when this opportunity came up, I insisted that we make a presentation so that you're aware of what our position is on this.

I'm planning to have a meeting of chiefs, and I intend on having the chiefs pass a motion in the Northwest Territories opposing the TPP. I just wanted to say that much.

Mahsi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you for coming to speak with us today.

Mr. Redvers, you had a final comment, sir.

[Peter Redvers]

Yes, just to clarify, the concern is that the fiduciary obligation of the crown, whether federal or provincial, depends on the crown being able to exercise its jurisdiction over the lands and resources within KFN's traditional territories and being able to negotiate the co-management of that jurisdiction within that territory.

If the federal government or provincial or territorial governments that hold crown obligations are limited in any way in their ability to manage resources in order to protect treaty or aboriginal rights, then we have a serious problem: the potential infringement of treaty and/or aboriginal rights.

We believe the TPP, and particularly the ISDS clause—the specific one I noted was 9.29.10—sort of captures that. In effect, it diminishes some of Canada's jurisdiction over traditional lands held by KFN, and therefore their ability to fully protect KFN rights and interests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

We're going to move to the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We have Jack Bourassa, the regional executive vice-president for the north.

Go ahead, sir.

[Jack Bourassa, Regional Executive Vice-President, North, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to offer input on the trans-Pacific partnership agreement.

My comments today will briefly speak to the devastating implications of this so-called free trade agreement. I'm broadly going to touch base on five basic topics: public services, jobs, human rights, state-owned enterprises, and legislative and regulatory authorities.

The TPP impacts public services such as environmental protection, energy provision, intellectual property, education, and child care. It also covers how other services are governed and regulated. These are all considered tradeable commodities. Investor state agreements erode democracy by transferring decision-making from the elected representatives to unaccountable negotiators and arbitrators. They protect multinationals against restrictive trade measures—that is, laws and regulations that are specifically designed to protect important public issues like the environment, health, safety, and financial stability.

With regard to jobs, the TPP will have long-term implications for jobs in Canada's auto and dairy industries.

It will benefit a select few by opening up our auto industry to low-wage competition at the expense of ordinary working families. The auto manufacturing sector will be especially hurt by the TPP, which includes significant reductions in local content requirements for vehicles and automotive parts. With the Canadian auto industry already reeling, it will now be forced to compete with low-wage parts sourced from other countries, which further leads to losses of thousands of good manufacturing jobs.

The impact on Canadian dairy and poultry farms is also of great concern, because the TPP threatens farmers' ability to continue to make a decent living wage while providing good, safe food for Canadians.

As for human rights implications, the investor state agreements will make it far harder to address climate change from a public policy perspective. Indigenous peoples who have been victimized by centuries of colonization and marginalization will be further marginalized as problems around poverty, lack of housing, lack of clean water, and lack of educational opportunities will be forced into more private sector solutions. Public opportunities for local development and training will be viewed as unfair trade barriers and will become market-driven and inaccessible. Social enterprises like Aki Energy, run by first nations in Manitoba, could be challenged as trade barriers. Instances of precarious work and inequality will increase. The more privatization is facilitated, the more the social, health, and cultural services we now take for granted will be sacrificed because a multinational can profit from their provision.

State-owned enterprises play an important role around economic development, regional development, social and cultural enhancement, and infrastructure development. The Canadian federal government has about 45 crown corporations, and they are targeted in the TPP in a way that facilitates their privatization. The negative listing provision makes it very difficult for governments to create new crown corporations or to expand the mandate of existing ones. New state-owned enterprises may be created to meet national or global emergencies, but only in a few specified instances. Rules requiring compliance with the rest of the TPP still apply. Existing privatization approaches, where they exist, are locked in for good.

Strong regulation over both public and private services is crucial for democracy, development, and the public interest. The TPP contains measures that control how public services ought to be governed. These measures restrict the right to legislate and regulate federally, provincially, and locally. Municipal water, municipal waste, electricity, and public transit are in greater danger of being privatized. Privatized services are more expensive and more arbitrary, and despite the rhetoric of risk transfer, the public still shoulders the risks, as well as long-term unaccountable debt.

In conclusion, for all the reasons outlined so far, we say no to the TPP. Signing this agreement will result in irreparable damage to our democracy, lost battles in ensuring the survival of the planet and the welfare of its human inhabitants, and a deepened and enshrined inequality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, sir.

We're going to move over to the Nunavut Offshore Allocation Holders Association, and we have Jerry Ward with us, the chairman.

Welcome, sir, and go ahead. You have the floor.

[Jerry Ward, Chairman, Nunavut Offshore Allocation Holders Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I certainly want to thank you for the opportunity to present to you today on this very important issue.

We are, of course, an industry association representing Nunavut fisheries, and we operate out of Iqaluit. Mr. Chairman, it's indeed encouraging to see that we've been given the opportunity to speak to your committee, knowing that you have spoken earlier with representatives from the Atlantic and the west coast and so on.

I'd like to start the presentation by giving you some demographics with regard to Nunavut, so that you can see how difficult it has been developing a fishery. It's a territory of two million square kilometres, with 25 communities and a population of only 35,000. The only mode of transportation is by airplane and during the summer by boat. We have a lack of marine infrastructure. There's nowhere to land our vessels on shore, and for a significant period of the year, of course, the land is covered with snow and the ocean is frozen.

The Inuit up north have been fishing for thousands of years, but it's only in the last 30 years that we've begun to commercialize our industry. We consider ourselves clearly the new kids on the block, but that said, Nunavut's production of seafood product is about $120 million today. That's not substantial if you compare it with the east and west coast fishing companies and the industry there, but it's an absolutely essential part of the Nunavut economy when you consider that the industry employs some 300 Inuit in various communities. These are isolated communities, so those jobs are very valuable, of course.

Over the last 20 years, we've increased our share of our adjacent resources, going from 19% of our shrimp resources to today some 38%. On the turbot side, we've gone from 27% to 73%, and overall we now have about 50% of the allocations that are fished in our adjacent waters.

The export markets are essential to the Canadian seafood industry. As you've heard from prior speakers, 75% of Canada's exports, and in particular the total production of seafood in Canada, is about $6 billion. If you look at Nunavut specifically, more than 95% of our fish production is exported internationally, and a significant portion of that is to the countries within the TPP.

Mr. Chairman, as a seafood industry association, we fully support TPP, and we feel this is a good deal for our industry. We support it for a number of reasons, as follows.

First, as I just indicated, we're an export country. We export internationally, and we export more than 95% of our seafood production.

Second, the current tariff rates in TPP countries range anywhere from 4% to 34%, and these tariffs at times put us in a non-competitive position.

Third, countries in the TPP are established markets for seafood and a growing sector of key markets for seafood products overall. The growing middle class in these countries provides a great opportunity for us to sell more of our product.

Fourth, as tariffs change in given markets, then trade flows in other non-TPP countries may benefit us as well. As they pay more and we gain more access to their market, more demand is created for us in other markets.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, as I've indicated, we fully support TPP, and it will over a period of time eliminate tariffs on seafood in these countries. The reduction and elimination of these tariffs will put us on a more level playing field and make us more competitive.

These are my opening remarks, and I look forward to any questions that the committee may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you, Mr. Ward.

I have a question for you. I might have missed it. Mr. Ward, how many fishers do you represent, and is it just for one area?