Evidence of meeting #20 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
On the point, I've been provided with evidence, Mr. Julian, that in fact one of the reasons why Mexico's drug wars have escalated is the success of the Uribe government in taking on and reducing the drug trade's control over Colombia, and that these international drug cartels--
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
That's not a point of order, Mr. Chair, but he should certainly put himself on the list.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'm not a lawyer, as Mr. Brison is, but I'm sure it's relevant to the point we were discussing.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It's not a point of order, so he certainly should put himself on the list. I'm sure he has lots to say, Mr. Chair, but if I can continue--
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What we've got is a situation where those cheerleaders like to say it always works; it's just great. Not only has real income fallen in Canada and the United States, but in Mexico we see the real problems that exist when we have the kinds of terms that we see in the Colombia trade deal.
Getting back, Mr. Chair, to the issue around water resources, this is not an anodyne subject. This is a subject that has immense repercussions for the people who are most impacted by this trade agreement. Mr. Chair, the people that members of the other parties have allowed to come before this committee have all said very clearly that the big risk in this is not in Bogota; it is primarily in rural areas. It is primarily in areas where people will need to have some sort of oversight and protection.
What does this have to do with the current wording? What it does is subject these exports or industrial bottling to issues of investor-state challenges. What would happen, Mr. Chair, if we had a situation where in rural Colombia an aboriginal community decided it was going to refuse industrial bottling, refuse bulk water exports, and a neighbouring community decides that, because the paramilitaries are there and they've got guns in their faces, they don't have a choice, they're going to have to allow this industrial bottling? Mr. Chair, what these provisions mean is that in one case you've got industrial bottling; in the other case you've got the use of investor-state provisions, which often act as a kind of bully mechanism for those who have deep pockets. A small aboriginal community in Colombia may be forced to either pay compensation they cannot afford or they may be forced to allow--
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
To help my colleague, if investor-state provisions were in place, it would simply mean that the same rules would apply to the foreign company as would apply to the domestic company. If there were a decision by any subnational government not to industrialize their water supply, then that would stand. I'm certain he would be interested in how that would apply.
NDP
Conservative
NDP
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I appreciate your good humour in this circumstance, Mr. Chair. I haven't actually been at a committee where you've been presiding. Despite the fact that this is quite illegitimate as a process, I find you're being amiable.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I'd missed you so much in the last year and a half, Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Me too, Mr. Miller.
So we have this problem, and unfortunately Mr. Brison is wrong. If the investor-state provisions applied in the way he says, then the Ethyl Corporation compensation would never have been paid. It wouldn't have seen the investor-state provisions brought in against the Quebec government.
Obviously you have to look for precedents. You have to look at the real cases. Unfortunately, they contradict what he's just mentioned. I know he mentions it in good faith, but the reality is that the truth is a completely different issue. We have seen a number of these problems coming up with investor-state provisions.
In fact, this very committee looked into that issue. It raised concerns around the use of investor state and what that meant for the autonomy of regional governments and for provincial governments as well.
So here we have a clause that is problematic. Normally, Mr. Chair, in a civilized approach, after having heard the witnesses who have come forward, we would sit down and hammer out a clause. Now we have a situation where the clause itself clearly does not work; it clearly causes problems.
Members of this committee have raised this issue, and obviously we need to make the necessary changes.
You, Mr. Chair, could be part—
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I think we would need to sit down with our witnesses for 15 minutes and work it out.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I think we've been on it for half an hour.
Since Mr. Julian has indicated he has no amendment, I'm going to call the vote.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
A recorded vote, Madam Clerk.
(Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 5--Construction)
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm going to ask our witnesses to provide some explanation and guidance on clause 5.
