International Trade Committee on June 1st, 2010

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Yes, I am serious.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm just checking.

[Matthew Kronby]

As I say, once water--

[A voice]

I've heard just about everything now.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Didn't you understand what I was saying? There are some twisted people on this earth who might try to circumvent the rules.

[Matthew Kronby]

As I said--

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I agree that it seems a little far-fetched. I heard the Chairman ask if I was serious. However, you have to admit that it could happen.

[Matthew Kronby]

As I said, this provision does not deal with the exportation of water--with the treatment of water that has been captured for commercial use, however that water may be captured. This deals with water in its natural state and it says there is no obligation to permit the exploitation of that water.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

I'm going to call the question on clause 4.

You'd like to ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

No, Mr. Chair. As I signalled earlier, we've had some questions, and now we'll move to debate on clause 4.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have the floor, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is pretty serious, because the question that Mr. Laforest asked around water is something that has come up in Bolivia around some water contracts that have been issued. Tragically, trade agreements seem to be getting further and further away from the principle of water as a human right. Here we have a case where only natural surface water or groundwater is exempted from the act, but the moment I bring my bottle of water and fill it up in an industrial way, the moment I move to export bulk water, then it's no longer in its natural state. As a result, because of the wording of this particular clause, I think we're putting ourselves in a situation in the agreement where the kinds of issues that you raised earlier and the kinds of issues that Mr. Laforest raised continue to be a problem.

You very clearly, Mr. Chair, raised the point that you and other members of Parliament, and actually other members of the legislative assemblies across the country, all raised the issue around the possibility of bulk water export permits. The reason activists in every single province have had to intervene so forcibly is because there isn't a clear protection for water in this country.

I understand you may want to intervene, Mr. Chair, and raise the issue as well. There is not protection. It's very clear, when we see this particular agreement, which exempts only natural surface water or groundwater, that water is not protected. Once there's a bulk water export permit, once there's an industrial bottling permit that is issued, then all of a sudden, bam, we're simply out of the scope of exemption. That's a real problem, Mr. Chair, and it's a problem that has been ongoing in provinces across the country.

Now we have a trade agreement, and of course it's not one that's had a fulsome hearing in front of a trade committee. Certainly, I know there will be much debate in coming weeks and months around the advisability of what the committee may choose to move forward, and certainly, the Speaker will have to rule on it as well. But we have here a smoking gun, a clause that very clearly puts us in a situation where bulk water export permits or industrial bottling plants remove water from that exemption. That means they're subject to the investor-state provisions in the agreement. Mr. Chair, that is a fundamental problem that we cannot avoid.

If we are doing the appropriate due diligence on this agreement, even though as a committee we have not heard the many witnesses who have asked to come before this committee, then we have a smoking gun of a clause that's brought before us that clearly indicates a problem, since the definition of “natural” is water that is not commercialized, whether through industrial bottling or through bulk water. We have a problem. This clause again puts us on that slippery slope towards potential for bulk water exports, or that slippery slope for potential for industrial bottling. This is something that increasingly organizations are speaking out about--the Council of Canadians is speaking out about it, and other organizations across the country have been speaking out about it. As a result, Mr. Chair, as you well know, there is a degree of public concern around this issue that we have to take into consideration.

This is a real problem. This clause 4 is an issue. It's an issue in my province. It's an issue in Quebec. I'm sure we may have some other speakers on this issue as well. We simply cannot pass this clause as is.

How do we fix it? Well, Mr. Chair, that's a real problem, a real conundrum.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Do you have an amendment?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Well, if you can suspend debate for just a moment, I'll ask our visitors how they might suggest that clause 4 would be amended in such a way--

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

If I suspend debate, it will be to call the question.

I just asked you a question. You talk about not liking the wording. There are two ways around that: you either vote against it or you propose amendments.

Which is it, Mr. Julian?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Well, Mr. Chair, I'll say right now that I will finish my intervention at some point. I'd like the clerk to register me for a second intervention, because I'll be asking a question at the end.

As you know, Mr. Chair, the whole issue—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Despite some of the heckling I'm receiving, Mr. Chair, as you well know, the types of motions that cannot be moved in committee include the previous question. The committee, as you well know, has a responsibility to hear from members who still want to speak. That's why I'm officially letting our clerk know that I'll be speaking again, once I've finished asking my question.

So the issue that I am raising—and I'm now registered, and it's been publicly identified that I'd like to speak again on this issue—is that if there are suggestions from our witnesses about how to change the language so that we do not have a situation where the definition of “natural” ends when industrial bottling or bulk water exports begin, I'd be very interested in hearing their comments.

I'll put myself back on the list.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No, I'll put you back on the list. You're still on the list at this point, so you don't need to be put back on it.

Did you have a question?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes. I just asked it, Mr. Chairman.

[Matthew Kronby]

I'm not going to tell you how to improve this legislation or even tell you if it requires improvement, but I certainly can say that this provision not only doesn't prevent governments, whether federal or provincial, from taking measures to conserve resources and impose the normal kinds of constraints and licensing procedures, and what have you, on the exploitation of resources, but also that the provision originates to ensure that nothing in the implementing legislation or the FTA itself, going back to the NAFTA, impedes or impairs the ability of a government to engage in or take those kinds of measures to protect resources, water in particular here.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The whole issue of investor-state provisions is based on the principle of national treatment, so I think, Mr. Kronby, what you're saying—and I just want to clarify this—is that if a state or a national or subnational government brings in environmental legislation on water, the legislation would simply apply to foreign companies, as it would to domestic companies. As such, this agreement in no way compromises the ability of sovereign governments to regulate their treatment or control of a natural resource like water, for example.

Is that accurate?

[Matthew Kronby]

That's correct.

And this provision is not aimed specifically at national treatment or at the investor-state rules in chapter eight of the agreement, but it certainly does apply to those rules and this provision.

That's exactly right. It does say that nothing in this agreement interferes with the ability of government to regulate or protect water specifically in its natural state here.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

So there's no threat that Canadian-based multinational corporatists, in their voracious thirst for water, will exploit Colombia's water supplies as a result of this agreement.