:
I call the meeting to order.
Good morning, everybody. Welcome back.
We are going to continue with our study on the TPP and the challenges and the opportunities that the TPP gives to Canadians.
Welcome to the crew from Yellowknife.
Just to give you a little update, we've been travelling the country since last year. We did most of the provinces. We still have Atlantic Canada to do next week. We will do the territories—you guys—today, and we will probably hear from the Yukon and maybe some others from the territories, some mining associations, and different groups. Sometime in October we will be finishing our study and will probably be presenting to Parliament next year.
That said, welcome. You were already briefed on how we proceed. We have members of Parliament here from all parts of the country and we will hear your submissions. If you can keep them to five minutes, we would appreciate it, then we will have lots of time for a dialogue with you.
My name is Mark Eyking. I'm the chair.
We are good to go. Who wants to start? Maybe it could be the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Courtney, do you want to go ahead?
:
Thank you for having us speak.
My name is Dr. Courtney Howard. I am the climate-health board lead for the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, otherwise know as CAPE. CAPE is Canada's only physicians' education and advocacy organization that is committed to protecting the health of people by protecting the planet. I'm also an emergency physician here in Yellowknife.
I received the invitation to speak only about three days ago, so this analysis does not represent my having read 6,000 pages of text. It represents a literature review of what the public health community has written about this issue in the peer-reviewed literature and some discussions with some of the lead authors, as well as looking at that information through the lens of environmental health.
The first thing to understand—this wasn't clear to me when I was going through medical school—is that the social and ecological determinants of health actually have a much greater impact on people's overall health status than does the health care system. I can assure you that when I figured that out, after having spent 12 years becoming a doctor, I was a little bit frustrated, which is why I now do this work. What it means is that anything that impacts determinants of health—such as water, food, the ability to have housing, and income—have a much bigger proportion of impact on overall health status than anything I do, unfortunately, in the hospital.
For CAPE and for myself and for the international medical community now, of all the things that could impact health, the main focus has become climate change and health. The World Health Organization now calls climate change the biggest health threat of the 21st century. In 2015 the Lancet second commission on climate change and health said that tackling climate change was the biggest public health opportunity of the 21st century. The Canadian Medical Association recently recognized this by making climate change a focus of its recent CMA general council in Vancouver. The keynote speaker, Dr. James Orbinski, who accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Doctors Without Borders, said that without an intact ecosystem, there's no chance that humans can thrive. In fact, Dr. Orbinski now does research on climate change up here with us in Yellowknife, on wildfires.
This is now CAPE's main focus, and we have concerns about the impact of TPP. Here in Yellowknife, we're already 2°C over our temperatures in the 1950s, and in Inuvik they're already over 3°C. This is a fact of life. There are workmen at my house right now, unfortunately, working on my foundation; I sit on permafrost, and it's all going like....
This has major consequences for respiratory health from wildfires. There have been evacuations, as you know. Lyme disease is spreading across Canada. Our population is experiencing unstable ice conditions. We're already having trouble dealing with what we have going on, including malnutrition across the world. I spent six months working on a pediatric malnutrition project in the Horn of Africa. I can tell you, unfortunately, that the deaths are real. The WHO anticipates having an additional 250,000 deaths per year from climate change between 2030 and 2050. That's actually considered by most in the public health world to be a vast underestimate.
In terms of the TPP, we know that we need to leave at least 80% of fossil fuel reserves in the ground to have a hope of staying below 2°C. NAFTA contains, as does the TPP, investor-state dispute settlement provisions that allow corporations to sue governments for a change in regulation. Under NAFTA, we've already seen TransCanada Corporation seeking US$50 billion in damages after the U.S. rejected Keystone XL. We've seen Lone Pine Resources suing the Government of Canada subsequent to the decision in Quebec to stop fracking in the St. Lawrence area. We can anticipate similar things here.
We require, to give Canadians a soft landing on climate change, a full-scale low-carbon transition and a laser-like focus on things like clean water, food security, and pharmaceutical security. Public health needs to be our main focus, and if trade provisions get in the way, it's a problem.
It must be recognized that all mitigation and adaptation manoeuvres are public health measures, but the TPP chapter that potentially says that if trade isn't a priority means we can be open to the investor state legislation. Unfortunately, the public health exceptions under the WTO dispute system have only been successful one out of every 43 times. If the public health exceptions were effective, why is there a particular exception for tobacco?
Clearly, people other than us are worried that the public health exceptions, as written into the agreement, are not adequate.
Additionally, the increased patent expiration and the—
:
Good morning. My name is Craig Yeo, and I am a citizen presenter. I am also a member of the Council of Canadians and a local advocacy group, Alternatives North. I am generally presenting their positions, but I am also appearing as a citizen on my own behalf.
I have filed a brief, which contains some detailed information or presentations of position, largely on the democratic process. I had thought that I would simply read that into the record, but I thought about it overnight. I thought that I am appearing here as a human being, and this may be a little gut level, but I'd like to simply make some remarks on why I'm so concerned about this issue, and that's largely the democratic process.
When I look at governments, as a citizen I think that the role of government is, among other things, to protect the weak from the mighty and to provide the basic services that are necessary for people to prosper, such as clean water and health and democratic rights.
I am always flabbergasted when I look at these agreements and see that the government, in my opinion, has negotiated away its right to preserve and safeguard these things. In many ways, Canada has been very successful in doing these things over the years. We have good pension plans and we have developed some good environmental protections and public health care and other things.
As the neoliberal agenda and the transnationalization of corporations have progressed, as I see it, there's been some concern at the corporate level about this, because these things cost money: if you can't dump mercury into the French or Wabigoon river system anymore, it's going to cost you more money to be in business.
That's what corporations do. It's not their fault; that's their job, and the job of governments is to protect the commons against those things where it's reasonable. As I say, Canada has done these things fairly successfully in the past.
When corporations reached this point in the last 20 or 30 years, they wondered how they were going to get around this and how they were going to control these impacts on their profitability. Obviously you can't run a law through the legislature, in the fresh air of the day, saying that if the government does anything like increasing employee contributions to pension premiums or health care programs, then they're going to have to pay a corporation for the money they lost. Even in a non-vigilant democracy, that doesn't pass the good smell test.
How do you get around this? You get governments elected that share a corporate agenda, and then you give them a mandate to go behind closed doors and negotiate agreements without public review, without openness of negotiations, that are signed even before the details of the agreements are made known, and then run through the public process.
I do applaud the Liberal government for taking these on the road and bringing some light and air into this process, but still what has resulted in these cases is agreements that are not subject to review by the courts. The governments have given away their ability to maintain their supremacy under the Constitution to pass progressive legislation and not be penalized for it down the road.
As Courtney Howard mentioned, Lone Pine Resources is a primary example. The Government of Quebec is concerned about fracking. They didn't ban it, but they want to take a look at it. This is affecting the profitability of the corporation.
I'm very dismayed that governments would do such things, and it's not just the current government. They have parcelled out our democratic rights for decades into the future and handcuffed the ability of governments to take progressive measures for the prosperity, the well-being, and the rights of their citizens.
I know that the Conservative members of the committee are probably much in favour of this agreement, and then there's the Liberal doctrine that these agreements will go ahead. I don't have much confidence that this is going to be changed.
Even in Europe, as we're seeing with CETA, one of the primary kickbacks and the reason they're considering addenda and rewriting some sections of CETA is they just can't get the investor state dispute settlement provisions past the electorate there. People have come out in legions, unlike Canada, to condemn them.
I do condemn them. I ask you to please safeguard the supremacy of my democracy and your ability to legislate and exert authority for the well-being of the citizenry by returning a recommendation that the ISDS provisions are unacceptable and should be reviewed.
Thank you both for appearing here. It's been a while since I've been to beautiful Yellowknife. The last time I was there, my wife asked me if I saw the northern lights, and I told her I'd gone to bed early. I'm still bitter about that and I hope to visit again one of these days and to have that experience again.
I listened with interest, and I think I want to go to you, Mr. Yeo.
These are concerns that, frankly, we've heard repeatedly. You correctly assume that most Conservatives think this is a good idea. I get the impression that most Liberals think it's a good idea too. You must understand that these MPs, I think on both sides of the house, aren't those who have been swallowed up by big corporations and are doing their bidding—far from it.
I'm a businessman myself, a small business man. I come from humble roots, and my roots are still my roots. I certainly am not a shill for corporations. We listen to these things with interest because they are of concern, but I must tell you that we've had the opportunity to cross the country and that for the most part, aside from groups such as your own, when we talk to small and medium-sized businesses, they tell us that these things are important. They're important because free trade offers opportunity. It offers opportunity to Canadians, but it also offers opportunities to other countries.
I gave a speech in the House the day before yesterday. I talked about Korea and how, in the early 1970s, it was one of the poorest nations on earth. Because of trade, because of the free market system, it has risen to become one of the biggest powerhouses in Asia today.
I just want to throw this idea back to you. I want you to explain to the small and medium-sized businesses where they are wrong in their thinking, and why moving progressively forward to expand trade throughout the globe is a bad idea.
:
Thank you both so much for your presentations.
Dr. Howard, I think what you've just put into words is exactly what I've been saying at this committee: that while there's a commitment to honour what was signed on to in Paris and to look at the way we can improve climate change for all Canadians, ultimately the TPP threatens that.
We've had Jacqueline Wilson here. She's an environmental lawyer. She's broken down the chapters in the TPP and, ironically, in the original version of the TPP, there was actually climate change action that was included in the text. We see in the final text that it's all been eliminated and that the language is extremely weak in the environmental chapter.
I share your concerns that we won't be able to implement anything because there isn't an ability to do so in signing the TPP. Because you're coming to us from the Northwest Territories, I would like to hear more about the impact on the ability of your communities to not be able to legislate to protect your environment.
Certainly public health is included in that as well, but you're speaking to us about the environment today and the concerns around the ISDS which, by the way, nearly every Canadian shares. When you talk to average Canadians, one of the main things that they point out is the ISDS provision and their deep concern that it will tie all of our hands as legislators.
Can you speak to the impacts in the Northwest Territories on your communities if you will not be able to legislate in that way because you'll be under threat of being sued?
:
Well, fracking is an issue up there. We had some test wells drilled two or three years ago. At the time there was no public health input whatsoever. About 80% of the studies that have ever been done on fracking have been done since 2013, so they are now in the peer-reviewed literature. Of the ones that have been done on health, 84% of them show red flags. That just shows how quickly evidence progresses.
We see in this agreement that there is an exclusion for tobacco. You can opt into an exclusion for tobacco, and meanwhile we're saying that there are other public health protections. If there are public health protections within the agreement, why do we need an exclusion for tobacco?
I'm really worried that as the evidence progresses, different things turn out to be public health problems every day. Glyphosate is under scrutiny, and BPA, and all the fracking chemicals. We've only just started doing toxicological analyses of them. We've only just started in the last two years, and we're already fracking. The threat to human health is huge.
I could easily see the N.W.T. coming up with fracking legislation in the same way that they did in Quebec, and that could potentially cause problems. Lawyers are trying to decide whether that's sort of a justifiable public health measure, but who's going to brief them? Who's going to teach them the evidence? Who's paying them? If the agreement has such major consequences for health and health people aren't involved, is it really a trade agreement or is it a health agreement?
To me, having spent this much time going to medical school to learn about health, to think of lawyers adjudicating whether or not something is good for health...I mean, really? We're going to sign on to that? That doesn't make any sense to me.
Good morning, committee members.
My name is David Usher, and I'm the director general for trade negotiations at Global Affairs Canada.
[Translation]
It is a real pleasure to be here today to speak about Bill . This bill is required for Canada to implement the World Trade Organization's Trade Facilitation Agreement, which I will refer to as the TFA.
[English]
I'm joined today by colleagues from Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. If I may, Chair, I will quickly introduce them. Jason Flint, director general, policy, communications and regulatory affairs, and Kim Dayman-Rutkus, director of the centre for regulatory and compliance strategies, are both from Health Canada; Sara Neamtz, acting executive director, legislative governance, is from Environment and Climate Change Canada.
I hope they will be able to provide you with answers to specific questions that you might have regarding elements of Bill in areas related to the mandates of their ministries.
My remarks will cover two main issues. I'd like to start by providing an overview of the provisions of the Trade Facilitation Agreement and the effects of the TFA on merchandise trade; then I will explain why enacting Bill is required to allow Canada to ratify the TFA. Obviously I and my colleagues will be pleased to answer any questions you might have following my presentation.
First, on trade facilitation, in the context of trade agreements we're talking about simplifying, harmonizing, and standardizing procedures and measures that cover the movement of goods across national borders. In Canada this generally covers policies and measures implemented by the Canada Border Services Agency and other federal departments that operate at the border, such as Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.
[Translation]
The TFA is designed to make merchandise trade faster, cheaper and more predictable. The lack of transparency, multiple documentation requirements, and lengthy clearance processes increase trade costs. Global value chains, just-in-time delivery systems, e-commerce, and the fast nature of transactions today require quick and reliable border crossing and clearance processes.
[English]
Since simplified trade procedures benefit all traders and generate positive effects when more countries participate in such an agreement, trade facilitation reform is best done when many countries are dealing with it on a multilateral basis. This is why the WTO TFA helps to provide a global foundation that will extend trade modernization and facilitation worldwide and ensure maximum benefits to traders once it enters into force.
[Translation]
WTO negotiations towards the TFA concluded in December 2013. The idea of the negotiations goes back to 1996 and they began in 2001.
This major accomplishment was a win for the global trading community and for the WTO. The TFA develops global trade rules to expedite the movement, release, and clearance of goods.
[English]
Now, this agreement will have substantive economic effects. The World Trade Organization estimates that when the TFA is fully implemented by all WTO members, it could reduce trade costs by an average of 14%, including an average reduction of nearly 17% for least developed countries. It's expected that global merchandise exports could go up by up to $1 trillion. I think these are probably U.S. dollars, given that it's the WTO that did the study. Of that amount, up to $730 billion of the export gains will go to developing countries in particular, because the agreement will facilitate trade between them. These are important benefits, and they are especially important in a time when the global economy is slowing.
For Canada the benefits are expected to be most significant for our exporters, Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises that may not have the resources to comply with complex systems at the customs in foreign markets and for whom trade costs are therefore disproportionately high.
[Translation]
The TFA will enter into force once ratified by two-thirds of WTO members. So far, 92 of the required 110 WTO members have ratified the TFA. Canada's major trade partners, such as the U.S., EU, China, and Japan have already ratified it.
At the G20 Leaders' Summit in China this past September, the Prime Minister committed that Canada would ratify the TFA by the end of 2016. Canada would be joining the growing international consensus on this matter.
[English]
Let me now explain the link between the bill in front of you today, Bill , and the TFA.
Canada is already compliant with the vast majority of the TFA provisions. In other words, the customs procedures and the measures that are applied by the CBSA and other federal departments like those we have with us today are already largely consistent with the obligations under the TFA. However, there are two provisions of the TFA where legislative amendments to Canadian statutes are required for Canada to comply with the obligations in the TFA.
[Translation]
Generally speaking, Bill will allow Canada to implement the TFA, while maintaining safeguards on the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.
As you stated, Mr. Chair, more specifically, Canada requires amendments to six Canadian statutes, which fall under the responsibility of Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, in order to ensure compliance with the TFA. Bill will lead to greater consistency in how goods are treated at the border and facilitate the transit of goods through Canada.
[English]
More specifically, Bill deals with two specific TFA provisions: article 10.8.1, which deals with the treatment of non-compliant goods rejected at the border, and article 11.8, which deals with goods in transit.
Let me speak first about article 10.8.1 of the TFA. The amendments being proposed in Bill would give Canada the necessary authority to take action regarding goods that are shipped to Canada but are non-compliant with our technical regulations. Possible actions dealing with those goods could include returning them, reconsigning them, seizing them, or disposing of these goods as necessary.
Turning to article 11.8 of the TFA, the amendments proposed in Bill would give Canada the necessary authority to allow Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to exempt goods in transit from certain Canadian technical regulations. These goods are not destined to enter commerce in Canada.
[Translation]
Safeguards are also going to be put in place where needed to mitigate health and safety risks to Canadian consumers and workers, in the event that goods in transit are diverted into the Canadian market; or in the case of handling, accidents or spills involving such goods.
My colleagues and I look forward to answering any questions you may have on Bill and the WTO TFA.
Thank you.
:
Let me give you an idea.
What they're doing is calculating the costs caused by a customs delay, for example. Let's talk about clearance for exports in 2014. When you look at the WTO membership, you will see that it could take between two and 11 documents and between six and 86 days to get goods out of the country. In terms of imports, it could go from two to 17 documents, depending on the country, or from four to 130 days.
All of those delays and paperwork have a certain cost for the exporters, whether they're small and medium-size, medium-sized, or large, and that's how they're calculating these benefits. With the agreement, these costs will be reduced, because the delay at borders will be minimized and the paperwork will be consolidated. That's how they're doing the assessment of the costs.
Their assessment is that Canada is already largely compliant, so our changes are relatively minimal. A country in the developing world may well have a very paperwork-heavy customs clearance procedure, so the changes in a developing country will be more significant and the benefits will therefore be larger, both for their exporters and for Canadian companies looking to export to them.