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.