International Trade Committee on April 26th, 2007

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, had it been 12:57, I would have reacted very quickly to draw your attention to this.

I want to get back to the major criticisms expressed, including about the so-called deep integration and transparency. Mr. Wallace has already announced that I would be talking about transparency. The way things are structured hinders legislative progress and public debate. The only people present are business people and corporate executives. There is virtually no consultation.

My question is addressed to the representatives of business people and corporate executives. You know that on many points, this is not what people want. There are things people want and things they do not want, but they have no say in this. Even parliamentarians are not allowed to participate. I want to know what business people intend to do to honour the commitment made about consultation? I would like Mr. Campbell to tell us what has to be done for these consultations to take place so that some progress can be made. It is much easier to go forward when there is cooperation rather than confrontation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Campbell, go ahead, please.

[Bruce Campbell]

This is a first step. I think it's really important that parliamentarians are focusing on this initiative, because it is such a vast umbrella, and there are interconnections. This seems to be the committee that's best able to look at those interconnections in their entirety.

We haven't talked at all about the whole security dimension—the implications for civil liberties, the implications for harmonization of immigration policies and visa policies, and what that means, and how it plays out in this initiative. As business leaders often repeat, these two issues are indivisible.

So it's really important that you continue to monitor. Just leaving it at a couple of days' hearings is not sufficient. I think you have to be calling bureaucrats who are involved in these working groups.

We have an overall framework, a regulatory harmonization negotiation going on that is scheduled to be completed this year. What's the status of that negotiation? What are the main criteria that are being discussed to overarch things? Where does the precautionary principle as a basic regulatory principle of primacy of protection fit into the agreement? How does it relate to competitiveness and cost considerations? And I mentioned some of the regulatory issues on pharmaceuticals or biologicals. What does it mean for our research, our testing capacity?

All of these questions are extremely important, and it's important that you continue to hold these hearings and that you bring civil society into the process, so that there is sufficient input that at least we can have a debate about key elements of this process.

I haven't suggested that there's not a lot of stuff going on that's useful and important, but that there may be stuff also going on that's not so beneficial and that privileges private interests over the public interest. Your responsibility as parliamentarians is to ensure that the public interest is being advanced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have about 30 seconds, Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like the business representatives to tell me what they intend to do about these consultations with people or parliamentarians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Stewart-Patterson.

[David Stewart-Patterson]

I'll try to answer briefly, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I think the SPP has been a very open process. It's been public from the day it was announced. Governments, as far as I can tell, have welcomed thoughts from all sectors of society. The establishment of the North American Competitiveness Council a year ago was reflective of the fact that leaders felt they would benefit from particular advice from people who had particular expertise on one set of issues within the security and prosperity partnership. We have endeavoured to meet that request.

The other thing I think we have to keep in mind as we talk—this is just discussing how we can help our countries work together on regulatory issues, whether we can agree on common standards, whether we can agree on mutual recognition—is the fact that in any change in regulation there are processes in place within Canada that involve public consultation. The rule-making process itself in Canada necessarily involves consultation at that level as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Mr. Sosnow, would you give a very brief answer? Monsieur Cardin's time is up.

[Clifford Sosnow]

I would echo those comments. The reality is that there seems to be the assumption that there has not been consultation, that this is a discussion that's in secret, and that it is all about big business to the exclusion of everybody else. In our experience, that really has not been the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, go ahead, for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for coming today.

What's very clear is that this goes far beyond smart borders, and it's helpful to have that as the first of the sessions we're going to have around the security and prosperity partnership.

I'd like to come back to Mr. Campbell on the issue of water, because this meeting that's being held in connection with the SPP tomorrow in Calgary is going to discuss issues around water consumption, water transfers, diversions of fresh water, looking for a goal of joint optimum utilization of available water. Basically that means Canadian water going to the United States, I would imagine. I would like you to comment on that. Again, this is just another example of this going far beyond smart borders, and it's disingenuous to pretend the contrary.

My final question is around the whole issue of democracy that you raised. There's very explicit confirmation that Canadians reject this kind of right-wing strategy from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives' brief where they say there's no appetite for a new push or a new grand bargain on the trade front, because as we know, Canadians voted against the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, though the electoral system did not allow that voice to be heard, and very clearly expressed in 1993 concerns about NAFTA that have been justified by the fact that most Canadian families are earning less now than they were since this whole process started.

So could you comment about the drive for Canada's water, and could you comment on this explicit confirmation that indeed most Canadians would reject this agenda if it were out in the public eye?

[Bruce Campbell]

Water has been a controversial issue on the trade front for a long time, going back to the FTA and the NAFTA. Bulk water exports have not been protected adequately. There is no legislation that would do that. Once the tap is turned on, it would become a commercial good and therefore open for export.

We know from chapter 11 of NAFTA, the investor-state provisions of NAFTA, that companies in the United States have challenged any provincial measures to limit water exports. There are cases that are ongoing in that respect.

It has remained an important issue for the United States, and I think this latest initiative with the Center for Strategic and International Studies is an example of that. They see it as in their national security interests to gain access to Canadian water, as to Canadian oil. This think tank with close connections...it was commissioned. From what I've been told, it is funded largely by the National Security Council in Washington. They're our partners. The Conference Board of Canada is a partner. But it emanated in an informal way out of the last SPP meeting and it's one of the issues that's on the table for discussion. I know it makes Canadian politicians and the Canadian public extremely nervous, but it is definitely something they're pushing for.

The trinational business report in 2005 and this latest NACC report do not mention water, although in the preliminary report, or at least in the minutes from some of their earlier meetings, they discussed water and decided it was too controversial to put it formally on the table. But that's not to suggest that it's going to go away. It keeps getting repeated. It keeps reappearing on the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, you have about 30 seconds left.

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

You've advised us to start bringing in these advisory groups that are moving ahead on deregulation, or less regulation in a number of different areas. To what extent do you think this agenda is moving forward without Canadians actually being able to find out what the implications are in each of the various policy areas?

[Bruce Campbell]

I don't know. Perhaps Mr. Stewart-Patterson is better able to respond to that because he's on the inside.

I've mentioned a number of areas of concern. I mentioned that this framework agreement is moving quickly and that we'll get resolution before the end of the year. I think it's incumbent upon parliamentarians to get a clear understanding of where these negotiations are, what's on the table, and what the Canadian side is being asked to sacrifice.

It's great to have regulatory cooperation, as I said, but how far do you go? That's the question. What are the limits to regulatory cooperation? When does it become a real compromise of policy flexibility and democratic accountability?

It's sort of like the question of the frog in the pot of hot water. If you put a frog in boiling water, the frog will jump out immediately. If you put the frog in a pot of cool water and heat it gradually, the frog will not jump out and will be boiled alive. It's that sense of this very slow, incremental, sometimes fast, under-the-radar process that is the basis for my concern and the concern of a lot of groups and individuals in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Thank you all very much for coming today and getting our study on Canada-U.S. trade and investment off to a good start.

I thank all the committee members for their questions today, and I look forward to the continuation of this discussion at our next meeting on Tuesday.

The meeting is adjourned.