Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
For those who aren't aware, I am Marianne Alto, a Victoria city councillor, and I'm also elected to the regional government in the Capital Regional District.
I'd like to thank the standing committee for allowing me to appear today. It's a great honour to be part of the dialogue.
What I'm here to talk about today obviously is CETA, but particularly what my council understands some of the terms to be and how CETA may affect municipalities, Victoria in particular. I say how my council “understands” it because, until very recently, very little information about CETA has actually been made available to municipal governments, this despite the fact that, as we understand it, negotiations have been ongoing since 2009.
This has been a real source of frustration to the Victoria city council, so much so that in May 2012 we unanimously endorsed a resolution expressing concerns about the terms that we understand CETA may include and the influence it may have over municipal decision-making. I have left copies of our resolution with your clerk for your information.
Let me be clear from the outset that neither my council nor I are opposed to international trade, fair trade agreements, or the robust exchange of goods and services between and among nations. But my council and I would appreciate being engaged in the development of that trade and those agreements, particularly when the terms of those agreements affect municipal authority and decision-making.
If CETA includes clauses, as we believe it does, that have an impact on municipalities, this would have been a perfect opportunity for the federal government to include its municipal colleagues in a way that was not only collaborative and respectful, but that could have added value to the process and content of CETA. From our perspective, we believe it's unfortunate that this opportunity was overlooked.
As we understand the process to date, the federal government has completed multiple rounds of negotiations on the agreement and has made significant progress in key areas, including goods, services, investment, and government procurement.
We also understand that the federal government has worked hard to resist some protectionist measures and to seek ambitious outcomes across negotiating areas, and has also instructed its negotiators to move forward quickly to try to get a really good agreement for the people of Canada. These are all really laudable goals, goals that could have built alliances across jurisdictions and created a broadly supported and beneficial agreement that would have met with accolades across a broad interest base. But we believe that collaboration did not happen. Instead, we observe that CETA has been constructed without consultation with local government, and as snippets of detail about the agreement have emerged, municipalities and our professional associations have expressed their discomfort and concern about CETA and with the process that has brought us here to the conclusion of the negotiations.
The UBCM and, to some extent, the FCM have suggested that CETA undermines local government powers and have raised concerns about the local governance implications of the proposed agreement. It is some of these concerns that have influenced my council's resolution.
First, there is the issue of water. Of tremendous concern to Victoria is the idea that CETA negotiators may open or may be open to the privatization of municipal water services. While the Canadian government has in the past tried to preserve its sovereign control over water when negotiating international trade agreements, we understand that the EU has specifically requested that drinking water services be included in this agreement. This would seem to open the door to private ownership and operation of municipal water infrastructure by multinationals. We understand that the proposed rules would allow a water conglomerate to bid whenever a Canadian municipality or its utility tenders for goods or services related to water supply systems, such as treatment technology, or engineering design and construction, or operational services. Victoria is absolutely opposed to this and completely committed to the public ownership of water.
In June 2011, Victoria's council unanimously endorsed an initiative to protect the public ownership of water and water services in our city. We believe that any potential risk to publicly owned water resources is absolutely unacceptable. Privatizing municipal water systems operated by European companies has already led to poor or unreliable service and higher water prices, and French municipalities have begun returning their water systems to public control in the last decade.
The suggestion that CETA may remove our local right to make decisions about public ownership of water is a major concern about the intrusion CETA may have into local governance and is one of the primary concerns expressed by Victoria.
Our second concern is the possibility that CETA may affect the ability of local government to include local and Canadian content requirements in our procurement processes. Victoria's ability to “buy local” is an important tool for stimulating our local economy and fostering innovation. A policy that prefers local suppliers can have a positive impact on local production, jobs, and consumption. This is an important aspect of our own local economic development strategy and is a crucial complement to our recently completed official community plan.
This local advantage has long been recognized as significant and desirable, and Canada has signed international trade agreements over the last 30 years that have allowed buy local and buy Canadian policies. But we were concerned to see this trend seeming to take a different direction when, in 2010, the Canadian government signed a deal with the U.S. that included measures preventing local governments in Canada from giving Canadian or local contractors preference in some municipal construction projects. And we're concerned that what we understand as the current CETA takes it a step even further.
Some draft documents that have been shared suggest that the EU believes that CETA terms mean that municipalities can no longer give preference to local or Canadian suppliers, or restrict tender calls or bidders to local or Canadian companies. If this is true, this is a serious limitation of local governments' ability to choose local suppliers and workers and to support and foster our own locally driven social and economic development strategies.
A third concern for Victoria is the risk that CETA could increase our costs and create legal hurdles for local government. It looks to us like CETA may allow multinational corporations to present municipalities to choose larger transnational RFP respondents. Under the proposed agreement, as we understand its terms, unsuccessful corporate bidders may have the right to challenge a municipality's decision in awarding a contract. For us this would mean significant litigation risks and increased administrative costs, as local governments are forced to report on and defend procurement choices and respond to legal or administrative appeals of those choices. We understand too that CETA suggests that local governments might even have to compensate unsuccessful bidders if a court finds that CETA procedures and rules were not strictly observed.
You'll note that throughout my remarks, I've said over and over again phrases like “maybe”, “could mean”, “might include”, “we understand that”. This is all because of the remarkable lack of information, or detailed information, that has been available to us about CETA and its terms up until very recently.
That leads to the last concern I'll address today. As a facilitator, I find a particularly exasperating aspect of these negotiations to be the lack of transparency or inclusion of the municipal or citizen voice. While we may be facing something like reduced control of water resources, restricted procurement policies, and increased administrative and legal costs, this agreement may pass all these potential burdens on to municipal governments and taxpayers already lurching under the weight of federal and provincial off-loading. It may do so, it seems to us, without its author, the federal government, having had a strategic conversation with the people who will be left dealing with many of the day-to-day effects of CETA.
In the face of this shift of authority and the plethora of limitations on local governments' democratic capacity, I would argue that the federal government has—so far—failed to adequately engage municipal governments in the dialogue about CETA. Federal government leaders have an obligation to provide objective information about CETA's costs and benefits for municipalities, and municipalities should have a meaningful opportunity for input before negotiations conclude.
I want to be clear that Victoria understands that there could be potential benefits to municipalities and their residents from CETA, but we haven't been engaged sufficiently to be able to make an informed analysis, comment, or decision.
At the start of my remarks, I noted that both UBCM and FCM have taken positions on CETA. It's important to remember that as long ago as 2010, UBCM delegates endorsed a resolution that specifically addressed the negotiations then ongoing between the governments of Canada and Europe. UBCM was concerned at that time that the European Union and corporations were insisting on full access to procurement by subnational governments and agencies like municipalities, school boards, universities, hospitals, airports, transit authorities, and other organizations. As stewards of the municipal purse, UBCM said then that an agreement like this could reduce or eliminate the right of a city to specify local publicly funded investment in goods, services, or capital projects.
UBCM worried that cities could lose the right to make their own spending decisions, that the federal government was not listening, and that negotiations were taking place in private without input from local governments. They called for our provincial government to negotiate a permanent exemption for local governments from CETA. This call for a municipal exemption is the cornerstone of Victoria's own resolution.
As I said at the start of my remarks, Victoria is not opposed to trade and its supporting agreements. We believe municipalities should consider the larger issues that permeate any discussion of international trade, and should resist any blind adherence to protectionism. But within that consideration, municipalities must not overlook or relinquish their obligation to ensure that local decisions can still be made by local decision-makers for the good of local communities. Without being privy to the exact terms of CETA, my council and I are concerned that this agreement is undermining that obligation. From what we know, CETA weakens local decision-making autonomy and restricts our ability to make decisions that support our local economy. It too easily opens debate about who makes decisions on important municipal issues like water ownership, procurement policies, administrative expenses, and resource allocation. Our civic governments deserve to be heard and respected, and this process has done neither.
It is with these assertions that Victoria city council unanimously endorsed the resolution that I've shared with you today. We remain hopeful that the federal government's decision to hold these hearings indicates a desire on your part to now include municipalities in negotiating the final terms for CETA.
We reiterate our request that the City of Victoria, like many other municipalities, be exempted from CETA, and further ask that the federal government protect the city from any restrictions to its autonomous powers that might remain in any final terms of the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement.
I thank you for your time today, and I look forward to your questions.