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.
Director General, Trade Law Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I think we can say that this agreement would not give them the right to do so.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
This agreement would mean that the other provisions of the agreement would apply once water is industrially bottled or is bulk exported.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
There are no bulk exports of water allowed in this country.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Keddy should be aware of all the problems that activists have had to raise and the fights they've had to stop certain companies from wanting to export water. The only reason there are no bulk water exports is because a lot of people have been standing up and saying this is the kind of thing that should not be happening. Once the bulk water exports start, then the provisions of investor state kick in. Mr. Keddy should know that. I'm sure, as an intelligent parliamentary secretary, he would know that. He would know there are no provisions in--
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Keddy, there is no such thing as a previous question at committee stage.
The issue is very clear. We have to look at wording that protects the provisions from applying once bulk water exports begin—
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Julian, I'm going to rule here. You are getting repetitive. Either propose an amendment or I'm going to call the question.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, the problem we have with this rapid and reckless pace is that we're not able to work out the amendment that identifies the problem that has come up during this committee. We've started, article by article.... Normally, what would happen in a case like this, Mr. Chair—
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Julian, I know exactly where we are in this. You seem to think you're knowledgeable about the issue you're talking about. You're getting repetitive, and I'm going to end it unless you propose an amendment or speak on something we haven't already talked about. It's your call. Then I'll make mine.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, we have had in South America a number of cases where bulk water exports have been issued. As you well know, Mr. Chair, in the city of Cochabamba, Bolivia, a water contract was applied that actually forced people to pay money to even go and get the water that came down from above. That was a water contract that was signed. In South America this is an issue that has been fought over.
The issue of what impacts investor-state provisions may have in particular in cases of rural Colombia, where those water resources are subject to the pressures of paramilitary organizations.... We've seen from some of the witnesses we've had, Mr. Chair.... You've not been around the committee table, but many witnesses have requested to come and have not had the opportunity, and we had other witnesses who did come. They have flagged that these are the kinds of issues, particularly human rights concerns in rural Colombia, among aboriginal people, among African Colombians, who are seeing systematically their land taken...and that includes water resources, Mr. Chair.
If we're in a situation where we are opening up this exemption, the moment that paramilitary organizations connected to the Uribe government decide to run people off the land, which has happened systematically—most recently we've seen the connections of the brother of President Uribe to these murderous paramilitary gangs—then we are subjecting rural peasants, rural aboriginal people, rural African Colombians, who are seeing this kind of violent threat on their land, to yet another component.... What happens, and what could happen, and what we have to foresee as members of this committee, is that quite likely we could see the paramilitary gangs choose to put in industrial bottling or choose to look at a bulk water export permit.
According to this, once it's removed from that natural surface state it's all of a sudden subject to investor-state provisions, so we've doubly hit or triply hit those rural areas. This is not an anodyne problem. What you need to do, Mr. Chair, when a situation like this comes up, normally, is suspend the hearing and look to work out some amendment that would actually address this issue, because obviously we're in a situation—
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Mr. Julian, you're going on and on. If you have a fear of something, and we know that you or your party would never do anything based on fear, then propose something to change it. This is the second time, and it's going to be the last if you continue to do it. It's moot.
Mr. Brison.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, in fairness, I think Mr. Julian raises a very interesting point, and I want him to help me with it.
Is Mr. Julian suggesting that this free trade agreement could lead to Colombians abandoning low margin products, like cocaine, for instance, and switching production over to the bulk export of water to Canada? Is that one of the unintended consequences of this agreement, as you see it?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
No, no, I'm just suggesting there must be some logic to Mr. Julian's intervention.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It's not a point of order, Mr. Chair, so normally you would disallow it. It's not a point of order, but he could certainly put himself on the list, as it's a point of debate.
I did have the floor, Mr. Chair, as you know, and I'll continue.
Mr. Brison raises the most important point of what happens with free trade agreements when we're talking about rural areas. Mr. Chair, as you well know, we have to look at the example of Mexico. We heard the same kind of cheerleading around NAFTA, that it was going to transform rural Mexico, that a rising tide lifts all boats. In rural Mexico, we were going to see unprecedented prosperity, Mr. Chair--
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Well, no, I'm answering the very important point by Mr. Brison. I wouldn't want his important question to be left without an answer.
What have we seen? We've seen, Mr. Chair, through the course of the last few years, particularly--
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Larry Miller
No, he didn't ask what you'd seen there. He asked you specifically about Colombia.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
He was asking about rural areas, and that's very illustrative, because we have heard testimony, Mr. Chair, around this issue of what happened to rural Mexico. Since the latest changes under NAFTA, corn tariffs were taken off. What we've seen is a meltdown in rural Mexico. In fact a million Mexicans have lost their ability to put bread on the table. And what has happened, Mr. Chair? Well, gee whiz, in what many people are referring to as the Colombianization of Mexico, rural Mexicans now are finding violence in the drug trade, present like never before, Mr. Chair--