TPP REPORT: Rebuilding public trust in trade processes Published March 2017 Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 7 • Formally withdraw from the TPP 7 • Implement real transparency 7 • Embrace multi- stakeholder engagement • Corporate overreach and democratic accountability 21 • Healthcare and public services 23 • Environment 25 • Labour and the economy 26 CONCLUSION: 29 Beyond the TPP, Canadians are calling for a new approach to trade negotiations 8 WHAT IS LET’S TALK TPP ? 9 APPENDIX 31 THE PROCESS: How did we get here? 12 • Canadian opposition to the TPP 31 32 • Secrecy / Transparency 12 • Ridings with the most submissions • Inequity / Fairness 15 35 • Lack of scrutiny / Independent analysis 16 • Who supports this initiative? • The results from our Let’s Talk TPP tool 37 THE DEAL: 17 Five Key Areas of Concern • Digital rights and innovation 17 3 Acknowledgements Let’s Talk TPP has been a joint endeavour from its inception — aiming to foster cross sector collaboration and bring together a concerned group of organizations, experts, and citizens in pushing back against unfair trade. This report was only made possible with the support of countless groups and individuals across Canada, and relies on a body of research and analysis compiled over a decade and spanning 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership nations. We have sought to use this body of work to guide our own analysis throughout and give weight to our recommendations. This report is about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Canadian effort to understand and engage with trade processes in the 21st century — but it is also much more than that. It is the culmination of years of education and engagement on the part of everyday Canadians who care deeply about building a framework for prosperity that is shaped by, and includes, us all. We’ve been tremendously inspired by the dedication and enthusiasm of our community and we look forward to continuing to build on what we have learned with them. We owe a special thanks to the tens of thousands of individuals whose comments form the foundation for this report, and whose voices we endeavour to lift with this work. If conventional wisdom tells us that citizens have no interest and no expertise in the complicated issues of trade, we need look no further than the detailed and often-insightful submissions made by the over 27,000 individuals who contributed to this project to find that maxim contradicted. Thank you to the Canadians who took the time to raise their concerns, who shared this initiative, and who spoke with friends and family about this challenging topic — it is only through your participation that we are able to build a common understanding between citizens and our government. Meghan Sali, OpenMedia Editors and Contributors David Christopher Michael Geist Blair Redlin Scott Sinclair Graphic Design Marianela Ramos Capelo This report was made possible with generous support from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, CWA Canada, NordVPN, Private Internet Access, Unifor, and United Steelworkers District 3. We are especially thankful to our partners who co-hosted this campaign and helped bring this initiative to life — Council of Canadians, Stand, and SumOfUs — and to all those who endorsed, supported, and helped share our work far and wide. To the editors, contributors, and peerreviewers: your hard work, time, and attention to detail has vastly improved the quality of this report. Any shortcomings in this final product rest with the author alone — and exist in spite of the efforts of our partners. 4 Executive Summary OpenMedia’s work on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) began in 2012 and spans five years — the longest sustained intervention in our history as an organization. We became involved in the conversation about the TPP because we were concerned that the negotiations were being used as a vehicle to advance policies, through an internationally-binding agreement, that would have a negative impact on the ability of Internet users to share, collaborate, and express themselves freely online. Our work focuses on engaging citizens in working towards informed and participatory digital policy, and as such the TPP presented both an opportunity and a challenge for our organization. the public at bay and democratic oversight at a minimum. We were inspired to build the Let’s Talk TPP crowdsourcing tool not only to demonstrate the widespread Canadian opposition to the TPP, but also to model for our government a participatory process that invites Canadians in, instead of shutting them out. Built into the DNA of our organization are collaborative values that focus on lowering the transaction cost of citizen participation, and that call on everyday Canadians to take ownership of making decisions about issues that affect us all. Stephen Harper’s government negotiated this agreement, excluding citizen voices throughout the process. We were therefore encouraged by the Trudeau government’s willingness to engage with the public in examining the TPP — however late in the game it may have come. A thread unifying many of the individual comments sent using the Let’s Talk TPP tool, and one that has been repeatedly underscored throughout our work engaging with Canadians on the TPP, is the desire for real consultation, and for decisionmaking to follow a course of action charted with input from such consultation. From our current vantage point in early 2017, with the largest economy party to the agreement — the U.S. — having officially withdrawn, the TPP appears to be on its deathbed. It is in this context that our report seeks to answer the question: How did we get here? It looks back at Canada’s history in the negotiation of the world’s largest plurilateral trade agreement and aims to identify pain points and, critically, explore how the process failed to produce an agreement that Canadians could support — highlighting concerns in five key areas. This work is also forward-looking. As a trading nation, Canada will doubtless be negotiating agreements to bring us to the world, and the world to us, in the future. In the coming months, Canada looks ahead to the renegotiation of NAFTA, and in 2017 alone, important trade negotiations are set to take place with China and the U.K., our second and third largest trading partners. But the way we negotiate trade is broken: under unprecedented secrecy, agreements are detached from the people they are meant to serve, and the agenda is driven by lobbyists and special interests who keep We designed the Let’s Talk TPP consultation tool to address these frustrations head-on, by plugging Canadians directly into the democratic process — connecting them with their Members of Parliament, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade tasked with studying the agreement, and Global Affairs Canada. Our aim of facilitating an evolving dialogue between Canadians and their government began long before the Let’s Talk TPP campaign — however, with this project we sought to shine 5 Citizen comment “At these consultations, what I’d like you to spell out in user-friendly terms is this: If the TPP is the solution, exactly what is the problem? And whose problem is it? Is it my problem, or is it the problem of a corporation, the very rich, or some abstraction such as “the economy”? Does the TPP move us towards income security for all Canadians, and social and economic equality for real people around the world? Will it help reduce production and consumption of goods we don’t need? Will the TPP help us drastically reduce -- to zero -- our net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner? Will it enhance democratic decision-making by people around the world? Will it help all nations to be self-sufficient with respect to food, water, shelter, fuel/energy and transportation? Will it ensure workplace rights, including health and safety, for workers in all signator nations? If so, please explain the mechanisms whereby the TPP will help us achieve ordinary people’s goals. Be specific and give us the cons as well as the pros for the TPP. Open up the government briefing books and let us look at the options that were considered. Are we fixing something that really ain’t broke? From the perspective of us rank-and-filers?” – Ruth from Toronto a light on the final product of years of closed negotiations with business leaders and lobbyists and asked everyday Canadians to share, in their own voices, how they felt they would be affected. Canadians answered our call — individuals like Kristian T. from Toronto who shared their deep concerns about the TPP’s far-reaching effects: the responses from Canadians is a breadth of concern for a plurality of policies contained in the agreement, in addition to grave misgivings about the method of negotiation, the wholesale exclusion of citizen-stakeholders, and the absence of meaningful transparency. In total, 27,996 Canadians from every corner of the country shared their views using our Let’s Talk TPP tool — amounting to one of the largest responses to a government consultation since the election of the Trudeau government in late 2015. The responses from these many thousands of citizens will appear on the official record of consultation. Overwhelmingly, Canadians who responded using OpenMedia’s tool called on their representatives to reject the TPP, and levelled strong criticism over the way it was negotiated. “As a Parkdale-High Park constituent, I wish to state my opposition to the TPP. As a citizen, I am concerned about the TPP’s impact on democracy. As a creative artist, I am dismayed by the copyright provisions. As an environmentalist, I am appalled that we would give foreign corporations the legal right to sue Canada for implementing environmental protections—and the same goes for healthcare, and for attempts to improve overreaching DRM rules. The TPP gives corporations, at home and abroad, far too much power at the expense of citizens, jobs, healthcare, digital rights, and democracy itself. Trade matters, yes. Keeping Canada relevant is vital, yes. But the TPP betrays us and is a very bad deal.” Canada must learn from the mistakes it made in negotiating the TPP — and on the way, work towards rebuilding the trust that was lost in the process. A more open approach must be thoughtfully implemented in the development of any future agreements, or we can expect to see those accords follow the same path as the TPP, realizing rejection in the face of public outrage. When we undertook this project, we expected to find Canadians divided into silos: some who cared about the environment, some who cared about the implications of the TPP for healthcare, or job losses, or digital rights. What is clear in 6 Key Recommendations 1. FORMALLY WITHDRAW FROM THE TPP detailed policy put forward in the final TPP text. Notwithstanding process, there are a multitude of specific policy changes that the TPP would have seen implemented that Canadians find unacceptable, and reason enough to see the agreement rejected. In the body of this report, we will further explore five specific areas of concern raised by Canadians: digital rights and innovation, corporate overreach and democratic accountability, healthcare and public services, the environment, and labour and the economy. Responding to the government-initiated consultation process, an overwhelming majority of Let’s Talk TPP participants are united in their call for legislators to reject the TransPacific Partnership. Extreme secrecy, lack of citizen-stakeholder engagement, far-reaching policy changes, and the absence of a complete cost/benefit analysis are frequently cited by participants as reasons to reject the agreement. 2. IMPLEMENT REAL TRANSPARENCY The Harper government’s failure to consult with Canadians during the negotiations made it nigh impossible for it to make a credible case that the TPP will be good for Canada — a critical step towards getting buy-in from citizens on an agreement that would deeply impact Canada’s long-term economic prosperity and social well being. Canadians cannot support agreements made in secret. The current level of secrecy in trade agreements is broadly understood to have greatly increased in recent decades.1 Proponents of confidential processes argue that the complexity of multilateral negotiations requires some level of horse-trading — and that public scrutiny will only serve to derail effective dealmaking. However, Canadians have told us that they believe the levels of confidentiality go far beyond what is necessary. After the change of government in 2015, having reached the end of protracted negotiations, then-Minister of International Trade, Chrystia Freeland, signed Canada on to the TPP. Since then, this government has made great pains to appear decidedly neutral on the pact, choosing instead to rely on its broadly “pro-trade” stance as a measure of soft support. Encouragingly, unlike its predecessors this government has chosen to seek input from citizens on if and how to move forward. Canadians have also told us that a lack of transparency undermines their faith in the system. Many of those who raised their concerns using the Let’s Talk TPP tool underscored the importance of international trade to Canada’s economic stability, but nevertheless posited that the opaque negotiation process served to erode trust between the government, elected Members of Parliament, and the public. That said, it is clear that Canadians remain highly skeptical that the government has properly assessed an agreement with such a broad scope. Many do not trust that their elected officials — who will be tasked with voting on ratification of the TPP and similar agreements — are educated on the many thousands of pages of 1 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/13/thesecret-corporate-takeover-of-trade-agreements 7 In the body of this report, we suggest that there is a much higher standard of transparency that can be achieved without compromising Canada’s ability to negotiate in its best interest — and we will point to specific international examples of jurisdictions which have increased access and communication on both overarching negotiating objectives, as well as specific policy points, to positive effect. Measures taken to improve transparency and openness in trade negotiations, with both Members of Parliament and the public at large, need not come at the expense of completing favourable agreements, and in fact may serve as the most effective mechanism to gain public support. agreements and exposing the process to increased public criticism. We recommend the government significantly broaden the set of stakeholder groups from which it seeks input through all stages — from pre-negotiation scoping through to ratification of a final deal, ensuring, at a minimum, there is adequate and meaningful citizen-stakeholder and public interest participation during negotiations. The government should seek to conduct these stakeholder consultations in open forums with public oversight and access to documentation. In combination with increased transparency, this will help to build trust in the negotiating process, as well as raise issues of pressing public concern during the negotiation phase where they can be adequately addressed, building solutions or compensation into the agreement’s text from the outset. 3. EMBRACE MULTISTAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Canadians are key stakeholders in the trade negotiation process. Secrecy notwithstanding, many of those weighing in to the government’s consultation on the TPP have criticized the very late stage at which citizens, public interest groups, academics, and civil society organizations were brought in for consultation. Members of the public are unconvinced that industry representatives, corporate actors, and lobbyists will steer policy negotiations in a direction that puts the best interest of all Canadians in the foreground. A narrow definition of “stakeholders” prevails in trade processes, such that many important groups and individuals are excluded from initial discussions and kept from having meaningful input. In Canada, extremely restrictive confidentiality agreements have prevented public interest groups from participating in negotiations, due to their fundamental commitment to grassroots engagement with their communities or membership. The exclusion of these groups deprives negotiators from having key stakeholders at the table during discussions, and all but ensures that stumbling blocks that could have been resolved in negotiations are only raised after completion, further weakening 8 What is ‘Let’s Talk TPP ’? The TPP was signed on February 5, 2016 — at which point the government began collecting feedback from Canadians on the agreement, in line with a public statement issued on its website: new opportunity for consultation, our goal was to help open the democratic process to everyday Canadians and help facilitate the broadest possible response to the government’s call for feedback in the most efficient manner. The Government of Canada is committed to being transparent, open and consultative with Canadians on the TPP. As part of this commitment, the Government has embarked on a consultative process in which Canadians are invited to participate.1 With this goal in mind, the Let’s Talk TPP initiative evolved. To achieve our aim we initially partnered with three organizations which also had a history of extensive Canadian outreach and advocacy on the TPP: Council of Canadians, Stand, and SumOfUs. As a part of this consultation, then-International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland, and members of the International Trade Ministry, including Parliamentary Secretary David Lametti, began travelling to Canadian cities, holding what were broadly referred to as “consultation events” with local members of the public. To ensure Canadians’ voices were meaningfully heard, we designed a sophisticated online tool — hosted at LetsTalkTPP.ca3 (English) and at ParlonsDuPTP.ca4 (French) — with the aim of connecting members of the public with decisionmakers at three levels: 1. First, with the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade in order to formally participate in Parliament’s consultation process; As a part of these efforts, the Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT), a crossparty parliamentary committee, was tasked with completing a study of the agreement. On March 10, 2016, Canadians were “invited to share their views on the Trans-Pacific Partnership”2 through in-person hearings held in a handful of cities across the country and by submitting written briefs to the CIIT. 2. Second, with the participant’s local Member of Parliament to ensure that elected representatives knew where their constituents stood on a critical issue that will face a ratification vote in Parliament; and At this point, OpenMedia had been actively engaging and educating Canadians about the impacts of the TPP on digital rights and Internet governance for well over four years. With this 3. Third, with Global Affairs Canada, which is responsible for facilitating and negotiating Canada’s trade and investment agreements. In total, 27,996 Canadians shared their views using the Let’s Talk TPP and Parlons du PTP tools — 27,221 in English, and 775 in French. 1 http://international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tradeagreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/tpp-ptp/ consultations.aspx?lang=eng 3 https://letstalktpp.ca/ 2 http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication. aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=0&Ses=0&DocId=8148299 4 https://parlonsduptp.ca/ 9 Notably, French-language responses are largely outweighed by responses from English-speaking Canadians. Due to a limited capacity to engage with Frenchspeaking Canadians, one major limitation of the consultation project was the lack of multilingual content, and therefore the relatively limited involvement from non-English speaking Canadians. Most notably, this impacted response rates in parts of Quebec. Resource constraints meant that while OpenMedia was able to create and deploy a French version of the Let’s Talk TPP tool, we could conduct only limited outreach to French-speaking communities. The vast majority of submissions contained unique, and often highlydetailed explanations of respondents’ individual positions on the TPP, the process by which it was negotiated, and their recommendations for how Canada should approach such trade deals in the future. REWIND! Harper government overhauls Canadian copyright legislation as a price of entry to the TPP FEBRUARY 2016 Canada signs the TPP MARCH 2016 Trudeau government begins consultation on the TPP in: Vancouver (OpenMedia presents to parliamentary committee), Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City, Windsor, Toronto, St. John, Charlottetown, St.John’s, and Halifax. OCTOBER 2012 Canada joins TPP negotiations DECEMBER 2012 OpenMedia attends negotiating round in Auckland, NZ NOVEMBER 2015 TPP text released to the public MAY 2013 Launch of the Our Fair Deal Coalition TPP TIMELINE TPP TIMELINE SEPTEMBER 2016 Rock Against the TPP Toronto: a free music concert in Toronto to raise awareness about the impacts of the TPP NOVEMBER 2013 Leak of the TPP text via WikiLeaks APRIL 2014 Stop the Secrecy: huge international coalition protests secrecy in the TPP by projecting 3.1 million signatures on to key buildings in Washington, D.C. OCTOBER 2014 OpenMedia publishes the Our Digital Future report on digital rights and the TPP 10 STOP OCTOBER 2016 Both U.S. presidential candidates come out against the TPP SEPTEMBER 2015 Last TPP negotiating round the Secrecy JANUARY 2017 – U.S. formally withdraws from the TPP JANUARY 31, 2017 – Official Canadian consultation on the TPP closes DECEMBER 2014 OpenMedia attends negotiating round and meets with IP negotiators in Washington D.C. FEBRUARY 2018 Deadline for ratification 11 The Process: How did we get here? In principle, Canadians support trade, and see it as important for the prosperity of Canada’s economy. However, recent trade agreements, and especially the TPP, have failed to win the support of the public at large. By looking at where these agreements have stumbled, we can start to develop a framework for negotiating and assessing future agreements that can move Canada towards the successful completion and implementation of trade objectives that increase prosperity and broadly serve the interests of the Canadian public at large. WE WANTED TRANSPARENCY, INSTEAD WE GOT: SECRECY There is no doubt that TPP negotiations were conducted with an extraordinary level of secrecy. While U.S. Members of Congress1 and elected officials from other TPP countries2 were afforded limited access to the working text — albeit under conditions of extreme confidentiality — Canadian Members of Parliament were excluded entirely from viewing the draft text of the TPP throughout the negotiation process. As Eric from Winnipeg says: “I just think that this just isn’t the kind of free trade agreement that Canada should be pursuing. Canada needs to gain market access and requires a lowering of tariffs and other trade restrictive measures to fully grow our economy, and I both understand and appreciate that fact. But the TPP just gives away too much to too many on all the wrong issues.” As early as 2013, Don Davies, the official opposition spokesperson for International Trade — whose job it was to hold the government to account — publicly criticized a process that left elected representatives in Canada entirely out of the loop when it came to the TPP’s expansive mandate.3 As Canada neared completion of the agreement in July 2015, Davies, still serving as trade critic, continued to speak out about a process that he warned “shut out Parliament.”4 In hearing from Canadians, three key themes have emerged as barriers to public trust in the trade negotiation process: secrecy, inequity/ unfairness, and lack of scrutiny. As a result of this secrecy, citizens and public interest groups were forced to rely on leaked documents published by WikiLeaks to discover details about the agreement.5 With access to Citizen comment “The process followed to develop the TPP does not match with the principles of transparency and participation, which are core Canadian values upon which the current government was elected. Trust of Canadians cannot be taken for granted - trust is renewed and maintained by repeated efforts to earn our trust.” –Tom from Nepean, ON. 1 http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politics/trade-deal-secrecytpp/ 2 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/ australian-mps-allowed-to-see-top-secret-trade-deal-texton-condition-of-confidentiality 3 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/29/trans-pacificpartnership-canada-tpp_n_3838000.html 4 https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/07/21/TPP-AnotherSecretive-Trade-Deal/ 5 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/13/wikileakstrans-pacific-partnership-chapter-secret 12 these leaks in hand, Canadian officials, MPs, and the public were, for the first time, at least given a window into the TPP’s text. In a panel hosted by the Centre for International Governance Innovation in late 2015, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Professor Michael Geist, relayed an experience he had when called to speak about the TPP before the Standing Committee on International Trade in 2013, a year after the Canadian government entered negotiations: election campaign — the text still secret — denying voters the information they needed to make an informed decision on election day. The Harper government was roundly criticized for violating Canada’s “caretaker convention”, intended to put reasonable limits on government action during elections.10 At the time of the TPP’s signing, the Harper government had not commissioned any independent cost/benefit analysis, and nor were there any documents for public consumption explaining the detailed policy implications of the agreement. “...I referenced both leaked documents that told us where things were going, including the likelihood of an extension in copyright, and the fact that the public had spoken out on this issue, and expressing concern that there had not been an effort to try to incorporate that. The response I got from the MPs — particularly on the government side — I was told by one that governments won’t comment on leaks just as they won’t talk to terrorists.”6 7 Unsurprisingly, the sudden publication of a several-thousand page agreement that parliamentarians had previously been prevented from reading left MPs and the public scrambling for effective analysis. The government itself made little effort to explain the agreement’s key components, or to educate the public about its effects, contenting itself with bland talking points about the importance of trade.11 The repeated failure of the government to address concerns spurred on by leaks of the draft text only served to further alienate members of the public and civil society, who repeatedly demanded access to the text throughout the negotiations. It was no surprise, then, that grassroots efforts soon sprang up in an attempt to make sense of the TPP — including a joint initiative called “Read the TPP” which invited citizens and members of the public to help digest the agreement through crowdsourcing annotations,12 and a concerted effort undertaken by academics, trade experts, and civil society organizations to assess and provide reasoned analysis of the impacts of the policies contained therein. Two such examples of civil society analysis in Canada are the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) What’s the Big Deal series,13 and Professor Michael Geist’s The Trouble With the TPP series,14 both of which are cited extensively in this report. At over 5000 pages long,8 the TPP represents the most extensive trade agreement Canada has ever been a party to, yet MPs only gained access with the rest of the public after the text was released on November 5, 20159 — a mere three months before it was signed in Auckland. For Let’s Talk TPP participants, this represented a compound betrayal, as the agreement was approved in principle in the middle of a federal 10 http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadianpolitics/joe-oliver-defends-pursuit-of-major-trade-dealduring-election-after-critics-say-it-violates-caretakerconvention 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTrS1GeADQU 7 https://openmedia.org/en/why-internet-users-should-bevery-angry-about-tpp 11 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tppagreement-atlanta-1.3254569 8 https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/ trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text 12 https://www.readthetpp.com/ 13 https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/updates/ what%E2%80%98s-big-deal-understanding-trans-pacificpartnership 9 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tpp-text-releasecanada-1.3305064 13 14 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/ It is worth noting that the extreme secrecy of the negotiations has undermined public faith in the democratic accountability of trade agreements, and that Canadians are not alone in their calls for increased transparency and inclusivity when it comes to trade — however, we are behind our international counterparts in delivering. Table 1 below provides a comparative perspective on differing approaches to transparency in trade. US Notably, Canada stands far behind both the EU and the U.S. in almost all key areas for improving communication with citizen-stakeholders. Canadians have clearly and repeatedly demanded their government not only consult after the agreement is completed, as is being done with the TPP, but proactively engage citizens throughout the duration of the negotiations. SOURCE: Trade for the Digital Age. https://www.eff.org/ files/2017/01/10/trade_for_the_digital_age_download.pdf EU Canada Release of negotiating mandate since 2014 (CETA and TTIP negotiations) No Systematic for comprehensive ex-ante studies Ad hoc for parliamentary reports Negotiating texts available only to cleared members of trade advisory committees Position papers and negotiating texts increasingly available online, eg. TTIP and EUTunisia FTA No Extensive reports on the content of negotiations leaving out certain specific positions No Information on negotiation rounds Short and irregular exante briefings on agenda of negotiations, and short chief negotiator reports after rounds Online consultation: release of public comments Public comments received on negotiating objectives for TPP and TTIP, but not on specific text proposals Limited to summary of statistical results Ongoing for CETA UNCITRAL (2014) transparency rules in CETA: open hearings and release of documents conditioned to approval by all parties UNCITRAL (2014) transparency rules in CETA: open hearings and release of documents Release of negotiating mandate / negotiating objectives Impact assessments and reviews Negotiating texts Investor-state dispute settlement No FTA-specific negotiating mandate Broadly defined objectives under trade promotion authority Ad hoc for Congressional hearings; More systematic for environmental reviews Private hearings; release of documents conditioned to approval by all parties; New commitments to transparency under TPP regarding proceedings and documents and third-party participation through amici curiae Environmental impact assessments required only after final deal reached Ongoing for TPP Subject to approval of disputing parties and redaction of confidential commercial information to my Digital activities, the Land that I am forever attached to and the future of my children.” WE WANTED FAIRNESS, INSTEAD WE GOT: INEQUITY A contributing factor to this inequity were the restrictions imposed on Canadian negotiators when Canada first entered the TPP talks. Due to its late entry into negotiations, Canada was denied “veto authority,” preventing it from holding up any chapter of the agreement if it remained the sole opponent — an event that did eventually play out within the Intellectual Property chapter.3 Canada was also denied the opportunity to reopen any chapter that had been previously closed.4 These restrictions significantly constrained the ability of Canadian negotiators to meaningfully advance the best interests of Canadian citizens throughout the TPP process. Compounding the concerns over extreme secrecy are questions about which individuals and organizations were given access to the text and had advisory roles during negotiations. While citizens and elected representatives were excluded from the process, and denied even the most high-level information about Canadian negotiating objectives, over 600 corporate lobbyists did have access to the working text1 — in many cases representing companies seeking to benefit directly from TPP provisions. Even the appearance of such inequity would be enough to undermine public faith in negotiations, the aim of which was ostensibly to create the broadest benefit for the majority of Canadians. Those who were granted advisory roles in Canada were compelled to sign strict non-disclosure agreements requiring them to keep secret anything they learned about the negotiations. Had Canadians been made aware of these restrictions from the outset, there is little doubt that Canada’s diminished negotiating position would have sparked concern from the public at large. However, despite warnings by civil society experts in 2012,5 these restrictions were only publicly confirmed in 2015 when Canada was already three full years into the negotiations, and even then only as the result of access to information requests filed with the government.6 In 2012, one such disclosure agreement was sent to OpenMedia in error, and revealed the extent to which those invited to secret consultation groups were expected to refrain from any public discussion or publication of information pertaining to the TPP.2 The exact makeup and expanse of these consultative groups in Canada is still unknown — providing fuel for public skepticism. This built-in disadvantage was further cemented by the Harper government’s willingness to rewrite domestic policies as a price of entry into the agreement — in particular by changing Canadian law to implement anti-counterfeiting measures in response to U.S. demands, importing some of the most restrictive digital locks rules in the world into the Canadian copyright regime — rules that continue to afflict our policy landscape to this day, and which are paralleled in the text of the TPP.7 Cory from the Dakota First Nation raises lack of government consultation in his submission: “First, as a First Nation’s member, I feel I was not and still am not Consulted on this insidious Trade pact. From what I have learned, from the EVENTUAL release of information that is still not complete in my opinion, it is my belief that the TPP is NOT in my best interest. Furthermore, I believe the TPP is an outright attack to my Inherent Rights. Canada can do better. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a threat 3 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/01/the-trouble-with-thetpp-day-6-the-price-of-entry/ 4 ibid.. 5 https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/06/26/TTP-Trade-Deal/ 1 https://sojo.net/articles/insider-list 6 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/01/the-trouble-with-thetpp-day-6-the-price-of-entry/ 2 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/30/trans-pacificpartnership_n_2218417.html 7 ibid. 15 Telling in this study is what is missing. Similar investigations in other countries, such as the 800-page analysis undertaken by the U.S. International Trade Commission,12 show detailed breakdowns by specific industry sectors. By comparison, the Chief Economist’s study was a high-level overview focussing on the proposed benefits of joining and alleged costs of not joining. Limited in scope, the report goes so far as to admit (section 2) that its forecasting model does not take into account the TPP’s sweeping changes to intellectual property rules and that, as a result, “there could be some underor overestimation of the size of TPP gains for Canada.”13 WE WANTED AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS, WE GOT: LACK OF SCRUTINY In assessing the TPP, many Let’s Talk TPP participants raised serious concerns over the lack of independent analysis demonstrating that the proposed benefits of the TPP outweigh the harms. Of the studies that have been conducted, the most favourable assessment can be found in the Peterson Institute’s Economic Effects of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which estimates that Canada will see a minuscule GDP gain of 0.9 per cent by 2025.8 In contrast, Dan Ciuriak, the former deputy chief economist at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada paints a much less inspiring picture — his estimates for Canadian growth show gains of only 0.1 per cent to GDP by 2035.9 The report was widely panned by civil society, labour, and trade experts, with a media release by the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) calling the report “like swiss cheese – full of holes.”14 As for the Canadian government, after repeated calls for a cost/benefit analysis, in September of 2016 the government’s Chief Economist finally published his Economic Impact of Canada’s Potential Participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement10 — a full seven months after Canada had already signed the agreement. From the feedback we received, it’s clear that Let’s Talk TPP participants expected a more thorough analysis of a trade agreement that the government had spent five years and untold millions negotiating. As Linda from Nova Scotia said: “I believe the government has not fully evaluated the economic impact of benefit vs cost before signing this agreement. It’s utterly foolhardy to rush into an agreement of this nature with our full consultation with the Canadian people and full analysis of economic impact assessment weighing costs against any perceived benefits. We should not allow our country to be pressured into signing the TPP.” Despite claims that this impact assessment was conducted independently, the Chief Economist is a civil servant responsible to the Minister of International Trade, leaving no doubt that the analysis was not truly conducted at an arm’s length from government. The findings of the report also showed only small gains for Canada, with the TPP projected to boost Canada’s GDP by just 0.127 per cent, with a net gain of $4.3 billion by 2040.11 8 https://piie.com/system/files/documents/wp16-2_0.pdf 9 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ canada-needs-data-on-economic-benefits-of-tpp-trade-deal/ article24836742/ 12 https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf 13 http://international.gc.ca/economist-economiste/analysisanalyse/tpp_ei-re_ptp.aspx?lang=eng 10 http://international.gc.ca/economist-economiste/analysisanalyse/tpp_ei-re_ptp.aspx?lang=eng 14 http://nupge.ca/content/13117/government-report-tppswiss-cheese-%E2%80%93-full-holes 11 ibid. 16 The Deal: Five Key Areas of Concern With excessive secrecy and lack of public consultation as the hallmarks of the negotiating process, it is perhaps little surprise that many Canadians remain deeply skeptical about the end result. When asked to provide feedback on the TPP, the concerns of Let’s Talk TPP participants fell broadly into five categories. In reading their commentary, it is clear that Canadians reject many specific policies in the agreement, and fear the blunt impact of these policies on Canada’s society and democracy. Citizen comment Increase the term of copyright and you cut off the flow of new works, the lifeblood of the public domain and the intellectual infrastructure of our creative economy. Increasingly, we are learning that creativity is more like an ecosystem, and that copyright regulation has overreached. TPP reaches farther, locks us in, and with ISDS creates the likelihood that Canada would be sued (or, more probably, effectively prevented) from adjusting copyright in the public interest in the future. With TPP, we would be hamstringing the next Kobo in order to reinforce U.S. monopolies. – Geoffrey from Burnaby The following image is a visual representation of all the comments sent using the Let’s Talk TPP tool. DIGITAL RIGHTS AND INNOVATION The five key concerns addressed in detail below are by no means an exhaustive or exclusive list of all the issues raised by Let’s Talk TPP respondents. They are however intended to give a bird’s eye view of which aspects of the TPP sparked the most public concern. Any future trade deals will need to comprehensively address these concerns to win the trust and support of the Canadian public. For years, Canadians have been speaking out about the negative impacts of the TPP on our digital rights and on innovation in our digital economy. OpenMedia began engaging with our community about the TPP in 2012 after a leak of the Intellectual Property (IP) chapter revealed that early drafts threatened to “create legal incentives for [Internet Service Providers] to 17 police the behaviour of their customers.”1 More broadly, it was clear that a number of provisions in this draft chapter would make the Internet more censored, expensive, and policed.2 3 Professor Michael Geist referenced an early 2011 consultation on entry into the TPP undertaken by the Conservative government. Although he reports that the results of the consultation were never made public, documents obtained through an access to information request revealed that copyright was, by a large margin, the issue raised most widely by Canadians.5 Under the heavy influence of industry lobbyists, the draft included extensions for copyright terms, threatened fair dealing — including rights to use parody and commentary, which are fundamental pieces of Canada’s copyright exceptions and limitations — and would also lock participating countries into new rules that would govern the circumvention of digital locks. These issues are of particular concern to Canadian artists. As Cherine from Victoria says: “As a digital artist and long time creator, the copyright term extensions will limit my potential to spread my creations, not to mention the limitations created through the new DRM rules that would be put in play.” Karl from Vancouver highlights these concerns: “As a career technologist, I am very concerned about extending DRM and copyright extensions with a pre-digital economy mindset, stifling creativity and introducing more and more barriers for innovation.” Throughout the negotiations, numerous digital rights advocacy groups, with assistance from expert researchers, continued to raise concerns about the impacts of the TPP on our digital freedoms — concerns which were widely reported in the media.6 7 8 In the early years of negotiations, the unprecedented level of secrecy was lamented by numerous independent experts4 — in particular regarding issues relating to digital policy, which are regularly the focus of intense public debate and consultation. Since the earliest days of the Internet, policies governing its use have been shaped democratically by rigorous public debate, which is perhaps why digital policy experts were so alarmed to learn that many contentious issues fundamental to the future development of international Internet governance were being discussed and decided upon behind closed doors. Despite being denied access to TPP negotiating texts, digital rights advocates did their best to intervene throughout the course of negotiations. In Canada, with support from a large international network of experts and advocates, OpenMedia launched an extensive crowdsourcing exercise to probe the public perception about the ways in which copyright and conceptions of intellectual property affect the daily lives of Internet users.9 Given the increasing ubiquity of Internet use in Canada, it’s difficult to understate just how concerned Canadians were about how the TPP could impact their digital rights. For example, in 2015 when speaking at a panel organized by the Centre for International Governance Innovation, This led to the eventual publishing of the Our Digital Future report, in which over 10,000 individuals helped shaped three key recommendations: respect creators, prioritize 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTrS1GeADQU 1 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/tpp-createsliabilities-isps-and-put-your-rights-risk 6 http://www.forbes.com/sites/katherynthayer/2014/10/17/ secrecy-shrouded-tpp-leaks-alarm-internet-freedomadvocates/#5d7fdb3f5bba 2 http://keionline.org/node/1516 7 https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-trans-pacificpartnership-will-significantly-restrict-online-freedoms 3 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/new-leaked-tpp-putsfair-use-risk 8 https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-trans-pacificpartnership-is-still-the-enemy-of-the-internet 4 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/48-civil-societygroups-and-experts-call-tpp-negotiators-follow-eus-leadand 9 https://openmedia.org/crowdsource 18 free expression, and embrace democratic processes.10 policy landscape, and the everyday experience of Internet users across Canada. OpenMedia also engaged in a broad range of other activities including: appearances before the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade,11 12 participation in and facilitation of a global coalition advocating for fairer copyright rules in the TPP,13 the creation of an Internet Voice Tool that saw more than 20,000 individual respondents raise concerns about Internet freedom,14 meeting with lead negotiators for IP,15 attending negotiating rounds,16 17 and engaging in a sustained conversation with thousands of members of the Canadian public.18 When the final text of the TPP was eventually made public, it was clear that the agreement contained policies that would drastically undermine the digital rights of Canadians. In a 50-part series Professor Michael Geist examined many of the most damaging potential impacts of the TPP on Canada’s digital landscape.19 The issues highlighted by Professor Geist include: • 20-year retrospective copyright term extensions, which impoverish the public domain, and are estimated to cost Canadian consumers in excess of $400 million annually;20 Although a sustained effort was made to engage with every opportunity to provide direction and feedback, the extent to which those opportunities were created by civil society, rather than meaningfully designed by the government, should raise a red flag. Although OpenMedia was able to secure the occasional meeting, this did not amount to the genuine participation that an agreement of this scope demanded. Additionally, the work done by digital rights advocates to educate the public relied almost entirely on investigative journalism and leaks to ascertain how the agreement would affect our digital • extension of criminal penalties for Digital Rights Management infractions;21 • the Investor-State Dispute Settlement process that puts Canadian copyright reform under the spectre of multi-million dollar corporate lawsuits; and • the overall lack of balance that permeates the IP provisions — elevating the rights of Big Media companies over the rights of individuals and doing little to establish support for the public domain or userfocused protections like fair dealing.22 10 https://connectedfuture.org/sites/default/files/campaign/ OpenMedia_OurDigitalFuture.pdf 11 https://openmedia.ca/sites/openmedia.ca/files/ TPPcommitteepresentation.pdf Terry from Winnipeg raises the issue of copyright and its effects on education: “With regard to the TPP I am concerned specifically about the effect on copyright and other intellectual property laws. As a university instructor, I am always dodging my way around ridiculous restrictions on what sources 12 https://openmedia.org/en/i-went-i-saw-i-cried-whatcounts-public-consultation 13 http://ourfairdeal.org/ 14 https://web.archive.org/web/20150922212722/https:// openmedia.org/face2face 15 https://openmedia.ca/blog/making-them-listen-bringing19000-voices-secretive-tpp-negotiations 19 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tech-law-topics/tpp/ 16 https://openmedia.ca/blog/report-back-inside-tppsinternet-trap 20 https://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2015/11/the-cost-ofcanadian-copyright-term.html 17 https://openmedia.org/en/heading-dc-show-decisionmakers-internet-users-%E2%80%98gon-run-town 21 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/01/the-trouble-with-thetpp-day-2-locking-in-digital-locks/ 18 https://connectedfuture.org/digitalfuture/process/ socialmedia 22 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/01/the-trouble-with-thetpp-day-5-rights-holders-shall-vs-users-may/ 19 my students can use without gaining permission because a work written in 1900 could still be under exclusive copyright, ostensibly to ensure that an author who has been dead for 40 years will produce more works! Now this period is to be lengthened, keeping all of the 20th century’s works out of the public domain for decades. Our ridiculous recent laws on digital locks have already made a felon out of me so that I could read an e-book purchased for one device on another device. I do not want these restrictions made worse.” to be a strong contender in enabling youth to innovate in the tech world. With the TPP, however, I fear our innovations will suffer. Copyright term extensions, DRM rules and increasing power to big media giants are sure ways to decrease creativity and productivity in an increasingly disenfranchised workforce.” The TPP would also see unwelcome meddling in Internet governance, most notably impacting CIRA, the body that manages the Canadian dot-ca domain. Should CIRA — an independent nonprofit organization — take future action to bolster privacy for domain registrants they would be at risk of violating provisions in the TPP and would likely need to be legislated into compliance by our government. While government oversight may seem positive, Professor Geist highlights how this approach is counter to Canada’s longstanding policy of taking a relatively hands-off approach to Internet governance,26 an approach that the government itself noted as “[having] been a key driver in the success of the Internet to date.”27 Leaders in the Canadian digital economy have also spoken out about provisions in the TPP that would put Canadian innovation at risk. Research In Motion (RIM) co-founder Jim Balsillie even went so far as to call the TPP “disastrous” for Canada’s innovators,23 and the “worst thing in policy that Canada’s ever done.”24 Balsillie focused his criticism on TPP provisions that seemed designed with the sole purpose of perpetuating long-standing U.S. dominance over the Intellectual Property sector. He pointed out that such provisions do nothing to ensure Canada embraces forward-looking digital policies that are fit for purpose in the 21st century and that will decrease our nation’s reliance on resource exports. In a 2016 report published by the Open Digital Trade Network, recent research reveals that “the digital economy now contributes more to economic growth than traditional trade in goods, a trend confirmed in 2016, which saw the slowest growth in trade since the financial crisis”25 — calling into question why Canada would not make a greater effort to secure policies that would advance the innovation economy. Let’s Talk TPP participants have offered that the agreement’s provisions on digital policy, Internet governance, innovation, and Canadian cultural production are some of the most concerning aspects of the deal. Changes to the way that Canadians consume media, share information, and create culture would have farreaching impacts on everything from political speech to artistic expression, and citizens are understandably concerned that critical policies such as those contained within the TPP’s Intellectual Property chapter would change the nature of communications in Canada — without their input. Vivianne from Montreal voiced her concern on this issue: “As a young adult with an entrepreneurial spirit, I have always found Canada 23 http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-forfebruary-4-2016-1.3433226/tpp-would-be-disastrous-forcanada-s-innovators-jim-balsillie-warns-1.3433248 26 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/01/the-trouble-with-thetpp-day-16-intervening-in-internet-governance/ 24 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/jim-balsillietpp-1.3310179 27 http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/contributionfrom-the-government-of-canada-to-the-global-multistakeholder-meeting-on-the-future-of-internet-governancenetmundial/247 25 https://www.eff.org/files/2017/01/10/trade_for_the_digital_ age_download.pdf 20 CORPORATE OVERREACH AND DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY Citizen comment Let’s Talk TPP participants fundamentally reject a system that would allow foreign corporations to skirt our democratic process and sue for untold millions in quasi-judicial, secretive tribunals. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the TPP has been the target of intense scrutiny and suspicion by Canadians, and for good reason. Darlene from Saskatoon points to the ISDS mechanism as a key concern: “Common sense says you don’t let corporations trump democratic rights of the citizens of a country. By passing the TPP with the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism you do just that. No one can afford to fight disputes corporations bring ... and it allows corporations to willfully bully Canadians and our government. This clause alone is so damaging, the deal needs to be rejected.” High-profile cases like Eli Lilly’s $500 million ISDS lawsuit filed against Canada under NAFTA 28 and even Canadian-owned TransCanada Corporation’s $15 billion lawsuit against the U.S.29 have exposed Canadians to the flaws in a mechanism that operates outside of domestic courts, doing an end-run around our judicial system, which citizens recognize as designed with traditional checks and balances to ensure fairness. Professor Gus Van Harten of Osgoode Hall Law School of York University has done extensive study on the ISDS mechanism, both within NAFTA and the TPP, and finds it “[gives] a special international avenue for foreign investors only to attack the decisions that countries make, to attack things they could never attack in domestic law.”30 The mechanics of dispute resolution under the TPP are equally alarming. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) describes the process in the following manner: Multinational companies have used ISDS to challenge a wide range of laws, regulations, and policies, including measures related to public health, environmental protection, financial regulation, and resource management. The risk of an ISDS claim can also give foreign investors a powerful tool to deter policies they don’t like. Many Let’s Talk TPP respondents were understandably stunned that such a system could be supported in any form by their political leaders. Designed to allow corporations to sue a country for enacting any rules or legislation that would threaten their profits within a trade process — even if the regulations are crafted with the health and safety of its citizens in mind — ISDS was viewed by many Let’s Talk TPP participants as the poison pill in the TPP. ISDS cases are usually decided by tribunals of three members: one chosen by the foreign investor, one by the challenged government, and the third by mutual agreement or, failing that, by an outside appointing authority. Tribunal decisions are subject to limited or no review in any court, whether domestic or international. Yet their awards of public compensation to foreign investors are directly enforceable in domestic courts.31 28 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/eli-lilly-files-500m-naftasuit-against-canada-over-drug-patents-1.1829854 29 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/27/transcanadakeystone-lawsuit-nafta_n_10696608.html 30 http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/you-re-not-entitled-toyour-own-opinion-the-case-against-free-trade-and-howsnow-can-inform-planning-1.3886400/scrapping-free-tradecould-make-canada-great-again-1.3886421 31 https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/ uploads/publications/National%20Office/2016/06/Foreign_ Investor_Protections_TPP.pdf 21 Under NAFTA’s ISDS rules, Canada has earned the dubious distinction of being the “most sued nation” with a recent study showing “70 per cent of claims since 2005 have been brought against Canada, and the number of challenges under a controversial settlement clause is rising sharply.”32 will affect future legislation as politicians and lawyers try to anticipate what we could be sued for and alter legislation to avoid this.” ISDS clauses are also contained within a concurrently negotiated agreement, the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union. These provisions in CETA became the target of massive public outcry in the EU, notably in Germany where tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in cities across the country.36 Experts in a number of sectors have raised concern about “regulatory chill” that could accompany the dispute settlement mechanism.33 34 35 Every issue about which Canadians have raised concern in the TPP comes with a twin liability — not only are many of the policy changes made by the agreement simply objectionable, but Canadians also fear that future regulations to improve conditions to the benefit of the broader public will be subject to costly lawsuits. Just as Canadians have become more familiar with ISDS through prominent lawsuits, a highlypublicized case of a Swedish energy provider suing Germany to the tune of 5 billion euros for its policy of phasing out nuclear energy37 has similarly brought Germans to understand the profound implications of such a system for their democracy. Around the world, countries who are party to agreements with investor-state provisions are finding their hands to be tied when it comes to the passing of legislation or regulations that have been actively advocated for by an engaged citizenry. Susan from Nepean points to previous claims that underscore her concern: “Our already stretched tax dollars would be used to pay exorbitant sums when independent tribunals rule in favour of investors. Note that I didn’t say “if” but “when”. I have no doubt this will happen because it already has under NAFTA’s similar provision. One example of an outstanding suit: a $500 million claim made by Eli Lilly against Canada, all because our government took a stand to protect Canadians by rescinding the patents on two drugs that it turned out were not properly tested or proven to do what Eli Lilly had claimed; drugs that Canadians (including my nephew) were prescribed under false pretenses. There are other examples of outstanding claims listed on the Global Affairs Canada web site, ranging from $5 million to $4.8 billion USD. And, if it isn’t already happening, the mere threat of such suits Under CETA, ISDS was subject to a number of mainly procedural reforms in the face of public outrage38 — whether these changes meaningfully address the concerns of citizens or not is still at issue — however, no such efforts were made to reform ISDS in the TPP, leaving Canadians wondering why we would agree to an even more flawed version of what they already see as a system that fundamentally subverts democratic processes. A final issue that has been raised by experts, and echoed by Canadians, is the interpretive nature of much of the TPP’s text. If ratified, its 5000-plus 32 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-suedinvestor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html 36 http://globalnews.ca/news/2946308/ceta-protests-againstcanada-eu-trade-deal-held-across-germany/ 33 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/03/the-trouble-with-thetpp-day-44-canadas-terrible-isds-track-record/ 37 http://www.dw.com/en/hearing-against-germanybegins-as-investors-seek-damages-for-nuclear-phaseout/a-36005115 34 http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/ Committee/421/CIIT/Brief/BR8366376/br-external/ CanadaResearchChairsProgram-e.pdf 38 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/03/the-trouble-with-thetpp-day-41-isds-rules-do-not-meet-the-canadas-new-goldstandard/ 35 https://openparliament.ca/committees/internationaltrade/42-1/41/david-bruer-1/ 22 pages of legalese will have to be put into practice, but how this happens and who drives the process is of great concern. An issue that has received relatively little attention when compared to glaring threats like ISDS, is the U.S. certification process, which requires the U.S. president to review an agreement and “certify” that participating nations have taken the necessary measures to implement the agreement.39 No other TPP country has such a provision in domestic law, and as such, the U.S. would be the sole arbiter of whether Canada is TPP-compliant. eliminate or endanger attempts to bring us in line with the growing medical needs of our population — putting further strain on Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system. Of particular concern to Canadians is the TPP’s proposed extension of monopoly patent terms on pharmaceutical drugs by up to two years in certain cases, allowing companies to argue that delays in approving their product have been “unreasonable”. Like much of the TPP, the language of these provisions has been criticized as excessively vague and open to interpretation — however the Foundation for AIDS Research contends that “the TPP weakens the required justification for what constitutes an “unreasonable delay,” making it easier for pharmaceutical companies to demand longer patent extensions and further delay the entrance of generic competition.”42 This, in the context of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association calculating in 2015 that “the availability and use of generic prescription medicines saved Canada’s health-care system nearly $62-billion over the past five years.”43 The threat this certification process poses to Canada is clear, as experts like Professor Michael Geist have noted, “the U.S. certification process is not an objective process conducted by independent experts. In fact, U.S. companies have already begun to call for an aggressive certification process with the creation of a “precertification checklist.”40 The risks are only magnified when grappling with an agreement with so much room for interpretation in its text. As Nobel laureate and economist Dr. Joseph Stiglitz stated at a public event on the TPP in Ottawa in April of 2015, “the only unambiguous thing about the TPP is how ambiguous it is.”41 It is unsurprising, then, that Canadians are concerned about rising drug costs and the blocking of generic alternatives, at a time when our ageing population means demand for healthcare services is projected to rise steeply in years to come.44 HEALTHCARE AND PUBLIC SERVICES Let’s Talk TPP participants expressed deep concern about the effects of the TPP on Canada’s healthcare system and other public services. Some of the most damning critiques have come from doctors and healthcare advocates, who warn that the agreement would force Canadians to pay more for health services, and would Emma from Toronto points to the impacts on healthcare as a pressing concern: “A country founded on “free” medical care should be ashamed to ratify this pact. A pact that will give multinational corporations on foreign soil the right to make decisions about our healthcare and our pharmaceuticals. These decisions will drastically raise the cost of our public health care and significantly restrict access to lifesaving 39 http://tppnocertification.org/certification-at-a-glance/ 42 http://www.avac.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/ amfAR_TPP_brief.pdf 40 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/03/canadian-tppconsultation-launches-as-u-s-certification-looms-in-thedistance/ 43 http://canadiangenerics.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2016/10/5YearSavings11-15_ENG.pdf 41 https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=kTmA2rKXZ8Y&feature=iv&src_vid=f_ df1icNBoU&annotation_id=annotation_2137803881 44 http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/ cei-07-e.htm 23 medicine to those left behind, putting us closer to a fully privatized system than ever before. If Prime Minister Trudeau is invested in our infrastructure, our medicare, our Aboriginal women, he and the Government of Canada can’t proudly sign this pact just to save economic face.” will bankrupt our healthcare system. We already spend much more on drugs than we do on doctors. If we *don’t* implement pharmacare, most of my patients — who do not have 3rd party insurance — will simply do without. Only the rich will get the meds they need.” A corresponding worry is the extension of patents to medical procedures, which health advocates such as Canadian Doctors for Medicare (CDM) say would tie the hands of doctors to use their best judgement in treating patients. According to CDM, “In many cases [a procedure] would not be the best or most appropriate choice, but the allowable one within a complicated network of intellectual property ownership and organizational risk management.” Canada is the only developed nation with public healthcare that does not afford its citizens any form of prescription drug coverage outside hospitals, and spends more per capita on medicines than any other country except the U.S.47 As recently as January 2017, the CBC reported that “a growing number of academics and advocates are urging the Canadian government to create a system of universal pharmacare”,48 however moves to establish such a program could be met with fierce opposition and costly lawsuits under the TPP. Let’s Talk TPP participants have expressed concern not only about the TPP’s impacts on our domestic healthcare system, but are also speaking out about being party to an agreement that would restrict access to lifesaving medicines for people around the world — particularly those living in low income countries. In their responses to the Parliamentary consultation on the TPP, many Canadians have quoted the international health advocates’ organization, Doctors Without Borders, in its assertion that the TPP is “the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines.”45 Concerns about impacts on the Canadian healthcare system were shared widely by respondents to the consultation, but Canadians are also fearful about the consequences for public services outside of this sector. Many are nervous that the TPP would broadly undermine support for public services, in line with concerns raised by the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) which has pointed to the agreement’s “chilling effect” on federal, provincial, and municipal governments creating programs in service of the public good, claiming that, “there is no guarantee that corporations won’t demand that more and more public services be privatized in order to improve their bottom-line.”49 The TPP’s deeply problematic ISDS mechanisms, covered previously in detail, also have grave implications for Canada’s public healthcare system. In particular, the TPP would permit an ISDS case to be launched against Canada should it work towards the implementation of a national drug program, which a recent study predicts would save billions in healthcare costs.46 One such example where a critical public necessity could be at risk is Canada’s postal service. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), in analyzing the possible implications of a ratified agreement on the activities of Canada Post, raised questions about the key drivers behind the policies advanced in the agreement, David from Picton picks up on this concern: “As a medical doctor, the potential increase in cost of pharmaceuticals is extremely concerning. If we implement gov’t insured pharmacare (nationally or provincially) — which is generally a good idea — it 47 https://nursesunions.ca/sites/default/files/pharmacare_ report.pdf 45 http://www.msf.ca/en/trans-pacific-partnership 48 http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health-minister-janephilpott-drug-prices-1.3932254 46 http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/universal-drug-plan-wouldsave-billions-ubc-researchers-say-1.2994857 49 http://psacunion.ca/new-trade-deal-puts-public-servicesrisk 24 noting that “rules concerning postal services closely reflect the objectives of the private courier industry, notably Fedex and UPS, which committed substantial resources to influencing TPP negotiations.”50 affect their livelihoods going forward. The TPP seems to make it even more difficult for the government to live up to the climate deal reached in Paris 2015 -- a most unfortunate outcome, if one takes seriously the threat of climate change, which I believe most of us do.” Due to the role of key influencers in the negotiations, the TPP advances a framework designed to protect the best interests of private entities — putting public services under attack on a number of fronts, including by the TPP’s provisions for State Owned Enterprises (SOEs). These provisions constrain government-run entities from being able to grow in a way that allows them to maintain flexibility and innovate on business models, while continuing to meet a mandate of universal public service. Some have claimed that the environment chapter of the TPP is the first in a major trade agreement “to strongly address the impacts global trade has on natural resources – including fish, wildlife and forests”,51 however opponents have called it “toothless”52 when it comes to protecting the environment and argued that it will do little to require signatory countries to act on environmental issues. Importantly for Canada, the provisions in the TPP that require a level of environmental protection only apply to federal legislation, and do not bind or implicate provincial regulations where much of Canada’s environmental standards are set.53 Colleen from Lacombe, AB worries about the increased concentration of power in private institutions: “I am only one of the majority of Canadians who are tired of being held hostage by the already too powerful multinational corporations and this deal would increase their power and further erode the rights of Canadians and our government to uphold the laws and public services that our country has been built upon.” International NGOs such as 350.org and the Sierra Club have outright rejected claims that the TPP implements any enforceable protections for the environment, especially in light of the fact that potential regulations that countries endeavour to pass to come into line with the recently completed Paris Climate Agreement could well be challenged under the ISDS provisions54 — a concern that was raised by many respondents in their replies to the consultation. ENVIRONMENT The TPP is also concerning to Canadians who worry that provisions contained within the agreement will stifle legislation and regulations designed to protect the environment, create sustainable industries, and fight climate change. Judith from Vancouver Island points out this conflict: “The TPP must not be ratified. I am concerned about all aspects of this so-called agreement. I am particularly alarmed that, if ratified, it will give foreign companies the right to sue Canadian governments for implementing regulations to protect our fragile environment. How can we possibly begin to make the changes As Nadine from Montreal says: “The global climate situation is likely to be the biggest catastrophe we face in the decades ahead, leading to further mass migrations, even more political instability in poorer countries that are more directly affected by climate change, and food and water shortages that will spell great and serious challenges for the global community, and for Canadians who see the changing global situation 51 http://www.cleanprosperity.ca/canada_the_environment_ and_the_tpp 52 https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/newsreleases/tpp-will-be-toothless-environmental-protectionstudy 53 ibid. 50 http://www.cupw.ca/en/campaign/resources/legal-opiniontrans-pacific-partnership-and-implications-postal-servicescanada 54 http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/11/10/news/transpacific-partnership-deal-act-climate-denial 25 necessary to stop climate change, as we agreed to do as part of the historic climate deal reached in Paris in 2015?” Canadian economy and the health and employment of its citizens. Canada cannot engage in an agreement that will hinder its ability to implement regulations to protect our own environment, and by extension, the health and welfare of our citizens.” As for the potential impacts of ISDS on environmental regulations, we need look no further than the case of Lone Pine Resources, where a $118 million USD ISDS lawsuit was launched over a fracking moratorium in Quebec.55 This case is a prime example of how the investorstate provisions will be used to deter action by governments — action which, in many cases, has been demanded by citizens. Regulatory chill is a serious concern for those Canadians who question the impacts of the TPP on the environment. Ben Beachy, a senior policy advisor at the Sierra Club, has pointed to settlements from the 1990s under NAFTA that he argues have eroded environmental protections,56 a trend that Canadians fear will continue under the TPP. LABOUR AND THE ECONOMY One of the promises of free trade is to improve quality of life for the middle class, and provide opportunities for economic growth that will be to the benefit of the majority of citizens — and the economic benefits of the TPP have been loudly touted by its proponents, even though they are relatively meagre. The Canadian government’s own assessment predicts we will experience only a slight rise in GDP by 0.127 per cent, with a net gain of $4.3 billion by 2040.59 In January 2016, two Tufts University researchers published a study on the impacts of the TPP. Calling into question the Peterson Institute’s study that they allege uses “projections [which] are based on unrealistic assumptions such as full employment and constant income distribution,”60 the Tufts study uses a model designed to also calculate effects on employment and inequality. It predicts negligible gains for Canada’s economy — similar to the Peterson study — but suggests that the real impact will be felt in an estimated loss of 58,000 jobs for Canadians and increased income inequality for every TPP country.61 Let’s Talk TPP participants also worry about our nation’s food security under the TPP. In late 2016, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy released a study that argues that “in almost every respect, the TPP and other trade deals like it are in deep climate denial,”57 pointing out that policies advanced under the agreement in other sectors often come at a cost to the environment, and that without holistic reforms, such as “[providing] the flexibility necessary to protect domestic food and energy production”58 the agreement will move us in the wrong direction on environmental policy. As Tige from Coquitlam says: “The major disadvantage of TPP is that it will increase economic inequality, since it seems designed to favor large corporations to find the lowest wages and costs wherever they may be found in member countries with seemingly no interest in any advantages that any countries may have.” As Sarah from Toronto says: “My greatest concern is the effects the TPP will have on Canada’s ability to protect its environment. I am a biologist. I am very aware of the devastation that climate change and environmental destruction will have on the 55 https://content.sierraclub.org/creative-archive/sites/content. sierraclub.org.creative-archive/files/pdfs/1197%20Dirty%20 Deals%20Report%20Web_03_low.pdf The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) also calls into question the broader 56 https://www.desmog.ca/2016/05/25/lone-pine-companysuing-canada-quebec-fracking-ban-aggressively-lobbyingottawa 59 http://international.gc.ca/economist-economiste/analysisanalyse/tpp_ei-re_ptp.aspx?lang=eng 57 http://www.iatp.org/climate-cost-of-free-trade 60 http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-01CapaldoIzurietaTPP_ES.pdf 58 ibid. 61 ibid. 26 impact of this agreement around the world, citing Tufts’ figures that show net job losses for every participating TPP nation, and pointing to how “greater capital mobility and more integrated supply chains will encourage cost-cutting across the globe. And when employers cut costs to compete in the world’s largest free-trade zone, jobs and wages will be one of the first targets for savings.”62 over $10 billion in annual revenue — all at the expense of taxpayers in respondent countries.65 Ross from Edmonton points to this fly in the ointment: “Perhaps the most obvious problem with this deal is that the benefits are neither quantified nor guaranteed, yet the costs are certain. In 2015 it was reported that Canada has been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world, under NAFTA. It would be naive to suppose that Canada would become any less of a target under the TPP.” The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) has also spoken out about the displacement of Canadian jobs, and the evident lack of protections for workers in the TPP. They levy criticism against the lowered barriers for bringing in temporary foreign workers, and the lack of explicit requirements to ensure these workers are fairly paid, and question a system that would allow for companies to bring in skilled workers from outside of Canada without having to first attempt to hire domestically.63 The combination of job losses, greater inequality, and negligible growth for the economy has Let’s Talk TPP participants skeptical that the stated benefits are worth the threats to healthcare, the digital economy, labour standards, the environment, and our democratic rights. Another reason to be wary of the supposed benefits of the TPP is that none of the projections about GDP and net economic gain have estimated the price tag that will come along with investorstate lawsuits. Research by Osgoode Hall Law School Associate Professor Gus Van Harten shows that the TPP’s ISDS provisions go well beyond what is present in NAFTA, and “would expand Canada’s ISDS exposure...from, at present, U.S. investors under NAFTA and Chinese investors under the 2014 Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) to include, most notably under the TPP, companies and wealthy individuals from Australia, Japan, and Malaysia.”64 Van Harten’s research also probes the distribution of benefits from ISDS settlements, emphasizing that the biggest winners will be individuals with over $100 million in net worth, and companies with Citizen comment “I’m very concerned with TPP’s ISDS provisions, which not only limit the regulatory and policy authority of governments, but also open the door to massive taxpayer liability along the way.” — Weston, Vancouver 62 http://behindthenumbers.ca/2016/01/18/tpp-will-costcanada-jobs-wont-grow-economy/ 63 http://canadianlabour.ca/news/news-archive/tpp 64 https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/ uploads/publications/National%20Office/2016/06/Foreign_ Investor_Protections_TPP.pdf 65 ibid. 27 Reprinted with permission from Gus Van Harten, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School. Published June 201666 66 https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/ uploads/publications/National%20Office/2016/06/Foreign_ Investor_Protections_TPP.pdf 28 CONCLUSION: Beyond the TPP, Canadians are calling for a new approach to trade negotiations In response to the long-awaited opportunity for consultation on the TPP, Canadians have responded en masse, and their recommendations are clear: Canada’s government should formally withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and for all future trade negotiations work to ensure real transparency, and embrace multi-stakeholder engagement. issues concentrated in regions or sectors of the economy, feedback from Canadians paints a picture in which individuals’ misgivings with the agreement are both broad and intersectional. On the whole, we found people care about a number of distinct provisions in the TPP, as well as maintain an overarching set of concerns about the impacts of the agreement on our economy and society. The number of concerned Canadians who spoke out through the Let’s Talk TPP initiative, and more broadly during the government consultations on the TPP, gives clear indication that there is a real demand for engagement with citizen stakeholders on trade. Without a doubt, it was a mistake for the Harper government to exclude members of the public from participating meaningfully in negotiations. In fact it’s clear from the feedback received from Let’s Talk TPP participants, that the TPP’s closed process did more to breed mistrust and bring the agreement to its knees than any one policy or provision advanced therein. Just as it would be unreasonable to expect the individuals who have raised concerns about the impacts of this agreement to know everything that is in the TPP, it would be equally as unreasonable to assume that elected officials who will be asked to vote on our behalf have spent adequate time assessing such an enormous deal. As trade agreements go, the TPP is a real goliath, covering 40 per cent of global GDP, straddling 12 nations, and containing provisions that would impact nearly every facet of daily life for individuals in all TPP nations — and would have profound impacts for non-TPP nations as well. “The TPP is so much more insidious than just a Trade Deal. What it is, is a BAD deal for Canadians. I have done my homework on this, have you?” — Victor from Mason’s Landing Citizen Comment At more than 5000 pages, it is a tremendous task for any one scholar, trade expert, elected representative, or individual to quantify the effects of the TPP on the whole. In asking Canadians to respond to the call for feedback, there was no shortage of sources and experts for citizens to consult in coming to their conclusions on the effects of this agreement. While we may have initially expected to find concern for specific When the text of the TPP finally came out from behind the curtain on November 5, 2015, Canadians came face-to-face with a previously impenetrable agreement, designed from its inception to keep them in the dark for as long as possible. 29 Now, finally given the opportunity to provide feedback, it is no wonder that Canadians have turned to the experts and organizations they trust — groups and individuals who have spent countless hours and invested serious resources reading, researching, and digesting the TPP. These people and organizations have served as a bridge for Canadians to reach a better understanding about the implications of the TPP on the issues they care deeply about. On January 23, 2017 U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to formally withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership,1 and Canadians have clearly indicated their wish to see their government do so as well. The challenge now is to ensure that the TPP’s toxic provisions and exclusionary negotiating process do not resurface in future deals, including an imminent renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).2 Throughout this process, Canadians have come to the government equipped with facts, statistics, and studies — but they have also come as citizens of a democratic nation who expect to be consulted and listened to. Trade negotiations will never be made simple, and the complexity that we now face with increased globalization will continue to impact our international relations. But such complexity must not be used as an excuse to exclude citizens from negotiations that will have a profound impact on their lives. As a part of the growing movement for more democratic and inclusive trade, Canadians from coast to coast have called upon their government to be a leader in the international community, and take seriously their duty to public accountability. We will continue our work to ensure they heed this call. Reflecting on the TPP, Let’s Talk TPP participants have clearly said that they expect their government to reject the agreement — and Canada’s government should heed this call. But beyond this, they have also demanded a process that more clearly reflects the democratic values that Canadians hold dear: consultation, transparency, and multi-stakeholder engagement. It is for this reason we have made forward-looking recommendations on how future trade deals should be negotiated, and we hope they will inform the policy of this government and future governments in negotiating agreements that are in the best interest of Canadians, and that can be supported by the public at large. To follow the path to an acceptable agreement — one that benefits the majority of Canadians on the whole — our government must ensure the mistakes of the TPP are not repeated. They must expand the very narrow definition of stakeholders to ensure that everyday citizens, public interest groups, and academics have both a seat and a voice at the table of future negotiations. They must conduct these negotiations in a way that opens the door to public oversight, and welcome the increased transparency that will ultimately help to fortify public support for future agreements. 1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/23/ president-trump-signs-order-to-withdraw-fromtranspacific-partnership/?utm_term=.e6aff978cdbb 2 http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/22/politics/trump-renegotiatenafta/ 30 APPENDIX: Canadian opposition to the TPP Throughout the process of the government consultations on the TPP, Canadians from across the country have shared their concerns. The following is a breakdown of where we saw the greatest amount of individuals speaking out by using the Let’s Talk TPP consultation tool to connect with local representatives and ensure their voice was heard. Yukon 0.3% Northwest Territories Nunavut 0.02% 0.1% Newfoundland 0.6% British Columbia 30.7% Alberta 9.7% Saskatchewan Manitoba 3% 2.3% Quebec Ontario 40.7% 7.8% PEI 0.4% Nova Scotia 3% New Brunswick 1.4% Province Count % Province Count % ON BC AB QC MB NS SK 11066 8349 2635 2128 827 811 637 40.66% 30.68% 9.68% 7.82% 3.03% 2.98% 2.34% NB NFLB PEI Yukon NWT Nunavut 381 170 96 77 29 6 1.4% 0.6% 0.35% 0.28% 0.10% 0.02% 31 Ridings with the most submissions Ontario Count Riding 296 Parkdale — High Park 258 Ottawa Centre 248 University — Rosedale 237 Toronto — Danforth 235 Toronto Centre 235 Davenport 200 Beaches — East York 192 Guelph 188 London North Centre Ottawa Centre Count: 258 Guelph Count: 192 London North Centre Count: 188 Toronto (detail) Davenport Count: 235 Parkdale — High Park Count: 296 Beaches — East York Count: 200 Toronto — Danforth Count: 237 University — Rosedale Count: 296 Toronto Centre Count: 235 32 Ridings with the most submissions Count Riding 574 Victoria 446 Nanaimo — Ladysmith 436 Vancouver East 399 Courtenay — Alberni 394 Saanich — Gulf Islands 366 West Vancouver — Sunshine Coast — Sea to Sky Country 349 Vancouver Centre 330 North Island — Powell River 322 Esquimalt — Saanich — Sooke 286 Cowichan — Malahat — Langford 277 Kootenay — Columbia 273 South Okanagan — West Kootenay 270 Vancouver Quadra 243 Vancouver Granville 213 North Okanagan — Shuswap British Columbia Count: 213 South Okanagan — West Kootenay Count: 273 Kootenay — Columbia Lower Mainland (detail) Vancouver Island (detail) North Island — Powell River Count: 330 Nanaimo — Ladysmith Count: 446 West Vancouver — Sunshine Coast — Sea to Sky Country Count: 366 Count: 277 Vancouver East Count: 436 Vancouver Centre Count: 349 Courtenay — Alberni Count: 399 Cowichan — Malahat — Langford Count: 286 Esquimalt — Saanich — Sooke Count: 322 North Okanagan — Shuswap Saanich — Gulf Islands Count: 394 Victoria Count: 574 33 Vancouver Quadra Count: 270 Vancouver Granville Count: 243 Ridings with the most submissions TOP 25 RIDINGS BY NUMBER OF RESPONSES Quebec Papineau Count: 343 A NOTE ABOUT QUEBEC French language Let’s Talk TPP responses are largely outweighed by responses from English-speaking Canadians. Due to a limited capacity to engage with French-speaking Canadians, one significant limitation of the consultation project was the lack of multilingual content, and therefore the relatively limited involvement from non-English speaking Canadians. Most notably, this impacted response rates in parts of Quebec. Resource constraints meant that while OpenMedia was able to create and deploy a French version of the Let’s Talk TPP tool, there was limited outreach done in French-speaking communities. 34 Nº Count Riding 1 574 Victoria 2 446 Nanaimo — Ladysmith 3 436 Vancouver East 4 399 Courtenay — Alberni 5 394 Saanich — Gulf Islands 6 366 West Vancouver — Sunshine Coast — Sea to Sky Country 7 349 Vancouver Centre 8 343 Papineau 9 330 North Island — Powell River 10 322 Esquimalt — Saanich — Sooke 11 296 Parkdale — High Park 12 286 Cowichan — Malahat — Langford 13 277 Kootenay — Columbia 14 273 South Okanagan — West Kootenay 15 270 Vancouver Quadra 16 258 Ottawa Centre 17 248 University — Rosedale 18 243 Vancouver Granville 19 237 Toronto — Danforth 20 235 Toronto Centre 21 235 Davenport 22 213 North Okanagan — Shuswap 23 200 Beaches — East York 24 192 Guelph 25 188 London North Centre APPENDIX: Who Supports This Initiative? corporations and almost nothing from experts on labour, environment, health, etc. - and presented effectively as a fait accompli - is deeply troubling. And the fact that the prime minister recently suggested Canada will have little choice but to ratify the deal is very disturbing because it suggests the current public consultation is a sham. Whether you support the TPP or oppose it, it is clear that the flawed process is simply not acceptable in a democratic society. We believe Canada should not ratify the TPP without significant changes in regard to ISDS, labour standards, environmental standards, pharmaceuticals, Internet rights and other areas. In addition to the core partners of the Let’s Talk TPP campaign — Council of Canadians, Stand, and SumOfUs — this broader initiative, including the creation of a Citizens’ Report, has been supported by many other organizations and individuals in Canada. The campaign’s original endorsing organizations include: Leadnow.ca, Keepers of the Water, CWA Canada, Free Dominion, Trade Justice PEI, OpenConcept, Wilderness Committee, Friends of Public Services, The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), Wantoo, Unifor, and Common Frontiers. NORD VPN Several organizations have provided their own statements on the TPP for this report. NordVPN wants to raise important concerns about TPP as it threatens to apply restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws and rewrite international rules on its enforcement, thereby threatening to impair Internet Freedom. CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS CUPW supports Open Media’s work in opposition to the TPP because, if ratified, the TPP threatens jobs, the environment, democratic rights and public services like Canada Post. With TPP, individual rights for freedom of expression, innovation and creativity are at risk. Inability for each country to take a sovereign decision in policymaking and custom lawmaking that reflect different cultural priorities is also a grim prospect for the future of knowledge. The intellectual property section of the TPP agreement sets standards across all co-signing countries enforcing and setting guidelines to trademark the copyright rules, such as changing copyright terms that would hinder people’s ability to innovate, imposing limitations to freedom of speech — including to journalists and whistleblowers — and using harsh punishments, such as jail or exorbitant fines over file sharing. CWA CANADA We applaud OpenMedia’s TPP project and its efforts to educate Canadians about the serious problems with the deal and the dangers they present. As a media union, our interest is ensuring that the public is fully informed, especially when it comes to issues of democracy and transparency. The TPP is far more than a trade deal, it’s a corporate-rights agreement that has serious implications for our democratic process and for our economy. The fact that it was negotiated largely in secret, with input from 35 PRIVATE INTERNET ACCESS what has been delivered by governments and trade negotiators – and that corporate interests must never trump the broader public interest. I commend OpenMedia for producing this excellent report, and for their activism in supporting a more progressive and fair trade future for Canada. The TPP disproportionately benefits large international corporations, the same ones that have shown time and time again that they do not respect your privacy. We oppose the TPP and condemn its use of draconian punishments for copyright infringers and the proliferation of the rights of corporations at the expense of basic human rights. What’s worse, if the TPP is ratified, governments will be weakened in their fight to protect their constituents against privacy violations. Private Internet Access joins the multitude of individuals and organizations that are calling on Canadian politicians to reject the TPP. Jerry Dias, Unifor National President UNITED STEELWORKERS The United Steelworkers is the largest industrial union in North America representing over 250,000 active and retired members in Canada. UNIFOR We believe that the TPP, if ratified, will further bind our economy to a currently-flawed global economic system that has not only hurt Canadian workers, but one which will also undermine our democracy, environment and national autonomy. The TPP will not resolve the most important challenges that have decimated our manufacturing base in recent years and we see little in the TPP text to suggest the deal will provide a net benefit to ordinary Canadians. History will view the Trans-Pacific Partnership as the great trade policy turning point of our generation – a failed trade pact that neglected the rights of working people, the environment and the role of democratic decision-making; all of the worst features in our global trading system. “Free traders” have, for too long, assumed that citizens simply didn’t care enough (or didn’t know enough) about trade treaties to pay much attention. And that justified the almost total lack of transparency and accountability in the negotiating process. The TPP was negotiated without the meaningful input from trade unions, First Nations, and other civil society groups. Our citizens deserve better and we will not support the TPP. Today, trade is a political lightning rod. That should come as no surprise. Treaties built to protect the interests of big corporations and private investors won’t be favoured by workers made to feel less secure in their jobs. Unfortunately, the backlash on trade deals has transformed into a politics of hate, distrust, isolation and inequality – a path that will further weaken the rights of workers, in Canada and around the world. Our union is not anti-trade. However, we believe that trade as an instrument of economic policy can forge a new approach; one that would lift wages up rather than push them down, one that would reduce our growing trade deficit, one that would promote domestic manufacturing and employment rather than more outsourcing and offshoring, one that would begin to reverse the widening gap of income inequality. We ask MPs to seriously consider these principles before they decide to sign on to this flawed trade pact. This report is more than a rebuke of the TPP. Rather, it is a symbol of hope. Tens of thousands of Canadians contributing to a public dialogue on trade policy is a reminder of our vibrant, engaged and active democracy. To our elected officials, it is a reminder that voters expect better than 36 APPENDIX: The results from our Let’s Talk TPP consultation tool It would be impossible to include all of the comments from the 27,996 individuals who responded to the government consultation using the Let’s Talk TPP tool. However, we have attempted to give voice to the variety of concerns Canadians have raised throughout this report. Island. We lose more and more farmers due to the lack of skilled farmers taking over for the retiring due to inflated land costs and ALR restrictions (ie. multiple dwellings suitable for co-operative farm agreements for young agrarians) in British Columbia. Below we have included some exemplary responses collected from Let’s Talk TPP participants. The full record of responses forms part of the public record of the government’s consultations, and will be examined and put forward by the Standing Committee on International Trade in its own report, to be tabled in Parliament later this year. This just is so blatantly bad for people, and great for companies. Please don’t let them sell out our resources and rights, handicapping us from making progress and innovations beneficial to us all. Breanne — Duncan, BC I am greatly concerned about the loss of our sovereign rights and democracy implicit in the TPP, which gives multinational corporations the right to sue Canada if they can claim the Canadian government, in pursuing its democratically earned responsibility, have impinged on their profits. This impacts our ability to control our own environmental laws, to plan our own health care as we would democratically choose, and control our digital rights. This makes no sense for Canada and the present government would be severely misusing its mandate if we are included in the TPP. It is bad enough that Canada was drawn into FIPA. As a deeply committed citizen I beg of you not to incorporate Canada into TPP. David — Vancouver Island This is not a good deal for Canadians. While it may be a good deal for multi-national corporations, it compromises our sovereignty and threatens our democratic rights. Most importantly, as regards our environment and the impact of climate change, this deal would threaten Canadian environmental regulations, and make the Paris agreement unenforceable. Additionally, the loss of jobs does not outweigh the alleged benefits. Healthcare, already under threat from proposed Conservative decreases to the provinces, which your Liberal government is planning to implement, will be further degraded under this agreement. This is old world economic thinking. It doesn’t work. Gwen — Nova Scotia Please help stop this trainwreck. Harold, this will negatively impact your children and your grandchildren as well as all the other Canadians that work for a living, breathe the air and drink the water. We have already seen what a poor job Harper’s government has done in negotiating other international deals and this one is the worst yet. Please, think about your responsibilities to God, mankind and your fellow Please. I feel hopeless on the sidelines watching as we sell our resources and our country like this. As a farmer, I empathize with the precarious situation this puts some farmers in. Especially with such a strong dairy producing region like the Cowichan Valley for Vancouver 37 appear to treat all parties equally, the more powerful countries are usually more immune to trade challenges. citizens. Don’t let your name be associated with such a misbegotten trade restriction for Canada. Do not ratify this tool that will limit our ability to guide our own destiny and fulfill the potential that Canada has. Canada has paid American corporations more than $200 million (approximately €135 million) in the seven cases it has lost and foreign investors are now seeking over $6 billion (approximately €4 billion) from the Canadian government in new cases. Even defending cases that may not be successful is expensive. Canada has spent over $65 million (approximately €45 million) defending itself from NAFTA challenges to date. The ISDS provisions in this proposal would create an investor hegemony that defies our democratic principles and betrays the public good: This proposed investor -protection agreement re-writes the rules of capitalism in favour of multinational profiteering and would deeply undermine the ability of Canadian citizens to choose for themselves the nature and structure of the society and culture in which we live. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives reports that almost two-thirds of claims against Canada involved challenges to environmental protection or resources management that allegedly interfered with the profit of American corporations. Why in god’s name would we want to sign an agreement that places foreign investor rights above domestic investor rights and that forgoes the conventional system of court or judicial appeals to rectify grievances? Furthermore the details of the dispute mechanisms in the TPP make a mockery of the intentions of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change - paving the way for investors to bankrupt governments that try to enforce environmental regulation Cases include: Ethyl, a U.S. chemical corporation, successfully challenged a Canadian ban on imports of its gasoline that contained MMT, an additive that is a suspected neurotoxin. The Canadian government repealed the ban and paid the company $13 million (approximately €8.8 million) for its loss of revenue. If you have sincerely educated yourself on the details of this agreement you cannot be blind to the legacy of hardship for the middle classes and working poor and the global destruction that trade agreements such as this one foist on the world. S.D. Myers, a U.S. waste disposal firm, challenged a similar ban on the export of toxic PCB waste. Canada paid the company over $6 million (approximately €4 million). I urge you to think of this enormously important question in the context of the future of our children and of all life on this precious and beautiful planet - please do not sign! Mark — Wellesley, ON A NAFTA panel ordered the Canadian government to pay Exxon-Mobil, the world’s largest oil and gas company, $17.3 million (approximately €11.6 million) when the company challenged government guidelines that investors in offshore exploration in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador – where the company is heavily involved – must invest in local research and development. NAFTA, the free trade deal between Canada, the USA and Mexico that came into effect in 1994, was the first trade deal among developed countries to include an investor-state provision. It grants investors of the continent the right to sue one another’s governments without first pursuing legal action through the country’s legal system. Before NAFTA, ISDS provisions were only negotiated between developed and undeveloped countries. New Jersey-based Bilcon Construction is demanding $300,000 (approximately €200,000) in damages from the Canadian government after winning a NAFTA challenge when its plan to build a massive quarry and marine terminal in an environmentally sensitive area of Nova Scotia and ship basalt aggregate through the Bay of Fundy, site of the highest tides in the world, was rejected by an environmental assessment panel. As a result of NAFTA’s ISDS challenges, Canada is now the most sued developed country in the world. Canada has been sued more times than either the U.S. or Mexico. Of the 77 known NAFTA investor-state claims, 35 have been against Canada, 22 have targeted Mexico and 20 have targeted the US. The US government has won 11 of its cases and never lost a NAFTA investorstate case or paid any compensation to Canadian or Mexican companies. This is evidence that even though trade agreements Chemical giant Dow AgroSciences used NAFTA to force the province of Quebec, after it banned 2,4-D, a pesticide that the Natural Resources Defence Council says has been linked in many studies to cancer and cell damage, to publicly acknowledge that the chemical does not pose an “unacceptable risk” to human health, a position the government had previously held. 38 environmental and health protections, allowing foreign corporations to sue the Canadian government when it tries to protect us. It will likely cause more unemployment. It will shift power away from democratically-elected institutions to secret tribunals. It will allow antibiotic and hormone-laden milk from the US to flood our market and hurt Canadian farmers. The Canadian government paid American pulp and paper giant AbitibiBowater $130 million (approximately €88 million) after the company successfully used NAFTA to claim compensation for the “water and timber rights” it left behind when it abandoned its operations in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador after 100 years, leaving the workers with unpaid pensions. This challenge is particularly disturbing because it gives a foreign investor the right to claim compensation for the actual resources it used while operating in another jurisdiction. Basically, if you care about Canadian citizens, their health and rights, you will reject the TPP. If you only care about enriching a few large corporations and making the wealthiest even wealthier, you will accept the TPP. Which will you choose? I hope you are on the side of the majority of Canadian citizens. Bill, what you decide is a very significant litmus test for this new government.” John — Scarborough, ON Mesa Power Group, an energy company owned by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, is claiming $775 million (approximately €523 million) in a challenge to the province of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, which gives preferential access to local wind farm operators. The TPP has been negotiated without any public consultation, which is terrible considering it has potential to touch every Canadian’s life in many detrimental ways, from increased cost of medications and health care to loss of jobs in the auto and other industries. What is even more dangerous is that foreign governments can sue Canada for very large amounts of money if they don’t like Canada’s regulations to protect our environment and this planet. We are at a critical point in the history of our civilization; humankind is destroying the life-sustaining systems of the planet and robbing our children and grandchildren. This is NOT the time in human history to be negotiating over-arching, corporation-conceived, multilateral trade deals. This is the time to work locally and think globally as Canadians. Lone Pine, a Canadian energy company, is suing the Canadian government through its American affiliate for $250 million (approximately €152 million) because the province of Quebec introduced a temporary moratorium on all fracking activities under the St. Lawrence River until further studies are completed. This challenge is concerning because it involves a domestic company using a foreign subsidiary to sue its own government. Eli Lilly, a U.S. pharmaceutical giant, is suing Canada for $500 million (approximately €337 million) after three levels of courts in Canada denied it a patent extension on one of its products. This case is particularly disturbing because it challenges Canadian laws as interpreted by Canadian courts and represents a new frontier for ISDS challenges I respectfully request that you fight this potential legislation. This is not an agreement that Canadians want. Canadians deserve better, and to be part of the process of developing governing principles for such agreements, IF such agreements are of any benefit to the citizens of this planet, rather than the tools of power-grabbing corporations. These, and other examples show that trade and investment agreements such as NAFTA give transnational corporations incredible new rights to impose their will on governments. But they are probably just the tip of the iceberg because many new laws or changes to laws never come to light because of the “chill effect” of prior restraint. The Canadian government adopted a new policy soon after NAFTA was adopted whereby all new laws and any changes to existing laws have to be vetted by trade experts to ensure they are not challengeable under ISDS rules. Charles — Leduc, AB Yours sincerely, Glen — Ottawa As a Parkdale-High Park constituent, I wish to state my opposition to the TPP. As a citizen, I am concerned about the TPP’s impact on democracy. As a creative artist, I am dismayed by the copyright provisions. As an environmentalist, I am appalled that we would give foreign corporations the legal right to sue Canada for implementing environmental protections—and the same goes for healthcare, and for attempts to improve overreaching DRM rules. I am happy that the new government of Canada wants to consult Canadians about the TPP. I hope you listen carefully to our concerns. Personally, I can see virtually no benefits of the TPP for Canada. It will extend patent protections on medicines, driving up the cost of pharmaceuticals and placing a strain on healthcare budgets. It will undermine The TPP gives corporations, at home and abroad, far too much power at the expense of citizens, jobs, healthcare, 39 digital rights, and democracy itself. Trade matters, yes. Keeping Canada relevant is vital, yes. But the TPP betrays us and is a very bad deal. Kristian — Toronto I am a family medicine resident currently undertaking further training at the University of Toronto in order to become a Public Health & Preventive Medicine specialist. I am gravely concerned about the TPP and believe it is bad for the health of Canadians As a physician, I am particularly concerned about what the TPP means for drug patent laws and drug prices. Doctors Without Borders Canada has mounted a campaign against it for these reasons, and I support their efforts. We need to be moving drug production into the public sphere rather than granting additional benefits to multinational corporations. Increasing drug costs for patients is a bad deal for them and a bad deal for the public purse. Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions give multinational corporations special powers to sue Canada in private tribunals if we enact policies that threaten the profitability of their companies. This will stifle our ability to protect and promote the public’s health. For example, Canada could face lawsuits if steps are taken to ban harmful health hazards, implement social or labour policies that promote health, or even enforce new taxes to curb the consumption of unhealthy products like tobacco. Essentially, our core public health work of affecting upstream policies to improve health is being threatened under the TPP. I also stand in solidarity with our dairy industry: as we face down the food security challenges inherent in climate change I strongly suspect that we will be glad to have more rather than less food produced close to home. Furthermore, increased patent protections through TPP will mean that the cost of some medicines will increase. This will significantly affect who can access life altering treatments. It is already difficult for many of my patients to access critical drugs, and the TPP will just exacerbate this problem and worsen health inequities in Canada. That brings me to my third area of concern: how this agreement will hamper our ability to quickly transition to a low-carbon economy. As you know, we need to leave over 80% of fossil fuel reserves in the ground, and must be approaching a zero carbon economy by 2050 in order to leave our kids with a stable, livable world. Quebec’s fracking ban has been challenged under NAFTA. What unintended consequences will we see with the TPP? Finally, as a physician that recognizes the immense impact that one’s living and working conditions have on their health, I am very worried that Canada has signed the TPP without doing an economic impact assessment. Studies have shown that Canadian workers will suffer with rising unemployment and a “race to the bottom” effect is likely to occur, with wages and benefits being driven down to compete with workers internationally. Low paid, precarious work is a key driver of ill health, both mentally and physically. We have a lot to lose in this deal and I would encourage you not to ratify it. Courtney — Yellowknife Canadian health care is a foundation of a good life in this country. Signing the the TPP could undermine that significantly. A few points: It could mean interference by other countries in our regulation around drugs: such as extending patents and exposing us to lawsuits about them.Over the last 10 years deregulation has been a major problem. Do not increase it. The TPP could also prevent expansion of public health insurance. We need to look after our citizens first and foremost, not the big corporations. Their primary interest is profit. Ours is people. Look after us. Veronica — Vancouver I strongly urge you to consider a health and economic impact assessment, revise some of the ISDS provisions to give States more rights in relation to multinational corporations, incorporate explicit protections for health, and reconsider the benefits of ratifying such an unhealthy agreement as it stands now. Thank you for your time. Antonia — Mississauga, ON Cher M. Breton, je vois exhorte à ne pas devenir complice de ce qui est une reddition inconditionnelle aux diktats des corporations et une perte de souveraineté Ne vois faites pas complice de ce qui constiturait un coup d’état. Richard — Shefford, QC Hi Rachel Appreciate your work in many regards. most recently with Dis. Tax Credit Town Hall. However a much more pressing issue is the ravaging of so many of our fundamental rights and services if the TPP goes through. What were the Liberals thinking and where exactly do the NDP stand? 40 The TPP is so much more insidious than just a Trade Deal. What it is, is a BAD deal for Canadians. I have done my homework on this, have you? Worst of all, in my opinion, is its impact on the environment and on giving foreign companies the right to sue our government for implementing regulations that would protect the environment. Ludicrous! Same scenario in health care where multinational companies again could sue if Canadian governments make decisions to place our health ahead of their expected profits. This is already happening in the United States thanks to NAFTA. Keep up the good work just make sure it won’t get derailed in the future by other countries and corporations. Victor — Mansons Landing, BC I am all for trade, but there are clauses in the TPP agreement that are concerning. One is the Investor State Dispute Settlement Clause. We are already being sued by US companies through other trade agreements and right now, Columbia is being sued by a gold mining company that wants to destroy more of the rain forest - when will we learn? It will a race to the bottom for jobs and wages and our health care is already at risk from private companies. We need a referendum on the TPP so that all voices can be heard, not just those of multinational corporations and the wealthy. Please, let’s not sign this deal which really isn’t one for the average Canadian. It mostly benefits greedy multinational corporations which already hold too much power in the world. Sincerely yours, Lise — Seba Beach, AB I have to agree with Jim Balsillie, former head of Research in Motion, that the TPP will stifle Canadian technological innovation and potentially cost Canada billions of dollars. We should not be part of this. It was not negotiated in the best interest of Canadians by the former government. Lorne — Mississauga, ON Please help us to achieve this. Thank you for your work on our behalf. Evelyne — Courtenay, BC I am deeply concerned that the new Liberal government might be just making a show of consulting Canadians about the TPP before ignoring them and going through with the deal. As my local MP, I am relying on you to influence the rest of parliament to truly consider the consequences of this agreement and others like it, as well as the opinions of Canadians who will be affected. I urge you not to approve the TPP “as is”. I urge you to stand up for Canadians and demand the TPP development process and the TPP content be improved significantly before Canada can approve the TPP. The process followed to develop the TPP does not match with the principles of transparency and participation, which are core Canadian values upon which the current government was elected. Trust of Canadians cannot be taken for granted - trust is renewed and maintained by repeated efforts to earn our trust. The intellectual property provisions of this agreement will undermine free expression, access to information and personal privacy for Canadians. The economic carrots we’ve been promised are hollow and will never outweigh the costs. We can’t afford to give up our future decision making power to foreign and corporate interests who are completely unaccountable to Canadians. We have too much to lose in terms of our rights, our democracy, our environment, our economy and even our health. As our sole representative in parliament, your constituents are counting on you to do what’s right for us and all Canadians. Please publicly oppose this deal and encourage the rest of our government to do the same. Alexander — Mississauga, ON As an economist, I have a good understanding of economic and trade issues. As an entrepreneur innovating new digital technologies for the global economy (my clients are global), the TPP is a significant risk to the viability of my business and the jobs of the people working for our company. As an environmental professional for over 20 years, it makes no sense how the Government of Canada can - on the one hand - support environmental leadership with significant taxpayer money (March 22, 2016 budget) and - on the other hand - support the TPP with the outrageous risk to the environment and health by allowing corporations to sue the Government (and be paid with taxpayer money) if the company can make a case that environmental regulations compromise corporate profits. As a very real example of this problem, Transcanada is suing the US Government I have followed and read both pro and con arguments on the TPP for well over a year. I have come to the conclusion that The TPP is a bad deal for Canadians. It will restrict free expression online, kill jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode our democratic rights. 41 for $15B in unrealized profits because the Americans decided Keystone did not have enough environmental protections. Tom — Nepean, ON will be enormous. The TPP is a bad deal for Canadians. It will restrict free expression online, kill jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode our democratic rights. Please say NO Ronn — Salmon Arm, BC If you ratify this deal, you are declaring war on our indigenous people who are trying to protect their land rights, on our beautiful land, and you are allowing irreversible destruction on Canada. Our land will be the “out of sight, out of mind” zone of pillaging and toxic extraction. Shawn — Winnipeg, MB The TPP is a bad deal for Canadians. Parliamentarians of every political stripe need to abandon their facile economic bromides, and face the fact that without a vibrant, sustainable environment, those economic and trade theories exist only in a vacuum. The TPP, especially the Investment section, is a sell-out to multinational corporations … except with no discernible quid pro quo. That makes it worse than a sell-out; it’s a GIFT to the multinationals. While doing very little to promote trade, it will give corporate interests the power to prevent our supposedly sovereign government from enacting and enforcing legislation to protect our own health and environment. Corporations will accomplish this either by lobbying against the legislation, or by subsequently suing Canadian taxpayers in secret tribunals for their perceived “losses”. We need a government that will stand up to the corporate juggernaut, and promote the interests of Canadians ... and the planet at large. Many nations around the world have already expressed great concern for the lack of transparency as well what details have been made available. This is a terrible choice for Canadians and will do much more to benefit multinational corporations then the people of this country. The elected government has promised transparency in the proceedings and it’s time it delivered on those promises fully. This is not America and this agreement does nothing more then place similar restrictions already blighting our brethren to the south, it’s time we stood up for our rights before they are stripped away from us. Doug — Langham, SK There are some who understand that corporations act this way, and see nothing wrong with it. That position is morally indefensible, and I’m assuming you don’t belong there. No deal forced through under the degree of secrecy of this one, and based on corporate machinations to avoid transparency (um, wasn’t transparency your party’s supposed election mantra?), should ever be acceptable in this country. The balance between multinationals and national governments is already out of whack. Corporate law already around the world needed to be adjusted back to maintain a better balance, not a worse one, with foreign companies allowed to sue the Canadian government for good governance. This is simply a power grab shrouded in an egregious lack of accountability. Who runs Canada? Get serious and throw it out the TPP, with extreme prejudice. And when the government we just got rid of shared responsibility for that secrecy, and you’re the government we got in their place, proving we were counting on you to mean what you say, I think you owe us one. Don’t you? David — Winnipeg, MB If you don’t believe corporations act this way, take a look at how Philip Morris International were suing the Australian government for “lost profits” over legislation designed to promote health. They lost the lawsuit badly, but cited the single dissenting judge’s viewpoint to terrorise some other governments into submission, including those of Uruguay and Togo. Our government’s sovereignty is not for the government to give away to anyone or any entity; it belongs to ALL Canadians. Our government, hugely endorsed by the mass of Canadians, signed a deal in Paris to address the serious problem of climate change. With greedy corporate interests shaking the litigation money tree, we’ll not be able to implement the necessary measures. These aspects of the TPP are my primary concern, and in themselves constitute sufficient grounds not to touch this foetid agreement with a bargepole. I’ll leave it for others to add their voice on what it won’t do to promote employment, how it will increase healthcare costs (remember, some of those litigious, greedy corporations are also in purely-for-profit healthcare), or how, notwithstanding economic orthodoxy, it will not enhance Please say NO to the TPP. I am an advocate for good food, and if the TPP is allowed to proceed, there will be little to restrict US imports of dairy products containing Bovine Growth Hormone, and foods that have been genetically modified. In the long run, the health of Canadians will suffer, and the cost to the health system 42 the economy. I’m sending this to you, Mr. Reid, my elected Member of Parliament, anticipating that you will do your utmost to bring this constituent’s concerns to those whose job it is to ensure this toxic trade deal gets consigned to the trash bin. Richard — Smiths Falls, ON I am one voice, but mine along with the many members of groups like OpenMedia, SumOfUs, and Council of Canadians, are speaking out. Please help make my voice, the voice of a resident of Sooke, BC, and a proud Canadian, heard. Jada — Sooke, BC The TTP must not be ratified. The TPP is first and foremost a deal that enshrines corporate rights over individual and societal rights. In other words, a corporation’s right to make money trumps the right of governments to act in the best interests of their citizens. The investor-rights provisions of this and other trade deals are basically a mechanism to funnel public money through litigation into private hands. This is undemocratic and it is not acceptable. Canada, and the world as a whole, have reached a point where we must take care of our immediate physical and social environment. We must retain the right to make local laws to support and protect local environments. We must NOT agree to any more trade deals that put the right to profit of international corporations ahead of our local communities and the global environment. I want to live in a democracy, not a world controlled and run by multinational corporations that are not responsible in any way to the people or places that they wreck. The ISDS is an unspeakable threat to all but a minute minority. No doubt, as many analysts assert, it will restrict free expression online, kill jobs, undermine environmental protections, labour protections and erode our democratic rights; and, as Médecins Sans Frontières has stated it is “the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines”. As my representative from London West I ask that you do everything in your power to oppose the TPP. Margaret — London, ON But, most significantly at this time, the TPP will serve to dampen and obstruct our collective ability to respond to the climate crisis and the commitments made in Paris in December, 2015. There needs to be more of an effort to balance the interests of business with those of the public. So far I am not seeing that. The TPP serves the appetites of business for more power and more money. It doesn’t empower citizens through the protection of free expression, creating jobs, creating personal wealth. It is a sell out of the environment and infringes on the rights of us the citizen in order to protect the rights of nothing, of no one, of businesses. Businesses are not people. The rights and interests of business should never supersede those of the individual. Kent — Vancouver, BC I urge you to embrace the new paradigm that the future requires and reject the TPP. Kate — Vancouver, BC This agreement will stifle innovation and cultural expression, cost Canadians money in areas ranging from medication to jobs, allow corporate greed to overrule environmental protection, and will overwrite our national laws without our consent. All this in secret, as though an illicit affair were taking place between our government and corporate interests. TPP is arguably the worst trade deal of our time. It will increase the cost of medicine, erode environmental protection, cut jobs, and leave Canada prone to special interest tribunals where foreign investors and multinationals can sue us in private courts for hundreds of millions of dollars in case our government’s policies (be they environmental, health, economic) dare to negatively affect their profits. Canada is innovation, creativity, environmental beauty & awareness, and democratic process. The audacity of the government, my government, to become involved in such a massive betrayal to all that is Canada, and to the vast majority of Canadians, would be nearly mind boggling. Please take a stand against the TPP. Alissa — Toronto, ON I say “nearly”, because while I understand greed and cronyism, neither are an acceptable basis for governmental actions. The public will not being served by ratifying the TPP, but public service is our government’s duty, and a dereliction of duty such as this cannot be allowed to stand. Trade deals which allow corporations to put profit before people, their health and the environment are bad for Canadians. Clean water and air and land 43 should be sovereign rights of the people and not to be bought or sold. Companies who cannot make a decent profit without exploiting before nature and citizens do not have a viable business. We must maintain our sovereignty and control over our natural resources and social programs. the interests of these corporation ahead of the interests of the citizens they were elected to serve. How will improved environmental laws get passed, if a corporation can sue the citizens claiming that it interferes with their rights to maximize profits. Or improvements to the working conditions of its workers or any number of laws that is in the interests of the citizens. Every time the citizens attempt to enact laws in their interests, the company can sue the government claiming loss of profit. Even more egregious, is these lawsuits will be carried out by a tribunal of lawyers appointed by the company behind closed doors, in secret from the public, and will not be subject to appeal. In other words the corporate lawyers decision will be final. It is no wonder TPP and TTIP were negotiated in secret from the people. For if they understood what their elected officials were actually agreeing to they would be thrown out of office. One needs only look at the losses imposed on the Canadian manufacturing sector (the former backbone of our economy) as a result of NAFTA to understand what is at stake. These agreements serve corporate interests only and should be rejected without further question. To agree to these is to an attack on Canada as a sovereign nation. Ray — Chilliwack, BC The TPP is a bad deal for Canadians. It will restrict free expression online, kill jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode our democratic rights. Michele — Waterloo, ON We absolutely must not agree to something that could let big corporations or foreign governments sue the Canadian government or other levels of government just because our laws could lessen corporations anticipated profits. We need to be able to make laws to uphold Canada’s best interests—especially for environmental protection and human health—without fear that some secretive foreign tribunal could sue us for doing so. The TPP is a bad deal for Canadians as it will erode our democratic rights, restrict free expression online, rob us of jobs, and erode environmental protections. The TPP is definitely a trade deal that the Canadian government must stop before it is too late! Wendy — Vancouver, BC This was the previous governments brainchild, it should not be yours. From what I have read and heard there is far too much at risk to sign on to this agreement. People all over the world are protesting to their governments about this agreement, as are Canadians. We need to be listened to. A deal that was draw up in so much secrecy, is not the kind of trade agreement that the Liberal government promised us. Where is the openness and transparency? I wish to express my opposition to Canadian ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. I think it is a bad deal for Canadians, arrived at in secrecy, without consultation from those most affected, namely, the citizens and elected governing bodies of the various countries signing on. It will give international corporations far too much influence over federal policy and practice, including our environmental and health protections. As well, it will restrict free expression online, kill jobs in Canada, and erode our democratic rights. And I agree with Jim Balsillie (former CEO of Blackberry) that it will stifle future Canadian innovation in the area of information technology. It is a good deal for corporations, but not for this country. Please take Canada’s name off the agreement. No Canadian wishes you to sign away any of our sovereignty, nor where you elected to do so, that is what this deal would do. It is all about sovereignty really. This agreement would allow others dictating to us what we can or cannot do. It would undermine the very fabric of Canada I urge you to vote against ratification of the TPP.Maurice — Joyceville, ON Don’t be afraid that we will be left behind if we don’t sign, we won’t. Other governments will pull out too. These are not trade agreements! The purpose of the TPP and TTIP agreements is to make the corporations and businesses that operate in countries that are signatories to these agreements, immune to the laws of those countries. Nobody is saying that there shouldn’t be trade agreements. This one is dangerous. Pam — Bridge Lake, BC All countries throughout history trade with one another. This is normal in functioning economies. It is not normal or acceptable for government officials to engage in collusion with private agents representing the interests of corporations, secret agreements that put As Canadians we should be subject to our own laws, not those decided by corporations in other countries. It will be a terrible mistake to provide the right for companies to sue us if they don’t agree with our laws or we try to 44 protect ourselves and our interests from corporations. The government’s duty is to protect our country and it’s people. Entering agreements that stifle rights and services (eg: higher costing medications and medical services, copyright extensions, inability to change formats of media and etc) is plain irresponsible. I don’t think anyone deserves higher medical costs or to get medications that they need, our system already has enough funding issues and our taxes going even less far would be more than disheartening. Have compassion and pride for your constituents, we deserve to be heard and to have protections we have always relied upon. Frankly, the TPP is a terrible deal for Canadians. It will restrict free expression online, kill jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode our democratic rights. Thank you for your time and consideration. them from getting medication and would cause a worsening of their health which would lead to even greater costs. The ability of private tribunals given the powers to sue us is in no way representative of the values of Canadians. We have the right to legislate as we see fit, not how corporations want us to because of profits. This is not a trade deal, this is a corporate takeover. No corporation should have this type of power over a country. I am amazed that it could even be considered. Canada deserves better than this. Maintain our sovereignty! The TPP is a bad deal for Canadians. It will restrict free expression online, kill jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode our democratic rights. Please do not let the ambition of some take precedence over what is best for Canada and Canadians. Monica — Kitchener, ON From a concerned Edmonton West constituent and proud Canadian. Travis — Edmonton, AB I am writing to you because I am very anxious that you are seriously considering ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Put simply, this trade deal is such a dangerous and reckless affront to Canadian values that it must be opposed and rejected entirely. I am a constituent in your riding. I do not agree with ratifying the TPP. There are many problematic aspects to it. One of the most important for me is the inability to prevent catastrophic climate change for our country. Under the TPP, we may not be able to abide by our promises to limit warming that we agreed to in Paris. Foreign countries could sue us in secret tribunals for simply protecting our own rivers, air, and wildlife. The costs involved in negative outcomes could be staggering. I am a medical ethicist, working on my PhD at McGill University in Montreal in the department of Experimental Medicine. My area of research is in the ethics of drug development, focusing on the human cost of cancer therapeutics. I am a published author in this field, with peer-reviewed papers in Science, Clinical Trials, the British Medical Journal, the British Journal of Pharmacology and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. It is not an exaggeration in the slightest to say that the intellectual property provisions in the TPP will cost human lives. For emphasis: people will literally die because of the corporate greed that is represented by the TPP. As you’re aware, Doctors Without Borders has already issued a statement indicating that the TPP will drive up the cost of medicine for people in developing nations. It will also mean more expensive health-care for people in Canada. Ultimately, this trade deal will literally cause the deaths of people around the world, and it will mean more difficult conversations among Canadians regarding who gets the medical care that they need. As a health care worker, I dislike the fact it could make medications more expensive. Already I see people unable to afford their needed medications , which ends up costing the system more. The TPP will worsen that problem. It could also threaten our socialized health care system. These are only some of the negative effects of the TPP. It could also be detrimental to the work force. Please keep these points in mind when discussing and voting on this bad-for-Canadians trade deal. Lori — Winnipeg, MB I am a local constituent and I hope you join the many of us that believe this is not a good deal for Canada. I do not want foreign companies given the right to sue the Canadian Government for implementing regulations that would protect our environment, healthcare and any other regulations that we see fit. Our tax dollars are too important to be used as a means to profit. Our Healthcare costs would increase along with the costs of medicine. Many people including seniors and the disabled are struggling even now to pay for their medicine. If the costs increase it would prevent This is a sufficient reason, in my opinion, to reject the TPP. I find it difficult to imagine how good a trade deal would have to be in other ways to offset such a massive moral problem. And yet, it gets worse. I am a volunteer proofreader with Project Gutenberg Canada, an initiative that digitizes and makes freely available works that enter the Public Domain in Canada. The reason that Project Gutenberg Canada can exist at all is because the Public Domain in Canada currently includes books whose authors died more than 50 years 45 ago, whereas in the United States, the Public Domain only includes books whose authors died more than 70 years ago. Hence, we can make available to Canadians online and for free books by Ian Flemming, C. S. Lewis, George Orwell, etc. If the TPP were ratified in Canada, our copyright law would have to line up with American copyright, making it illegal for us to continue our work of preserving and distributing works that are currently in the Public Domain. (See TPP article 18.63.) of a fairy-story by Hans Christian Andersen. Turn on the television and you’ll see countless variations on Sherlock Holmes. To pass a law against the re-use of another artist’s ideas is, in some ways, to pass a law against artistic expression itself. Artistic works simply need to (re-)enter the Public Domain after a reasonable period of time, both out of fundamental fairness, and in order to promote art itself. The current period of 50 years after the death of the artist is more than enough. This project is so important because books whose copyright expires are rarely kept in print by the companies who owned their copyright beforehand. The private sector is not interested in maintaining our cultural heritage, except as they can profit from it. Hence, extending copyright another 20 years is an act of vandalism against our own culture. It is a policy that amounts to stealing books from our children, and it flies in the face of the purpose for which we have copyright laws. The reason that copyright exists in the first place is to provide an incentive for artists to make creative content that we can all enjoy. It allows authors and other artists a limited period of exclusivity in which others cannot sell their work, so that those artists can profit from their work, and continue to better our society with their creative contributions. The proposed changes to Canadian law that touch on Technological Protection Measures (TPM, see TPP article 18.68) are also an unreasonable overreach into our freedoms as Canadians. For example, I am a Linux user. Much of the software that I use in my research is written for Linux. A ratified TPP would make it illegal for me to install Linux on my own computer. (See TPP article 18.68—I am not exaggerating.) In fact, many articles in the TPP include provisions that are intended to undermine other aspects of the Free and Open Source Software movement. The article in the TPP regarding TPM would even make it illegal for me to do something as simple as ripping a DVD that I have legally bought in order to make a back-up copy, for example. There are similarly heavy-handed sections of the TPP that will adversely affect Canadians’ right to free speech. The provisions in the TPP regarding the taking down of copyrighted material will amount to unjustifiable internet censorship. The requirement that domains be registered under a person’s real name is a threat to free speech. Without going into the details, the anti-whistleblower policies in 18.78 are terrifying. You personally may not have to worry about being censored due to the privileges of being relatively affluent, welleducated, a member of parliament and even a cabinet minister, but these would be severe infringements on the rights of those who are least privileged in our society, and the harsh criminal penalties that the TPP requires are an inexcusable aggression on our liberty. The Liberal Party has promised to listen to the people of Canada. Now is the time to do just that. You will not lose face at all by rejecting the TPP at this stage. It was negotiated in secret by the Conservatives and foisted upon us all by a government that arguably had no mandate to agree to the deal in the first place. That is the whole point of the law. Please note that the justification for copyright is rooted in the public good— not just ensuring the rights of artists (or large record labels or Disney), but also fostering an environment conducive to the creation of new art. If copyright is extended too far, we are not providing artists incentive to make creative works, and we even frustrate the creative process by making it more difficult to make derivative and related pieces of art. It is laughable to imagine that there is any author, anywhere, who thinks, “I would write a book, but it’s not worth it to do it for my own personal gain or even that of my children. I’d only write my book if my children, and their children, and corporations who happen to own the rights of my work, staffed by people that I could never possibly meet, living up to 70 years after my death—only if those people get their fair cut, will I start writing my novel.” There is no reason to think that 20 more years of copyright will have any effect at all on incentives for creative expression in Canada. There is no way that whatever upside Canada will experience from ratifying the TPP could ever outweigh the problems I have outlined above in terms of threats to personal liberty, destruction of our shared culture, and actual, needless loss of human life. These policies are unbalanced and dangerous. I urge you on the strongest terms to protect Canada and its citizens by formally withdrawing Canada from the Trans-Pacific Partnership immediately. Benjamin — Montreal, QC The copyright provisions in the TPP will absolutely not promote creative expression, and paradoxically, they will even hinder it. Much of art is commentary on previous work, a re-hashing of familiar ideas, or derivative works. If you go to the Musée des BeauxArts in Montreal, you will find Renaissance artists’ paintings of Biblical scenes. Go to Stratford, Ontario and you’ll see world-class stage productions of the plays of Shakespeare. You can watch a Disney adaptation 46 As a local constituent, I would like to voice my fervent opposition to the TPP. Of particular concern is the provision for investor-state dispute settlement. Sixth, because Canadian corporations don’t have the same right to sue the Canadian government, foreign corporations gain an unfair competitive advantage under the TPP. The Canadian government, in turn, does not have the right to sue foreign corporations for bringing frivolous lawsuits. The best possible outcome for the Canadian government still entails them incurring sizable legal costs. First of all, a democratically-elected government should not, in principle, countenance an agreement that was negotiated in secret. Consulting Canadians after the negotiation of the agreement is plainly inadequate: democracy involves citizens at all stages of developing policy; it does not make a desultory attempt to engage them at the end of the process. For the reasons stated above and others articulated elsewhere, this deal is patently bad for Canadians. I would, therefore, urgently exhort all parties, all MPs, and the Canadian government to reject it. Julian — Edmonton, AB Second, I see no reason why the Canadian government is in any way obligated to compensate foreign corporations for loss of “expected” (i.e. fictitious) profits, particularly not for introducing prudential regulations that benefit Canadians. And yet that is precisely what foreign corporations have claimed under existing trade agreements, such as Eli Lilly, which is suing the Canadian government for rejecting speculative patents, or Lone Pine Resources, which is suing the Quebec government for its moratorium on fracking, a technique for extracting natural gas which has been associated with an increase in serious illnesses in surrounding areas and which at current natural gas prices is likely to be at best marginally profitable. This deal creates a perverse incentive for legislators to avoid introducing prudential regulations for fear of being sued by foreign corporations. In effect, the result is that we have ceded some legislative control to foreign corporations and undermined our government’s ability to address urgent problems affecting the welfare of Canadians, such as climate change. Put another way, Canada will be less democratic. Any contract that affords foreign (or domestic, for that matter) corporate interests greater power, widening the gap, over the citizens of our nation - is a bad idea. I haven’t seen any interpretation of this trade deal that has a net benefit to Canadians, and to the contrary, any expert analysis I’ve read points to risks vastly outweighing any potential pros. Any government representatives willing to ratify this trade deal, a deal that is essentially “take it or leave it” as it’s written, is not working in the interests of Canadians when you consider the many ways in which our sovereignty is undermined in numerous respects throughout the document. The simple fact that something that will absolutely impact the livelihoods and quality of life of so many Canadians was negotiated in secrecy without the consent and consultation of the Canadian public, well it sounds treasonous and I’m at a loss as to how such a subversive process can prevail to such an extent without being wholly illegal. The TPP is a breach of trust of the Canadian public, and an abuse of special interest powers. This cannot stand; we are at the crossroads of history. Josh — Ucluelet, BC Third, the multiple roles of international arbitrators, their extravagant remuneration, and small number give rise to blatant conflicts of interest. They have a vested interest in accepting more cases and ruling in favour of foreign corporations for whom they regularly serve as advocates. As a local constituent of the Parkdale-High Park constituency in Toronto and a Canadian, I know that the the TPP is a bad deal for Canadians. Fourth, international arbitration courts make scant reference to Canadian law and the interests of Canadians. Why should Canadian governments and Canadians accept the extra-legal rulings of a court which does not represent them? A country founded on “free” medical care should be ashamed to ratify this pact. A pact that will give multinational corporations on foreign soil the right to make decisions about our healthcare and our pharmaceuticals. These decisions will drastically raise the cost of our public health care and significantly restrict access to lifesaving medicine to those left behind, putting us closer to a fully privatized system than ever before. If Prime Minister Trudeau is invested in our infrastructure, our medicare, our Aboriginal women, he and the Government of Canada can’t proudly sign this pact just to save economic face. Fifth, ISDS is corporate welfare. I imagine that most any Canadian could think of a better use of taxpayer’s money than gifting it to a foreign corporation, such as spending it on healthcare, education, or the environment. The Canadian government has no obligation to guarantee the profitability of foreign corporations. Canadian businesses do not enjoy the same right, nor should they. A failed business should be allowed to fail. 47 To think that the TPP will help grow the country by letting us in on the global economy is a farce. This pact will affect Canadians, cutting over 50, 000 jobs. The dairy industry in particular will be hit hard, and it’s not just the farmers who will face the consequences. Foreign dairy products that don’t match our own strict health requirements will hit the shelf. of Rights and Freedoms to sue the government as “natural persons,” but to think that in future, foreign corporations will have similar power over our lives is completely reprehensible. We no longer seem to value democracy, a government beholden to its people, not its corporations, as we used to. I am quite disturbed that this deal was made without consultation with the Canadian people, despite its raising issues that will so greatly impact our lives. Foreign corporations will henceforth have great control over what we can and cannot do in the digital world, environmentally, vis-a-vis jobs and in health care. But these are only two of the many reasons not to sign the TPP. As you will undoubtedly receive from many others, the TPP will restrict free expression online, kill jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode our democratic rights. It will allow foreign conglomerates to challenge our domestic laws and subject Canada to multi-million dollar lawsuits. I understand that should we sign this deal, we could be sued by Big Media if we try to make improvements, that foreign companies could sue us for implementing regulations protecting our environment, that we will lose many jobs, and that the cost of medicine will increase. How, may I ask, does this benefit our country. Frankly, it sounds like we are giving over every aspect of our lives to the corporate world, and saying, okay, you take care of us. And that is unthinkable. Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberals, you claim to want to chip away at Harper’s legacy. You won’t do that if you sign ratify and implement a pact negotiated under complete secrecy with very little research done on its impact. Please don’t sign away our country for the knee-jerk reaction that we’ll be left out of the global economy. Take a stand and help Canadians. Emma — Toronto, ON Please, Mr. Cuzner, if you have any doubts about this deal, please do not vote for it; our nation will be better for it and you will be proven right. Sincerely, Ruth Ruth – Iverness, NS Dear Mr. Rankin, I am a local constituent. The TPP is a bad deal for Canadians. It will restrict free expression online, kill jobs, undermine environmental protections, and erode our democratic rights. It will crush an already beleaguered health care system and undermine our environmental protection mechanisms. It will render our parliament ineffective in the face of litigious corporate interference in the democratic wishes of the electorate through private tribunals. It has been negotiated by lobbyists for the benefit of the wealthiest segments of society and has deprived those most negatively affected by this deal from having any voice whatsoever in this matter. It is a palace coup. The TPP will restrict the innovation businesses we need to create a sustainable energy future to mitigate climate change. 50-60,000 jobs will be lost if TPP is implemented. Canada would be open to lawsuits by foreign corporations if we put through legislation to protect our environment that might have a negative impact on their profits. The TPP would increase the cost of prescription drugs and make it harder to expand or renew public health care. Again, multinational corporations could sue Canada for putting our health care ahead of their expected profits. Doctors Without Borders calls the TPP “the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines.” Secretly negotiated trade deals are inherently undemocratic. Governments and corporations that ignore the populace do so at their own peril. A reckoning awaits. Social unrest awaits us all. B. Gordon — Victoria, BC The TPP was secretly signed off by Harper and his corporate cronies before the election. That alone should convince us that the TPP would be good for “fat cat” investors and large corporations, but very bad for Canada and Canadians. Dear Rodger Cuzner, I am very concerned about the TPP deal coming up before a vote in Parliament. As one of your constituents, Rachel, I’m asking you to do all you can to make sure this dreadful trade deal is stopped! Rachel — Powell River, BC What most concerns me is that foreign companies will now have the right to sue the Canadian government. It is horrific enough that we live under the threat of Canadian corporations currently using the Charter 48 us the importers at a higher rate than export. This is not fair trade. Let each country we want to do business with hinge upon the merits of the service or product in question, not decreed by corporations controlling our governments with well-paid lobbyists - I do not want my government to be “bought”. I want less climatechange activity by the shipping back and forth across land and sea, but encouragement of the “buy-local” philosophy, something the TPP has been reported to discourage. I refuse to be penalized for supporting my local businesses and producers. Carolyn — Nepean, ON Deb: Yes, there are lots of arguments that these trade deals will “benefit” Canadians but the “benefits” we receive will far outweigh the costs we have to pay. In essence these deals benefits big business, lobbyist and special interest groups with the scrap benefits going to the average Canadian. The benefits we receive are paltry compared to what the folks sponsoring this will receive. I am strongly opposed to anything that limits Canada’s sovereignty or requires a government to answer to corporations or investors. The thought is offensive in our already corporately dominated world. I would also hate to see any kind of limits or controls put on the internet as it’s the last truly free place and I’d like to see it stay that way. It’s upsetting to see laws that assume guilt - on the internet it should be innocent until proven guilty just like in reality. Lobbyist need to stop attempting to create laws to maintain there outdated business models and instead update their business model. There are enough “real” crimes taken place policing the internet to maintain big business revenue should be at the bottom of the list. Allowing foreign corporations the power to sue Canada (in secret tribunals, no less!) if our health, safety or environmental regulations infringe on what they imagine their future profits might be, is beyond crazy. The TPP is an appallingly bad deal for Canadians. It’s a triumph of corporatist ideology over common sense; surely only the Harper Conservatives could believe this was a good idea. The whole “investor-state dispute settlement provisions” concept is pernicious nonsense that needs a stake driven through its corrupt heart ASAP. For all our sakes, please do the right thing & toss the TPP! Eric — Vancouver, BC Thanks for your attention. Gavin — Maple, ON Anita, as one of your constituents, I wish to share with you some of my concerns about the proposed deal. I do not want our carefully- debated food protections to be cancelled, allowing substances into the food I buy. For example, I do not want any dairy ingredients to have come from places which permit growth hormones or antibiotics. I do not want any food products to contain pesticide, herbicide or neonic substances because they affect the micro-organisms within my gut, while killing the pollinators. While I can usually buy organics, I want this country to give more support to organic farmers, and I fear that the TPP will make these farmers have a more difficult time remaining viable. I want our auto-manufacturers to be able to transition to making non-fossil fuel vehicles for domestic public transit and export without penalty. I want to be able to buy generic medications to keep our national/provincial costs affordable, and not be beholden to drug corporations with long patents. I do not want our precious water to be poisoned by fracking in any part of our country. I want the oil companies to have to do clean-up of their de-commissioned wells at their own expense, and as we quickly transition away from coal, bitumen and oil, and gas I do not think Canadian taxpayers should absorb the losses of companies which need to walk away from their investments - foreign investors should not be allowed to sue Canada for decisions they made. I want business to stay in Canada, not be farmed out to other countries because they pay much lower salaries - the TPP threatens to upset trade balance by making Anyone with a clear mind can see the disastrous, antidemocratic potential of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. While it’s intents may be benign, the likely use of its clauses will not be. This is the most widely impactful trade agreement in Canadian history with tremendous ramifications for our government, our society, and our environment. It deserves thoughtful, careful, public, and unhurried deliberation, debate, and if necessary amendment before it is wrapped around Canada. Please, please give this agreement the public spotlight it deserves so that Canadians and our representatives can decide openly and informedly on its merits and whether its risks are truly worth the benefits it may bring. Brent — Baltimore, ON As a Canadian citizen and resident of Oakville, I’m very worried about the fact that my government is negotiating deals behind closed doors and simply telling me that it’s good. I consider myself part of a free and democratic country and do not think that politicians or bureaucrats have the right to make decisions without consulting the public. I am worried about the contents of the TPP as they appear to favour the interests of corporations and large businesses over the interests of everyday Canadians like me and the people I know and love. Perhaps the problems have been overstated by activists and their media outlets, but in any case I 49 feel that this important decision ought to be discussed before the public. It is not the job of politicians to decide for us. It is their job to represent us. Nigel — Oakville, ON to sue the sovereign nation of Canada for its own laws, including environmental protections. This is a ridiculous fault in the agreement, and tremendously problematic for the Paris climate agreement: at a time when we need to be strengthening environmental concerns to avert ecological disaster and preserve the planet not only for ourselves, but for our children, this agreement will be going the other way to give corporations more power to undermine climate legislation . As liberals, you have promised to take with utmost seriousness the issue of climate change, and therefore the above issues need to be addressed concerning the TPP; do not let take them lightly. Christopher — Waterloo, ON As a Canadian educator, artist and businessperson, I have huge concerns about the TPP. From the fact that it’s been negotiated in secret by government officials to its sweeping new copyright and environmental laws that favour corporations this is a bad deal for average Canadians - the ones who elected you to represent them. Canada does not need the TPP to stay relevant on the global stage. We need strong environmental laws that reign in fossil fuel based industries and stimulate growth in carbon-free solutions that will truly prepare our young people for the future they face. TPP is not the answer. As a local constituent, I want you to know that the TPP would be a deeply injurious deal for Canadians. I am deeply upset that, in a democratic country, there was no consultation with people over this deal, as the ramifications of signing onto it would be enormous. Firstly, copyright term extensions would be a potential can of worms, as would digital rights management rules. Secondly, jobs would be impacted as they have in the past due to free trade agreements. Thirdly, pharmaceuticals would become more expensive, a fact which would undermine our public health care system. Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) calls the TPP the “most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines.” And as if all this isn’t frightening enough, the TPP, as with other trade deals in the past, would impact environmental regulations and opportunities. Why? Because foreign companies could sue our government for implementing laws to protect our natural world. How will we bring the Paris climate deal to fruition if we enter into the TPP deal? Please remember that our survival and the survival of plants and animals depends on a healthy environment, biodiversity, and strict, conscientious legal oversight. We cannot afford to enter into this agreement with Asia. Not now. Not ever. Let us ensure that due democratic process is followed in regard to this contentious issue. Janice — Calgary, AB I add my voice to the growing numbers who urge our Canadian Government to step away from the TPP once and for all. Liam — Toronto, ON As a citizen of Canada and a resident of the Sea to Sky I do not support the signing of the TPP by Canada. I am NOT satisfied with the Liberals transparency and engagement with the citizens of this country on this major trade deal. I feel that an agreement of this magnitude needs a large degree of public education and input in order to help the decision makings such as yourself speak for the people you are elected to represent. I take particular exception to the digital restrictions and unnecessarily harsh and punitive DRM rules that will take us in the opposite direction towards a less consumptive, more open, innovative and creative community. It will also not foster strong environmental protections given that it appears to give foreign companies the ability to sue the Canadian government (and thereby the Canadian people) for implementing regulations that protect the environment if they impede profits or other corporate goals. This is truly absurd... Please vote no. There is a reason it is shrouded in secrecy. Please stand up for Canada and stand up for its citizens and say no to the TPP. Thank you. Daniel — Vancouver, BC Bad for digital freedom, bad for the environment, bad for workers and bad for healthcare. This agreement is welfare for corporations. Kim — Berwick, Nova Scotia As a citizen of Canada and a resident of Waterloo Ontario, I’m most concerned about the fact that the TPP is being negotiated in secret , and that foreign states and corporations will have power under the agreement Rachel, please kill this deal, or it will kill our soverignity. I attended your meetings in Campbell River before the election, and you promised to represent your constituents. The only ones to benefit from this TPP 50 are big multi national Corporations with head offices in Europe and Asia. They care only for their profits regardless of the costs. Please vote against this deal. to sue us in private tribunals if our governments make decisions to protect out health ahead of anticipated profits - not to mention the Environment. It is beyond comprehension that the people of our country would have no access to seek justice through information or input into these tribunals. Thank you. Carol Nilsson Carol — Campbell River, B.C. Doctors without Borders calls the TPP “the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines”. I do not agree with the TPP. Linda — Qualicum Beach, B.C. So many of the fabulous reasons that make CANADA such a special country to live in will be compromised by the tpp. Lifestyle is so much more important than corporate profits. It is time to make a stand and stop the slide into a corporate run country Chuck — Kelowna, B.C. The government has signed Canadians into the TPP without doing an economic impact assessment weighing the costs against the benefits. Specifically I am extremely concerned that foreign companies could sue the Canadian government for implementing regulations that would protect the our environment - that is utterly ridiculous and any such proviso should be deleted in any future agreements. As a Canadian, I will vote against anyone supporting such a position. It is very likely that Canada will be very negatively impacted by this deal. The TPP gives multinational corporations and super wealthy investors special powers to sue us in private tribunals if Canadian governments make decisions to put our health ahead of their expected profits. This is unacceptable. Secondly, the historic Paris climate deal reached in 2015 will be difficult to bring into force under the TPP, with the threats of lawsuits looming and yet we have an absolute responsibility to support and move this climate deal forward. Canada has - with the new Liberal Gov’t decided to deliver such a positive message to the people and the world and move us away from fossil fuels, the TPP undermines our commitment to such necessary and admirable goals. We’ll be locked into some of the most restrictive digital rights management (DRM) rules in the world, which we hoped to improve. We could even be sued by Big Media giants if we try to make them better. Please DO NOT ratify this deal without a full assessment of its impact on Canada. Joseph — Fort Erie, Ontario As your constituent, I ask you to reject such a trade pact. The climate and the protection of our own environment come first before corporate dollars. That’s the party I want to follow, support and vote for.. Do the right thing because it is the right thing. In Justin’s words, “It’s 2016”. Gareth — Scarborough, Ontario The historic Paris climate deal reached in 2015 will be difficult to bring into force under the TPP, with the threats of lawsuits looming. Canadians should never give up the right to make all the decisions about their own resources, and the land they live on. Foreign companies could sue the Canadian government for implementing regulations that would protect the environment. We need to protect our right to manage our own resources! The agreement was created without consultation. Foreign companies could sue if we need to implement regulations to protect environment. The TPP would increase the cost of medicine in Canada, and make it harder to expand or renew public health care. Many of us will become a greater cost to taxpayers due to ongoing medical conditions and the need for medicine. This agreement was created without any consultation. It will restrict how we innovate, share culture and overwrite our national laws without our consent. Please listen to the voices of Canadians now before it’s really too late. Erin — West Kelowna, B.C. No economic impact assessment weighing the costs against the benefits. Incomplete and possibly misleading information about the TPP by our government. Possible increase in the cost of medicine. I am completely against allowing multinational corporations and ultra wealthy investors special powers 51 The investor-state dispute resolution provisions are destructive of the rule of law and anathema to representative liberal democracy. David — Mississauga, Ontario Govs propaganda is this is agreements for future benefits. How is that believable from a native’s perspective? Agreements across this land have been subject to .... The Liberal Party was elected on a progressive platform and this Harper government legacy should be abandoned. Hey it didn’t happen. That belt is a lie. Hey we meant everything you put your X to. If there were any economic benefits they are surely outweighed by the fact that foreign corporations may sue the Government of Canada for implementing regulations and laws that would protect Canadians healthcare and the environment. Here’s a blanket. Here is your permission slip to leave the reserve. Indians are lazy and drink too much. They are unclean. They don’t pay taxes. They do not know how to parent their children. They sleep in doorways. The TPP will have a net negative impact to Canada by locking Canada into restrictive digital rights management rules, weaken our environmental protection, as many as 58,000 jobs will be lost including our local auto sector and would increase the cost of medicine. Propaganda to portray a belief we have no rights and are beneath the consideration of rights. You wants agreements? We do not need this trade deal since it is not in the best interest of Canadians particularly inasmuch as we are already involved in trade deals/pacts/arrangements with most governments party to the TPP. New trade agreements? Pay attention to the descendants of the people of turtle island before colonial contact and the agreements you made with them. As a constituent of your Ajax riding I strongly insist you reject the TPP as a detriment to Canadian sovereignty and public independence. Please do not allow the Government of Canada to ratify this trade deal. Martin — Ajax, Ontario Until then, your lying, embezzling, authoritative control is nothing but a very ugly sign you aren’t trustworthy. Leona — Prince Rupert, BC This web page has done a good job of articulating my grave concerns about this trade deal. Ultimately I feel very disheartened about the effect the TPP would have on my perception of the value of participating in our democracy. Allowing corporate interests to supersede the Canadian judicial system and seek remedy over our sovereign laws in private tribunals is unacceptable. This is entirely backwards and should not be agreed to by any nation that wishes to be democratic. Roberta — Merritt, BC The TPP is a deal that literally hands control of government decisions over to corporate interests. I voted for a politician and a political party to govern my country, not corporations and the elite that control them. This trade deal the way it is currently written/ proposed must be rejected or at the very least, substantially revised. Greg — Calgary, Alberta There has been too much legal action brought against Canada. We should be stronger in ourselves as Canadians, not fold to international pressure or make agreements that allow overseas companies to sue the citizens of our own country. I do not believe this agreement is in the interest of real Canadians. Businesses do not have more interest than individuals in our country. This deal does not protect individuals. It is just another bad business deal. Please remember who really makes up Canada, the individual citizen, and oppose this deal. Thank you. John — Prince George, BC Countries/corporations appear to have more say than Canadian citizens. I am Tsimshian, I am done with my territory being up for sale and renovations on my ancestors backs. My ancestors are in the way of development, well not really as they are dug up for industry and moving forward. 52 You do not have hereditary chief consent, and we have not been consulted. Donna — Duncan, BC Nous devons poser les gestes, prendre les décisions difficiles et faire les sacrifices nécessaires pour prendre le tournant”vert”. Après nous, ce sera trop tard! Qu’avons nous à perdre dans l’immédiat si ce n’est une terre viable à laisser aux générations futurs? You should have asked the public what we wanted before deciding this. Itamar — Concord, ON Nous avons assez eu de “bon temps” et sommes restés trop longtemps la tête enfouie dans le sable. Stephane — Montreal, QC D’autant plus que l’Estrie est une des régions durement affectée, économiquement parlant, avec un des taux salariés parmi les plus bas au Canada. Avec le PTP, ce sera pire! En aucun temps n’aie-je entendu parlé en bien du PTP, que la source soit Canadienne ou Américaine. Toutes les sources d’informations non-gouvernementales sont unanimes sur la nature douteuse de cette entente. Il m’est difficile de concevoir que le gouvernement Canadien puisse considérer ratifier le PTP sous quelque condition que ce soit. Il n’y a absolument rien de bon pour le citoyen. Ce marché de dupe ne bénéficiera que pour les dirigeants, comme d’habitude. Non, non, non. Raymond — Sherbrooke, QC Quelle sera la protection pour protéger notre culture française et canadienne? Est-ce que les différents partenaires seront comme les américains dans l’ALENA et trouveront cinquante six mille façons de bloquer le commerce comme le bois d’oeuvre sans respecter les différents traités existants? Raymond — Québec City, QC Si encore une majorité de sources d’analyses avaient au moins une vision neutre du PTP, ce serait différent. Toutefois, c’est plutôt une vision ouvertement négative qui est préconisée par une majorité écrasante des analyses disponibles. Avec déférence, je vous invite à agir afin de rejeter le PTP. Jean-Patrick — Montréal-Nord, QC À chacun de ces traités signés, les gouvernements ont de moins en moins la possibilité d’édicter des lois au profit de l’ensemble des citoyennes et citoyens, lois qui viennent souvent en opposition aux intérêts des grands intérêts financiers. Il est temps que les gouvernements cèdent à ces intérêts privés leur capacité, déléguée par la population, de gérer l’État en fonction du bien commun. Depuis trop longtemps ce mêmes gouvernants ont plutôt penché du côté des intérêts financiers au détriment de leur responsabilité première qui est d’assurer le bien commun. Donc pas de PTP, comme le suggère si bien le milliardaire Stiglitz. Normand — Montreal, QC Le PTP est un accord qui mets les corporations et les entreprises multinationales au-dessus des gouvernements et des citoyens. Le Canada ne deviendrait qu’un client des grandes entreprises mondiales et il est sûr qu’elles mettrons les nations signataires à leur botte. C’est la souveraineté du Canada qui est en jeu. Par exemple, les sociétés étrangères pourraient poursuivre le gouvernement canadien s’il implante des règles afin de protéger l’environnement! Le PTP, c’est donner les clés du pays aux corporations du monde et c’est inacceptable. Danny — Montreal, QC Cet accord économique n’en est pas vraiment un au final ! Il accorde trop de pouvoirs à des joueurs externes qui ne sont là que pour défendre leurs propres intérêts. Lorsque la balance des pouvoirs fait en sorte que notre gouvernement n’est plus libre de décider, ça revient à vendre son pays ! Arrêtons nous un instant et pensions à ce qui motive ces corporations, leurs intérêts premiers. Une fois identifié, la question est simple: Dans sa globalité, cet intérêt rejoint-il réellement l’intérêt des Canadiens, et ce, à long terme ? Marie-Lou — Québec City, QC Quelle aide pour notre propre marché économique ? Ce traité menacera une fois de plus la souveraineté économique du Québec et du Canada, par exemple celle de l’industrie laitière et fromagère. C’est une honte d’aller chercher plus de produits à l’étranger et d’abaisser la place sur les tablettes de nos propres produits, qui ne sont jamais assez en valeur et pour lesquels nos producteurs manquent déjà d’aide de la part du gouvernement. Sans compter toutes les pertes d’emplois... Notre propre souveraineté devrait 53 vous intéresser plus pour une économie à long terme, le bien-être et l’investissement dans notre propre capital. Et notre environnement ? Pour lequel les lois et règlements n’ont cessé de régresser depuis plusieurs années. Ce traité menace la santé de notre environnement, vous savez, ce milieu nous nous vivons 24 heures sur 24 et dont nous dépendons. Et que dire de l’accès aux médicaments ? Dans notre société qui repose déjà beaucoup trop sur les médicaments, cette mesure est loin d’aider ses citoyens en augmentant le coût des médicaments. Ce traité restreindra la liberté d’expression en ligne et minera nos droits démocratiques. ne doivent fermer leur portes lorsque la majorité appartient déjà aux GÉANT de l’industrie il n’y a AUCUNE chance d’avoir un bon prix ou de compétition Gilles — Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC S’il-vous-plait ne nous livrez pas pieds et poing liés aux sociétés trans nationales. Le PTP rendra difficile d’implanter les mesures nécessaires à atténuer les effets des changements climatiques et impossible d’atteindre les objectifs de l’entente de Paris 2015. D’obscurs tribunaux administratifs situés hors du Canada pourraient statuer sur la validité de nos lois pour permettre à de grands groupes de riches investisseurs et de multinationales de faire plus d’argent sur notre dos. Ces procédés sont totalement et profondément anti démocratiques et très injustes. Pas de PTP Monsieur Trudeau pour le bien de notre descendance. Merci. Yves — Montreal, QC Le partenariat trans-pacifique est une honte et un fardeau pour nous tous. Audrey — Québec City, QC Nos agriculteurs on déjà des problèmes avec leur cota pour rejoindre les deux bout ce qui n est pas assez on vient restreindre encore plus le marché par une mauvaise concurrence qui vient miner notre relève et ainsi que notre agriculture future. Nous avons déjà plusieurs pertes d emplois dans plusieurs domaines au Québec sans être obliger de venir écraser plus profondément notre économie par un marcher souvent déloyal. Guy — Thetford Mines, QC Bonjour M. Boulerice. Je souhaite partager mon inquiétude concernant les conséquences du PTP. Le PTP risque aussi d’avoir un impact négatif sur l’accès aux soins de santé, déjà compromis au Québec par la réforme de la loi 10. Ainsi, Médecins sans frontières dit du PTP qu’il est « le traité commercial le plus néfaste jamais conçu en matière d’accès aux médicaments » (The Trans-Pacific Partnership. Source: Doctors Without Borders Canada. Je suis particulièrement inquiet au niveau des provisions numériques. L’extension des droits d’auteurs n’est pas une bonne chose, c’est suffisamment long comme ça. De plus, le fait qu’une oeuvre dont l’auteur ne soit pas identifié n’a pas vraiment de sens. Salutations distinguées, M. Bedeaux Christophe — Montreal, QC Le PTP est un marché de dupes pour les Canadiens, tout comme le traité de l’ALENA, lui aussi, signé en secret... Pire encore, le fait que tout le poids de la diffusion de contenu potentiellement protégé soit remis sur les fournisseurs de services numériques, de même que l’impossibilité de diffuser notre propre contenu sans risquer de se faire poursuivre est un réel problème. Si, par exemple, je joue à un jeu vidéo et que la partie est commentée, c’est mon oeuvre et il est insensé que le manufacturier du jeu puisse exiger des dommages. Je ne lui enlève absolument aucun revenu, je ne pirate pas son jeu. C’est MA partie qui est diffusée et commentée. Il restreindra la liberté d’expression en ligne, éliminera des emplois dans plusieurs domaines en plus de menace nos mesures de protection agro-alimentaires (gestion de l’offre et de la demande dans les secteurs laitier et autres en plus de nous enfoncer davantage dans la gorge tous les aliments OMG, dont on refuse toujours l’étiquetage ainsi que l’importation du lait obtenu par traitement des vaches laitières américaines traitées avec hormones), environnementales (souvenons-nous de la poursuite intenté par Ethyl Corp. pour l’additif de l’essence MMT dans le cadre de l’article 11 du traité de l’ALENA) et minera nos droits démocratiques, comme si il nous en restait encore.... Cette entente est une réelle menace pour les citoyens, les entreprises innovatrices et toute notre infrastructure de diffusion numérique. Louis-Marius — Montreal, QC De plus comme le Canada est le pays qui paye déjà le plus pour services d’internet et de cellulaire ainsi que le cable nous devrions repenser a faire baiser ses prix le plus vite possible avant que les petits indépendant Ce sera une aussi façon déguisée d’augmenter le prix des médicaments à cause de l’extension de la durée des brevets des compagnies pharmaceutiques. Ainsi, les médicaments génériques ne seront plus disponibles 54 Daniel — Québec City, QC aussi rapidement, entrainant un appauvrissement de la population déjà touchée par toutes les mesures d’austérité des gouvernements. Les dollars avant votre santé. En tant que producteur agricole, c’est certain que je m’inquiète au sujet du PTP et à la brèche qui est créé dans la gestion de l’offre. Mais j’ai surtout peur pour la souveraineté de notre gouvernement. Le PTP donne beaucoup de pouvoir aux grosses corporations, si je me souviens bien l’entente leur donnerait le droit de poursuivre le gouvernement pour des législations qui imputerait leurs revenus! Il y a aussi toute la question des droits d’auteur. Oui pour protéger le créateur et son oeuvre, mais le droit d’auteur canadien est déjà amplement suffisant. On a pas besoin de “walt disney act” au Canada. Au contraire, il faut démocratiser le savoir et le rendre plus facilement accessibles... Les lois de mon pays sont votées par un Parlement que je choisis d’élire aux 4 années et non par une clique de lobbyistes qui mangent dans la main d’intérêts contraires à la démocratie et trop grassement payés pour nous faire taire et nous asservir, c’est assez! Un citoyen concerné qui habite votre circonscription depuis 21 années. Steve — Montreal, QC Le cynisme qu’une très grande majorité de citoyens et de citoyennes dans le monde envers les classes politiques est précisément dû à des cas comme celui du PTP en cause ici. Le simple fait que depuis 2011 que cette entente en négociée à notre insu alimente ce cynisme. C’est avec l’idée même de votre légitimité démocratique, mise en balance pour servir les intérêts de l’argent et des ‘petits amis’, tant de votre parti, que de tout l’appareil législatif, que vous spoliée ainsi. Bon je pourrais continuer longtemps, mais je ne crois pas que j’ai besoin de te convaincre! Une lettre de plus pourras sans doute le NPD à défendre la cause anti PTP au Libéraux. Merci! Claudia — Palmarolle, QC Je suis contre l’Accord de partenariat transpacifique parce qu’il n’aura que très peu de retombées positives sur les emplois et l’économie de notre pays. Je suis aussi inquiet du pouvoir qui sera donné aux entreprises alors qu’elles pourront contester toute règlementation qui l’empêche de faire des profits. Je ne veux pas que mon pays renonce à sa souveraineté. C’est la population qui doit décider de ses lois et de sa règlementation en matière de droit du travail, de l’environnement, etc., et non pas des entreprises. J’ai été initié par mon père à m’informer et à me conduire en citoyen responsable. J’ai, aujourd’hui, 77 ans. J’éprouve bien du mal à trouver les mots qu’il faut pour encourager mon petit-fils à avoir du respect pour le politique. De grâce, ... , Raymond — Stanstead, QC Dans nos systèmes démocratiques l’État est le garant du bien commun. Avec le PTP on donne aux entreprises privées le pouvoir de contrer les décisions législatives et réglementaires des élus de la population au nom des profits des individus ou des actionnaires. Je suis en faveur du commerce international, mais il doit être équitable et favoriser les emplois, l’équité et les droits humains. Le gouvernement canadien ne peut ratifier cet accord sans un débat public ouvert et transparent, débat où les avantages et inconvénients seraient exposés clairement et sans biais. Cinq ans de discussions derrière des portes closes d’une entente qui affectera mes droits de citoyen et ma vie quotidienne ne sont pas une façon logique et démocratique de créer des consensus entre citoyens canadiens. S’il vous plaît, ne ratifiez pas cet accord néfaste pour l’économie et les emplois. Manon — Montreal, QC L’internet a vu le jour pour faciliter la communication libre de contraintes. Le PTP en est l’antithèse. L’internet non règlementé permet de sauver des vies et de brouiller les dictatures, d’accélérer la communication des innovations, bientôt il permettra le vote par motion et fera fuir l’archaïque baillon politique. Les droits d’auteur ont déjà leur propre gestion sur internet qui permet d’offrir partiellement le contenu de ses oeuvres. On achète des tounes à la place de disques avec des tounes qu’on aime pas. On fait des tounes avec celles des autres et on les remercie. On loue des oeuvres d’art. On appui des projets à travers Au titre de député de ma circonscription, je vous invite à œuvrer dans le sens d’un débat ouvert et démocratique. Pour ma part, après lectures et réflexion sur le sujet, je suis profondément opposé à la ratification de cet accord qui restreindra nos droits démocratiques, nos protections environnementales, nos modes de production et de commercialisation de nos aliments sans compter notre liberté d’expression en ligne. 55 des campagnes de socio-financement. On appuie la réalisation de jeux pendant leur programmation. On s’inscrit à des communautés de toute acabit dans le monde entier. On loue nos logiciels. On sauve dans un nuage. On visite des expositions à l’international de chez soi. etc. Une règlementation nationale de l’internet est une aberration conçue par certains qui n’y comprennent rien. Il serait beaucoup mieux de conseiller ces derniers pour leur montrer comment bien s’en servir plutôt que le règlementer. Il y a toujours une manière positive et bénéfique de s’en servir. Lucie — Montreal, QC 56 TPP 7 - Let's Talk TPP Citizens' Report: Rebuilding public trust in trade processes Published: March 2017