Update On Hearings At Trade Committee Re SPP From NDP MP Peter Julian

http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3§ion_id=768&template_id=179&lang=e Saturday, May 12 at 1AM ET / Friday, May 11 at 10PM PT Standing Committee on International Trade Members convened on May 1 to discuss Canada-U.S. Trade and Investment Issues and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The witnesses were David C. Adams from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, Mary Anderson and Carol Osmond from the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, and Maude Barlow from the Council of Canadians. Sunday, May 13 at 12PM ET / 9AM PT Standing Committee on International Trade Members convened on May 3 to discuss Canada-U.S. Trade and Investment Issues and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The witnesses were Teresa Healy from the Canadian Labour Congress, Ron Lennox from the Canadian Trucking Alliance, Normand Pépin from the Quebec Network on Continental Integration, Michael Hart from Carleton University, and Nancy Burrows from the Quebec Network on Continental Integration. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAY 10, 2007 HARPER SHOULD HEED PARKLAND INSTITUTE’S ADVICE ON CANADA’S ENERGY SECURITY: NDP OTTAWA – Today, NDP International Trade Critic Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) and NDP Energy Critic Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic) came out in full support of the Parkland Institute which called on the Harper Government to establish a policy of energy security for Canada. Political economist Gordon Laxer, Director of the Parkland Institute, was in Ottawa appearing before the Standing Committee on International Trade for the hearings around the SPP. Laxer urged the Harper government not to negotiate further concessions on Canadian energy sovereignty to the Bush administration through the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) – deep integration. "The real goal of the SPP is more about integrating Canada into the American way of doing things," Laxer said. "Rather than pledging allegiance to U.S. energy security behind closed doors, Canada should look after the security needs of Canadians first." The NDP succeeded in obtaining hearings to discuss the impact of the SPP on Canada’s sovereignty and on the lack of transparency and democratic debate around this process. The SPP was initiated by the Liberal government of Paul Martin, and has been continued by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. "The Parkland Institute has clearly shown that the sell-out of our energy sector has profound implications for Canadians," said Julian. "We simply cannot allow the continued surrender of Canada’s important energy resources." As part of the SPP, the Bush administration is pushing for greater control of Canada’s energy resources. In fact, the proportionality clause of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) means that the United States has the right of first and exclusive access to Canadian energy resources, even in the event of a critical national supply shortage. "The uncontrolled approach to the sale of our natural gas supplies over the past decade under NAFTA is going to leave Canadians relying on foreign supplies in the future," said Bevington. The SPP agenda includes reducing protection in over 300 areas, including pesticide use, food safety and air safety, as well as central control from Washington over Canadian national resources – including energy. The NDP reiterated its call for a full and accountable public debate to expose the agenda around the SPP. The NDP will continue to propose an ethical and fair trade model of international trade while pushing for full parliamentary oversight and public disclosure of SPP. - 30 -For more information, please contact: Office of Peter Julian: 613-992-4214 juliap@parl.gc.ca Office of Dennis Bevington: 613-992-2131 bevind0@parl.gc.ca POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE LE 10 MAI 2007 LA SÉCURITÉ ÉNERGÉTIQUE DU CANADA : HARPER DOIT TENIR COMPTE DES CONSEILS DU PARKLAND INSTITUTE, DIT LE NPD OTTAWA – Aujourd’hui, le critique du NDP en matière de commerce international, Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster), et le critique du NPD en matière d’énergie, Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic), se sont dits d’accord avec le Parkland Institute, qui a exhorté le gouvernement Harper à établir une politique de sécurité énergétique pour le Canada. L’économiste politique Gordon Laxer, qui est président du Parkland Institute, se trouvait à Ottawa pour comparaître devant le Comité permanent sur le commerce international dans le cadre des audiences sur le PSP. M. Laxer a exhorté le gouvernement Harper à ne pas accepter plus de concessions pour la souveraineté canadienne sur le plan de l’énergie au profit de l’administration Bush par le biais du Partenariat nord-américain pour la sécurité et la prospérité (PSP), à savoir l’intégration profonde. « L’objectif véritable du PSP est d’obliger le Canada à faire les choses à l’américaine », a dit M. Laxer. « Plutôt que de faire un serment d’allégeance à la sécurité énergétique des États-Unis à huis clos, le Canada devrait veiller aux besoins énergétiques du Canada d’abord et avant tout. » Le NPD a réussi à obtenir la tenue d’audiences pour discuter des conséquences du PSP pour la souveraineté canadienne et du manque de transparence et de débat démocratique dans ce processus. Le PSP a été initié par le gouvernement libéral de Paul Martin, et se poursuit sous le gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper. « Le Parkland Institut a démontré sans l’ombre d’un doute que la trahison de notre secteur énergétique aura des conséquences importantes pour l’ensemble des Canadiens », a dit le député Julian. « Il ne faut pas que le Canada continue de renoncer à nos ressources énergétiques. » Dans le cadre du PSP, l’administration Bush exerce une pression pour contrôler les ressources énergétiques du Canada dans une plus grande mesure. En réalité, en vertu de la clause de proportionnalité de l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (l’ALÉNA), les États-Unis ont le droit d’utiliser les ressources énergétiques canadiennes exclusivement et en premier lieu, même s’il y a une pénurie critique d’énergie à l’échelle nationale. « À cause de la vente non contrôlée de notre gaz naturel depuis dix ans en vertu de l’ALÉNA, les Canadiens devront dépendre d’énergie provenant de l’étranger à l’avenir », a souligné le député Bevington. Le programme du PSP comprend une protection assouplie dans plus de 300 domaines, dont l’usage des pesticides, la sécurité alimentaire, la sécurité aérienne et le contrôle centralisé américain des ressources nationales canadiennes, y compris l’énergie. Le NPD a exigé encore une fois un débat transparent et public en vue de faire la lumière sur le programme du PSP. Le NPD continuera de proposer un modèle de commerce international loyal et éthique, tout en exerçant une pression pour que le Parlement surveille le PSP et pour que le programme soit totalement divulgué au public. - 30 -Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez contacter : Bureau de Peter Julian : 613-992-4214 juliap@parl.gc.ca Bureau de Dennis Bevington : 613-992-2131 bevind0@parl.gc.ca _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Duplicates: * Ottawa Citizen * Montreal Gazette PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal DATE: 2007.05.11 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A6 ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Journal Stock / (Leon) Benoit; KEYWORDS: POLITICAL PARTIES; POLITICIANS; POLITICS DATELINE: OTTAWA SOURCE: Ottawa Citizen; CanWest News Service WORD COUNT: 393 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tory MPs storm out of meeting on energy sharing; Canada left short to aid U.S., says professor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTTAWA - Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs on Thursday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S. The firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left "to freeze in the dark" if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America. He was testifying on behalf of the Alberta-based Parkland Institute about concerns with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a 2005 accord by the U.S., Canada and Mexico to streamline economic and security rules across the continent. The deal, which calls North American "energy security" a priority, commits Canada to ensuring American energy supplies even though Canada itself -- unlike most industrialized nations -- has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, he argued. At that point, Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Commons Standing Committee on International Trade which was holding the SPP hearings, ordered Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant. Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Benoit's ruling. Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, "This meeting is adjourned," and stormed out, followed by three of the panel's four Conservative members. The remaining members voted to finish the meeting, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding. Benoit's actions are virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, parliamentary procedure experts still hadn't figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally. Benoit did not respond to calls for comment. It's "reckless and irresponsible" of the government not to discuss protecting Canada's energy supply, says Laxer. Atlantic Canada and Quebec already have to import 90 per cent of their supply -- 45 per cent of it from potentially unstable sources such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Algeria, Laxer said. Meanwhile, Canada is exporting 63 per cent of its oil and 56 per cent of its gas production, mostly to the U.S., he says. "It's shocking the extent to which the Conservative party will go to cover up information about the SPP," says NDP MP Peter Julian, who also sits on the committee. Other MPs raised concerns about recently revealed plans under the SPP to raise Canadian limits on pesticide residues to match American rules. Questions were also raised about whether the effort will open the door to bulk water exports. Representatives from the departments of Industry and International Trade defended the SPP as an effort to protect Canadian jobs in a competitive global market, without sacrificing standards. They denied charges SPP negotiations have been secretive, saying civil-society groups are welcome to offer their input, and referred MPs to the government website. CANADA Standing Committee on International Trade Comité permanent du commerce international EVIDENCE number 59, Témoignages du comité numéro 59 UNEDITED COPY - COPIE NON ÉDITÉE PUBLIC PART ONLY - PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - Le mardi 1er mai 2007 * * * Á (1105) [English] The Chair (Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC)): Good morning, everyone. We're here today to continue with the study on Canada-U.S. trade, and dealing with investment issues and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. We have, as our witnesses today, from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, David Adams, president; from the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, Mary Anderson, president; and Carol Osmond, senior policy advisor. And we have, from Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow, national chairperson. We will start with the presentations. I will enforce the eight-minute limit on presentations. They've been kind of getting a little bit longer and a little bit longer over the past few meetings, so I'd ask you to respect the eight-minute time limit. When you're finished, we'll go directly to questions. We will go in the order you are on the agenda, so starting with David Adams, for eight minutes. Mr. David Adams (President, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada): Mr. Chairman, Honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to review Canada-U.S. trade and investment issues and the security and prosperity partnership. By way of background, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada is the national trade association that represents the Canadian interests of 13 international automobile manufacturers that distribute, market, and manufacture vehicles in Canada. In 2006, AIAMC members sold over 733,000 new vehicles in Canada, representing 45.4% of Canada's new vehicle market. Additionally, our members sold 61% of all passenger cars in Canada. While our members' sales have grown, so has their Canadian investment. AIAMC members have invested over $6 billion in manufacturing facilities alone. Annual production reached a record 900,839 new vehicles in 2006 out of the 2.58 million vehicles produced by the three member companies with production facilities in Canada, which are Honda, Toyota, and Suzuki through a 50/50 joint venture with General Motors and Ingersoll. While the majority, 77%, of the vehicles produced by our member companies are exported out of the country, almost exclusively to the United States, each of these companies sell more of the vehicles they build in Canada to Canadians. For instance, 45% of Honda and Acura vehicles sold in Canada were produced at Honda of Canada Manufacturing and 36% of Toyota and Lexus vehicles sold in Canada were built at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada. Further, compared to other companies producing in Canada, these three companies have a higher percentage of their NAFTA production in Canada While many would view the membership of the AIAMC as being "importers", in the context of the NAFTA, fully 50% of AIAMC members sales in Canada in 2006 were produced in the NAFTA region and when Kia's recently announced $1.2 billion plant is open for full production in 2009, Porsche will be the only one our 13 members not producing vehicles in the NAFTA region. If we look specifically at Canada, which is a necessary thing to do in light of some of the SPP initiatives, it is important to remember that Canada has no indigenous auto manufacturers. All auto manufacturers manufacturing in Canada are subsidiaries of multi-national companies, and whether those companies have their head offices in Detroit, Stuttgart, or Tokyo they are all foreign-owned, some have just been operating here longer. The SPP is comprised of about 107 key initiatives, 80 of which are oriented towards prosperity, as I'm sure you're aware, and 27 of which are oriented towards security. There are about 300 work items associated with those 107 key initiatives. With respect to automotive industry and the members of the AIAMC, the issues pertaining to border facilitation, the development of a regulatory cooperation framework, and national critical infrastructure protection and emergency preparedness are of significance. The first two items I mentioned were to be pursued sectorally under the auspice of the Automotive Partnership Council of North America, which was originally intended to support the ongoing competitiveness of the automotive and auto parts sectors. Patterned after the Canadian Automotive partnership Council, this initiative was to be up and running in late 2005, but membership and governance issues have hampered its development. The issues the APCNA was envisioned to champion however, have advanced independently without council's formation. In the interest of time, I'll skip down a little further. As noted earlier, the vast majority of Canadian vehicle production is exported to the U.S. and likewise the vast majority of vehicles that Canadians buy are imported from the U.S., Asia, and Europe. With respect to border facilitation, trade in automotive goods accounts for 25% of all two-way trade between Canada and the United States. The ease with which parts and components move across the border is an important component of an integrated North American supply chain. Unlike perhaps any other industry, 9/11 added cost, complexity and thickness, to the Canadian border as security measures were imposed on cross border traffic. While many manufacturers have become FAST and CTPAT approved to achieve low-risk status, the full benefits of those programs remain in many cases unrealized. While there are now 20 border crossings with FAST capability access to those FAST booths at major border crossings has not yet been resolved. With respect to cross border trade facilitation, it is widely acknowledged that pre-clearance away from the border, prior to arrival at the border streamlines border crossings and minimizes the delay. However, it has become apparent just last week that land pre-clearance still requires some work between the Canadian and U.S. governments for it to move forward, but we remain optimistic. Areas of concern to border facilitation is the imposition of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that will come into place no later than July 2009, which will require citizens who leave and enter the U.S. to produce secure identification document. Á (1110) While the American administration has suggested that it will show some flexibility, this requirement has the potential to cause significant backlogs at the border crossings. With respect to the regulatory framework, differing standards and regulations can be significant inhibitors to trade. The AIAMC and its member companies are aware that the North American Competitiveness Council has focused much of its work on the development of a trilateral regulatory framework for cooperation with a target date for realization prior to the end of this year. As an industry that is highly integrated on a North American basis, the concept of making standards and regulations in all three countries more compatible, as well as eliminating the need for redundant testing and certification procedures, is something we can fully support. Given its relatively small market size compared to the U.S., Canada has about 8% of the total North American auto market, Canada has always worked closely with U.S. regulators in both safety and emissions regulatory development. There have been 14 voluntary agreements between the automotive industry and the Government of Canada that will assist in creating regulatory alignment with the United States. These voluntary agreements have allowed Canadian consumers to benefit from the most advanced safety and emissions technologies in vehicles at the lowest possible cost. Whether the standards are motor vehicle safety standards or fuel economy and emission standards, given that the vehicles offered for sale are essentially the same in Canada as the United States, there is no compelling reason why such standards should be different. Thus, we support the notion of the three countries working together to develop regulations that are as compatible as possible. This joint regulatory development process should also include the regulation of fuel quality. The automobile operates as a system and the emissions control hardware on a vehicle will only operate as effectively as the quality of fuel that is combusted in the vehicle. In this regard, we were pleased to learn last week that Transport Canada and the Department of Transportation in the United States has signed a Memorandum of Cooperation concerning the research and development of a North American fuel economy standard. The objective as we understand it is to underpin the development of a stringent, dominant, North American fuel economy standard for regulation beginning in 2011. A fuel economy regulation for Canada that is aligned with that of the United States provides the least disruption in the marketplace and best balances consumers' purchasing requirements pertaining to vehicle utility, safety, fuel economy, and emissions. The AIAMC and its member companies with respect to critical infrastructure protection and emergency preparedness view this as critical. We're not only referring to border crossings, but also to electricity generation, oil pipelines, dams, and telecommunications in each country. We need to have protection strategies in place as quickly as possible. Due to the integrated nature of the North American economy, a failure in the critical infrastructure components of any one country is likely to have a significant impact on trade and business in each of the other North American countries. Likewise, it is important for North American countries to establish individually and collectively an emergency preparedness plan so that in the event of an incident emergency response officials know what needs to be done and how they can work together with a view to being very quickly able to address the human needs and within time to be in a position to outline when commerce can be recommenced, based on the establishment of pre-incident protocols. I do have some other comments with respect to the actual recommendations of the committee, but in the interest of time, I'd be happy to answer questions on those later on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Á (1115) The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Adams. On to Ms. Anderson. You're presenting on behalf of the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, I believe. Go ahead, please, for eight minutes. Mrs. Mary Anderson (President, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters): As president of I.E. Canada, the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters, I'd like to thank you on behalf of the members for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss Canada-U.S. trade and investment issues. Joining me today is Carol Osmond, the senior policy advisor for the association. I.E. Canada has been the leading voice of the trade community since 1932. It serves small, medium, and large enterprises across Canada. Membership comprises importers and exporters, as well as a range of service providers to Canada's trade community. We have a growing membership that now exceeds 800. In a recent survey conducted by Export Development Canada, EDC, 85% of 1,500 Canadian business executives surveyed agreed that international trade is important and a significant contributor to Canada's economy. However, no longer can simply expanding exports improve competitiveness. Imports are also an important engine of the Canadian economy. The import content used to make up Canadian exports has been growing steadily, with 61% of Canadian exporters indicating that their companies' exports of products or services include imported component materials. If Canadian companies are to be globally competitive, there is a need to be able to use both imports and exports. Therefore, in developing a Canadian trade policy, it is important to take into consideration that Canadian competitiveness depends on global supply chains as many inputs are incorporated into those products from both domestic consumption as well as export to the United States and elsewhere are sourced globally. Given the nature of our association and its membership, our trading relationship with the United States, and especially our shared border, it is clearly a key area of concern. Our association is a supporter of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America; in particular, of initiatives intended to facilitate the movement of low-risk goods and persons across the Canada-U.S. border. Even before the tragic events of 9/11, Canadian business was becoming increasingly concerned about delays associated with, and costs of crossing the Canada-U.S. border and the impact of Canadian competitiveness. At the time, our challenge was to convince the U.S. government that the border was a problem that deserved its attention. We could never have foreseen how suddenly and dramatically our shared border would become a priority for the United States. There are still those in the United States who believe 9/11 terrorists entered the United States through Canada. The prosperity of Canadians and our ability to maintain and create jobs depends on our ability to trade, and in particular, our ability to trade with the United States. Whether we like it or not, the U.S. will set the terms for access to its market. Today, access to the U.S. market increasingly means satisfying U.S. concerns about security. Through mechanisms like the SPP, the Canadian government has the means of influencing the measures adopted by the U.S. to ensure that the interests of Canadians and Canadian business are taken into consideration. The cross-border relationships between businesses and associations such as those being developed through the North American Competitiveness Council, as well as independently through our sister associations in the two countries, like I.E. Canada's relationship with the American Association of Exporters and Importers, are also crucial to influencing U.S. decision-makers. We have to be constantly vigilant. Laws passed in the United States impact Canadians and have unanticipated ramifications. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the new APHIS, or Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service fees are just two examples of initiatives that threaten and undermine the efforts to thin our border. However, it's not just maintaining access to the United States' market, as pointed out earlier in the remarks by a representative of the Canadian Chamber before this committee last week. Canadians and Americans not only trade with one another, they also manufacture together. Since NAFTA, some 13 years ago, large sections of our economies have become highly integrated and our industries are becoming truly North American. Thirty-four per cent of bilateral shipments of goods are comprised of inter-company trade, and over 70% are comprised of inter-industry trade. To compete against emerging economic titans like China and India, Canada and the United States and Mexico have no other choice but to work together. Á (1120) We recognize that members of this committee are concerned about transparency of the SPP process. There are over 300 action items under the SPP, i.e. Canada works most closely with the Canada Border Services Agency which is involved with 100 of these. CBSA has had to establish priorities which, fortunately, largely coincide with those of our members and they include: implementation of an advanced commercial information or an E-manifest to which the government recently committed $369 million over the next five years; establishment of bilateral border contingency and business resumption plans in the event of a pandemic, natural disaster or terrorist act and whether this could impact either a partial or a complete shutdown of the border; and, making Canadian Partners in Protection, PIP, compatible with the U.S. Customs and Border Partnership Against Terrorism which will hopefully result with mutual recognition of these two programs. Members of our association have been involved and will continue to be involved actively in these consultations relating to these issues. We're a member of the CBSA steering committee on external stakeholder partnerships. That network has been established by CBSA to develop consulting with the trade community. We've been involved in a variety of other projects with CBSA, including border contingency planning. We have our members that have participated in table top exercises and our association has been part of the PIP program to make it compatible with C-TPAT. We are participating in consultations with Transport Canada on air cargo security and we believe that this ensures success of these initiatives. It's essential to consult members of the trade community so that their concerns and business realities can be taken into consideration. We're very pleased with the excellent working relationship that we have with CBSA. We're also pleased with the level of consultation by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives which, as you know, serves as the Canadian secretariat for the NAT. As it was preparing its report on enhancing competitiveness in Canada, Mexico and the United States, we were able to ensure that our members' concerns and priorities with respect to the border were incorporated into the report. We also contributed to the section on standards and regulatory cooperation, particularly in the areas of food and agriculture and intellectual property rights. Other key areas of concern for our members in addition to those mentioned above include border infrastructure. Our members are less concerned about border release times than the time it takes to reach the custom inspection booth to do inadequate infrastructure at the leading points of entry at the ports. Other government departments, or OGDs, it is critical that other government departments on both sides of the border participate in programs to make the customs clearance fully electronic. It is also important that the government agencies and departments involved in security programs like CBSA and Transport Canada coordinate their efforts to avoid unnecessary duplication and cost of business. Transportation policy. A hefty surge in imports and exports during the last few years has been good news for Canada as it's created jobs and economic growth. However, it also revealed the shortcomings in the country's transportation infrastructure and policies that need to be dealt with if Canada is to continue to be a player in world trade. It is appropriate that this committee take an interest in the SPP. We urge you to support the work that is being conducted by governments of the NAFTA countries under the SPP and in particular, initiatives that will facilitate the movement of low risk goods and people across our shared border with the United States. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today and we'd be very pleased to answer questions. Á (1125) The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Anderson from the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. Now from the Council of Canadians, Maude Barlow. Go ahead for eight minutes, please. Ms. Maude Barlow (National Chairperson, Council of Canadians): Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you here today. Council of Canadians is Canada's largest public advocacy organization. We have been working on the Security and Prosperity Partnership since before it was signed into effect in Wako, in March, 2005, in fact since it was a twinkle in Tom d'Aquino's eye. Security and Prosperity Partnership is not, as its proponents claim, about eliminating the tyranny of small differences among the three NAFTA countries. It is, quite literally, we believe, about eliminating Canada's ability to determine independent regulatory standards, environmental protections, energy security, foreign, military and immigration and other policies. We could speak on any of these, and I'm going to choose just to speak briefly on just three. The first is the failure of the democratic process. A major concern of our organization, and many Canadians—and we think should be of yours—is that the SPP process has been done without any parliamentary debate or public input. To date, the only stakeholders involved or consulted in the SPP process have been representatives of big business. Apparently when it comes to the future of North America, the public doesn't count, nor do elected officials, who, according to SPP documents, are only to be briefed after decisions are made. In a move that cements the primacy of big business in this process, the North American Competitiveness Council was created at the second of the meetings of the heads of state. In their own words, the NACC was created “to engage substantively and pragmatically on trade and security issues without undue deference to political sensitivities”. Ron Covais, of Lockheed Martin, one of the major companies of the NACC, told Maclean's magazine last fall, “we've decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes... because we won't get anywhere”. This came home to us last month when we met with senior officials of the U.S. Embassy, at their request, to talk about what our concerns were. At that time the officials told us clearly that there was no appetite, and I quote, “for another bruising NAFTA battle”, and that that was the reason that the SPP was not going before the legislatures of the three countries. I don't think there is any greater proof of the appalling lack of democracy that has characterized the SPP process than we should learn from the U.S. Embassy why the SPP is being withheld from Parliament. On the other hand, representatives of big business, who are driving this process, remain fully involved. All of Canada's representatives on NACC are members of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, led by Tom d'Aquino, who also co-chaired the original Task Force on the Future of North American that helped launch the SPP back in 2004-2005. That task force's recommendations, among many others, called for a North American resource strategy and was tabled only weeks before the SPP was signed in Wako, Texas. The second concern we have is around our water. While the NACC and our current government vehemently insist there are no discussions on Canadian bulk water exports currently under way, minutes from that original task force meeting clearly showed that they were talking about it. These minutes got leaked to us at the Council of Canadians. They said, and I quote: The three governments were likely to meet with stiff resistance on Canadian water and Mexican oil, and they were therefore best considered long-term goals and the task force members agreed that contentious or intractable issues would simply require more time to ripen politically. Since then there have been a number of other statements made from American think tanks about Canada's water. Documents obtained by the Council of Canadians just several weeks ago describe a closed-door meeting of government officials and business representatives from the three countries which took place last Friday in Calgary, where clearly bulk water exports were to be discussed. Under the title “North American Future 2025 Project”, the U.S. Centre for Strategic and International Studies, in collaboration with the Conference Board of Canada and a Mexican research institute, CIDE, were sponsoring a series of seven closed-door round-table meetings, and this is their mandate, “...to strengthen the capacity of Canadian, U.S and Mexican administrative officials, and that of their respective legislators, to analyze, comprehend and anticipate North American integration”. Á (1130) One of the round tables, the one that was held on Friday, talked about creative solutions beyond the current transboundary water arrangements, which we are presuming means the Treaty Act of 1909, and water consumption, water transfers, and artificial diversions of bulk water with the aim of achieving joint optimum utilization of the available water. It's very clear that what they're talking about is that Canadian water would now be North American water, just the way that Canadian oil and gas is North American now. These meetings, which have been funded in part by the U.S. government and the private sector, and this was also confirmed to us by the U.S. Embassy, are about drafting policy, not making recommendations. According to the leaked documents, all three governments have agreed there would be a tremendous benefit to the current decision makers if a round table on border issues can serve “as the underpinnings to develop a blueprint for future border infrastructure and logistic systems as it relates to labour mobility, energy, the environment” by which they mean water, “security, and competitiveness”. This report is to be reviewed twice by the governments and then it will be re-submitted in English, French, and Spanish with the aim of maximizing policy impact. Very briefly, we are also very concerned about the resource pact on energy. We are now sending well over 60% of our oil and gas to the United States, up from 25% before we signed the North American Free Trade Agreement, in which we signed a proportional sharing agreement. The problem with the North American Resource Strategy proposed by the SPP is that it leaves Canadians victims of an official policy that renders Canada not only unwilling, but unable to provide for the energy needs of its country and its citizens now and in the future. It programs the Canadian government to fail in any effort to meet the international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol as well as Parliament's obligations to its citizens to ensure that our natural resources are managed in the public interest. The push under the SPP and NAFTA to serve the corporate as opposed to the public interest explains as much as anyone needs to have it explained our current government's failure and refusal to develop a national environmental policy which would serve both Canada and its citizens. I'll leave you with four recommendations that we are calling for. We believe we have broad support for this across the country. We're asking that the Government of Canada cease all talks leading toward deeper integration between Canada and the United States until there has been meaningful public consultation on the issue. We want full disclosure of a complete listing of the security and prosperity partnership working groups and the minutes of their meetings. We call on the government to disband the North American Competitiveness Council. Corporation such as Manulife Financial, Home Depot, Wal-mart, and Lockheed Martin should not have a say in shaping the economic policy between Canada and the United States and Canada's economic, social, and environmental policy here. Finally, we're saying bring the security and prosperity partnership to the House of Commons for a full debate and a vote. The current government has promised that “significant international treaties will be submitted to votes in Parliament”. We submit the security and prosperity partnership with North America goes further than NAFTA and is going to have a more profound influence on Canada and that we have the right to a debate and a full democratic process in our House of Commons. Thank you very much. Á (1135) The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Barlow. I would ask that you table with the committee the documents you referred to in your presentation. We'll go directly to the questioning, starting with Mr. Bains from the Official Opposition. Go ahead for seven minutes. Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Thank you very much, chair. I want to thank all of you for your presentations and again bringing very clear perspectives of the SPP. It's got a very clear-cut mandate that we all recognize. We've been talking about the importance that the security and prosperity partnership has in terms of cooperation and information sharing for better integration and you alluded to that in terms of our export and how important imports are becoming of that export component. I recognize that this is not a treaty or an accord and this is nothing similar to what NAFTA is in terms of a binding agreement, however, there are issues around transparency and accountability and I believe Ms. Barlow has alluded to those concerns. My question is for Mr. Adams and Ms. Anderson. In terms of the changes, in the past many of the committee members have discussed and said these are just incremental changes, these are very small initiatives, these are just harmonizing issues, these are regulatory issues, they're not major issues per se. If you look at it in your presentation, Mr. Adams, you allude to 107 key initiatives that are currently being discussed under the SPP and that there's 300 work items associated with those 107 key initiatives. My view is that they're incremental changes, but they will have a profound impact overall once you combine all the initiatives when they take full effect. Do you share that viewpoint, or do you still believe that there's incremental changes and they're not as profound as people make them out to be? Mr. David Adams: I think in terms of the goal of the SPP, it's to try and have the whole North American economy, as I said, work in a more efficient and effective way. I think with respect to those issues that directly impinge upon the automotive industry, for instance, some standards harmonization issues, motor vehicle safety standards, for instance, in our view those are minor changes that just need to be brought into alignment. Hon. Navdeep Bains: Sorry to interrupt, so the 14 changes, for instance, that you've indicated, there have been 14 voluntary agreements between the automotive industry and the Government of Canada, but you believe they're small changes? They're not major changes, just incremental changes? Mr. David Adams: Let me just take you back for a second to 1965 when the Auto Pact was signed, which basically put the two economies together in terms of the automotive industry. From that perspective, we had an integrated North American automotive industry and since that time, really, the automotive industry in Canada has taken its lead from regulatory activity in the U.S. rather than put in our own regulations. In some cases in any event we merely adopt those regulations through a Memorandum of Understanding to have put in place the regulations that have been put in place in the United States already. So that process has worked well, and as I said in my remarks, I think the beneficiaries of that type of process have been the consumers who have the most technologically advanced vehicles, the safest vehicles, at the lowest possible cost in the marketplace. Hon. Navdeep Bains: I guess the other question, and Ms. Anderson if you can speak to that, is the common understanding is not the standards vis-à-vis just the United States, but also comparing our standards with Mexico. There's a discrepancy and disparity in terms of the quality of standards and regulations that we have in Canada versus, say, Mexico. If we start to harmonize those in small incremental changes, does that overall improve our regulatory standards or does that compromise Canada's position? Mrs. Mary Anderson: I think what you've addressed is actually an interesting point. Although the security prosperity partnership has the opportunity to work within the NAFTA area, that is Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, it is possible that any two jurisdictions can work. So if they are more aligned or closer, they can work together. There isn't the need to have all three at once. So I think this allows a leadership role in taking into effect ones that are already available and ready to go on. Á (1140) Hon. Navdeep Bains: Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman, do I have time? The Chair: You have three minutes. Hon. Navdeep Bains: Okay, perfect. Ms. Barlow, you talked about very (inaud) water, and that's an issue that I raised at the last committee as well, water diversion and the fact that selling Canada's water supply and making it North American, that is a major concern. You wrote about that and have raised that in the past as well. Could you elaborate on how serious you think that is? I know you touched upon it in your comments, but when we spoke to witnesses in the past, they said it wasn't on the table. It's not something serious. When you say it's going to be discussed in the foreseeable future, do you have an estimation of the timeline? Do you see how this will unfold, or is it sheer speculation? Ms. Maude Barlow: There are two things I would say. First of all, it's become quite clear only recently how serious the water crisis in the United States actually is. There's a new Environmental Protection Agency report that says that 36 states are in crisis. The issue of water as a national security issue has moved up to the top of the political agenda in the United States. The same CSIS, the same group, the American Research Institute that is the American component of this Futures 2025, was also tasked the same year to put something called the Global Water Futures together, which is a whole blueprint for the United States government on water, both water around the world where there are going to be conflicts, and also where the United States is going to get water. So suddenly the United States is looking at water like it's looking at energy, and realizing that you can't be a superpower if you don't have both. So they are beginning to take this very, very seriously, and they're looking north to us, and they're looking south down to the Guarani aquifer in South America, which are the two places. The concern that we have is that we don't have water to spare. It is a myth that we have 20% of the world's water. You'd have to drain every lake and river. We have about 7%. More importantly, that water is in huge rivers that run north, in the north, so to shift to really move massive amounts of water, we would have to introduce huge engineering feats that would have to reverse the flow of that water and it would have to be taken by pipeline. There's no other way that would be cost effective, and it would be very expensive, but so is running out of water if you're a state like California. I think the openness with which the head of this team, this CSIS group in the United States, spoke to the media last week and said, “Yes, of course we're interested in your water”, does the sun come up in the morning, kind of thing, he didn't even understand why there would be a concern about it. In October, the Global Water & Energy Strategy Team, which is a Washington-based group, was at a business meeting in Calgary and they said there would be water flowing from northern Canada within five years. They're working with some think-tank groups and energy organizations in Manitoba, and they were talking about the first exports from northern Manitoba. So I think the political resistance will hold it off for awhile, but I think it's only a matter of time before we're really going to have a full-blown discussion on this. Hon. Navdeep Bains: What about your-- The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bains. Your time is up. We will go now to the Bloc Québécois, Monsieur André, for seven minutes. [Français] M. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Bonjour à tous. J'écoutais vos propos madame Barlow sur la question de l'eau. Vous savez que présentement ça fait partie de certains ordres du jour, comme vous avez dit de certains états américains de se procurer de l'eau. Et nous, nous en avons. Une rencontre aura lieu prochainement à Calgary avec le gouvernement pour discuter un peu de la problématique de l'eau. Première question, selon vous, où en sont-ils rendus avec les négociations de la vente éventuelle de l'eau en vrac? Deuxième question, le Conseil canadien des chefs d'entreprise (CCCE) qui, selon moi, est le Programme de sécurité, sous Partenariat nord américain pour la sécurité et la prospérité. La semaine dernière nous avons rencontré des gens de ce programme et l'un de leurs objectifs était d'harmoniser un peu les systèmes de santé et social des trois pays. Toutefois lorsqu'on regarde les membres du Programme de sécurité, sous Partenariat nord américain pour la sécurité et la prospérité, plusieurs de ses entreprises ont des intérêts dans les trois pays. Ce sont des multinationales. Dans cette perspective, comment peut-on voir ce qui pourrait défendre à la fois les intérêts du Canada et du Québec, et en même temps tenter d'harmoniser davantage les systèmes de santé et social. Troisième question, rapidement, la dépendance. Vous avez indiqué dans votre rapport, les autres pourront également se prononcer sur les propos, notre grande dépendance à l'exportation vis-à-vis les Américains. Actuellement, il y a certains secteurs d'activités comme l'agriculture, par exemple, le domaine manufacturier, je pense particulièrement au secteur du meuble, les secteurs plus mous, le textile que nous n'avons plus. Il y a beaucoup d'exportation de meubles vers les États-Unis, et il semble y avoir une tendance à continuer dans cette perspective-là, alors qu'il pourrait y avoir d'autres marchés plus lointains. On dirait que le réflexe est d'aller davantage vers les États-Unis parce que c'est une coutume, une façon de faire, je vous laisserai un peu aller sur l'explication de celle-là. Pourquoi hésitons-nous encore à aller vers d'autres moyens d'exportations ailleurs? Pourquoi continuer à faire ce free trade constamment avec les Américains sans trop aller au-delà de cette coutume, et qu'on a de la difficulté à faire des ententes bilatérales avec d'autres pays? Á (1145) Mme Maude Barlow: Je répondrai en anglais, si vous me le permettez. Je comprends le français, mais je suis plus à l'aise en anglais. [English] I'll start with the first. This was always our criticism of NAFTA. One of our criticisms of NAFTA was that it would place Canada in a very vulnerable position to have almost all of our exports—I think it's close to 87% now—going to the United States so that we would then be helpless, or in a very difficult position, if ever there was a reason to close that border, and sure enough this border has been closed. And as my colleagues here have said, this was even starting before 9/11. I would posit that with all we have offered and already given up under the SPP and other processes, it has not helped change that border situation; it's tighter than it even was. As you know, the lineups for passports are so long and there are unmanned drones, American planes, war planes, between the Montana and Canadian borders, for instance. The border security is tightening and everything we seem to do does not seem to change that. So that it is a very serious problem. On your concern about harmonization, our concern around the regulatory convergence is not a more efficient way for my colleagues here to have a good trading system. That's not our concern. Of course that makes sense. What our concern is, is that they have set up cross border committees that are going to make decisions around regulations from seeds to food to health care to social programs to environmental standards that will then be not decided in the Canadian or Quebec parliaments, but rather by these cross border committees, and it's a anti-democratic process. Further, if you look at the regime of George Bush, since he came to power he has deregulated massively in everything from energy to automobile standards to environment. One of the conservation groups said that he has cut 400 environmental programs, for instance. We are harmonizing to a superpower that has massively deregulated in many areas, and, of course, then there's the problem of having Mexico in the mix as well. So we're not talking here about sensible harmonization, nobody could be opposed to that, but we are talking about setting up a process of moving into a race to the bottom. On the current status of water, here's the situation. Under NAFTA we are not forced to export our water. However, once we do start exporting, once any province starts to exports its water, the terms of NAFTA come into being. NAFTA defines water as a good and you're not allowed, under the terms of a trade agreement, to stop the import or export of a good for any reason, even environmental or conservation. So if any province decides to start exporting commercial exports of our water to the United States, the terms of NAFTA say that the Canadian government can't then come in and say no, you can't do that. Mr. Baird, last week, said that Canada had a ban on the export of water. He probably thinks we do, but we don't. What we have is a voluntary agreement with the provinces, which are a mishmash, not all of them have signed it, any one of them could break it, and if anyone breaks it then that water is open from all the provinces to whatever corporation has got into that one province. Moreover, they only banned the transfer of transboundary waters from the Canadian side. But the Americans aren't interested in transboundary water; they're taking what they need from the Great Lakes through the new annex. What they really want is that water in those rivers going north and that's not touched by this. We need a national water act in this country. We need water taken out of NAFTA as an investment, as a good. We need to protect this most previous resource politically, ecologically, and for future generations. Á (1150) The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Barlow. Thank you, merci, Monsieur André. Your time is up. To Mr. Cannan, from the government side, for seven minutes. Go ahead. Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to our presenters this morning. I appreciate your advice and words of wisdom. As the chairman alluded, we've been studying this for a few meetings in trying to provide some direction for our government and all our small manufacturing enterprising businesses throughout Canada who we are very concerned about and protecting jobs for all Canadians. I congratulate you, Ms. Anderson, for your 75th year of business and your organization. I look forward to hearing more with a couple of questions I have. I also want to set the record straight. There's a lot of fear mongering from organizations like Ms. Barlow's. It reminds me of this German proverb: fear makes the wolf bigger than she really is. The fact is that this security prosperity initiative isn't some kind of scary treaty or secret agreement. It's basically a series of common sense discussions with our neighbours. We're trying to work together. If you have a cordial relationship with your next neighbour it's a lot better than adversarial. I think this is what we're trying to do. You need to also realize that about 80% of Canadians live within 160 kilometres of our border and that's what we're looking at. Close to $2 billion worth of trade transfers across the border daily. Those are the jobs of the men and women and Canadians that we're trying to protect . In my own riding of Kelowna—Lake Country in the interior of British Columbia we're not afraid of a seamless border. As a matter of fact, we're looking for a more efficient border. For small business folks, an efficient border saves money. I've got a candle distributor and it took 10 days holding up their distribution at the border. Another manufacturer, and you can look on the shelves in the grocery store for it, put a little plug called Beaver Buzz and it's taking on Red Bullets, an energy drink, but it was stuck at the border for days. It costs money for small enterprises that are trying. These aren't large corporations. These are independent business folks who have broken up as entrepreneurs and invested their hard earned money. They want Canada and Mexico and the U.S. to work together. I think you need to set the record straight and not send out the fear mongering literature that you do. It's very disturbing as Canada is trying to work together in a cooperative manner. I'd like to ask Ms. Anderson and Mr. Adams specifically, do you believe that we need to work closely and collaboratively with the United States to form a strong North American foundation and create borders that are impervious to security risks, but that are thin and non-disruptive for trade and investment to ensure the seamless movement of goods and services? Mrs. Mary Anderson: Ms. Anderson, go ahead first please. Á (1155) The Chair: I certainly agree with your comments and thank you very much. I think we are fortunate to live where we do, geographically positioned to the largest economy in the world. That does allow us the options and opportunities even from small enterprises that are along the border to those of the interior to export their products and create and develop wealth. I think that this particular program of the SPP is one that really does accelerate opportunities to look at ways in which we can harmonize and there are opportunities for improvements. You also raise an excellent point that it's very much on a consultative arrangement among colleagues and friends where you can get more open dialogue and discussion to develop consensus in terms of excellent solutions. I see this as an on-going opportunity for us in Canada to take ideas from the business community. We are a group of small, medium, and large enterprises and we have been consulted. We can bring our ideas forward so that we can have borders that work. I totally agree that there are issues related to the border. It is something we need to address to thin that border so that we can have access to work collaboratively with our U.S. colleagues, especially with other government departments. I understand that you touched on a couple that are very dear to us as well. We would like to look at, for example, some of the areas and opportunities and groups in the United States like the FDA which we might be able to develop a way of looking at allowing FDA accreditation to more labs which would, for example, create expediency if they need to do sample analysis so it doesn't take six weeks. When we create an open dialogue and discussion we can come up with creative solutions. Thank you. Mrs. Mary Anderson: Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Mr. Adams, go ahead. Mr. David Adams: Just briefly to your point. The automotive industry is important to Canada. Automotive investment is critical to Canada. I think one of the things we want to ensure, to your point, is that we don't have a situation where the border becomes an issue in terms of where multinational corporations decide to place their investment. Surely it makes sense to have a border that is seamless, that goods can move back and forth across the border in an expeditious manner unencumbered. I think we are fortunate to have the newest automotive plant investment in 20 years going into Woodstock from Toyota. We want to make sure that we have the situation set up where we can encourage more of that investment into Canada and not have it go solely to the United States. The Chair: Mr. Cannan, you have about minute and a half. Ms. Barlow, the question was directed to-- Mr. Ron Cannan: I just have one supplemental. Thanks. I know I'm very passionate about this because it does affect individuals in my own community and across the country. Ms. Anderson, you mentioned the e-Manifest program. Minister Day, whose riding shares a boundary with mine, made an announcement in January about $400 million put into this e-Manifest program. Could you elaborate on how you think that's going to help some of your members as well as Canadian businesses? Mrs. Mary Anderson: Yes. Carol Osmond will respond as she has been actively involved in that. Ms. Carol Osmond (Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters): The e-Manifest program, or advanced commercial information, is actually one of the key priorities of our association. It's something that has been talked about for 10 years or more. It's not a new initiative. What e-Manifest involves is the advance transmission of information to the Canada Border Services Agency before the mode of transportation reaches our borders, reaches our ports. That will allow the Canada Border Services Agency to do its risk analysis before goods reach the border and decide which of those shipments needs to be inspected. Our members are supportive of that initiative and what they are looking for is to speed up the process for entry of goods into Canada. As part of that process, the United States is implementing a similar program, so what we are trying to do is to ensure that the program we implement in Canada is consistent with the program implemented in the United States. Canadian carriers, for example, have made it very clear that they do not want to have two separate programs. So this is an example of where working with the United States will reduce the cost for Canadian business and ensure that we're not trying to comply with two different programs, investing in two different types of systems and so on. In terms of some of the points that we referred to earlier about it not being a democratic process, in the case of e-Manifest, there was a consultation meeting back in January. There were 150 people who attended that consultative session. While there have been discussions between CBSA and CBP in the United States, in terms of sharing lessons learned, in terms of how they've implemented that system in the U.S., we are also setting up our own consultative framework in Canada so that Canadian business can be consulted, small businesses as well as larger companies, so that the system works for Canadians. Also, if there are any regulations that need to be passed, and we anticipate that there will also be legislative changes, those will have to be brought before the Parliament of Canada. So these decisions are not just made in working groups between Canada and the United States. The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Osmond, and thank you, Mr. Cannan. Now we will go to the New Democratic Party. Mr. Julian, for seven minutes. Â (1200) Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Thank you to all witnesses coming before the committee. Thanks particularly to Ms. Barlow. You just received a very clear compliment, with Mr. Cannan's very rude tirade. He refused to give you an opportunity to reply, which I think shows that he's concerned, as are the Conservatives, about the real agenda getting out. What is very clear from testimony last Thursday and today is that this is far beyond an issue of smart borders, that there's a whole variety of elements of public policy that are involved. What I found most compelling about your testimony is the comment from the U.S. embassy that there was no appetite for a real public debate. Those are exactly the same words as were used by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives last Thursday. So they're using the same messaging which is there's no appetite, which I gather means they don't want the real agenda to get out in the public, and they are implicitly stating that they're concerned that Canadians would reject this agenda if they knew the extent. It's far beyond smart borders. It touches on energy sovereignty, water exports, and a whole variety of other issues including the protections that we take for granted as Canadians. So I'm going to give you an opportunity to reply to Mr. Cannan since he refused to allow you a rebuttal. I'd also like you to answer the question why you think the Conservatives are so scared about this agenda getting out for public debate. If it was such a useful process, why are they scared of having that public debate, that public consultation and parliamentary review of this very widespread and profound agenda? Ms. Maude Barlow: Thank you very much, Mr. Julian. Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to my friend here. I was just actually thinking, when you spoke, that this was an initiative undertaken by the Liberals before you, and had they been in power now you probably would have been sitting here with me, criticizing it. However, I think it's important for us to say that Canada will never be impervious to the United States and to border concerns, post-9/11, unless we make our border so benign that it's like crossing from Vermont to New Hampshire. As long as we maintain the sovereign right to make our own policy decisions in any way, the United States is going to continue to make that border crossing difficult. Nobody here likes that. Nobody here wants that. But that's the reality that we're dealing with. I also wanted to say that this is not about building. If this is about building a new North American reality, why has it been only the big business, or even some of the medium-sized businesses that have been involved? Why has there been no negotiation or discussion with other groups? There are many people in this country who are working with Americans—we work very closely with many Americans—on an alternative vision for the environment, for instance. There are many Americans who would like to have a national health care program. There are many Americans who are concerned about the assault on human rights and civil liberties in the United States under the Bush administration. There are many Americans who don't like what their government is doing in Iraq, and many of us are very concerned about what our government is doing in Afghanistan as well. We have common cause and would like to have these negotiations opened up. We want the current SPP stopped so that we could start to have a different kind of dialogue. When we met with the U.S. embassy, they said that when Condoleezza Rice was in town the politicians did meet for some time by themselves, and the members of the North American Competitiveness Council met down the hall, and they didn't meet together until a little later. So he was using this as proof that somehow the big-business community does not have special privilege. Well where were we? Where were people who care about education or health care or human rights or foreign policy or the environment? They have not been part of this process. So I think that the concern—that this get out—is exactly what was expressed to us by the U.S. embassy. If Canadians knew what was in this agreement, if they had a chance to debate it, really look at it and vote on it, they would say “no” to it. I deeply believe that. I just want to say quickly that I have notes here from Ralph Pentland. Ralph Pentland wants to come before you if you are going to extend these hearings. He was the director of Water Planning and Management Branch of Environment Canada for 13 years. He wrote the policy that was hopefully to be adopted by the Mulroney government, but didn't get adopted, and he's co-chaired several international joint-commission boards. He's very knowledgeable on water. He asked me to share with you here that he is deeply concerned about this process—and he is non-partisan—because he feels very strongly that he's watched this happen before with the Canada–U.S. free trade agreement and the NAFTA where committees like this met and we were assured that water wouldn't become part of NAFTA and then it was. And more recently, where the negotiations took place on the annex to the 1909 shared Boundary Water Treaty between Canada and the United States, where there were negotiations that were never going to open up diversions to the Great Lakes and we were assured, this happened. Governments took their hands off it and let these negotiations take place at other levels, and we have a new annex that allows new diversions for communities and corporations off the Great Lakes basin. Many of us are deeply concerned that there's going to be water takings from the U.S. side. So here we have another process that's now taking place outside of Parliament, potentially around water exports from Canada's north, and we feel very strongly that we have to have a debate. We may not be right, but let's have a debate and let's have more than just.... Tom Bacino, who originally not only came up with this concept, but actually, the title of their recommendations was “The North American Security Prosperity Initiative”—it was actually the same title except it changed from “initiative” to “partnership” when the three governments signed—this is their blueprint. They went down to the White House right after 9/11 happened, and were told, “What have you got to offer if you want to keep that border open?” This is a dialogue for all Canadians. This is not a partisan issue. This should be an issue of true and deep debate in this country, and we have members from all parties, by the way, in our organization. Â (1205) Mr. Peter Julian: I want to come to the issue of energy sovereignty, because right now Canada actually shares under the proportionality clauses of NAFTA. We actually supply the American market before we supply Canadians, and that proportionality clause means if there's a supply shortage, Canadians literally freeze in the dark while we supply the American market. If they are going further, or if the plans in the North American resource strategy is to go even further, what would that mean for the strategic control that Canada should exercise over its oil and gas resources? Does any other country give preferential supply to another country, before it supplies its own citizens? The Chair: Ms. Barlow, you have about 15 seconds to answer. Ms. Maude Barlow: Just quickly, no, we have given away our energy sovereignty. Those of us looking at this wonder what more you could give away--the NAFTA, I think its ownership and control of the tar sands to American corporations and the agreement not to implement a different environmental regime from the United States so that it's one seamless border, or one non-existing border when it comes to energy. The Chair: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Julian. Now for the five-minute questioning round, we start with the official opposition. Mr. Maloney. Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Osmond, if the eManifest strategy was made compulsory, would that be an answer to the latest development in the U.S. where preclearance has been nixed by the American administration? Ms. Carol Osmond: Well, eManifest will become mandatory. It's a program that's being phased in over time as we bring in.... Currently its in place, for example, for Maritime carriers and for the air mode. We're now looking at implementing it at the land border. Ultimately, importers, as well, will have to transmit information electronically in advance. My understanding of the issue relating to preclearance relates to.... It's a different issue. It relates to individuals who would approach the border and want to enter the United States. The United States wants the ability.... If someone decides to turn around, if he's a suspect, or if he's suspected, for example, of probing the border or testing the border, the United States want to be able to question that individual and possibly fingerprint him. The Canadian government has said that if somebody wants to turn around, then he should have the opportunity to do that without being fingerprinted by the United States. Mr. John Maloney: Both programs require, perhaps, a.... With eManifest, you put all the.... There's an assessment before that truck reaches the border. Â (1210) Ms. Carol Osmond: Right. Mr. John Maloney: I appreciate what you're saying about why the U.S. has objected to that, but with the pre-manifest strategy, would that still be implemented...the preclearance problems? Ms. Carol Osmond: Yes, they're really separate issues. The preclearance involves U.S. officials being on the Canadian side of the border. There's eManifest going in both directions. Currently, eManifest going into the United States is already being implemented, and it involves transmitting data in advance to U.S. customs authorities relating to the driver as well as to the carrier and the vehicle that's being carried. But I don't think that addresses U.S. concerns about being able to apprehend someone on the Canadian side of the border. Sorry, maybe I'm not understanding the question. Mr. John Maloney: But with the eManifest strategy, or program, by that time the truck is already in the United States. Correct? Ms. Carol Osmond: Well, he's not in the United States. The information is transmitted to the United States. Then the driver arrives at the customs inspection booth. The U.S. has that data in advance. The eManifest allows the U.S. to have that information before the driver arrives. It allows them to risk-assess the data with respect to the driver and with respect to the cargo and decide whether they have an interest in the individual or with the cargo he's carrying. Mr. John Maloney: And the decision is made to inspect or not inspect, or wave them through. Ms. Carol Osmond: Right. Mr. John Maloney: We have to look at alternatives. I'm not happy that we're going to make any more headway with our U.S. colleagues on these issues with WHTI and with the preclearance. Is there any reasonable alternative that could be considered? Ms. Carol Osmond: The issue with respect to preclearance relates to space on either side of the border. We want to be able to expand inspection facilities, that sort of thing, to facilitate the movement of goods. Unfortunately, in the case of the Peace Bridge, there's limited space on the U.S. side of the border. On the Canadian side, the issue is The Thousand Islands. We have a shortage of space. But my understanding is that unless we move in one country, we're not going to move in the other. My understanding is that at the Peace Bridge there was a need for a decision to be made so that the bridge authority could proceed with its construction plans and its development at the bridge. So it's unlikely now that we will have a preclearance facility at the Peace Bridge. However, we would like to see the governments in both countries continue to discuss this issue, and hopefully, it could happen at other border crossings on both sides of the border. Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Barlow, you struck a chord with bulk water sales here this morning. You suggested that we'd have a national water act, which in essence would prohibit cross-border bulk sales or cross-border bulk importation. Does that conflict with NAFTA? Would we have to go back and renegotiate NAFTA on that issue? Ms. Maude Barlow: Yes, it does conflict with NAFTA, because in NAFTA water is a commercial good, as well as an investment. The Chair: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Maloney. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had answered. Mr. Maloney is out of time. He's a minute over, so a very short answer. I thought you had actually answered the question. Ms. Maude Barlow: Just very clearly, yes, it does conflict with NAFTA, but in our view the United States has broken NAFTA by not abiding by the softwood lumber rulings. Therefore, we feel that it is perfectly legitimate for Canada to take a stand on the areas of NAFTA that don't work for Canada. We should ban bulk water exports, which means breaking our commitment under NAFTA. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maloney. Mr. Cardin, for five minutes. [Français] M. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Merci, monsieur le président. Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. La semaine dernière, nous avons entendu des témoins à qui j'ai demandé ce qu'il en était de la consultation à l'intérieur du PSP. Je n'ai pas nécessairement reçu de réponse à cette question. Madame Barlow, vous pourriez peut-être m'informer à savoir, justement, quand on regarde ce qui s'était dit dans les premières rencontres, qui avaient pour but de consulter les intervenants, dans le milieu des affaires, le gouvernement et les organismes non gouvernementaux. Selon votre expérience, avez-vous déjà été sollicitée pour donner votre opinion devant le PSP? Â (1215) [English] Ms. Maude Barlow: The first official to ask our view was the American Embassy, two weeks ago. They invited us to the bunker to chat. We invited them back to our office instead. Nobody from the government, either the previous government or this one, has asked anyone that I know—not just us, any environmental group, any education group, any health care organization. All of our groups are in the dark on this. In fact, two years ago we held a cross-country citizens' inquiry into Canada-U.S. relations. We had a very, very good representation. We had members as citizens' juries hearing the testimony from all political parties, by the way. What we heard from Canadians from all over the country and from Quebec was that they did not know anything about this process. So we held our own inquiry that gave them an opportunity to say what kind of continent they would like, what values in this North American shared space they would like. We heard from all sorts of groups, including small business, who felt left out of it, too. The common thread that we heard, over and over, was: we're so glad to have a place to speak to this, because nobody has asked our opinion on it. This process was guided by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the CD Howe Institute and the Liberal government at the time, and it has been handed in the form to this government, which has, in my opinion, deepened the commitments. [Français] M. Serge Cardin: Pour le PSP, le commerce est important. On se rend compte dans les propos au niveau de l'industrie automobile ou des importateurs-exportateurs que la frontière soit intelligente et sécuritaire pour faire en sorte que les échanges se fassent facilement. Je pense qu'il n'y a pas de problème à cet égard. Sauf que lorsque cela concerne les normes, parce que les valeurs qui sont partagées au Canada et au Québec ne sont pas nécessairement les mêmes qu'aux États-Unis, des choses peuvent s'exporter et s'échanger facilement au service d'autres plutôt que de nous. Je veux revenir à l'eau. Dans un de vos rapports, vous demandiez que le Canada renverse la position qu'il avait adoptée en avril 2002 à la Commission des droits de l'homme des Nations Unie, c'est-à-dire qu'il s'opposait à ce que l'eau soit considérée comme un droit de la personne. Doit-on présumer qu'il était d'accord pour la considérer comme une marchandise commercialisable? Mais dans le cas justement que ce soit un droit de la personne, sans aller à faire de l'exportation en vrac, et pour tous azimuts, il reste qu'il pourrait y avoir des échanges minimaux concernant l'eau, mais effectivement l'ALENA couvre tous les biens qui sont expressément mentionnés à l'intérieur de l'Accord et l'eau n'y est pas incluse. Donc, elle pourrait le devenir. Au Canada, neuf provinces sur dix protègent leurs ressources en eau et ont des lois leur interdisant l'exportation en vrac. La loi de mise en oeuvre de l'Accord de l'ALENA, elle, mentionnait qu'il n'y avait pas d'exportation d'eau en vrac, si je me souviens bien. À ce moment-là, le Canada devrait faire les représentations formelles pour vraiment que ce soit plus clair que l'exportation en vrac de l'eau soit vraiment exclue de l'ALENA. [English] Ms. Maude Barlow: Two points. One is that you won't see the word water in NAFTA. What you'll see is the reference to the definition of a good that was in the old general agreement on trade and tariffs. When you go to that you see water in all its forms, including ice and snow. NAFTA adopted the old GATT tariff notion of a good, so water is absolutely, definitely in NAFTA, and it supercedes the provincial laws. Not one of the provincial bans on water exports would stand up to a NAFTA challenge. We have to remove water as a good, an investment and a service in NAFTA. We need to do that, and it is a shame, I am ashamed when I go to the United Nations that our government continues to oppose the right to water at the United Nations. We got a rebuke last year from a subcommittee of the United Nations for Canada's continued appalling position. The United Kingdom just changed its position. It is now favouring the right to water, as are most countries in the world, and I believe the reason that we continue to oppose the right to water is because we know it would violate NAFTA and the notion of water as a good in NAFTA. So for that reason, to join the community of nations moving towards a right to water convention, Canada needs to change its position on water, protect it ecologically and politically. Â (1220) The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Cardin. Now to the government side, to Mr. Lemieux for five minutes. Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): Thank you to our guests here today. Seeing as we've just been talking about bulk water, I'd like to clarify. There is a lot of speculation, in the media in particular, regarding bulk water and the sale of bulk water, etc. So I'd like to say first of all that the Government of Canada has no intention of entering into negotiations on bulk water products, and in fact, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act prohibits bulk removals from boundary basins. Canada is committed to protecting water in its natural state. The second thing I'd like to point out is that water in its natural state is not a good. Bulk water is not a good under NAFTA. Water in its natural state is not subject to trade agreements, and I'll just finish this off by saying that Canadian provincial governments have full sovereignty over the management of water resources and they're not subject to trade agreements. I want to bring that out. Lastly, a lot of the speculation comes from these studies that are being done by private think tanks, and I think private think tanks are able to operate on their own and do whatever studies they like, but that does not mean that they have government support or even that they have government interest. I think this is where a lot of the speculation is coming from. It is being reported that think tanks are launching studies. Well, go ahead, but it doesn't reflect on government or government policy or government position. They are think tanks. To move on, I'd like to thank Mr. Adams for his presentation. I thank you as well for your positive comments regarding our report and I'd like to acknowledge your support of some of the key recommendations that were contained within that report. You speak about basically the Canadian government having to focus on promoting trade negotiation and promoting export of products to the U.S. but also to other countries. You also support recommendation 12 which is the advancement of the security and prosperity partnership talks that are going on right now. You mentioned vehicle emissions standards as an example of where progress in fact would be a good thing for your market. Could you share with us how you see other security and prosperity partnership initiatives--because it's just initiatives that are going to come from this framework--specifically benefiting your industry. Could you share examples with us on how it would benefit your industry? Mr. David Adams: Some of the initiatives I have already outlined, particularly in the area of motor vehicle safety standards. We are largely harmonized with the United States right now but there are some minor differences in about 40 motor vehicle safety standards at the moment. A simple one that I could offer as an example is the difference in bumper standards between Canada and the United States. Again, there is no real discernible reason why that should be the case. One has a five mile per hour bumper standard and the other has a 2.5 mile per hour bumper standard, but bringing those things together allows the product to be tested once, so it doesn't have to be tested twice. Again, in the area of emissions standards, and I also made a comment in the report that I didn't get to in my remarks about having appreciated the committee's report about not only looking beyond our borders but also within our borders and the need to have a harmonized approach to our regulatory regime within Canada. I guess it would speak to that in terms of emissions standards, as you mentioned, with respect to different provinces considering, for instance, California emissions standards, which are the buzzwords in terms of automotive emissions standards these days. Clearly our view is that the best benefit for all consumers is to avoid a patchwork quilt of regulation both within Canada and within North America, to have one common emissions standard in place and one common fuel economy standard. Those are a few examples of how these types, the SPP, in particular, assists our industry. Mr. Pierre Lemieux: Very good. I wonder if I could ask Ms. Anderson the same question which is basically we have the SPP, and it's a framework under which there are comments and discussions going on between industries to basically facilitate trade and other issues. I wonder if you could elaborate for the committee where you see specific initiatives benefiting the industries that you work with, and how it would benefit those industries. Â (1225) Mrs. Mary Anderson: Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on that. I think that first of all as a general perspective that the opportunity within the SPP is one of dialogue where it brings together a whole variety of ideas. I think the value of it is that we have had on the table over 400 so that we do know that we have a lot of industry input on what issues need to be address. And very pragmatic issues as Dave was alluding to, ones that when harmonized will also create better prosperity within all of our jurisdictions. I think that within our association, and we are one as I mentioned includes small, medium, and large as well as touches almost any industry with manufactured goods into a whole variety. We even include for example the Port of Vancouver CN and CP. So it's quite an interesting group. All of those areas, all of those jurisdictions touches on regulations and regulation opportunities for looking at specific issues. One of the areas I think that I would like to address though is probably within food products. What I see here is an area that has a multitude of requirements and regulations. There are areas related to food safety and food security that I think we need to look at very carefully. We all recognize some of the issues related to that. So we need to look at some ways in which we can track and trace products from where its point of origin to its final destination. There's some very intriguing ideas that can be done along that line to harmonize those ideas. As well as I alluded to there's some issues related to opportunities for looking at inspections. Other government departments are required in food products, a whole variety of government departments that touch on food. Going forward I would welcome the opportunity for other government departments to be included in a consultation framework. I mentioned as well some of the challenges that Canadians have in exporting their products to the U.S. means that because they have inputs that are from other jurisdictions for example blended product into the final product. So we have to track where that product originally comes. We need to develop some transparency in where it's from and where it's finally going. But we also need to look at the framework in the U.S. within the FDA requirements of looking at products that may have come from multiple places that are finally sold into the United States. The FDA right now requires a number of products that go across the border to be investigated or held back and looked at. I would like to again say that I think that from our regulation perspective there's lots of opportunities to see how we can streamline that process, expedite that process, as well as work with the U.S. for example to expand the number of accredited labs that can inspect products so they aren't held up over a period of six weeks or so. The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Anderson, and thank you, Mr. Lemieux. To Mr. Julian for five minutes. Go ahead. Mr. Peter Julian: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to come back to you, Ms. Barlow, and ask you two questions. But I have some comments to make beforehand. One is the issue around prosperity because this is something that comes as sort of rote from folks who are proponents of the SPP, and after they always say, “Gee, Canada has prospered immensely over the past 15 years”. But the figures from Stats Can actually tell a completely different story. Since 1989, the lowest income, 20% of Canadians, have seen their incomes collapse. They've lost a month's salary in real terms, so they're getting by now on 11 month's salary as opposed to 12 month's salary. That next 20%, the working class, have lost two week's salary. The middle class have lost two week's salary. The upper middle class have seen absolutely no progress. Those who have profited are the CEOs and chief executives. The wealthiest of Canadians have seen their incomes skyrocket. Bruce Campbell, who testified last Thursday, said that essentially under NAFTA the top 5% of income earners had reaped almost all the benefits, creating this massive prosperity gap where 80% to 90% of Canadian families are earning less now than they were in 1989. It's incredible that anyone would continue to propagate a myth when the figures are so compelling and so clear. My question there is, why do we have an economic policy that leaves 80% to 90% of Canadian families behind? My second question is around protection, so regulations that we put in place to protect Canadians. I know you were involved in chasing back a bovine growth hormone from Canada, something that was approved automatically in the United States because they don't have the same rigorous testing standards and their system is much more prone to influence from powerful corporate lobbies. What do you think would be the implications or the impact of removing all of our abilities to set protections for Canadian families so that bad products that might be approved in the United States don't automatically come on the Canadian market? Â (1230) Ms. Maude Barlow: Thank you for both those questions. We are very concerned about the social consequences of a merger of the size of the SPP coming out of NAFTA. We've watched our country change from looking like a large egg with a great big middle class, to looking more like a pear with more and more Canadians falling out at the bottom and fewer holding power at the top. And now, the further we merge, the more we look like the United States. We're not as extreme in that difference between rich and poor, but it's getting there. In recent research I discovered that the greatest difference between rich and poor in the world is in the United States now. It's not in Mexico, it's not in Latin America, it's not in China, it's not in Africa. The top 10% control two-thirds of the wealth, so we would be merging more deeply with a superpower that has basically abandoned the bottom two-thirds of its population, which is very deeply concerning. On the bovine growth hormone issue, it's very interesting you should raise that because I had written a note about this “tested once”. Several of the Conservative MPs talked about the harmonization of our regulatory positions and standards. One of the provisions is this “tested once”provision whereby if something has been given the go-ahead in the United States, we would not have the ability to have a separate regime here in Canada. And bovine growth hormone is the perfect example. We were able to stop it. And you should know it was a Conservative Senator, Senator Mira Spivak, who took it very, very seriously and held Senate committee hearings on it and was very much responsible for helping us fight to keep bovine growth hormone out of Canada, which has been linked to cancer in tests with rats and so on. Our concern is that we will harmonize our policy around seeds, foods, chemicals, environment, energy, water, and so on to the needs and concerns of the superpower that's 10 times bigger than us. It's not that they're bad people or anything; it is that they're bigger than us. And the big tend to suck in the small when you have this kind of situation. We need to maintain our sovereign rights on this side of the border. That does not mean that we're anti-American. I can't stand it when anyone I know, or when I am called that because I'm on the board of three American organizations. We have a different vision of what North America must look like and what we need to look onto. We are not anti-trade. We hope that we continue to have wonderful trade relationships with the United States. But strong fences make good neighbours, as well, and we need to protect ourselves on this side of the border. Mr. Peter Julian: And we've certainly seen in both the American mid-term elections, where there was a strong reaction to that kind of gutting of the middle class in the United States, that many Americans are reacting to, as well as the Mexican elections where the PRD, according to many observers, actually won those elections. Again, a strong reaction to this economic policy where only the top 5% benefit and the other 80% or 90% of Canadian or American or Mexican families are left behind. Should Canadian families, then, be concerned about putting into place a system where we automatically adopt whatever lower American standards are out there in regard to pharmaceutical products or food products when we know there have been a number of cases of scandals of products that should not have been put on the market that were put on and recalled afterwards? Should we not have those protections in place for Canadian families? Ms. Maude Barlow: We absolutely should. Let me quote to you from this paper that we're going to be giving you from the North American Future 2025 Project. I've been talking about water, but it's full of many interesting things. They talk about: In order to remain competitive in the global economy, it is imperative for the twenty-first-century North American labor market to possess the flexibility necessary to meet industrial labor (standards) demands on a transitional basis and in a way that responds to market forces. This demand will prompt policymakers (in all countries) to think creatively about prospective policy options. That sounds to me very much like what they're proposing with the Atlantica project in Atlantic Canada and the northern United States. They're talking about bringing down the minimum wage and labour standards to the lowest of whichever jurisdiction has those lowest standards, so bringing those standards down. This is all about merging with a country that has cut welfare by 13% every year since George Bush took power in 2000. As one woman said to me "Well, he has created lots of jobs. I myself have three of them." I mean, this is what life is like living under George Bush, and if that's what we want in this country, that's where we're headed. We're asking our legislators here to consider and listen to those Canadians. We think we're the majority who want good relationships with our United States friends and neighbours. Many of us have family there, but we do not want to give away the right to maintain our own standards and one day influence the standards in that country to go higher. Â (1235) The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Barlow. Thank you, Mr. Julian. Now to the official opposition. Mr. Temelkovski for five minutes. Mr. Lui Temelkovski (Oak Ridges—Markham, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of the presenters. Last week, we heard from some of the presenters that prior to 2001, the average time it took for goods to be transferred between the States and Canada was about 45 seconds and now it's over 200 seconds. They also alluded that the solutions were going to be physical such as more borders, more bridges, and so on and so forth. Do you think the problem is borders or hardware? Or do you think it's legislative issues that have increased the time it takes to move goods and people across the borders? That's to all of you. The Chair: Go ahead Mr. Adams, you can lead off. Mr. David Adams: I believe the numbers from the Chamber suggested that since 2001 there has been a 300% increase in the time it takes to cross the border, and the cost associated with those measures is about $14 billion U.S. So there is definitely a challenge. I'm not sure that prior to 2001 that challenge didn't exist already in terms of actually having the physical infrastructure in place to facilitate cross-border trade. I think what 9/11 did was it brought laser focus to the issue and how we needed to look at developing some solutions. Situations like trying to address the new border crossing down in Windsor have been, and continue to be, long-term propositions that we hope will be resolved sooner rather than later. But putting a new bridge across a river does take time. Environmental assessments do need to be conducted. The proper legwork, on both sides of the border, needs to be undertaken. So I would suggest it's a combination of both things. It's the physical infrastructure crossing the border. It's the infrastructure leading up to the border. And then the other element, as you suggest, would be the customs mechanisms, for instance, that are used to facilitate that cross-border trade. you mentioned being one of them. The Chair: Ms. Barlow, briefly please. Ms. Maude Barlow: I would just say that everyone recognizes that this is a problem, but we also recognize that it's a result of 9/11 and the very real concerns the United States has around border security. I don't think there's very much that we can do that's going to change the new reality of the border. It should be worked on, of course, but at the same time there is no way that our health care, our labour standards, our water, our control over our resources, and our control over having our own regulatory environmental and health standards should be put at risk in order to facilitate.... What's it going to take, 10 seconds off if we give up health care? What is it that we have to give? And that's the fear Canadians have, that there's one sector driving this. We're not saying that this sector isn't important. It's tremendously important, and of course these issues matter. But if this sector is driving everything else and we're all expected to give up everything else for this transporter crossing of goods and services, it's too great a price and it won't work. The Chair: Ms. Osmond, do you want to respond? Ms. Carol Osmond: I just wanted to make a distinction between the time it takes for customs clearance versus the time it actually takes to get to the customs' booth, because I think generally what we're measuring is the time for customs clearance. Those times do tend to be a little bit longer going into the United States than they are coming in to Canada, but the longer timeframes--and Mr. Adams mentioned this--is the time to actually get to the customs' booth and certainly for our members that is the bigger concern. The lack of infrastructure, the need for new bridges, in the Windsor-Detroit area, for example, as well as the infrastructure leading up to the entry points, those are probably the key issues--the infrastructure leading up to the border crossings. But there are also issues related to inspections, and as Ms. Anderson referenced there are concerns with the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the inspection process on the U.S. side of the border, and that's a concern as well. Â (1240) The Chair: Thank you. We'll go now to Mr. Andé for about three minutes. [Français] M. Guy André: Bonjour. Madame Barlow, le député M. Lemieux a tenté de nous rassurer en nous disant qu'on ne devrait pas s'inquiéter concernant la question d'être obligé d'exporter éventuellement de l'eau, être obligé ou avoir une volonté gouvernementale d'aller vers l'exportation de l'eau et qu'à l'intérieur de l'ALENA présentement, l'eau était vraiment protégée, qu'il n'y avait aucune volonté politique d'aller vers l'exportation de l'eau. J'aimerais vous entendre à ce sujet. Doit-on continuer à s'inquiéter? Cela vous a-t-il vraiment rassurée? [English] Ms. Maude Barlow: Merci, monsieur. It certainly made me happy to hear you say that the government will never allow bulk water exports. So that was a good thing, and we will quote you all over the place, but Mr. Lemieux is wrong in saying that NAFTA does not impact on the provinces and does not take precedence. A treaty between two countries, signed by the federal government of those two countries, is the overarching legislation. It implies everything and involves everything about the provinces. Of course the provinces don't have a higher jurisdiction than a treaty. I have here in my hand all of the legislation in the different provinces. They're a mish mash. New Brunswick has nothing, and they mean nothing. If you get a new premier who decides to export water, and I'll give you a perfect example. Several years ago, Premier Grimes of Newfoundland decided to export water from Gisborne Lake and we had a huge hue and cry. We spent a lot of time speaking to Newfoundlanders and they spent a lot of time speaking amongst themselves. They said “we've got so much water” and we reminded them that they once said that about the cod, and that was a good argument that seemed to resonate. David Anderson, who was the environment minister at the time said to Premier Grimes--and this was reported--that NAFTA takes precedence over provincial water exports, and that if any province starts exporting water for commercial purposes it impacts the whole country, and he travelled to Newfoundland and asked Premier Grimes to reconsider because this was going to put Canada in jeopardy under NAFTA. Ralph Pentland, retired now, who is considered Canada's leading senior bureaucratic authority on water issues, is very clear that water is in NAFTA as are all the legal opinions that you will find from everybody on all sides of the border, when I say border I mean the political border, and we even met with lawyers from the Canadian government when the Liberals were in power and they all said the same thing--water is in NAFTA. You don't see the word. You have to go to the old general agreement on trade and tariffs to get the definition of a good, and there it is. It is in there as an investment and let me just end by saying that the water is being destroyed in the tar sands right now, we know that for every unit of oil that is extracted from the tar sands, between three and five units of water is actually lost to the hydrologic cycle. If any government, the Alberta or the federal government in Canada, were to try to regulate this and say to the American corporations there, this is terrible, you're destroying our water, they could sue currently under NAFTA for reparations. They could say now you owe us compensation because you've changed the rules. That's the chapter 11 investor state rights. So NAFTA already applies to any water usage being used by American corporations in Canada. So it's already a problem and it is past time for us to deal with this problem. The Chair: Thank you. Merci, Monsieur André. For about a minute and a half, Mr. Cannan. Mr. Ron Cannan: I was going to share my time with Mr. Merrifield, but it's not much time. I thought we still had 15 minutes. Â (1245) The Chair: No, we are going to committee business in about a minute. Mr. Ron Cannan: I just would like to thank the witnesses, and I wanted to clarify. There were a couple of comments that were made. I appreciate, as I mentioned, the e-manifest. What we heard today is the concerns that have been tabled from Ms. Barlow and Mr. Julian. I've just got to get on the record the fact that he's a master of manipulating the facts. The report that he referred to contains a lot of good news which inevitably underplays that the Canadian economy doubled in size in the past 25 years. Average real family earnings increased from $60,000 to $70,000 from the late 1970s to the early 2000s. The poor are demonstrably not getting poorer. Indeed, according to the report's own statistics, the poorest 10% of families with children are 8% better off in real terms than they were 25 years ago. The other factual information I'd like to get on the record is his comment about the democratic process in the Mexican government. I think his comments are outrageous and totally out of line, and I think he should apologize. Thank you. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cannan. Thank you all for coming today. I appreciate your comments and your answers to the questions very much. So thank you. We will go now to about a two-minute break and we'll come back to committee business. If the MPs could just let the witnesses clear as quickly as possible, so we can get to committee business. [Proceedings continue in camera] CANADA Standing Committee on International Trade Comité permanent du commerce international EVIDENCE number 60, Témoignages du comité numéro 60 UNEDITED COPY - COPIE NON ÉDITÉE Thursday, May 3, 2007 - Le jeudi 3 mai 2007 * * * Á (1110) [English] The Chair (Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC)): Good morning, everyone. Everyone take their seats, and we'll get the meeting started. Before we get to the witnesses today, I would like to note that we've been starting our meetings late quite regularly. I really want that to end. Today, of course, because of the committee that was here before, it's understandable. But from now on, I really want the meetings to start and end on time. I'll start today by ending this meeting at 1 o'clock, sharp. It's not fair that people have to leave to get to their next meeting and our meeting is extended. Next time, I encourage everyone to be here on time. I will start as long as we have three members, which is all we need to hear witnesses. Try to.... In fact, do stick to the timelines that have been laid out for the committee. I will now get to the business of the meeting today, which, of course, is a continuation of our study on Canada-U.S. trade. We're dealing with investment issues and other trade issues, including the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. We have, as our witnesses today, from the Canadian Labour Congress, Teresa Healy, senior researcher; from the Canadian Trucking Alliance, David Bradley, chief executive officer, and Ron Lennox, vice-president, trade & security; from the Quebec Network on Continental Integration, Normand Pépin, director, research services, and Nancy Burrows, coordinator; and from Carleton University, Michael Hart, Simon Reisman professor of trade policy, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. We will start in the order the witnesses are listed on the agenda. We'll start with the Canadian Labour Congress, Teresa Healy. I will ask you.... In fact, I insist that you stick to the eight minutes that have been allocated. Also, I will cut off the presentations if they go any significant amount beyond that. Please go ahead, Ms. Healy. Ms. Teresa Healy (Senior Researcher, Canadian Labour Congress): Good morning. I would like to thank you for this invitation to appear today. The Canadian Labour Congress represents 3.2 million workers across Canada. We live and work in every single community in this country, and have expertise as workers on every single economic sector as well. In the labour movement, we are concerned for the well-being of our members and their families, of course, but our concern is broader than that. We organize ourselves by a principle of solidarity, and solidarity has brought us directly into the political realm to fight for public health care and other public services, for equality for women, for dignified work, and a welcoming society for immigrants, for good jobs, and a just economic policy here in Canada. We also work to see that our government represents us in creating a just international order. Last week we were horrified to hear of the death of two Chinese workers at a oilsands project in Alberta. Migrant workers facing the most precarious working and living conditions in the country also face dangerous work and are vulnerable to abuse in many forms. In solidarity with organized and unorganized workers across the country, the CLC appears before you today to ask you to consider very carefully the implications of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership. We ask you to candidly assess this initiative by answering the question: security and prosperity for whom? As social activists, we in the labour movement usually have our eyes on the laws that are proposed, passed, reformed, or defeated in our respective legislatures. What the SPP reveals is that the government executives in North America are willing to cooperate to avoid legislative and public challenge. Democratic debate and decision-making is making way for privileged corporate access and new rules that undermine sovereignty and human rights. The SPP, like NAFTA before it, is partially about trade, but more fundamentally it is about changing the role of the state in relation to investment. It has allowed private investors to continue to push for privatization of public services and an expanded role of the market into the public economy. The creation of an integrated and increasingly privatized North American economic bloc is intended to strengthen the position of North American corporations in world order under the economic and security umbrella of the United States. Our relationship with the United States is certainly about trade. Many of our members depend upon jobs in the traded sector of the economy. We miss an important lesson, however, if we think about economic integration in North America only in terms of trade flows. The so-called big idea of negotiations leading to a broader trade and investment treaty has fallen out of favour. Rather, in the context of widespread opposition within civil society and among progressive political parties, proponents of ongoing liberalization have moved underground to promote what is known as deeper integration across North America. Some define deep integration as coordinated actions by governments, intended to eliminate regulations and open up service markets to foreign competition. Others simply call it NAFTA-plus. At its core, the idea is that the more governments harmonize regulations across borders, the deeper economic integration has been achieved. As the Minister of Industry Canada said recently, he is working, “to ensure that Canada and US regulations are harmonized”. Where this is not possible, Minister Bernier stated, the government will work with industry to recognize regulatory differences and ensure “an attempt be made to soften them”. The agenda of regulatory reform tells us that the NAFTA did not bring absolute free trade into being. There are still ways in which market regulations are subjected to restraint by society. From a neo-liberal point of view, this must be changed, political opposition notwithstanding. The SPP agenda tells us that the reforms should diminish environmental regulations; speed up food safety and drug approvals; loosen occupational health and safety requirements; and facilitate the rapid production, export, and consumption of energy resources. Á (1115) Regulatory reform is also meant to impose corporate-defined benchmarks as “best government practices” to govern the provision of public services. The SPP is about increasing the power of corporations and ongoing deregulation. However, the current project of regulatory reform is also meant to impose a new layer of regulations on workers, citizens and residents of North America, framed with an anti-terrorism justification. In this sense then, deep integration is also about re-regulation and a much stronger role for the state. Since 9/11 Canadian investors with powerful economic interests in closer integration with the United States have refocused their efforts, but now have cloaked them in the language of national security. Regulatory reform appears at one level to be a mundane and routine area of public policy which simply deals with what makes sense. However, it is anything but that. The SPP is not a signed treaty and has never been brought before the legislatures of North America for discussion and review. It is driven by the executive levels of government in consultation with the business community, but excludes the legislatures and parliamentary oversight. It is a process that depends upon working groups within the public service of all three countries, but excludes public consultation. The CEOs, however, have unfettered access to this process. While I could go on at length to talk about the U.S. energy security agenda, I won't do that right now, nor will I talk about the hyper development of the tar sands, which is something that I could speak about, but this is something that you might want to refer to in my brief that I submitted in my brief to the committee. What I would like to comment on in the last minute that I have is that we're very concerned about the increased harmonization of Canadian and U.S. customs and immigration policies in respect of the security agenda. The SPP provides for an ongoing process of negotiation on the terms of expanded border surveillance infrastructure. Elements of a common trade and security perimeter are being introduced, with implications for sovereignty and, on the security front, advances are also extremely worrisome in terms of civil liberties. We need to understand this aspect of the SPP in relation to the impact on workers, especially workers of colour. What are the mechanisms within the SPP to evaluate the relationship between security cooperation and human rights? Who is monitoring the effects of the new security regime on workers of colour and racialized immigrants as well as migrant workers? Finally, I'd like to conclude by saying that the great tragedy of this new cooperative dynamic between Canada, the United States and Mexico is that it does nothing to address the most pressing issues of our day. Given the many ways in which governments in North America could cooperate to increase social equality, it's very clear that these areas are not being addressed by this agenda. Since the second world war the United States has drawn Canada ever closer to itself. Canadians however have stubbornly taken their leaders to task in the great debate over whether a government should promote an east-west or a north-south economic orientation. Indeed, Canadians and their social movements and their political parties, in many respects, have worked hard to reveal the interests of capitalists hidden behind the invisible hand of the free market. Over the past five years the institutional racism exerted by the iron fist of a security regime has been revealed as well. We call for full public hearings and a vote in Parliament on the SPP. We call for abolishment of the North American Competitiveness Council. We would like to see review and study of the implications of further security cooperation with the United States on workers, especially on immigrant workers. We call for the government to abandon any regulatory agenda that leads to the hyper development of the tar sands. We call for the government to abandon any regulatory reform agenda that leads to the downward harmonization of standards. Finally, we call for a process that is open, transparent and accountable, leading to a North American relationship built on democracy, human rights and sovereignty. Á (1120) The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Healy. We will go now to our witness from the Canadian Trucking Alliance. I understand that Mr. Bradley couldn't be here today, so, Mr. Lennox, please go ahead, for eight minutes. Mr. Ron Lennox (Vice-President, Trade & Security, Canadian Trucking Alliance): Thank you very much. First of all, David offers his regrets. He's been ill for the last couple of weeks. He had planned to be here until as late as last night, but, unfortunately, he just couldn't make it. He's asked me to read the following statement on his behalf. Let me begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to appear this morning. I'll address some specific issues regarding the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the North American Competitiveness Council in a few minutes. But let me begin by giving you a trucking industry perspective on trade and the Canada-United States border. No doubt, everyone today recalls the scene back in mid-September 2001, trucks were backed up for miles waiting to cross into the United States. Despite the frustration and confusion that reigned during those days, people, truck drivers especially, understood that we were dealing with an unprecedented situation. The U.S. had been attacked and its government reacted as its citizens would expect, by subordinating everything to national security. As difficult as it was, everyone knew that the border backlogs would eventually be cleared. Now, almost six years on, border delays can still happen at any time, but they're not a feature of the nightly news and the lineups, when they do occur, are generally shorter. But no one should have the illusion that all is well at the border. There is no room for complacency. To a great extent, the current situation reflects the fact that Canadian exports of manufactured goods to the United States are soft, both car and truck traffic are down. The reality is that the border continues to thicken and this is a threat to our economic wellbeing. In some respects, the situation immediately post 9-11 was easier to deal with than today. The Canada-U.S. Smart Border declaration of December 2001 was the result of a great sense of urgency and purpose by the two national governments. Improved security and trade facilitation was the goal repeated at every conference, at every meeting and in every speech and in every interview by politicians and government officials. It made sense then and it still does now, but are we on the road to achieving that balance? Regrettably, from where I sit, listening daily to the folks who work in the trucking industry and who move two-thirds of Canada-U.S. trade, I have to respond no. Despite the lofty intentions of the two governments, the border is increasingly bogged down in a seemingly endless stream of costly and often redundant security measures and fees, mostly emanating from the U.S. Some may tell me to be patient, that it's just over five years and we're still in the midst of a transition from the old way to the modern border where data moves electronically, trucks are processed efficiently and border officials are able to surgically target those who may do us harm. No doubt, there is some element of that going on. The border is becoming more automated and, done right, by eliminating paper and the need for physical inspection, this should help speed things up over time. There's still hope that risk assessment programs, like Free and Secure Trade, will one day reach their full potential. But the flip side and one I hear most often is not so optimistic. Over the past five years those involved in cross-border trade, but particularly the truckers, have had to restructure their operations to respond to at least a dozen major U.S. security initiatives. Trucking companies in the thousands have adopted supply chain security programs and have invested in expensive information systems enhancements or outsourcing arrangements to meet strict prior notice requirements. CTA has estimated that the cost to the trucking industry alone just to cross the border into the U.S., which inevitably end up being passed on to our customers, is about half a billion dollars per year. Yet even if a company has done everything possible to secure its business, should one individual, say a truck driver, be apprehended for smuggling drugs into the United States, the company he works for will see its C-TPAT and FAST designations automatically cancelled pending a review, which can stretch to several months, putting that company's transborder business in jeopardy. Initially, companies were encouraged to promote and market C-TPAT and the FAST program as a way to generate business. But it has also been suggested to us that carriers should be wary about promoting their C-TPAT status too broadly less they become targets for smugglers. There's also an important personal dimension, border security was supposed to be all about keeping the bad guys, the terrorists, out. The rest of us, the other 99.99% were supposed to be able to continue to travel and trade with a minimum of aggravation. It hasn't turned out that way. Our drivers face the prospect of multiple background security checks, sometimes for different programs within the same department. Trucks drivers have been berated and fined for packing roast beef sandwiches and oranges in their lunch bags. The slightest administrative error and they can be held up for hours. In the worst case, they can lose their FAST card and have little chance of getting it back. Á (1125) It would be easy to blame the border inspectors, the folks on the front lines. No doubt they do take the brunt of the criticism, and, yes, on any given day, some people will say and do some dumb things, or take themselves a little bit too seriously. But let there be no confusion, no one gets promoted for getting more trucks across the border. The real responsibility lies with those sequestered far from the border in our nation's capitals. It is there where I believe perspective needs to be regained. Lawmakers and public officials seem to be able to roll out new programs and requirements at will. This spring, for example, single-crossing U.S. customs fees for trucks were increased. New U.S. agricultural quarantine inspection fees will be imposed June 1 on all trucks crossing the border, regardless of what they're hauling, even though the agency responsible freely acknowledges that between 80% and 95% of the trucks entering the United States don't even move commodities of interest. Yet another redundant duplicative and expensive transportation worker identity card is being introduced this year, initially at U.S. seaports, but eventually at all transport facilities. Truck drivers who have already been security screened under the Free and Secure Trade program will need one of these cards regardless, at a cost of $100 or more. I'm sure everyone here is aware of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. It has been cast as a tourism issue, but make no mistake, if problems are incurred in getting the right credentials into the hands of truck drivers or if there are significant backups in non-commercial traffic, it will spill over into the commercial lanes, it will very quickly become a trade issue as well. Since 9/11 three major initiatives have been rolled out in an attempt to cope with this dilemma of how to make the border more secure without choking legitimate traffic and trade. First there was the Smart Border Declaration, then the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and most recently the North American Competitiveness Council. While CTA has been engaged in all three exercises and saw in each the opportunity to push through some much-needed reforms, I'm beginning to question whether we have lost focus and whether the focus and urgency that characterized the Smart Border Declaration, which is being driven in this country by a small focus team in the Privy Council Office, has been similarly defused. Make no mistake, the Canadian Trucking Alliance expressed support for SPP when it was first announced, but I have to be blunt in stating that I am underwhelmed by its impact to date. At its initial incarnation we were told that the SPP was to deal with low-hanging fruit, those issues that individually might not appear to add up to much but in combination would have a positive impact on the border. Initially, there was some progress. I point to the 25% solution to increase throughput at Ontario-Michigan border crossings as a useful exercise. Other initiatives in progress also hold promise, most notably the commitment to harmonize automated systems that are used to transmit and receive information from U.S. and Canada Customs. However, I can't help but note that one of the most important SPP initiatives as far as the trucking industry is concerned, something that had its genesis in the Smart Border Declaration, was shot down last week when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said it was officially backing away from a commitment to pilot reverse inspection at two Ontario-New York border crossings, the principal one being at Buffalo-Fort Erie. This was a positive initiative with support not only from traders on both sides of the border but from the local communities themselves. No one ever said that reverse inspections would work everywhere, but they did hold promise at the Peace Bridge. If agreements to conduct pilots of potential solutions can be unilaterally shelved, what confidence can we have in other agreements and declarations? One other example, a seemingly innocuous initiative under the prosperity banner, would have seen a streamlining of the process by which Canadian carriers file proof of insurance in the United States. But what has happened? The issue has been thrown into the formal rule-making process. Earlier this year CTA and others filed comments in response to an advance rule-making notice. Sometime in the future there'll be a formal rule-making proposal, and maybe, eventually, there'll be a final rule that will make things better for Canadian carriers. I don't believe this is what the formulators of SPP had in mind. It's probably too early to reach any conclusions about the North American Competitiveness Council. It has served to once again raise the profile of border issues to a certain degree, and makes some recommendations on issues of concern to trucking, such as the agricultural fee issue I referred to earlier. But whether it can or will ultimately be a mechanism for effectively dealing with the kinds of issues truckers deal with on a daily basis or to regain the kind of momentum initially generated by the Smart Border Declaration remains to be seen. I would also like to add that in our opinion, our own government needs to be better organized and less diffuse in its approach to border issues. This is our economic reality as an export-driven economy and the other partner in the world's largest bilateral trading relationship. Á (1130) Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here this morning, and I'd be pleased to answer questions. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lennox, for your presentation. We'll go now to the Quebec Network on Continental Integration. We have two witnesses today, Monsieur Pépin and Ms. Burrows. Either one or both of you can make a presentation up to eight minutes. Go ahead. [Français] M. Normand Pépin (directeur, Service de la recherche, Central des syndicats démocratiques, Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale): Je vais commencer la présentation et Nancy va prendre la suite. Le RQIC c'est une coalition multisectorielle, qui regroupe une vingtaine d'organisations sociales du Québec, dont des organisations syndicales, communautaires, populaires, étudiantes, environnementales, des groupes de femmes, des organismes de défense de droits humains et de développement international. Au total, on représente 1 million de membres au Québec. Aujourd'hui, vous avez devant vous le représentant de la CSD au RQIC, c'est-à-dire, moi-même et Nancy qui est représente de la FFQ, la Fédération des femmes du Québec au RQIC. D'abord, merci de l'initiative de prolonger vos auditions au-delà de ce qui était prévu au départ, où il y avait seulement les gens des ministères concernés et des associations patronales, à l'exception du centre de recherche CCPA, qui devait être entendu. C'est une belle initiative de votre part, mais cela ne sera pas suffisant, je vous le dis tout de suite. Ces audiences sont très importantes, mais elles ne permettent pas de rejoindre l'ensemble des parlementaires, vous êtes une quinzaine ici aujourd'hui, encore moins l'ensemble de la population, et pourtant se sont tous des gens qui doivent être tenus au courant de ce qui se négocie en leur nom, par un groupe restreint de membres du pouvoir exécutif au sein du gouvernement canadien, c'est-à-dire le premier ministre, les ministres de l'Industrie, des Affaires étrangères et de la Sécurité publique et par un groupe restreint de dirigeants du secteur privé. Nous considérons que le PSP est un enjeu important qui doit être soumis à un débat social élargit aux votes de la Chambre des communes. Le gouvernement ne peut se réfugier derrière le fait qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un traité dûment signé entre les trois pays pour agir de la façon dont il le fait présentement, c'est-à-dire en catimini en ne révélant des choses que lorsqu'il est forcé par des requêtes d'accès à l'information, en prétendant qu'il ne s'agit que de discussions pour régler des problèmes techniques freinant le commerce entre les trois pays. On voudrait bien nous faire croire qu'il ne s'agit que d'harmoniser les formats des boîtes de conserves pour qu'elles puissent être vendues sans problème dans l'un ou l'autre des trois pays, mais quand il est question d'exporter de l'eau en vrac ou de quintupler la production de pétrole dans les sables bitumineux de l'Alberta, se sont des choix de société qui sont remis en question. Et, quand bien même que ce ne serait que le format des boîtes de conserves qu'on veut harmoniser, est-ce un processus innocent quand on sait que le pays qui servira de mesure étalon aura un bonne longueur d'avance dans la production de boîtes de conserves à meilleur marché que les autres, en plus de tous ceux qui utilisent la bonne mesure de boîte de conserves? Dès le dépôt du premier rapport aux chefs, sur l'état d'avancement du PSP, par les ministres responsables, trois mois après le lancement du partenariat seulement, nos appréhensions ont été confirmées par le fait que des équipes de travail étaient à l'oeuvre longtemps avant le lancement officiel, qui n'est sommes toutes venu que lever un peu le voile sur le partenariat lui-même. En effet, on découvrait à ce moment là que 19 groupes de travail avaient été créés, 9 pour le volet sécurité et 10 pour le volet prospérité, et que ceux-ci sont chargés de faire avancer une centaine d'initiatives qui se déclinent en 317 objectifs livrables. Et déjà, en juin 2005, dans ce premier rapport on apprenait que les échéanciers de quelques-uns de ces livrables étaient déjà complétés. Au dépôt du deuxième rapport aux dirigeants, en août 2006, c'était déjà 65 de ces livrables qui étaient complétés. Le PSP avance donc à la vitesse grand V et presque personne n'est au courant, sauf les gens d'affaires. Le PSP implante une nouvelle mécanique par laquelle le secteur privé à la mainmise sur la prise de décision. Les dirigeants des plus grandes entreprises de chaque pays sont une partie prenante des négociations, et elles y ont un accès direct. Ils définissent les objectifs et les moyens à mettre en oeuvre, tandis que les pouvoirs exécutifs de chaque pays, les trois chefs d'État, et les 9 ministres responsables du PSP, ont la responsabilité de les instrumentaliser soit par des politiques économiques précises, soit par des modifications à certaines réglementations. La voie législative doit être évitée comme la peste, parce qu'elle est considérée par le monde des affaires comme ne menant nulle part, selon leurs propres déclarations, sans doute à cause des débats que le changement à une loi existante ou à une nouvelle loi susciteraient. Donc, plus besoin de lobbys dans l'antichambre du pouvoir, quant on a accès direct à celui-ci. Cet accès a été formalisé en juin 2006, avec la mise sur pied du Conseil nord-américain de la compétitivité, composé de représentant de 30 corporations parmi les plus grandes d'Amérique du Nord pour conseiller les chefs d'État sur les questions relatives à la compétitivité nord-américaine. Fait à souligner, les 10 membres canadiens du CNAC, qui ont été nommés par le premier ministre Harper, en juin 2006, font tous partie du Conseil canadien des chefs d'entreprise, une organisation qui regroupe les PDG des 150 plus grandes entreprises canadiennes. Sans grande surprise, c'est aussi le CCCE qui assure le secrétariat de la section canadienne du CNAC. Pour bien illustrer la place des gens d'affaires dans le processus d'intégration en Amérique du Nord, citons les propos du secrétaire américain au Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, lors de la rencontre de lancement du CNAC, le 15 juin 2006, à Washington: Le but de cette rencontre était d'institutionnaliser le PSP et le CNAC de façon à ce que le travail se poursuive même avec les changements de gouvernement. Donc, les gouvernements peuvent changer, se sont les PDG, membres du CNAC qui vont veiller à ce qu'il y ait continuité dans les travaux entrepris dans le cadre du PSP. Á (1135) Plus tard, Ron Coves, PDG de la multinationale de l'armement Lucky Martin et président de la section états-unienne du CNAC déclarait au magains Maclean's: « les ministres nous ont dit: “dites-nous ce que nous devons faire et nous ferons en sorte que cela se produise” ». Dans le document qui ne peut pas vous être distribué parce qu'il est uniquement en français, vous avez la liste des membres du CNAC. Depuis quand les dirigeants d'entreprises sont-ils les seuls à avoir des choses à dire sur les questions de compétitivité et de prospérité sur les questions de sécurité? Nancy va poursuivre. Mme Nancy Burrows (coordonnatrice, Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale): Un des aspects particulièrement inquiétant du PSP est le fait de lier la sécurité et la prospérité économique. Le PSP se situe dans un contexte mondiale de militarisation accrue et où le pays le plus puissant du continent, les États-Unis d'Amérique, s'est embarqué dans une chasse au terrorisme où la sécurité nationale prime sur les droits des citoyens et citoyennes et est devenu un prétexte pour augmenter le contrôle de l'État sur les personnes. Dans ce contexte, l'harmonisation des politiques canadiennes sur celles de nos voisins du sud est particulièrement effrayante pour le respect des droits des personnes. À la suite des événement du 11 septembre, nous n'avons qu'à penser à l'adoption de la loi anti-terroriste du C-36 ou au partage des listes de surveillance des terroristes avec ses ratés importants comme nous l'avons vu avec le code MAR ARAR. De plus, on parle maintenant de mise au point de mesures de sécurité de l'immigration compatible entre les trois pays et de mises en place d'une équipe intégrée de la police à nos frontières. Le Canada, tout comme le Mexique, se trouve donc dans une situation où l'on doit s'adapter à des menaces sécuritaires d'un autre pays en abandonnant une partie de notre souveraineté, mais sans avoir les moyens, ni le pouvoir de vérifier le contenu de ces menaces. Nous ne voulons pas être à la remorque des États-Unis et nous voulons garder notre capacité de définir nos règles et politiques en fonction de nos propres choix de société. Je sais que vous avez déjà entendu des témoignages sur les inquiétudes face à l'eau, aux ressources naturelles et à la sécurité énergique, mais j'aimerais quand même prendre quelques instants pour souligner l'exemple des sables bitumineux. Nous savons que les États-Unis ont une soif insatiable de pétrole et ils sont de plus en plus à la recherche de sources de pétrole dans des pays plus stables que le fournisseur traditionnel. Avec l'abondance de sables bitumineux dans le nord de l'Alberta, le Canada est l'endroit tout désigné pour aller s'approvisionner. Le ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune et le Département de l'Énergie des États-Unis ont parrainé une réunion à Houston, Texas, les 24 et 25 janvier 2006. Les participants de cette réunion étaient les patrons de l'industrie pétrolière états-unienne et des grands projets d'exportation des sables bitumineux ainsi que des représentants des gouvernements des États-Unis, du Canada et de l'Alberta. Cette rencontre a eu lieu littéralement le lendemain de l'élection du gouvernement conservateur de Stephen Harper, le 23 janvier 2006. Aucune des personnes présentes à la rencontre n'étaient élues. De qui les fonctionnaires tenaient-ils leur mandat puisque le gouvernement du Parti libéral de Paul Martin venait de perdre les élections et celui de Stephen Harper n'était pas encore assermenté? Les discussions étaient loin d'être d'ordre purement technique, comme on le prétend souvent du côté des gouvernements, quand nous avons appris par le rapport de la rencontre de Houston qu'il est question d'accélérer le pas et de multiplier par quatre ou cinq la production des sables bitumineux sur une période relativement courte. Il y a des enjeux environnementaux importants dans le débat entourant l'extraction du pétrole des sables bitumineux. Cette pratique cause trois fois plus de gaz à effet de serre que l'extraction conventionnelle du pétrole, produit des tonnes de déchets toxiques et dévaste des milliers de kilomètres carré de territoire. De plus, le rapport recommande aussi au gouvernement canadien et albertain de simplifier le processus d'approbation environnemental pour les projets énergétiques car le temps presse pour les États-Unis. Il faut noter que le rapport a quand même été coproduit par le ministère des Ressources naturelles. Cette question, comme l'ensemble du processus du PSP, doit être soumise au débat public. La réunion de janvier 2006 n'est qu'un exemple dans la longue liste illustrant le pouvoir des entreprises dans les négociations sur des sujets d'intérêt public pour l'ensemble de la population. En conclusion nous sommes, pour le moins, sceptiques à l'égard des bien-faits potentiels pour notre population d'un processus dont l'objectif de fond semble être de créer un climat idéal pour les affaires plutôt que de s'assurer... Á (1140) [English] The Chair: Ms. Burrows, if you could wrap-up very quickly please. You're quite a bit over time now. [Français] Mme Nancy Burrows: En conclusion, nous exigeons un moratoire sur l'ensemble du processus du PSP jusqu'à ce qu'il y ait divulgation complète des travaux menés à ce jour, dans le cadre du PSP, que soit réalisé une étude de son impact, qu'ait lieu un réel débat public sur le sujet et nous exigeons aussi le démantèlement du CNAC qui est illégitime. Il s'agit de notre avenir et c'est l'ensemble des citoyens et citoyennes du pays qui sont concernés et qui doivent avoir leur mot à dire sur le type de lien qui veulent entretenir avec les autres peuples avec lesquels nous partageons ce continent. [English] The Chair: Thank you. We have now from Carleton University, Professor Michael Hart, and he's from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. Go ahead, please, Professor Hart. Mr. Michael Hart (Simon Reisman Professor of Trade Policy, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee and share some of my ideas on the security and prosperity initiative. Let me begin by saying I don't represent anybody. As you know, university professors are a rather contrarian group and the idea of me representing any one of them would be taken, I think, with some deep offence. So I'm here purely on my own responsibility, expressing my own views, and I think I'm here because I have some background in this, both as a government official and as an academic analyst. So let me comment briefly on the SPP so we can get on with the questions. I think some of the witnesses here are perhaps a little overexcited about the SPP. I think there's not much to it. What it really is, is a kind of packaged version of what's going on as part of routine between Canada and the United States. The Canada School of Public Service did an interesting study a few years ago looking at the extent of networks between Canadian and American officials, and they stopped counting when they reached 240. What do these 240 networks do? They solve problems together. They recognize the fact that Canadians and Americans have similar kinds of problems, live very closely together, have deeply integrated economies, and so they set up working groups, they set up networks, and so on, in order to solve those problems. These go on, on a regular basis. What the SPP did, and a number of initiatives before that, is take many of these ongoing initiatives and package them together to provide a little bit more political jazz to them, and what's useful to officials in order to provide them with some political leadership. To an official working on a problem, the kind of speed and intensity with which you addressed those issues is dependent on the amount of political leadership that you see, the amount of political commitment that you see to a problem. So what the SPP did was try to raise the profile of some of the work that was going on and give it a little bit more political pizzazz. That's nice. When you look at it, as I've done, the SPP represents the sixth reiteration of that package. There have been a series of such packages going back to 1996 which put together a series of problems dealing with cross-border trade, cross-border investments, and so on, which require the attention of officials. So there's really nothing all that new about it, and that's my main complaint about it--as good as it is, it just isn't good enough. It really doesn't address the real problems that Canada and the United States need to address in the world in which we now live. The biggest problem that I see with it is that it is an initiative that is limited to what can be done by the three governments within their existing legislative mandates. There's a commitment that they will not do things that will require them to go to Parliament or to Congress in order to make changes. What that means is we will have little changes and incremental approaches to problem solving, whereas I think in the world of 9/11 and in the world of deep integration, there are things that need to be done that require the governments to go to Parliament and to go to Congress to seek deep changes. What we need to do is take the issues that are in this initiative, add some to them, and make them part of an initiative that will lead to a treaty, similar to what was done in the 1980s in negotiating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement where similarly there were a lot of smaller problems being attended to and they were finally rolled up into a serious initiative which led to a bilateral treaty. I think that needs to be done on the SPP front. Why? Because I think there are three fundamental problems that need to be addressed by the two governments. I emphasize the two governments because I think the issues between Canada and the United States are of a different order than the issues between the United States and Mexico, and there are virtually no issues between Mexico and Canada. So the SPP, in effect, is two parallel initiatives that are joined for the convenience of U.S. officials. I emphasize that we need to concentrate on Canada-U.S. issues, and there are three. The first is the border. Ron Lennox has already I think given you some pretty good illustrations of the extent to which the border is a problem. If you take into account the depth of integration between our two economies, if you take into account the nature of international trade and investment today, the fact that we have the whole just-in-time production system where we now rely increasingly on what are known as “global value chains” where goods and services move back and forth, and different parts of a large network of companies and suppliers integrate that into final products, it is critically important that the border be as open and unintrusive as possible. Á (1145) What we have seen since 9/11 is a border that has become more intrusive as many more things have been loaded onto the border that could be done elsewhere, or perhaps not done at all. I think we've reached the stage, for example, where we should stop considering the border as a revenue gathering device. Given the extent of free trade that we have I remain deeply offended every time I cross the border and I have somebody with a hat and blue shirt asking me if I bought anything in the United States. Who cares? Given the depth of integration and the amount of harassment of people on that small point, which raises at most several million and costs more to administer than it does to do anything useful, I think we should stop thinking of the border as a revenue device. The border is used in order to ensure regulatory compliance. On the Canadian side of the border the Immigration and Custom officials are responsible for ensuring compliance with over 100 statutory instruments on behalf of their department and other departments. On the U.S. side, they're responsible for ensuring compliance with 400 statutory instruments. Many of those things companies comply with regardless of whether they're being checked at the border. What we should be looking at is what can we move away from the border and what can we rid of altogether so that the border can become what it should be, a place where we look after security matters. Even there I think we would have a more secure border if we had proper police and intelligence cooperation rather than a teenager on a summer job asking whether or not you're going wish one country or the other harm. I think we need a much different approach for the border. The second issue that we need to look at is related to the fact that we have a border that is used largely to ensure regulatory compliance and that is to look at the whole issue of regulatory convergence between Canada and the United States. We have two very similar economies with people who demand very similar things and as a result we have very similar regulatory regimes in place, but they are sufficiently different to ensure jobs for all kinds of people on both sides of the border ensuring these tiny differences. I think the time has come for us to move much more expeditiously than is being done under the SBP to reduce those small differences to no differences and therefore reduce the number of things that need to be done at the border. In the question period I'd be happy to elaborate on some of this in more detail. Finally, in order to do that I think we need to develop a sufficient institutional capacity between Canada and the Untied States to govern the extent of integration between our two economies. I find it shocking every time I look at it that Canada and Europe have a more extensive institutional framework in place to look after that relationship than Canada and the United States does between them. I think the time has come for us to put into the dustbin of history our fear of institutional capacity between our two countries and do what's necessary to ensure that we have the political oversight that this very deep and important relationship requires. Doing those three things cannot be done on the basis of the kind of initiative that the SBP represents. It must be done at a higher political level and it requires the kind of bureaucratic and political leadership that is currently lacking. To that end, I would like to see the government establish a department of North American affairs to provide leadership over this and drive the agenda. Thank you very much. Á (1150) The Chair: Thank you very much for that presentation, Professor Hart. We'll go directly to the questions starting with the Official Opposition. Mr. Bains, for seven minutes. Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Thank you very much, chair. I want to thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. It's nice to see the range of views on this particular discussion that we're having on SBP. As you know, we're trying to study trade and investment between Canada and the United States. Mr. Pépin mentioned the SBP is a treaty. My understanding is that it's not a treaty or an accord. I think it was very well described by you, Ms. Healy, as NAFTA-plus. It's kind of an additional framework that works on top of NAFTA to help with integration matters. I think there is a recognition that people have expressed concerns around accountability and transparency, hence why we're having these meetings. I think it's a step in the right direction. These are televised meetings so not only are they exclusively for the members here, but also for the public who have access to television and can view these meetings as well. I think there's an effort being made here to make this as open and public as possible in terms of parliamentarian oversight. I just want to confirm who is being consulted. I know that the Canadian Trucking Alliance has been consulted and has been part of the discussions. Is that correct? Mr. Ron Lennox: Yes, sure. I can explain to you a little bit about our involvement. Again, when the SPP was being rolled out, there were discussions between us and various different departments of government, it wasn't just one. We weren't just dealing with customs, we were dealing with transportation, we were dealing with immigration, because they were looking at various different initiatives and they wanted our perspective on it because they knew it affected us. This, to me, is normal, this is the way we work every day. When a government department wants to do something that will affect the trucking industry it typically will consult us, and the SPP was no different. Our involvement in the North American Competitiveness Council was less so. We're certainly not represented as one of those 30 on the council. We did have several conversations with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which was coordinating Canada's input on that, and had given it several suggestions for what we thought would be appropriate. Hon. Navdeep Bains: Ms. Healy, was the Canadian Labour Congress ever involved in any discussion? Was your input ever sought after? Were you ever asked for your input in any capacity? Ms. Teresa Healy: We've never been invited to participate in any of the working groups. Any discussions we have had, we have made inquiries and made our own efforts to have discussions, but we've never been invited. Hon. Navdeep Bains: Okay. So, you've made an effort on your end. You've submitted information. You tried to get involved in the process, but there hasn't been that kind of forthcoming on behalf of the process from the SPP and the government. Ms. Teresa Healy: That's right. There's no mechanism for us. Hon. Navdeep Bains: Just again, a similar question for Mr. Pépin, the same thing with the Quebec network on continental integration. Were you ever involved or have you ever been asked for your input in any capacity? [Français] M. Normand Pépin: Jamais ont a été même contacter sur la question, tout ce qu'on connaît c'est grâce aux recherches qu'on a faites. Souvent, comme je vous l'ai dit dans la présentation, c'est des documents qui ont été obtenus par des demandes d'accès à l'information aux États-Unis, qu'on parvient à obtenir de l'information sur le processus, sinon on n'est pas consulté. [English] Hon. Navdeep Bains: Mr. Hart, I know you don't represent professors, so I can assume that you haven't been consulted directly on this matter. Mr. Michael Hart: I have never been formally consulted. Have I been asked questions? Yes, often. Do I have difficulty gaining access to people working on the issues I'm interested in? No. Is there information available that I need on this initiative? Yes. There is an extensive website available, which is full of useful information, and contacts and so on. So, anything I want to know about the SPP I can gain access to. Hon. Navdeep Bains: I'm glad, because the second line of questioning I had was there have been concerns raised that there's a hidden agenda or there seems to be a lack of transparency, and especially with respect to the North American Competitiveness Council, that they've put forth some results, they've made some recommendations. In your opinion, and I guess, Ms. Healy, you mentioned this in your research paper, what specific concerns do you generally have that you think they're trying to hide or they're trying to avoid public discourse over? What specific concerns do you have about their recommendations or their approach? Á (1155) Ms. Teresa Healy: Well, our concerns are that when you get into any of the substantive areas of concern, for example, energy, there is a series of objectives that is led by the biggest corporations in this country, and indeed, in North America, that is not representing a wider concern of the concerns of society. So, for example, in this hyper-development of the tar sands and the regulatory reform that is related to it, what we see are the interests of large corporations trying to extract resources as quickly as possible without any regard for the environmental impact, which has been mentioned today as quite significant, nor for the safety and dignity of workers involved or for the communities that are experiencing this kind of rapid industrialization. Hon. Navdeep Bains: One of the issues that was brought forth by Mr. Hart as well is the recognition that--and I think you raised it--when you cross the border, why do you even ask what I have purchased? Now our economies are so well integrated with NAFTA. You have indicated in your research paper as well, since 1996-2005 we've generated an accumulated surplus of close to $150 billion. It's helped generate many jobs here, especially in Ontario, which is reliant on manufacturing. With the appreciation of the dollar, there is concern that we're losing jobs. Isn't it in our best interest as a country to have strong working relationships with the United States to improve integration and trade? If there are concerns you've raised, as you alluded to, with the tar sands or with bulk water diversification, those are genuine concerns, but aside from that there are many synergies and areas we need to work on to help improve trade. In your opinion, do you feel that the SPP process in general is flawed or are there specific components that are flawed? Ms. Teresa Healy: In our understanding of this process, and our analysis has lead us to the conclusion that the process as a whole needs to be discussed, debated, and thought through very carefully. What we see is discussions about a reinvestment in infrastructure. In principle, we are in favour of infrastructure development in Canada. However, we want to see that this is governed by the principles of the public economy, that it's related to a generalized economic development project that makes sense for regions in this country. We don't want to just build new infrastructure that is meant to receive containers of manufactured goods that are brought into the country. What we want to see is a discussion about what kind of infrastructure, and what kind of economy are we building this infrastructure for. We have a manufacturing crisis in Canada. We know that in the United States, and in Mexico, too, there are very serious job and manufacturing issues that need to be dealt with. We need to have the kind of discussion which is going to acknowledge the seriousness of the jobs and manufacturing crisis. We need strategies that are going to develop the resources of communities and of industries. The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Healy. Thank you, Mr. Bains. Now the Bloc Quebecois, Mr. Cardin, for seven minutes. [Français] M. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Merci, monsieur le président. Mesdames, messieurs, bonjour, bienvenue et merci surtout, de vous impliquer dans ce sujet aussi important. D'entrée de jeu, monsieur le président, je vous annonce que je vais partager mon temps avec mon collègue, car on ne sait pas trop comme cela ira après, peut-être qu'on aura pas l'occasion... Il est évident que le PSP, selon ce que l'on peut constater, met en péril la souveraineté du Canada. Cela va peut-être vous surprendre que je m'inquiète de la souveraineté du Canada, mais je m'en inquiète beaucoup, parce que sans la souveraineté du Canada, au Québec on aura de la difficulté à faire la nôtre. Donc, c'est la raison pour laquelle je trouve cela important de faire en sorte que les choses soient bien établies. Lorsqu'il y a eu au PSP une rencontre, en mars 2005, il y avait plusieurs éléments: établir des approches, élaborer des stratégies, favoriser la croissance économique, la compétitivité et la qualité de vie. Spécifiquement, dans cette partie là, on disait aussi que chaque pays a convenu également de mettre sur pied, à l'échelon ministériel, des groupes de travail sur le Partenariat pour la sécurité et la prospérité qui aurait le mandat suivant, et entre autres je dis: consulter les intervenants; le milieu des affaires, cela est évident, c'est le pourquoi de l'existence même du partenariat, ce sont des gens d'affaires, mais les gouvernements d'État aussi et même les municipalités qu'on disait et les organismes non gouvernementaux. Tout à l'heure les questions ont bien démontré que personne d'entre vous, la plupart, s'il n'était pas relié directement aux affaires, n'a été consulté. On sait que tout élément économique impose aussi que cela vienne du choix de société des individus. Donc, c'est dans ce contexte là de la consultation... Il y en a qui dise de tout balayer du revers de la main, mais qu'auriez-vous à nous suggérer pour qu'on puisse vraiment mettre en place un processus de consultation? Comment voyez-vous votre implication à l'intérieur de cela? Â (1200) M. Normand Pépin: C'est une très bonne question. Ce qui nous a frappé tout d'abord, c'est l'absence de volonté de mener cette large consultation dont vous parlez. On pense que cela doit commencer par se retrouver devant le Parlement. Monsieur disait tout à l'heure que c'est des séances télévisées, mais on n'est quand même pas à Canadian Idol. Ceux qui regardent cela sont en nombre limité, disons seulement cela. Si cela se retrouve au Parlement, il y a plus de chances que cela fasse les nouvelles, que les gens en entendent parler. Il y a cela, d'une part. Il faut absolument que cela se retrouve devant le Parlement, et à ce moment-là, chacun fera ses pressions sur les députés pour essayer de les informer de leur mieux de ce qui est connu du PSP. Outre cela, je ne sais pas ce que l'on pourrait proposer. À l'heure actuelle, quand le ministre Bernier a déposé le deuxième rapport aux dirigeants, il a dit: « Maintenant qu'on a consulté le CCCE — parce que c'est uniquement cela qu'ils avaient consulté — on va consulter d'autres organisations. » On parle de septembre 2006 et cela ne s'est jamais fait. Nous, on l'a invité quand on a fait une soirée d'information. On a invité le ministre Bernier à venir en discuter avec nous le 23 mars, jour anniversaire du PSP. On l'a invité quand même quatre mois à l'avance. Ils nous a répondu que son calendrier ne lui permettait pas de venir en discuter avec nous. De toute évidence, la volonté n'y est pas de la part des gouvernements. Mon collègue va poursuivre. M. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): J'abonderais en ce sens. Je lisais votre rapport avec intérêt, rapidement, parce que je l'ai reçu ce matin. Vous parlez beaucoup d'une intégration profonde militarisée et une phase de néo-libéralisme. Madame Burrows, vous parliez également de toute la question des valeurs de notre société dont on ne tenait pas compte à l'intérieur de ce processus, qui étaient antidémocratiques en plus — je pense que vous l'avez dit clairement — parce que c'est un comité qui se rencontre un peu en catimini, on n'entend pas parler de leurs travaux. Ils ont des orientations et des objectifs très bien fixés qui vont toucher également ce qu'on appelle nos politiques environnementales, nos politiques sociales et nos politiques de santé. Vous avez une inquiétude à cet effet par rapport à toute la question de l'harmonisation de ces politiques entre les États-Unis et le Québec, le Canada et le Mexique. En quoi pensez-vous, très clairement, que le fait d'harmoniser nos politiques avec les États-Unis et le Mexique vient affecter nos valeurs propres comme Québécois et comme Canadiens? En quoi cela affecte-t-il nos propres cheminements? Â (1205) Mme Nancy Burrows: C'est sûr qu'il y a la question de la souveraineté dont on parlait tout à l'heure. Une peur que l'on a est que l'harmonisation veuille dire une harmonisation à la baisse, qu'elle veuille dire une harmonisation des normes, des standards. On sait qu'au Québec et au Canada, on a des politiques sociales, que ce soit au niveau de la santé, des médicaments, de l'environnement, etc., et que c'est peut-être différent des États-Unis. On ne se fait pas d'illusions, on est quand même moins puissant en Amérique du Nord que nos voisins du Sud. C'est cette peur de se calquer sur des politiques étatsuniennes. La question de la sécurité en est un exemple en termes de vision, d'embarquer dans la lutte antiterroriste qui est vraiment une préoccupation des États-Unis, et que nous, donc, on est obligé de faire toutes sortes de changements dans nos lois et nos politiques pour répondre aux besoins d'un tiers pays, qui n'est donc pas basé sur notre vision sociale, qui est quand même une vision qui est plus... M. Guy André: Les entrepreneurs qui ont souvent des intérêts, autant aux États-Unis qu'au Mexique, qui viennent un peu établir des normes dans notre société. [English] The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Cardin. Just an extremely short answer please. [Français] Mme Nancy Burrows: J'allais seulement dire que je pense que toute la question de la consultation avec la société civile est importante aussi. Tout à l'heure, on mentionnait l'importance que ce soit débattu à la Chambre des communes, qu'il y ait un débat public, et que les organismes de la société civile soient vraiment consultés. Ce que l'on trouve vraiment aberrant, c'est que les gens d'affaires soient des interlocuteurs directs et aient une influence directe, sans que les parlementaires et les gens de la société civile, qui représentent la population et ses besoins, puissent s'exprimer. [English] The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Cardin. Mr. Allison, from the government side, for seven minutes. Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm always amazed how the war in Iraq has brought into talking about a security and prosperity agreement here in Canada, and how we can move the goods and services across the borders a little bit more easily. I've got enough to ask questions for about 20 minutes, but I only have seven minutes, so we're going to try and make this go as quickly as possible. Mr. Hart, how long were you with DFAIT? What's you're history with Foreign Affairs and Trade? Mr. Michael Hart: I was a government civil servant for 22 years, most of that in DFAIT, and most of it concentrated on trade negotiations. Mr. Dean Allison: Great. Would it be fair to say that you were involved with NAFTA then? What was your involvement with NAFTA? Mr. Michael Hart: I did all the preparatory work for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and was part of that team. I advised the NAFTA team, but I had other responsibilities at that time. Mr. Dean Allison: Okay. It has been alluded to here by certain groups that bulk waters included in NAFTA. Is that true? Mr. Michael Hart: No. Mr. Dean Allison: Thank you. The concern I have—we talk about prosperity all the time—is that most businesses in Canada are small businesses. I want to talk again, Mr. Hart and Mr. Lennox, about goods and services going across the border. We hear constantly from the NDP that we've got a prosperity gap, that things are happening. But I don't know where we're going to do trade if we're not able to get our goods and services across the borders. Mr. Hart, can you talk a bit more to us about the process of trying to streamline the borders? You talked about a couple of things regarding regulations that would make some sense as we move forward. Mr. Michael Hart: Statistics Canada did a study a few years ago where they counted the number of Canadian firms that are engaged in exporting, and they counted something like 42,000 of them, about 35,000 of which do trade with the United States. So we have 35,000 companies in Canada, not just large corporations, but quite a large range of corporations that are engaged in this kind of trade. And the kind of trade they're now engaged in is what economists are now calling "integrative trades". They are participating in the making of things. An economist, Stephen Blank at Pace University in New York, says that Canada and the United States no longer trade with each other. What we do is we build things together. Given the fact that we build things together, the fact that there's a border in between the two parties who are building things together is a potential disincentive to investment in Canada. If you are an investor looking for a new opportunity or to expand an existing opportunity, one of the things you're going to look at is the kind of problems you are going to have at the border. If you think you're going to have problems, you say "Well, I'll tell you what. I'm going to locate in the big market and export what I need to the small market, rather than locate in the small market and face the hassle of 90% of my goods that need to go into the network in the United States having to cross that border." So I think that it is a very legitimate and very important objective for Canada to see what's being done at the border and ask what we can do to reduce the disincentives that the border creates. I give the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Government of Canada full marks for having done as much as they can on a unilateral basis. We have done a tremendous amount in streamlining what we do, in putting in place programs which use electronics, which use pre-clearance, and so on, which moves things away from the border. I think that we cannot do much more unless we do it together. The main objective that we should be pursuing is asking what we can do together with the Americans. Now in order to do it with the Americans.... The Americans are not preoccupied by the border as a revenue issue or an economic issue. They're preoccupied with the border now as a security matter. That's why the two are so much tied together. You cannot build a more open border, which I think is what we need, unless you enhance the confidence that the Americans have in Canada as a security partner. That's why I think it is important that this is tied together, but that's why it's also important that we work with the Americans in enhancing their confidence in us as a security partner so that we can reduce the amount of things that the Americans feel they must do at the border. Â (1210) Mr. Dean Allison: Mr. Lennox, one of the questions I have is that we keep talking referring to big business. I've got a guy in my riding whose name is Ken Westerhoff and who owns Cedarway Floral. He has fresh-cut flowers that he tries to get across the border. He is not big business, and I assure you that his truck gets stopped at the border for any reason, any excuse. Those are perishable items that cannot be use tomorrow. It's not some kind of freight . We can talk about just-in-time inventory or anything else. Talk to about the importance of pre-clearance programs and why and how we need to make this thing work better. Mr. Ron Lennox: You're absolutely right. The trucking industry is different than a lot of other Canadian industries in that it is primarily made up of small businesses. There are over 10,000 carriers in this country. There's a handful of large ones, and a lot of very small ones, but it's fundamentally important that those guys are able to cross the border without delay. Again, we operate, as Professor Hart indicated, in a just-in-time environment. A truck at a standstill makes no revenue for the carrier and the driver probably isn't making anything if he's held up at the border, and of course you run into issues such as you indicated on perishable products. As was mentioned in Mr. Bradley's prepared remarks, we hold out some considerable hope that through harmonized pre-clearance processes the situation at the border will get better. I use this term all the time, but it's kind of nuts and bolts things, but the U.S. has developed what they call an automated truck manifest. We provide information in advance, certain data elements, cargo, crew, conveyance information in advance electronically. It's mandatory at certain locations at the U.S. land border and it will be at all locations at the U.S. land border by the end of this year. Canada is just embarking on a similar process. It's referred to as ACI, automated commercial information, I believe is what that stands for. There's a commitment in SPP to harmonize those two processes, so trucking companies are not building different systems depending on which way the data is going. It's extremely important for us. We are involved in a consultative process that has been established by the Canada Border Services Agency and in fact includes representatives from U.S. Customs. Business groups of all kinds are part of that consultative process. It's one of our top priorities right now. The Chair: Mr. Allison, you have time for one more short question, if you'd like. Mr. Dean Allison: Mr. Hart, again back to you, in terms of dual regulatory system. There are regulations on the Canadian side and the American side. It doesn't mean that they need to be harmonized, necessarily, because there are different regulatory processes. Do you want to just comment quickly on that. Mr. Michael Hart: There are quite a number of ways in which you can achieve regulatory convergence, which is a word that I like better than harmonization. You can have mutual recognition agreements. You can agree on a certain set of standards and leave it up to the individual country or industry and so on as to how you implement that. What we need to do is get rid of those differences that are really quite small and develop cooperative approaches to achieving the same regulatory outcomes and in most cases both countries want the same regulatory outcomes, so why not cooperate. Â (1215) The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Allison. Now to the New Democratic Party, Mr. Julian, for seven minutes. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to each of you for coming here today. What the testimony has very clearly indicated is that this issue, this agenda, goes far beyond smart borders but I was interested in your commentary, Mr. Lennox, that even on the smart borders initiative, which is a tiny portion of the overall SBP agenda, the government has manifestly failed on moving forward even that component. That's an interesting point that I hope we can come back to. I'd like to touch on the issue of prosperity and I'd like to ask you, Dr. Healy, as well as Mr. Pépin and Ms. Burrows, there's something that government spokespeople continually talk about that somehow the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has succeeded enormously, NAFTA has succeeded enormously and that somehow more of the same medicine is going to increase Canada's prosperity, but Statistics Canada belies that myth. Statistics Canada points out very clearly that since 1989, since the signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement for most Canadian families they're actually earning less in real terms than they were back in 1989. There's no clear manifestation of failure on economic and trade policy than the fact that poorest Canadians have actually lost a month's income in real terms, that working class Canadians and middle class Canadians have each lost, on average, about two weeks of salary in real terms. Even upper middle class Canadian have had absolutely no progress on the economic front, and those who have profited from the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and from NAFTA are the wealthiest of Canadians. They're making money hand over fist. Most Canadians families are actually earning less. What a failure on the bottom line of trade and economic policy. So my question to all three of you is how do we address this issue of prosperity and really what is this agenda all about. If the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA have failed on the prosperity front, delivering prosperity to most Canadians, then what is this agenda really about in your opinion? [Français] Alors, j'apprécierais que vous puissiez répondre également, Mme Healy. [English] Ms. Teresa Healy: Thank you for that question. I think that what we see here is that not only have families lost ground, but there has been a widening disparity of income and wealth. There are people who are benefiting. There are corporations that are benefiting. Profits have been very high in these years. But that doesn't mean that the interests of the profit-making corporations are directly translated into the experience of families across the country. When we look at different segments of our society, and at those who have been put in the most vulnerable positions, then we can see even more clearly where this is headed. I think we need to have a wide-ranging discussion about the structure of our economy, and the kind of economy that we need for the future, and the kind of economy that seems to be unfolding in front of us. What's happening with manufacturing? What's happening with jobs in this country? There is a serious crisis going on. We're losing ground and we're returning to becoming exporters once again of unprocessed raw materials. That is a strategy that is very short-sighted. Sure, it'll put a lot of money in the pockets of a small number of corporations, but what does that do for economic development across the country more generally? And I want to keep coming back to the implications and the way...as a working-class organization, we see the effects on transportation workers, we see the racial profiling that is also a part of the story that Mr. Lennox has shared with us, about the problems with the border. There are issues here for workers in general and also problems that immigrant workers are facing. Look at the ITAR story that we heard about a few weeks ago. Maybe I'll let others.... Mr. Peter Julian: Madame Burrows. [Français] Mme Nancy Burrows: Quand on parle de prospérité ou d'inégalités sociales qui se sont accrues dans les dernières années, avec la libéralisation, l'ALENA et maintenant avec l'ALENA plus, je pense qu'il est important de souligner, entre autres, les répercussions sur les femmes qui se retrouvent, le plus souvent au bas de l'échelle, dans des postes précaires ou atypiques, donc de plus en plus précarisés. Vous avez fait le portrait par rapport à la façon dont une grande partie de la population s'est appauvrie. Il est important de souligner que la majorité de cette population sont des femmes. Je pense qu'il est important de souligner aussi la discrimination par rapport à l'appartenance ethno-culturelle. Quand on regarde l'échelle en termes de salaire, au bas de l'échelle, on retrouve les femmes de minorité visible. Ensuite, ce sont les femmes immigrantes et les autres femmes. Ensuite, ce sont les hommes de minorité visible, les autres hommes immigrants et le reste des hommes. Donc, je pense qu'il est important de tenir compte de la stratification sociale et l'hiérarchisation actuelle dans notre société. Avec le PSP, il y a plus d'emphase sur des politiques de libéralisation et de déréglementation dans la perspective d'harmoniser davantage avec les États-Unis. Je pense que cette situation continuera à s'exacerber davantage. Â (1220) [English] Mr. Peter Julian: Merci beaucoup. I'd like to come back to the issue of regulatory framework, which means basically protections for Canadian families. There is a strong push, and we've heard in testimony from government spokespeople who always say that all the information is out there, which is false, as we know. And they also say that there is no problem with harmonization. But we know that in the United States the regulatory process is flawed. We saw that with bovine growth hormone. We've seen that with a number of scandals in the pharmaceutical industry, and on issues around food safety. What would Canadian families be giving up in terms of knowing that those fundamental protections on their food and pharmaceutical products are in place? What do we give up if, as with the softwood lumber agreement, we simply concede everything to basically making sure those decisions are made in Washington rather than being made here in Canada by Canadians? Ms. Teresa Healy: I think there are people who look at the regulatory question and say that what we need is regulatory diversity, and that we don't need downward harmonization of regulations. We need the kind of regulatory perspective which deals with the needs of families, which deals with the needs of communities. This kind of regulatory harmonization and a movement towards the bottom is something against which we have to fight back, but we can't if we're not given the information about what kind of regulations, or about what the process for engagement is on this question. If we only have employers and corporations who say, “Well, we know all about these sectors, so we'll give the government advice”, there are other people involved in civil society and in the economy more generally who also have an experience of regulations. For example, port workers were very active on these discussions around security and regulatory reform in the ports. Had they not been there to respond to the issues, the regulatory reforms for port workers would have been even more onerous. I think what we need to see is a broad-ranging kind of discussion about regulatory reform. It has to be democratized. The Chair: Excuse me, your time is more than up, Mr. Julian. Thank you. We now go to the five-minute round. Mr. Maloney, from the official opposition, go ahead, please. Mr. John Maloney (Welland, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hart, you indicated that certainly the border is one of the fundamental problems we have to change, but certainly vis-à-vis the United States it is a security issue, and I agree with you, but how do we change that mindset? We heard from Mr. Lennox. He's the fellow who represents the people who are on the ground, trying to cross that border. You indicated there were roughly 100 regulatory problems on the Canadian side, 400 on the U.S. side. I'm not sure that the U.S. really wants to dance. They say they do, but from time to time, all these barriers go up; mention was made or oranges and roast beef sandwiches, a trucker's lunch. Every time you turn around, there seems to be more security investigations which overlap. How do we change the mindset in the United States? How do we impress upon them that Canada is the largest trading partner for many, many U.S. states? Mr. Michael Hart: Well, you don't do it on the basis of an incremental approach that largely puts civil servants together to talk about problems they're experiencing. That does some good, but it really isn't going to change the fundamentals. In order to change the fundamentals you have to capture imagination in Washington. In order to capture imagination in Washington you have to have a big initiative. The nature of the U.S. decision making process, where power is widely dispersed and there are a lot of people who have a role in it, is that you must think big. If you have a big initiative, then you can get Americans excited about it and move the agenda forward. We did that with the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the Mexicans did it with the NAFTA. There have been similar kinds of initiatives. You can go back to earlier, NATO and the NORAD zone were major initiatives which captured imagination in the United States and overcame the multitude of smaller interest in the United States, which are always ready to point out, “If you do this, I will be affected”. So if you think big, you can overcome that. Do I think if we do that we can then overcome the many problems we have on the security front? No, but I think that's where we have to start. We have to build a higher level of concern in Washington at the highest levels that the continued health and prosperity of the North American economy means that we must deal with the border differently. That means a willingness on our part to, for example, strengthen the perimeter around North America in order to deal with security issues that are uppermost in American minds: it should also be of concern to us. Similarly, we need to be prepared to sit down with the Americans and be good partners. I think over the last 10 or so years we have not been as good a partner as we might have been, raising suspicion in Washington as to whether or not we would continue to be the kind of partner they're looking for. In the end, these are political choices. You make the political choices and you reap the results. We have made a political choice that we wanted a more deeply integrated North American economy. We have benefited greatly from that, despite what some of the witnesses are saying. We must now decide whether we want to make that work, or do we want to put various kinds of obstacles in its way, including allowing the Americans to build up the security framework they're pursuing? Â (1225) Mr. John Maloney: Ms. Healy, we're concerned about jobs for the people you advocate for. You've heard Mr. Hart respond to my questions. We need to open up our borders, but your concern about more issues about visa information sharing, situations like this that may assist in appeasing the fears of the U.S. and our security, how do we reconcile that? Ms. Teresa Healy: To this point, I don't think that we've been successful in appeasing the fears of the United States' security concerns. I think that these are ongoing issues, as we've heard, in the trucking industry and in the border. The whole security question is one that is being integrated with the economic question. I think what we have to do is come up with a fundamentally different way and we have to interject a new way of thinking about these relationships which does not build ever-increasingly upon a climate of fear and distrust. I think there are issues around human rights that need to be discussed in relation to this question of security, and I'd like to know what mechanism there is for our having this discussion about human rights and the SPP. I think that the more open and transparent and inclusive this discussion, the more likely it is that we're going to find solutions to it. We have reports there are these meetings we keep hearing about, maybe even after the fact or the moment before they happen, this North American 2025 meeting, or a series of meetings that are going on, the famous/infamous Banff meeting. We hear from one of the press, the person who was in charge of keeping the press and public away from the meeting, saying, “No, no, these meetings are not secret, they're private”. We want to know: why can't we have the information about what MPs presented at these meetings or what MPs said at these meetings? The Chair: Ms. Healy, I have to interrupt you at this point. Mr. Maloney's time has long passed--I should be careful of the way I word that. We'll go to the Bloc Québécois. Monsieur André, for five minutes. [Français] M. Guy André: Je vais partager mon temps avec M. Cardin. J'avais une question à poser, dans un premier temps, à M. Hart. Vous êtes un professeur en politique commerciale. Le Canada fait actuellement des efforts immenses pour tenter de satisfaire, comme vous l'avez dit, les Américains en apportant une plus grande sécurité au niveau des frontières suite aux actes terroristes qui ont eu lieu en 2001. Par rapport à ce que vous avez dit également, je pense qu'on se plie à ces exigences, il y a des négociations actuellement avec les États-Unis pour trouver des façons d'améliorer la sécurité de nos frontières et tout. Je me préoccupe également de la question à savoir jusqu'où on ira dans cette perspective d'améliorer cette sécurité advenant qu'il y ait une situation où un acte terroriste se produisait avec quelqu'un qui traverse nos frontières, toutes les conséquences de cette chose qu'il y aurait au niveau économique. C'est encore possible, même si on améliore la sécurité de nos frontières avec les plus grandes protections imaginables, il peut encore y avoir des gens qui pourraient traverser et faire un acte terroriste aux États-Unis en rentrant au Canada. Tout est encore possible. J'imagine qu'il y aura encore une conséquence économique importante au niveau de l'exportation. Y avez-vous réfléchi? Lorsque vous dites que le Canada n'a pas toujours été un bon partenaire avec les États-Unis, cela m'interpelle un peu, dans la perspective où je me dis que nous sommes plus dans une mouvance d'appuyer les Américains au niveau de leur approche militaire, on investit davantage au niveau du militaire ces dernières années avec la venue de ce nouveau gouvernement. La politique environnementale, pour exporter nos sables bitumineux, on tente de s'accorder avec les Américains. En tout cas, certains dirigeants veulent s'accorder avec les Américains pour ne pas nécessairement respecter le Protocole de Kyoto, mais continuer à exploiter nos sables bitumineux. Dans la crise du bois d'oeuvre, nous avons été relativement un bon partenaire en donnant un milliard de dollars de l'argent de nos industries pour venir soutenir l'Entente sur le bois d'oeuvre. J'aimerais vous entendre sur ces différents sujets. Â (1230) [English] Mr. Michael Hart: It's a little difficult to figure out where you want me to start. How far do we need to go? Canada and the United States have a very long history of working together to resolve problems, going back to the 1935 trade agreement, where we first agreed that we would treat each other as best partners rather than worst partners, which was the case before that, through NORAD, NATO, and a whole host of agreements. We have more than 350 bilateral treaties in place between Canada and the United States right now, indicating the extent of cooperation between us. But given the nature of our interdependence, both on the economic and the security fronts, the job is never done. There is always a new frontier to cross, a new opportunity to seize, and a new way of looking at things. In order to do that, we have to be conscious of the fact that the United States is our most important partner, whether we want them to be or not. And I think that's a very Canadian way of putting it. The Americans live next door. They are a global power. We are not a global power, but we do have a high level of economic and security interdependence with the United States. For instance, on the security front, the idea of ensuring our security on anything other than a bilateral basis is just not possible. Canada doesn't have the resources required to ensure our security. We must do it on a bilateral basis. Since the 1939 agreement between the Roosevelt and King administrations, we have done it on a bilateral, cooperative basis. And we've both benefited from that. So the idea that we can go our own way is a ludicrous idea in the Canadian context. It's with that kind of perspective that we say to the Americans, “We want to be your partner. We want to be a reliable partner. You can count on us. And on that basis, let's solve a few problems that we have on the security front”. That's the only way we're going to be able to do that. [Français] M. Guy André: Oui, mais vous avez dit que nous étions un mauvais partenaire, que nous avons été un mauvais partenaire dans les dernières années. C'est dans cette perspective là que j'aimerais avoir des exemples: que nous avons été un mauvais partenaire. Je ne suis pas nécessairement d'accord avec... [English] Mr. Michael Hart: I don't want to get too political-- The Chair: A very short response, please. Monsieur André is out of time. A very short response please. Â (1235) Mr. Michael Hart: Over the last 10 years, the relationship at the top, between our two governments, has not been as productive and a reliable as it could have been. There have been many times when, I think, the government moved in a direction that I thought was unhelpful to building a secure, reliable partnership. The Chair: Thank you. Merci, Monsieur André. Now to the government side, to Mr. Cannan, for five minutes. Go ahead please. Mr. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses. I want to thank you all for your presentations. Specifically, Ms. Healy, you started off and you asked, in your preamble, who the SPP is for? I look around the table—and we've been debating this issue for several meetings and had several discussions over the last few months on where our international trade strategy should be—and I believe everyone around the table, especially when it comes to equality and we all have access to opportunity to increase our quality of life and find ways that we can ensure opportunities for all Canadians, and I think that's a goal that we all can agree on, not matter what political stripe you're from. I look at North American opportunities. As I said, we've had several witnesses who've said this is where we should be focusing our energies. Our biggest trading partner is over $2 billion of trade a day going across the border and 37,000 trucks. Approximately 80% of our population live within 160 kilometres of the border. An average Canadian family relies on small businesses. And my riding in the interior of British Columbia, and all of us around the table, we need to ensure that we have this streamlining of a seamless border crossing, as seamless as possible. I would like to ask Mr. Lennox in a moment, but I just want to clarify one other statement that was made about where our Canadian families sit, in the past with NAFTA, and where we're heading in the future. Mr. Julian had stated about Canadian families and how poor off they were, but the fact is Canadian families, on the whole, experienced two periods in which income feel, one in the early 1980s and one in the early 1990s, and in both cases the Canadian economy was in a recession. So you can go through the statistics and manipulate them however you want. If you use the benchmark of 1997 or 2004, I can massage and show you all kinds of numbers. Prof. Hart can probably do it extremely better than all of us around the table. But the fact is that when it comes to NAFTA, we're a lot better off as Canadians and North Americans and all three of our trading partners because of the trade that's been generated and the business opportunities. So I just near to clarify that and get it on the record. Specifically, Mr. Lennox, my uncle has a trucking company and I used to work for him, in Alberta, bringing products through Mexico and California through western Canada. I know the importance of having the delays at the border. Many a times a trucker is calling that's a day at the border and it costs tens of thousands of dollars for your members. Can you maybe clarify or expand a little bit if you've had any opportunity to participate in the eManifest program and the pre-clearance and what it will do for helping clients and your moving of the goods and services across the border. Mr. Ron Lennox: Certainly. In terms of the process itself, this eManifest process in the U.S. has been underway for quite some time now. A government industry advisory group, called the Trade Support Network, was struck in the United States. Representatives from all modes of transportation, as well as brokers and shippers and so forth, were part of that process. I was personally part of that process and remain involved. The idea there was to ensure that the system to convey manifest data that the United States uses to make risk decisions on the carrier and on the driver, for example, and on the cargo are there in advance and that the risk screening is done before the truck gets to the border. Now in Canada, as I said, we're just embarking on that process. The first meeting, it was a government-industry consultative process. The first meeting of, I believe it's called, the ACI group met in Ottawa in January of this year. They are talking about doing a very similar process. And, in fact, the first meeting of the steering committee for that group is taking place this afternoon. Mr. Ron Cannan: Thank you very much. I still have another minute. I have another comment there for Professor Hart. There are some concerns about the open, transparent process. The previous government had established the process and our government is trying to make it as open as possible, and one of the ways is by this meeting. You referred to the NACC. This is the report here. It's a public document and it's available on the web. If you'd like a copy, I'd be more than willing to provide it for you. There is a web page as well for the government, so it's a whole process. It's open. Maybe, Mr. Hart, you could elaborate a little more on your understanding of how the public can be involved in the process, from your experience. Â (1240) Mr. Michael Hart: As an official, I was part of the group of people who were charged with designing ways and means in which the government could be more open. I learned something from that process. There are two ways in which you consult. One is that you consult in order to improve your technical base, the knowledge that you need in order to move forward. These are consultations on how, and civil servants are very well equipped to do that. There is another kind of consultation which is based on whether you should do it, the why. Civil servants can't do that. Only politicians can do that as that's a political question and that must be addressed by either the minister or by parliamentarians. Sometimes civil society grows confused about the two kinds of consultations. The how and the why consultations are not the same, and the same people cannot pursue both of them. The Chair: Thank you very much, professor, and thank you, Mr. Cannan. As the final questioner in the five-minute round, Mr. Julian, for five minutes. Mr. Peter Julian: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your saying, Mr. Hart, that essentially the government has the responsibility to be consulting with the public. That is something certainly that has come out of these brief hearings. Hopefully government members will understand that they need to open up this process so we can have debates over each and every one of these initiatives. I'd like to come back to you, Dr. Healy, as well as you, Monsieur Pépin and Madam Burrows on two elements that are fundamental to this. One is the issue what we believe, as a country, is the direction we should be going and how this initiative has essentially been kept away from the public domain so we can have these public discussions. What should the government be doing to ensure that we have those full public consultations so that Canadians can be assured that if we head down this road, it is a road with which Canadians agree. We know that part of the strategy, because we've heard from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, is to keep it away from the public debate because they say there is no appetite for a big debate now and they are seizing on the fact that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement debate that we had in 1988, aside from the electoral system going against this, essentially, most Canadians voted against that agreement, and given the fact that most Canadian families have been poorer since, despite the government's protestations to the contrary, shows that Canadians were right to be concerned. NAFTA had a similar debate, and most Canadians voted against NAFTA because the Jean Chrétien government had promised to not put it into effect. How do we get that democracy back so that Canadians are actually being consulted on these issues? Ms. Teresa Healy: First of all, the government should not hide behind a process of regulatory reform. Basically, this should be a process in which full, open, democratic debate and discussion should occur, and should happen in Parliament. Parliamentarians should take back their place in this process. I do not think that it should be left to secret meetings, private consultations with the most powerful interests in the country. The representatives of every single community across this country should have the opportunity, and they do bear the responsibility for bringing this discussion even more into the open. It is wonderful that we are here today at this committee. This process should be expanded and increased so that there is a full democratic debate in this country about what seems to be so innocuous as regulatory reform, which, in fact, as we have found out through our studies and through hearing from our members and our affiliates, is certainly not an innocuous process. Mr. Peter Julian: Monsieur Pépin, Madam Burrows. [Français] M. Normand Pépin: Je répéterais à peu près la même chose en français, mais je vais m'abstenir de juste répéter. Avant la tenue du débat, cela prend de l'information pour tout le monde ici. Nous avons fait des recherches assez approfondies pour trouver de l'information qui était disponible. Il faut la rendre plus facilement disponible. Monsieur pointait le rapport du CNAC en disant qu'il est disponible sur un site Internet. Je suis d'accord, mais il a été rendu disponible le 23 février, alors que la rencontre était annoncée une semaine avant, par un communiqué du gouvernement. Et, il n'était même pas question que les membres du gouvernement rencontrent le CNAC, d'après le communiqué. Donc, il y a tout cela qui est à lever. Il n'y a pas juste les grandes négociations, il y a des groupes de travail aussi qui sont à l'oeuvre. Il y en a 9 pour la sécurité et 10 pour la prospérité. De quoi sont-ils en train de discuter? Il faut tout savoir cela avant d'engager le débat plus largement. Oui, s'il faut absolument que cela passe par la Chambre des communes. Je pense qu'il n'y a aucune autre option que celle-là. Â (1245) Mme Nancy Burrows: J'ajouterais que lorsque le professeur Hart dit qu'on confond les deux niveaux de consultation, je dis qu'on n'est pas en train de confondre. Le gouvernement nous dit: « ne vous inquiétez pas, ce ne sont que de petites consultations techniques, des choses comme ça ». Justement, on veut que les politiciens et politiciennes débattent de la raison pour laquelle on devrait le faire et si on veut. On va dans le même sens pour dire qu'on devrait débattre à la Chambre des communes du pourquoi et si on devrait le faire bien avant les discussions plus techniques sur le comment. Le processus était complètement à l'inverse. Arrêtons le processus, recommençons à nous poser les vraies questions pour savoir à quel endroit on devrait le faire, à la Chambre des communes et non pas à la chambre de commerce. [English] The Chair: Mr. Julian, your time is up. We will now go to the next round of questioning, Monsieur Cardin. [Français] M. Serge Cardin: Monsieur le président, on devrait profiter de la situation compte tenu qu'il y a eu deux tours complets de questions, d'aller au point à l'ordre du jour qui est la motion présentée par le Bloc québécois. On aurait à peu près 12 minutes maximum pour le faire. [English] The Chair: You want to deal with that today, then? So what I'll do is dismiss the witnesses and then we'll suspend for two minutes and go in camera, and carry on. Thank you all very much for coming today. It was another very informative meeting. Yes, point of order, Mr. Cannan. Mr. Ron Cannan: Why are we going in camera? The Chair: Mr. Cannan, we've always gone in camera to deal with committee business. It's been routine. We've always done it. It's the normal procedure of the committee. The committee could make a decision on that, certainly. First, I'll give you a chance to bring it up...Mr. Cannan, if you want to bring it up right now, I guess before we go in camera. Mr. Ron Cannan: I would move that we don't go in camera. The Chair: Mr. Cannan has moved that we don't move the meeting to an in camera meeting. Is there any discussion on that? Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian: This is going to surprise Mr. Cannan, but I second his motion. This is a public meeting; this is a public motion; it should be discussed in public. The Chair: Any other discussion on the motion? (Motion agreed to) Â (1250) The Chair: So we won't go in camera. We will carry on the business in public. I am just going to suspend for one minute, just so the witnesses can clear and then we'll come back and deal with the motion. Â Â [Français] M. Serge Cardin: Monsieur le président, tout à été fait dans l'ordre. Vous avez reçu à l'intérieur d'un délai de 48 heures cet avis de motion. Si vous désirez que je vous la relise, je peux le faire, compte tenu des discussions qui ont eu lieu dans le PSP concernant l'eau et aussi les déclarations faites par les gens du Parti conservateur à l'effet qu'on aurait la protection totale, ce que je ne considère pas. Attendu que les ressources en eau du Canada doivent être protégées; Attendu que l'ALENA couvre tous les services et tous les biens, à l'exception de ceux qui en sont nommément exclus et que l'eau n'en est pas exclue; Attendu que cette situation qui relève de la responsabilité fédérale pose un risque pour les lois des provinces qui interdisent l'exportation de l'eau en vrac; Attendu qu'un simple accord par échange de lettres entre les gouvernements du Canada, des États-Unis et du Mexique précisant que l'eau n'est pas couverte par l'ALENA devrait être respecté par les tribunaux internationaux comme s'il faisait partie intégrante de l'ALENA; Il est proposé que, conformément à l'article 108.2 du Règlement, le Comité permanent du commerce international recommande au gouvernement d'entamer rapidement des pourparlers avec ses homologues mexicains et américains afin d'exclure l'eau, les biens régis par l'ALENA et que rapport de l'adoption de cette motion et du préambule soit fait à la Chambre à la première occasion. On aurait dû lire « le Règlement de la Chambre des communes ». [English] The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Cardin. Have you any comments you'd like to make on your motion? [Français] M. Serge Cardin: Non, monsieur le président, je pense que c'est très clair. À ce moment-là, je pense qu'on peut poursuivre rapidement. [English] The Chair: Any discussion? Mr. Julian and then Mr. Cannan. [Français] M. Peter Julian: Merci, monsieur le président. C'est une excellente motion qui est apportée par le Bloc québécois. Je vais donc appuyer la motion de M. Cardin . Il y a toutefois quelques précisions que je voulais proposer comme amendement et que, je l'espère, sera reçu favorablement: D'abord, au troisième paragraphe: « Attendu que cette situation », je voudrais qu'on biffe « qui relève de responsabilité fédérale ». Je vais remettre une copie au greffier une fois que j'aurai terminé. Toujours au troisième paragraphe, il faudrait lire: « Attendu que cette situation pose un risque pour les lois provinciales et fédérales qui concernent la protection de l'eau, y compris l'interdiction de l'exportation de l'eau en vrac ». Au quatrième paragraphe, il faudrait ajouter à la troisième ligne: « l'ALENA devrait être respecté par les tribunaux ». Ajouter le mot « par ». Au dernier paragraphe, on devrait lire: « conformément à l'article 68(2) du Règlement de la Chambre », alors on ajoute: « de la Chambre ». À la quatrième ligne, on change: « afin d'exclure l'autre de la portée de l'alinéa ». Ce sont les cinq précisions et je vais donner une copie au greffier. [English] The Chair: Okay, Mr. Julian, we will have the clerk read the motion with the amendments in and, there are a lot of amendments there, then we'll have discussion on the amendments. I think it's going to be very difficult for members to understand what's happened here if we don't lay it all out. Â (1255) [Français] Le greffier du comité (M. Normand Radford): Attendu que les ressources en eau du Canada doivent être protégées; Attendu que l'ALENA couvre tous les services et tous les biens, à l'exception de ceux qui en sont nommément exclus, et que l'eau n'en n'est pas exclue; Attendu que cette situation pose un risque pour les lois... [English] This is where the changes are. [Français] ...les lois provinciales et fédérales qui concernent la protection de l'eau, y compris l'interdiction de l'exportation de l'eau en vrac; Attendu qu'un simple accord par échange de lettres entre les gouvernements du Canada, des États-Unis et du Mexique précisant que l'eau n'est pas couverte par l'ALENA devrait être respecté par les tribunaux internationaux, comme s'ils faisaient partie intégrante de l'ALENA; Il est proposé que, conformément à l'article 108(2) du Règlement de la Chambre, le Comité permanent du commerce international recommande au gouvernement d'entamer rapidement des pourparlers avec ses homologues mexicains et américains, afin d'exclure l'eau de la portée de l'ALENA et que le rapport de l'adoption de cette motion et le préambule soient faits à la Chambre à la première occasion. [English] The Chair: Have all members heard the members that have been proposed? Monsieur Cardin and then we'll go to Mr. Cannan. I do have a speaking list. [Français] M. Serge Cardin: Monsieur le président, je ne peux qu'être en accord avec ces modifications. On peut donc poursuivre. [English] The Chair: We're going to go to discussion on the amendment. Go ahead Mr. Cannan and then Mr. Lemieux. Mr. Ron Cannan: I just wanted to clarify. You're removing the words “federal responsibility” out of the equation. It says: “whereas the situation puts the provincial laws....” [Français] Le greffier: « provinciales et fédérales » [English] Provincial and federal. Mr. Ron Cannan: Under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act the provinces cannot export bulk water. My question to the clerk then, if it's in fact inaccurate, is a motion in order if it's factually incorrect? The Chair: Mr. Cannan, in response to your question, it's certainly my responsibility as chair, and with advice from the clerk, to ensure that the process is followed. The accuracy of motions certainly isn't something that we can eliminate. It's up to the committee to decide what they want to pass at the committee and put before the House. Mr. Ron Cannan: In good conscience, knowing that it's illegal, it's not proper to support something that's contravening a treaty act that's already in place, I won't be supporting— The Chair: You will have to convince the committee members, of course, that's the case. Mr. Lemieux. Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): A point I'd like to bring up is that's quite an amendment, very hard to follow. I'd like to have it in front of me, actually. Not just me, I think all members should have it in front of them so we can understand what the amendment is, what the impact is on the motion, and then we can have a proper debate on it. Otherwise, we're going to be questioning, “What was that part again? I couldn't quite follow the fourth part of that amendment.” So I'd like to have it in front of me. A voice: We do that in bills. [Français] Et en français. Oui, en anglais et en français. On parle les deux langues, ici. [English] The Chair: Mr. Lemieux, you feel that it's not perfectly clear to you. You would like to see all of the amendments that have been made here in front of you. We'll arrange that, just hold on a minute here. I remind the committee that we have about a minute left. It sounds like all the members, certainly on the government side, want copies of the changes made to the amendment. That's certainly reasonable. We'll try to accommodate that. Monsieur Cardin. · (1300) [Français] M. Serge Cardin: Monsieur le président, comme je l'ai mentionné en introduction, cette motion a été déposée il y a 48 heures déjà et plus. Copie en a été donnée à l'ensemble des députés, elle devrait donc être connue de l'ensemble des députés. Les modifications apportées par M. Julian ne sont quand même pas des modifications terriblement importantes, dans le sens qu'elles ne changent pas l'essence même de la motion. Elles sont plutôt pour ajuster un peu la présentation comme telle, certains éléments sont des éclaircissements. Je ne crois pas que cela change fondamentalement la motion. Les députés du gouvernement sont au courant de cette motion. [English] The Chair: Monsieur Cardin, I want to make it clear that I'm not ruling the motion out of order. There were, I think, three or four changes made to your motion. It would have been very helpful to have had those changes prepared ahead of time if you knew this was going to happen—I guess I should be directing that at Mr. Julian—so we could have copies for all the members. The members have indicated that they're not comfortable in not having those changes. We're out of time for today. We're going to have to come back to this at the next meeting. Certainly if we could have the amendments, Mr. Julian, brought to the committee, that would be extremely helpful. Monsieur André, we are out of time. [Français] M. Guy André: Monsieur le président, j'aimerais proposer une motion pour poursuivre la réunion dix minutes de plus. [English] The Chair: Monsieur Cardin, at the first of the meeting, I indicated that we are going to end on time, and we will. We'll start on time next time, and we'll end on time at the next meeting, too. Meeting adjourned.

Note: http://www.cpac.ca/form...