International Trade Committee on May 1st, 2007

[Maude Barlow]

Would it be all right if I--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Barlow, the question was directed to--

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I just have one supplemental. Thanks. I'm very passionate about this, because it does affect individuals in my own community and across the country.

Ms. Anderson, you mentioned the e-manifest program. Minister Day, whose riding shares a boundary with mine, made an announcement in January about $400 million being put into this e-manifest program. Could you elaborate on how you think that's going to help some of your members as well as Canadian businesses?

[Mary Anderson]

Yes. Carol Osmond will respond, as she has been actively involved in that.

[Carol Osmond, Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters]

The e-manifest program, or advanced commercial information, is actually one of the key priorities of our association. It's something that has been talked about for 10 years or more. It's not a new initiative. What e-manifest involves is the advance transmission of information to the Canada Border Services Agency before the mode of transportation reaches our borders or our ports. That will allow the Canada Border Services Agency to do its risk analysis before goods reach the border and decide which of those shipments need to be inspected.

Our members are supportive of that initiative, and they are looking to speed up the process for entry of goods into Canada. As part of that process, the United States is implementing a similar program, so we are trying to ensure that the program we implement in Canada is consistent with the program implemented in the United States. Canadian carriers, for example, have made it very clear that they do not want to have two separate programs. So this is an example of how working with the United States will reduce the cost for Canadian business and will ensure that we're not trying to comply with two different programs, invest in two different types of systems, and so on.

Referring to some of the points that we made earlier about its not being a democratic process, in the case of e-manifest, there was a consultation meeting back in January. One hundred and fifty people attended that consultative session. While there have been discussions between CBSA and CBP in the United States in terms of sharing lessons learned, in terms of how they've implemented that system in the U.S., we are also setting up our own consultative framework in Canada so that Canadian businesses--small businesses as well as larger companies--can be consulted so that the system works for Canadians.

Also, if there are any regulations that need to be passed--and we anticipate that there will also be legislative changes--those will have to be brought before the Parliament of Canada. So these decisions are not just made in working groups between Canada and the United States.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Ms. Osmond, and thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Now we will go to the New Democratic Party, to Mr. Julian, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you to all witnesses coming before the committee.

Thanks particularly to you, Ms. Barlow.

You just received a very clear compliment, through Mr. Cannan's very rude tirade. He refused to give you an opportunity to reply, which I think shows that he's concerned, as are the Conservatives, about the real agenda getting out. What is very clear from testimony last Thursday and today is that this goes far beyond being an issue of smart borders, and that there's a whole variety of elements of public policy that are involved.

What I found most compelling about your testimony was the comment from the U.S. embassy that there was no appetite for a real public debate. Those are exactly the same words that were used by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives last Thursday. So they're using the same messaging, that there's no appetite, which I gather means they don't want the real agenda to get out in the public, and they are implicitly stating that they're concerned that Canadians would reject this agenda if they knew its extent. It's far beyond smart borders. It touches on energy sovereignty, water exports, and a whole variety of other issues including the protections that we take for granted as Canadians.

So I'm going to give you an opportunity to reply to Mr. Cannan, since he refused to allow you a rebuttal. I'd also like you to answer the question of why you think the Conservatives are so scared about this agenda getting out for public debate. If it was such a useful process, why are they scared of having that public debate, that public consultation, and parliamentary review of this very widespread and profound agenda?

[Maude Barlow]

Thank you very much, Mr. Julian, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to my friend here.

I was actually thinking, when you spoke, that this was an initiative undertaken by the Liberals before you. Had they been in power now, you probably would have been sitting here with me, criticizing it.

However, I think it's important for us to say that Canada will never be impervious to the United States and to our border concerns post-9/11 unless we make our border so benign that it's like crossing from Vermont to New Hampshire. As long as we maintain the sovereign right to make our own policy decisions in any way, the United States will continue to make that border crossing difficult. Nobody here likes that. Nobody here wants that. But that's the reality we're dealing with.

I also want to say that this is not about building; if this is about building a new North American reality, why have only big businesses, or even some medium-sized businesses, been involved? Why has there been no negotiation or discussion with other groups?

Many people in this country are working with Americans—we work very closely with many Americans—on an alternative vision for the environment, for instance. Many Americans would like to have a national health care program. Many Americans are concerned about the assault on human rights and civil liberties in the United States under the Bush administration. Many Americans don't like what their government is doing in Iraq, and many of us are very concerned about what our government is doing in Afghanistan as well. We have common cause and would like to have these negotiations opened up. We want the current SPP stopped so that we can start to have a different kind of dialogue.

When we met with the U.S. embassy, they said that when Condoleezza Rice was in town, the politicians did meet for some time by themselves. The members of the North American Competitiveness Council met down the hall, and they didn't meet together until a little later. He was using this as proof that somehow the big business community does not have special privilege.

Well, where were we? Where were the people who care about education or health care or human rights or foreign policy or the environment? They have not been part of this process.

I think that concern, that this gets out, is exactly what was expressed to us by the U.S. embassy: if Canadians knew what was in this agreement, if they had a chance to debate it, really look at it and vote on it, they would say no to it. I deeply believe that.

I want to say quickly that I have notes here from Ralph Pentland. If you are going to extend these hearings, Ralph Pentland wants to come before you. He was the director of water planning and management, a branch at Environment Canada, for 13 years. He wrote the policy that was hopefully going to be adopted by the Mulroney government but wasn't adopted. He has co-chaired several International Joint Commission boards. He's very knowledgeable on water.

So Mr. Pentland, who is non-partisan, has asked me to share with you that he is deeply concerned about this process. He feels very strongly that he has watched this happen before, with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and with NAFTA, where committees like this met, we were assured that water wouldn't become part of NAFTA, and then it was.

More recently, negotiations took place on the annex to the 1909 shared boundary water treaty between Canada and the United States, where there were negotiations that were never going to open up diversions to the Great Lakes. We were assured this happened. Governments took their hands off it and let these negotiations take place at other levels, and we have a new annex that allows new diversions, for communities and corporations, off the Great Lakes Basin. Many of us are deeply concerned that there are going to be water takings from the U.S. side.

So here we have another process that's now taking place outside of Parliament, potentially around water exports from Canada's north. We feel very strongly that we have to have a debate. We may not be right, but let's have a debate. Let's have more than just....

Tom d'Aquino, who originally not only came up with this concept but actually had a hand.... The title for their recommendations was “North American Security and Prosperity Initiative”. Except for the word “initiative”, which was changed to “partnership”, it was the same title when three governments signed.

This is their blueprint. They went down to the White House right after 9/11 happened and were asked, “What have you got to offer if you want to keep that border open?”

This is a dialogue for all Canadians. This is not a partisan issue. This should be an issue of true and deep debate in this country.

We have members from all parties, by the way, in our organization.

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

I want to go to the issue of energy sovereignty.

Right now Canada actually shares and, under the proportionality clauses of NAFTA, we actually supply the American market before we supply Canadians. That proportionality clause means that if there's a supply shortage, Canadians literally freeze in the dark while we supply the American market. If they are going further, or if the plan in the North American resource strategy is to go even further, what would that mean for the strategic control that Canada should exercise over its oil and gas resources?

Does any other country give preferential supply to another country before it supplies its own citizens?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Barlow, you have about 15 seconds to answer.

[Maude Barlow]

No. We have given away our energy sovereignty. Those of us looking at this wonder what more you could give away: the NAFTA, ownership and control of the tar sands to American corporations, and the agreement to not implement a different environmental regime from the United States. So it's one seamless border, or one non-existing border, when it comes to energy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Now, for the five-minute questioning round, we'll start with the official opposition and Mr. Maloney.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Osmond, if the e-manifest strategy was made compulsory, would it be an answer to the latest development in the U.S., where pre-clearance has been nixed by the American administration?

[Carol Osmond]

Well, e-manifest will become mandatory. It's a program that's being phased in over time. Currently it's in place for maritime carriers and air mode. We're now looking at implementing it at the land border. Ultimately, importers will also have to transmit information electronically in advance.

From my understanding of pre-clearance, it's a different issue. It relates to individuals who approach the border and want to enter the United States. If someone decides to turn around--if they're suspected, for example, of probing the border or testing the border--the United States wants to be able to question and possibly fingerprint them. The Canadian government has said that if somebody wants to turn around they should have the opportunity to do that without being fingerprinted by the United States.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

With e-manifest there's an assessment before that truck reaches the border.

[Carol Osmond]

Right.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

I appreciate what you're saying about why the U.S. has objected to that. But with the e-manifest strategy, would that still be implemented--the pre-clearance problems?

[Carol Osmond]

They're really separate issues. Pre-clearance involves U.S. officials being on the Canadian side of the border. There's e-manifest going in both directions. Currently, e-manifest going into the United States is already being implemented. It involves transmitting data in advance to U.S. customs authorities relating to the driver, the carrier, and the vehicle. But I don't think that addresses U.S. concerns about being able to apprehend someone on the Canadian side of the border.

I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand the question.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

But with the e-manifest program, by that time the truck is already in the United States.

[Carol Osmond]

Well, it's not in the United States. The information is transmitted to the United States, and then the driver arrives at the customs inspection booth. The U.S. has that data in advance. The e-manifest allows the U.S. to have that information before the driver arrives. It allows them to risk-assess the data with respect to the driver and the cargo and decide whether they have an interest in the individual or the cargo he's carrying.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

The decision is made to inspect or not inspect, or wave them through.

[Carol Osmond]

Right.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

We have to look at alternatives. I'm not happy that we're going to make any more headway with our U.S. colleagues on these issues with WHTI and pre-clearance. Is there any reasonable alternative that could be considered?

[Carol Osmond]

The issue of pre-clearance relates to space on either side of the border. We want to be able to expand inspection facilities, and that sort of thing, to facilitate the movement of goods. Unfortunately, in the case of the Peace Bridge there's limited space on the U.S. side of the border. On the Canadian side the issue is with the Thousand Islands Bridge, and we have a shortage of space. But my understanding is that unless we move in one country, we're not going to move in the other.

At the Peace Bridge, a decision needed to be made so the bridge authority could proceed with its construction plans and its development at the bridge. So it's unlikely now that we will have a pre-clearance facility at the Peace Bridge. However, we would like to see the governments in both countries continue to discuss this issue. Hopefully it can happen at other border crossings on both sides of the border.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Ms. Barlow, you struck a chord about bulk water sales here this morning. You suggested that we have a national water act, which in essence would prohibit cross-border bulk sales, or cross-border bulk importation.

Does that conflict with NAFTA? Would we have to go back and renegotiate NAFTA on that issue?