International Trade Committee on May 1st, 2007

[Maude Barlow]

I would just say that everyone recognizes that this is a problem, but we also recognize that it's a result of 9/11 and the very real concerns the United States has around border security. I don't think there's very much we can do that's going to change the new reality of the border. It should be worked on, of course, but at the same time, there is no way that our health care, our labour standards, our water, our control over our resources, and our control over having our own regulatory environmental and health standards should be put at risk in order to facilitate....

What's it going to take off if we give up health care--10 seconds? What is it that we have to give? And that's the fear Canadians have, that there's one sector driving this.

We're not saying this sector isn't important. It's tremendously important, and of course these issues matter. But if this sector is driving everything else and we're all expected to give up everything else for this transborder crossing of goods and services, it's too great a price--and it won't work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Ms. Anderson or Ms. Osmond, do you want to respond?

[Carol Osmond]

I just wanted to make a distinction between the time it takes for customs clearance and the time it actually takes to get to the customs booth, because I think generally what we're measuring is the time for customs clearance.

Those times do tend to be a little bit longer going into the United States than they are coming into Canada, but the longer timeframes--and Mr. Adams mentioned this--represent the time to actually get to the customs booth, and certainly for our members that is the bigger concern. The lack of infrastructure leading up to the entry points, for example, and the need for new bridges in the Windsor-Detroit area are probably the key issues, but there are also issues related to inspections. As well, as Ms. Anderson mentioned, there are concerns with the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the inspection process on the U.S. side of the border.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Monsieur André for about three minutes.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Ms. Barlow, my fellow MP, Mr. Lemieux, told us that there was no need to worry about a possible obligation to export water and that water is currently completely protected under NAFTA. He also said that there is no political will to export water.

I would like to hear your comments on this. Should there still be concern? Did his comments really reassure you?

[Maude Barlow]

Merci, monsieur. It certainly made me happy to hear you say that the government will never allow bulk water exports. That was a good thing, and we will quote you all over the place.

But Mr. Lemieux is wrong in saying that NAFTA does not impact on the provinces and does not take precedence. A treaty between two countries, signed by the federal government of those two countries, is the overarching legislation. It implies everything and involves everything about the provinces. Of course the provinces don't have jurisdiction higher than that treaty.

I have here in my hand all of the legislation of the different provinces. It's a mishmash. New Brunswick has nothing--and they mean nothing. If you get a new premier who decides to export water.... I'll give you a perfect example. Several years ago, Premier Grimes of Newfoundland decided to export water from Gisborne Lake, and we had a huge hue and cry. We spent a lot of time speaking to Newfoundlanders, and they spent a lot of time speaking amongst themselves. They said, “We've got so much water”, and we reminded them that they once said that about the cod, and that was a good argument that seemed to resonate.

David Anderson, who was the environment minister at the time, said to Premier Grimes--and this was reported--that NAFTA takes precedence over provincial water exports, and that if any province starts exporting water for commercial purposes, it impacts the whole country, and he travelled to Newfoundland and asked Premier Grimes to reconsider, because this was going to put Canada in jeopardy under NAFTA.

Ralph Pentland, now retired, is considered Canada's leading senior bureaucratic authority on water issues. He is very clear that water is in NAFTA, as are all the legal opinions that you will find from everybody on all sides of the border--and when I say “border” I mean the political border. We even met with lawyers from the Canadian government when the Liberals were in power, and they all said the same thing: water is in NAFTA. You don't see the word. You have to go to the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to get the definition of a good, and there it is. It is in there as an investment.

Let me just end by mentioning the water that is being destroyed in the tar sands right now. We know that for every unit of oil that is extracted from the tar sands, between three and five units of water are actually lost to the hydrologic cycle. If any government--the Alberta government or the federal government in Canada--were to try to regulate this and say to the American corporations there, “This is terrible, you're destroying our water”, they could sue currently, under NAFTA, for reparations. They could say, “Now you owe us compensation, because you've changed the rules.” That's under chapter 11, investor state rights.

So NAFTA already applies to any water being used by American corporations in Canada. So it's already a problem, and it is past time for us to deal with this problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Merci, monsieur André.

For about a minute and a half, Mr. Cannan.

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

I was going to share my time with Mr. Merrifield, but it's not much time. I thought we still had 15 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No, we are going to committee business in about a minute.

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

I would like to thank the witnesses, and I wanted to clarify a couple of comments that were made. And as I mentioned, I appreciate the e-manifest.

What we heard today are concerns that have been tabled from Ms. Barlow and Mr. Julian. I just have to get on the record the fact that he's a master of manipulating the facts. The report that he referred to contains a lot of good news, which he inevitably underplays.

The Canadian economy doubled in size in the past 25 years. Average real family earnings increased from $60,000 to $70,000 from the late 1970s to the early 2000s. The poor are demonstrably not getting poorer. Indeed, according to the report's own statistics, the poorest 10% of families with children are 8% better off in real terms than they were 25 years ago.

The other factual information I'd like to get on the record is about his comment about the democratic process and the Mexican government. I think his comments are outrageous and totally out of line, and I think he should apologize.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Thank you all for coming today. I very much appreciate your comments and your answers to the questions. So thank you.

We will go now to about a two-minute break, and we'll come back to committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]