International Trade Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear on your question.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Given that others stated we should wait until the report comes out, why not defer the motion, and does that require a motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Why not defer this motion?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Is that possible?

[A voice]

You could adjourn the debate.

[A Voice]

You could bring it back later.

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

We won't be here. We'll be gone. We've got one more committee meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think it's a valid point, and it certainly is something the committee can--

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

That's like stealing water from eavestroughs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Sorry, there was a slight distraction with water from the eavestroughs. This is not the water we're debating at this point. This is an older building.

It's a valid point, Mr. Silva. Certainly, that's something the committee can consider, whether or not they would want to defer this motion until after we have considered the report.

I'll go first to Mr. Julian on that point, if that's of interest, before putting it to the committee. Mr. Julian, you've heard the notion, if not the motion, that we may adjourn this debate and reconsider it after we deal with the motion.

Mr. Julian first, and then we'll hear from Mr. Holder.

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

Mr. Chair, it's World Water Day. As you know, we've been getting e-mails from Canadians across the country, and I think Canadians expect us to deal with the motion today. I would certainly agree with Mr. Keddy in that regard, that it's more important for the parties to make very clear to the public where they stand on the issue of reserve for water in NAFTA.

I do want to mention as well, Mr. Chair, there's nothing in motion 2 that even refers to AbitibiBowater. Certainly, we heard substantive input from witnesses, but this is a reiteration of the 2007 motion.

I did want to take a few moments to read into the record a few more of the witnesses' comments. I think that's important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Julian, I would happy to allow you to do that, but as a courtesy to you, I was just taking a moment out of the debate to consider Mr. Silva's proposal. We would be happy to return to debate, should the committee decide we are going to continue debate and not adjourn, if you follow me.

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

Was I not on the speakers list, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Coincidentally, you were.

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

Then I'll continue speaking, Mr. Chair, with your guidance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Let me ask Mr. Silva if he had finished his remarks. All right. In that case, Mr. Julian, please carry on.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Given that I think we need to have a vote today, Mr. Keddy mentioned that he hadn't heard concerns raised about this by witnesses, so I wanted to read into the record concerns raised by two witnesses.

As you know, Mr. Chair, Mr. Steven Shrybman is an international trade lawyer and is very well known across the country for his knowledge on trade issues. He said the following:

The settlement by the Government of Canada of an investor-state claim by Abitibi effectively allows foreign investors to assert a proprietary claim to Canadian water, including water in its natural state, where those investors have acquired a right to use water resources by permit or otherwise. By doing so, the Government of Canada has essentially transformed Canadian freshwater resources, most of which are owned by the provinces as a public trust, into a private property right, to the benefit of foreign investors that have acquired a right to use water by provincial permit.

It would be difficult, in my submission, to overstate the consequences of such a profound transformation of the right that Canadian governments have always had to own and control public natural resources. Moreover, by recognizing water as private property, the government has gone much further than any international arbitral tribunal has dared to go in recognizing a commercial claim to natural water resources.

Then, Mr. Chair, at our meeting on Thursday, March 10, we had as a witness Mr. Scott Sinclair, who is the senior research fellow in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I'll just read into the record four of his comments. He said:

First, AbitibiBowater was compensated in part for the loss of water and timber rights on public lands...[which] are not normally considered compensable rights under Canadian law. The provincial legislation provided for the government to compensate the company for its expropriated assets--land, buildings, equipment, etc. The company did not pursue this option, turning instead to NAFTA arbitration.

The legislation, however, appropriately denied AbitibiBowater compensation for the loss of its timber and water rights, which were returned to the crown. Such natural resources are the property of the provincial crown and the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. The province retains title to the land and the right to revoke licences and permits, with or without compensation, as it sees fit.

Access to publicly owned natural resources--water, timber, minerals, oil, and gas--is not a proprietary right; it's not an ownership right. It's a contingent or a conditional right. It's based on the understanding that the resource rights holder will develop the resources productively in a manner that benefits the public. Unfortunately--and it is a tragic situation whenever a company goes bankrupt and closes its last remaining mill in a province--the company was no longer willing or able to fulfill its part of that social contract.

He said that his other point “concerns the fact that at $130 million, this is the largest NAFTA chapter 11 award to date” and that now the “high payout will undoubtedly encourage future investor-state claims involving regulation of natural resources”.

Just to conclude my comments here, what we have is a very clear indication from a number of witnesses that this is a critical stage: that the House of Commons motion that was adopted in 2007 has been repudiated by the government. Certainly the Bloc and the NDP have indicated that we're willing to reiterate that important direction to the government. I'm just surprised again that the Liberal Party is reversing its historical position on this issue.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Just for the record, Mr. Chair, I will say for the third time that the Liberal Party is not reversing its position. I take some offence at the continued suggestion that we are. I will say it clearly: we have not reversed our position.

We've expressed our concern about this motion at this particular time, for two reasons. One, it pre-empts the work of the committee. Given all of the discussions we're having in the House of Commons right now about the need to respect parliamentary process, I would hope that this committee would do so. Two, there is a motion from 2007, and if we do not hold the government to account on that one, if we go forward with another one, we will be denying the responsibility of the government to respond based on the 2007 motion.

The Liberal Party has not changed its position at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Cannan, Mr. Holder, and Monsieur Laforest.

Monsieur Cannan.

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

Mr. Chair, I totally support my honourable colleague, Ms. Findlay, and her comments. I sit here and listen, and it is frustrating because we've talked about this. I was in that meeting in 2007 and recollect the discussion that took place. It's not exactly the same as Mr. Julian alluded to.

We've talked about this issue of water numerous times. There is a joint statement by the Government of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in 1993 which says:

The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any Party to the Agreement. And nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA Party to either exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water in any form. Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, waterbasins and the like is not a good or product, is not traded, and therefore is not and has never been subject to the terms of any trade agreement.

I am not sure why Mr. Julian indicates, as everybody in the room agrees that we don't support bulk water exports or commodification. It's a moot point. Water is no different from any other resource. The fact is we have to ensure that it's a Canadian resource. It's for Canadians, and we'll protect it for Canadians, and that's what we believe.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

So do the United States and Mexico.

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

With the partnership that we have, it's agreed to, and I don't know why we continue to go down this path and waste everybody's time. I recommend that we call the question and move on to something more productive for Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I take it you didn't call the question so much as you suggested you did. Thank you.

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the words of my Cape Breton mother, an election if necessary but not necessarily an election. On that note, I would suggest that we bring this to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have other speakers wishing to carry on.

Monsieur Laforest.