International Trade Committee on May 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'd like to call to order meeting 63 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Before we get to the business before the committee today, there is an issue that requires our immediate attention, I believe. I was asked by several members of the committee to deal with this at the start of the meeting today.

You all know there's been a motion of non-confidence proposed by Mr. Julian. I know there's been some discussion, both among the committee members and in the press, regarding my actions at committee on Thursday, May 10. I'd like to take a few minutes to explain my actions and lay out the procedural groundwork for them.

Section 117 of the standing orders reads as follows:

The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in that committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee, but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof.

You will also find on pages 827, 856, and 858 of the English version of Marleau and Montpetit the relevant sections dealing with the chair's role in maintaining order. Page 858 states:

In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored or, if the situation is considered to be so serious as to prevent the committee from continuing with its work, the meeting may be adjourned.

During the meeting the witness, Mr. Laxer, spoke on a subject that was not relevant to the agreed-upon topic of the security and prosperity partnership. He was instructed on several occasions to tie his argument into the subject at hand, which in my opinion he did not do.

I was repeatedly challenged by both members and the witness, all of whom were speaking out of order. I tried to regain control around the table; however, opposition members and the witness himself would not allow for this. As well, I was overruled for the second time in as many meetings on procedural rulings that were clearly within the Standing Orders. At that time, and as is within my authority as the chair, I decided that I'd lost control of the committee meeting and adjourned.

I will remind the committee of the events of meeting 61 on Tuesday, May 8, 2007. I will read from the official minutes of the meeting:

Peter Julian moved, -- That the question be now put.

The Chair ruled that according to the Procedure and Practice of the House of Commons the question cannot be put.

Whereupon Guy André appealed the ruling of the Chair.

The question: “Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?” was put and the decision was overruled.

I'll also read from the minutes of our last meeting, meeting 62, on May 10, 2007:

Gordon Laxer made an opening statement.

The Chair ruled that the statement was not relevant to the Order of the Day.

Whereupon Peter Julian appealed the ruling of the chair.

The question, “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?” was put and the decision was overruled.

Committee members can read on page 786 of the English version of Marleau and Montpetit that putting the question or, as it is also known, the previous question, is clearly out of order within the committee structure.

I will also cite Standing Order 11(2), which says:

The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall report the Member to the House.

Members can find the application of this standing order to the committee on page 857 of the English version in Marleau and Montpetit, which reads:

The Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose remarks or questions are repetitious, or not relevant to the matter before the committee. If a member's comments continue to be repetitious or irrelevant, the Chair may recognize another member. If the offending member refuses to yield the floor and continues speaking, the Chair may suspend or adjourn the meeting. A point of order calling attention to a departure from the Standing Orders or from the customary manner in which a committee has conducted its proceedings may be raised at any time, by any member of the committee. In doubtful or unprovided cases, the Chair may reserve his or her decision.

I would also invite committee members to remember that shortly after 11:30 at meeting 62 last Thursday, I called to order Mr. Menzies, who had proceeded with a line of questioning that was not relevant on the topic of the day.

That same courtesy was granted to Mr. Laxer. I cautioned Mr. Laxer that he needed to establish a connection between his opening statement and the topic at hand. I provided him the opportunity to respond to my concerns, I even allowed him to continue his statement. He did not draw a connection between his opening statement on energy security to the security and prosperity partnership. He made no reference to the impact of greater regulatory synchronization between Canada and the United States. Instead, he made numerous references to foreign countries and was in the process of talking about Russian imports of natural gas when I cut him off for the final time.

If committee members are not going to follow the Standing Orders, then I, as chair, will not be able to ensure that this committee is able to fulfill the mandate the House has granted us. As a committee, we cannot pick and choose what Standing Orders we wish to follow on a selective basis. The Standing Orders exist as they do because they've been proven to ensure that Parliament functions properly. Exceptions may arise from time to time that require us to step outside the Standing Orders, but those times should be exceptional in nature.

Both of these recent cases where I was overruled clearly do not require the exceptional response of overruling the Standing Orders. As a direct result of the failure of this committee to uphold the Standing Orders and the prevailing disorder at the committee, I decided that I could no longer claim to have control over the proceedings of this committee. Therefore, I did the only thing that I have recourse to do, which is to adjourn the meeting.

Now Mr. Julian has introduced a motion of non-confidence in me as a result, and I am fully answerable for my actions. I do not hesitate to stand behind them for the previously mentioned reasons.

I believe that until this question of confidence is settled, the committee cannot proceed to other business, as it would be foolish while there is a question of confidence hanging over us.

Therefore, I would ask, Mr. Julian, if you would move your motion now so that we can deal with this issue and put it behind us. Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to state at the outset that I disagree completely with your interpretation of events last Thursday. Very clearly, Mr. Laxer was on topic and actually presenting important information for this committee. There is absolutely no doubt that he was speaking directly to the energy provisions of the security and prosperity partnership. However, it is also clear that you did not agree with what he was saying, and that is essentially the difficulty we had last Thursday. He was stating in very unequivocal terms how bad the SPP agenda would be for those Canadians who are concerned about energy sovereignty.

There was absolutely no doubt he was on topic, absolutely no doubt that what he was saying was not something that was agreed to by Conservative Party representatives around the table, but he had certainly the right to speak, and this committee very clearly indicated that it wanted him to speak. So I deplore the fact that you shut down that committee hearing because you disagreed with an Albertan who was testifying on behalf of many Albertans who may disagree with Conservative Party policy.

That being said, we have two important items of business that have not been brought before this committee, which we have been trying to bring before the committee for a number of weeks: one is the motion by the Bloc on water, and the other is the motion by Mr. Bains on the issue of committee procedure and having in place an agenda subcommittee of this committee.

So I would move now that we consider Monsieur Cardin's water motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Of course, Mr. Julian, it's up to Monsieur Cardin to bring forth a motion, if he chooses to, at this committee, not up to you.

I do want to respond by saying, Mr. Julian, I'm sure you would agree that I have been more than fair as chair of this committee. You've commented to that effect many times or on many occasions. I certainly would never cut off a witness because I disagreed with what he or she was saying. That's not my job, and I certainly would not do that. I wanted to make that comment.

We do have orders of the day here and we do have witnesses to hear. I would encourage the committee to hear from the witnesses. We could certainly allow time at the end of the meeting to hear both of the motions, if those members choose to bring them up. It's up to those members to decide whether they want to bring them up at that time.

Certainly, we do have it on the agenda to deal with committee business. I will ensure that happens, if it's what the committee wants and if that's the members want.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chair, you started talking about the work that the committee has to do. I would like the agenda to proceed in the same way, and I would like us to consider the notice of motion on water that I submitted recently. It will not take very long if the rest of the members cooperate. I move that we consider this motion immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You know, I have opened this committee up to committee business, and I think it would be appropriate to deal with that motion, if that's what you choose, Monsieur Cardin.

Is there anything else to be said on the motion?

Mr. Temelkovski.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

While we're on the topic of what happened last meeting, Mr. Chair, I think it is fitting to move a motion to accept the witness testimony that had taken place after you vacated the chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Temelkovski, I believe we have a motion on the floor, so we can't bring another motion to the floor.

Monsieur Cardin, did you not move your motion and ask us to deal with that right now? That's what I understand.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, so we're dealing with another motion, Mr. Temelkovski. You can bring this business up afterwards if you choose.

Are there any further comments on Monsieur Cardin's motion? We were dealing with it at the committee meeting before last.

Mr. Allison, and then Mr. Cannan.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think pretty much everything that needs to be said is on the record, but I just want to state once again that I think that if this committee is going to have any credibility at all, as we move forward, we should look at the facts before us that we've already discussed for the last three meetings about how NAFTA is not part of anything we're looking at. And I ask the members to consider again why we would look at something, something that the Liberal government over many occasions supported, in terms of disagreeing with this motion.

So I'll just say that one more time. For the credibility of this committee to move forward, I think it's important that we consider all the things that have already been said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Allison. Your comments were completely in line. I just want to remind members that we did deal with the amendment two meetings ago. We are now dealing with the amended motion of Monsieur Cardin.

Mr. Cannan, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to allude to the extensive report that was provided by the Library of Parliament to all members, and it was at the request of this committee to bring this forward. It's the 33 pages that Mr. Johansen had prepared in February 2001, revised in 2002, and then there was an additional revision in May 2007, talking about bulk water removals and Canadian legislation.

It exemplifies even more clearly in my mind why this whole motion is out of order, in the sense that we're going beyond the scope of this committee, for one. I guess the most egregious part of the motion is where it asks the government to open up talks on water.

I think it has been clearly stated that the government isn't interested in opening up negotiations on water. We've had the 1993 statement that has been clarified by the three leaders of the Canadian, U.S., and Mexican governments, the senior levels of government. We have the International Boundary Waters Treaty, which has been clearly indicated, and Monsieur Cardin has had an opportunity to review that. I have record of those questions in the House that Mr. Cardin has asked Minister Emerson, and Mr. Emerson has clearly stated that Canadian law has built into NAFTA that water in its natural state is not covered by NAFTA--full stop. It's not covered. We heard from witnesses it isn't covered.

The most interesting part for me from Monsieur Cardin is that he wants the federal government to negotiate Quebec's and other provinces' rights to protect their water when those rights are already assured in the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

I guess I'm even more concerned that urging the government to open up negotiations on water will put our water at risk. I can say this is something that our government is simply not prepared to do.

Finally, I find it ironic that the member from the Bloc would want the federal government to take away provincial powers from his own authority, which is looking for sovereignty within the province. It just doesn't make sense, and I won't be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

Are there any other comments?

Monsieur Cardin. Actually, Monsieur Cardin, if you want to speak as the last speaker, Mr. Julian also wants to make comments, and I'll come back to you.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Library of Parliament report very clearly indicates what has been the concern all along. If the members of the Conservative Party had actually listened to the witnesses, they would have understood what the problem was.

On page 7, there's a quotation from The North American Free Trade Agreement: A Comprehensive Guide that indicates what the problem is. The final sentence reads: “Once a resource is exploited by being extracted or collected, it becomes a product and is subject to these and other NAFTA provisions.

So essentially water is not a good, now, until bulk exports begin. Once bulk exports begin, then it is subject to NAFTA. That is what has been very clear from testimony all along. Hopefully members of the Conservative party will now understand what the dynamic is. It is not protected by NAFTA. If it becomes a product, essentially a resource that is extracted or collected, it would then fall under the NAFTA agreement.

So, when this comes down to a question of Quebec jurisdiction, the problem...If another province, like Newfoundland and Labrador or British Columbia, decided to export water, it would have an effect on all other provinces. This is why I believe that Mr. Cardin's motion is very useful for the Canadian federation as a whole. If we export water, water becomes a commodity under NAFTA. This is why I think that this motion is valuable and important. A few little improvements have been added, and I hope that it will have the support of all four parties at this table, at least those parties that understand the dynamics and the repercussions that are to be expected once exports begin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

I see Mr. Lemieux—and again, we'll allow Monsieur Cardin to wrap up at the end.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I would like to speak about some of the discussion we've had around the table, and that is that bulk water is not covered by NAFTA. We've had one or two witnesses speculate that it might be—no more concrete than that. We've heard lots of witnesses speculate about a lot of non-concrete-type issues. This is the concern that I brought forward last time.

We are the international trade committee. We should be sinking our teeth into reality and into real things that affect trade for Canada. So we have speculation. It's not proven. It's a fear. Fine, but that doesn't mean we should be jumping into this with both feet, particularly because we have had witnesses testify that bulk water is not covered under NAFTA. We also have the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, which covers bulk water, particularly as it pertains to boundary waters.

What I'd like to do is look at my Liberal colleagues across the way, because they've been sitting there rather quietly in all of this debate, and yet the position we're advocating here on this side is the position they advocated when they were the government.

So I'm wondering if you could explain to everybody here—particularly to me, because I'm the one posing the question, but I think everybody here would like to know—how it is that you had the same position as government when you were the government, and now you don't? Or do you not, actually? I don't know. I don't know where you're coming from. Could you elaborate on where you're coming from, as the Liberal members?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Of course, Mr. Lemieux was speaking through the chair.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I was. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Of course, he cannot require that any member of the committee speak, but it was a request.

Mr. Brison.

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

Mr. Chair, I was very impressed with the quality of his questioning, and I'm looking forward to when, in a few months, he has the opportunity to pose those questions to a Liberal government once again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Is there anybody else before I go to Monsieur Cardin to wrap up?

Monsieur Cardin, go ahead, please.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the report prepared for us by the Library of Parliament, one element is clear, and jumps off the page. We worry for several reasons. Several reasons because we have proof that we cannot be absolutely sure that water cannot become a commercial product, and therefore come under NAFTA.

When we say that water is excluded from this agreement, we are talking about water in its natural state. But water in its natural state is moving water, water we find in our water sources. That is clear. But when it is no longer there, it is no longer water in its natural state. So all the possibilities of forced export now arise. In the last line of the report's conclusion, we read:

The debate concerning bulk water removals, water exports and the NAFTA continues. Neither the public nor a number of credible organizations are certain that water will not end up as a commodity that can be traded, and that, as a result, will come under the NAFTA.

If government members are so sure that no problem exists, why not then ask for water to be formally excluded from NAFTA?

You will also see that this is spelled out in the motion. The recommendation to the government is to:

[...] begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA [...]

The text specifies “water”and not “water in its natural state” because that makes all the difference. We cannot allow ourselves to be one day forced to export water. Water is more than a natural resource, it is an essential resource. One day, perhaps it will provide us with the opportunity to save lives, but without being forced to export it in any shape or form. Of course, we cannot export water in its natural state. But once it has left the watershed, it becomes an exportable commodity.

Regarding boundary waters, I agree that is different, but only boundary waters. The water my motion refers to is all the water in our territory, not just boundary waters. Boundary waters are one thing, all the water in Canada and Quebec is another thing.

I would like to reply to Mr. Cannan. At the moment, it is Canada that participates in NAFTA discussions. But when we have a sovereign Quebec, we will protect our resources ourselves. Meanwhile, I feel that it is wise to protect them in the interests of the entire population of Canada.

Mr. Chair, let us now proceed to vote on the motion. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will go to the vote.

I want to remind the committee that the committee agreed to have legal opinions brought to the committee. There were two. There was the one you referred to, Monsieur Cardin. You referred to the recommendations at the end of the report done by David Johansen, of the law and government division, on February 20, 2001, and revised on January 31, 2002. You referred to the recommendations in it. It's entitled “Bulk Water Removals, Water Exports and the NAFTA”.

The same researcher also made a revised version, which was done May 11, 2007, at the request of the committee. I think it would be important to look at these two reports together. This is entitled “Bulk Water Removals: Canadian Legislation”.

I would ask whether the committee would agree that we deem that we have these two reports read into the discussion on this motion. The committee did ask for these legal opinions, in the evidence.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure what you're asking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'm asking that we either append or deem that these reports have been read into the discussion on this motion; that they be considered part of the evidence presented in the debate on this motion.

Mr. Menzies has moved it. We have a seconder.

Is it agreed, just by agreement? The committee did ask for this at the last meeting, as you will remember.

Mr. Cardin.