Throwing Cold Water On Deep Integration

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?COM=10801&Lang=1&SourceId=206534 In solidarity, Ms. Mooña Lahbabi Parliamentary Assistant Office of Peter Julian, MP Burnaby-New Westminster Tel: (613) 992-4214 Fax: (613) 947-9500 TTY: (613) 992-4249 CEP 232/SCEP 232 This email message and any attachment may contain privileged or confidential information and is intended only for the named recipient(s) or group indicated. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender and delete this email message. Thank you for your cooperation. Ce courriel, ainsi que tout fichier annexé peut contenir des renseignements protégés ou confidentiels et concerne uniquement les destinataires indiqués. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, ou si vous n'êtes pas les destinataires, veuillez en aviser l'expéditeur et l'effacer. Merci de votre coopération. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In the House - May 31, 2007 39th Parliament, 1st Session Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing the member for Mississauga—Brampton South and I appreciate his work on committee, but I cannot let go by the comments that he just made. I have a lot of respect for him personally, but to say now that the Liberal Party has suddenly woken up to the fact that the softwood sellout has been incredibly detrimental to the softwood communities across the country just defies imagination. This softwood sellout came from a Liberal minister who crossed the floor, brought it to the Conservative Party. The only good environmental thing the Conservatives ever do is recycle old Liberal policies. So that Liberal minister crossed the floor, brought it to the Conservative Party. The Conservatives brought it to trade committee. As the parliamentary secretary even admits, Liberal members on the trade committee forced through the softwood sellout even though we knew it would result in thousands of lost jobs and then the Liberals said it, pushed it through before Christmas. Liberals have their fingerprints all over the crime scene and yet the member for Mississauga—Brampton South tries to pretend that, gee, they woke up to the fact that 5,000 jobs were lost within weeks of this incredibly irresponsible sellout being put into place, Conservatives being assisted by their accomplices in the Liberal Party. So I cannot let that go by. It simply defies imagination that anyone could try to pretend the Liberals were not duplicitous and explicitly involved in every stage of the softwood sellout. I want to come back to the member's point about the Liberal Party and water exports because the Liberals, among the many promises that they broke after 1993, had promised to ban the commercial export of water, but never did so which is why we are in this precarious position today. In 2002, a Liberal government actually opposed installing water as a human right. So how does the member, who I respect a lot, mesh all these contradictions with the comments that he just made in the House? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Island North. I am pleased to speak in support of this motion that is coming forward today. This motion is coming forward, as we know, as a result of the work of the NDP in this Parliament. The SPP hearings, the hearings on the security and prosperity partnership, or deep integration, that the NDP forced at the international trade committee have resulted in the first piece of what will have to be many different pieces of debate and discussion in this House of Commons. We know that the SPP agenda that was started by the Liberal Party in 2005, another piece of recycled legislation from the Liberals to the Conservatives. As we have had in so many cases, the change in government has meant simply a change in entitlement. Now, the Conservatives feel that they have the entitlements that the Liberals used to feel that they had but essentially many of the policy directions are exactly the same. And it is the case of course when it comes to the SPP, the security and prosperity partnership, or deep integrations. There was a Liberal agenda that was put in place and essentially organized behind the scenes, away from parliamentary scrutiny, away from public debate, and we have seen the Conservatives simply leap onto that band wagon with enthusiasm and continue the secrecy, continue the lack of public consultation and continue to have decisions being taken behind the scenes that are extremely important to Canadians and kept away from parliamentary scrutiny. The NDP forced these first hearings on the SPP. What have we learned from these first hearings? This is simply exposing the point of the iceberg, really, in terms of the overall agenda that is in place for the SPP put in place by the Liberals and continued by the Conservatives. Below the surface there are many other areas that need to be brought out into public scrutiny, brought out for public debate, meaningful public consultations, brought out for parliamentary debate. We have learned just within the first few hearings a number of things that should be very worrisome to Canadians. First off, we learned that the Conservative government is now pushing for more pesticide residue on food that we eat in Canada. In an effort to eliminate these impediments to trade, the Conservatives are willing to allow a greater amount of pesticide residue. The United States has the weakest environmental regulations in the western world when it comes to pesticide residue, far weaker than Europe, for example, and yet this Conservative government is now pushing forward so that Canadians, when they are consuming food in Canada, will have a greater amount of acceptable pesticide residue. Now, we know pesticides are directly tied to many diseases, such as Parkinson's Disease. But the Conservatives, like their Liberal predecessors, do not seem to be concerned about the health implications for Canadians. They are simply pushing through these regulation changes that would allow for more pesticides to be consumed by Canadians, unbeknownst of course to them. It is completely unacceptable. As members know, the vast majority of Canadians want to see safer regulations, food that is much safer, and yet we have seen the Liberals and Conservatives pushing exactly the opposite way in an effort to appease Washington. Another example is safety regulations. We saw, again started by the Liberals and continued under the Conservatives, the same attempt to try to diminish the number of flight attendants on Canadian flights. Flight attendants are extremely important in evacuation procedures. In the event of a major disaster with an airplane, it is the flight attendants who assist the passengers, particularly seniors and people with disabilities, in getting off the plane. Again, this SPP agenda was to diminish the number of flight attendants on Canadian planes so that in the event of an accident where an evacuation needed to happen, there would be fewer flight attendants to actually assist those passengers to evacuate. As we saw with the Air France disaster two years ago, it is vitally important that the flight attendants be there because in that case, the flight attendants saved lives. In the case of any other potential disaster, it would be the same thing. The NDP pushed back and we stopped the government from doing this. These are just two examples of the types of initiatives the Conservatives are taking behind the scenes. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ There are over 300 different regulatory areas where this is happening, over 300 hidden behind the scenes, away from public consultation, away from any sort of public debate, away from parliamentary scrutiny. This is taking place. This is an example of to what extent the Conservatives are willing to implement the Liberal agenda and to push through what is bad policy for Canadians. Why are they doing this behind the scenes? Their allies, the corporate CEOs around the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said they did not believe that the public really wanted to have debates on these issues. What they are saying is if the public found out what the Conservatives were doing, like their Liberal predecessors, Canadians would be profoundly disturbed by the direction that the government has taken. That is why they do not want this debate out in public, to the extent that we saw the chair of the international trade committee shut down the hearings on energy sovereignty that the committee was hearing. Gordon Laxer, an Albertan representing the Parkland Institute, one of the most respected Albertan institutions, came to speak in Ottawa on behalf of most Albertans who are concerned about the giveaways we have seen from both the provincial and federal Conservatives. We have an Albertan from the Parkland Institute, an important and reputed Albertan institution, coming to give testimony on energy sovereignty, what the Conservatives have given away, like the Liberals before them, under proportionality. Canada is the only nation on earth that actually supplies a foreign country before it actually meets the needs of its own citizens and Mr. Laxer was providing testimony to that effect. Now most of eastern Canada is supplied by offshore resources coming from the Middle East and other foreign countries. In the event of a supply shortage, if that imported oil is cut off, we are actually forced to continue to supply the American market first, which means literally that Canadians freeze in the dark because of the Conservatives and their Liberal predecessors being completely incapable of standing up for the national interest. When Mr. Laxer provided that testimony, the chair of the international trade committee tried to cut him off because he simply did not want Mr. Laxer's testimony to get out in the public domain. When the committee overruled him, the chair, unbelievably, showing profound disrespect to Albertans and all Canadians who are concerned about this issue, walked out of the meeting, trying to adjourn it. For Canadians who are watching today, we now have that testimony restored and they can find out what Mr. Laxer said about the incredible recklessness and irresponsibility of the Conservative government in giving away our energy resources without looking to Canada's interests first. That brings us to the question of exports of water. Essentially, we now have within the Conservative implementation of the Liberal agenda the issue of water exports back on the table, unbelievably. The vast majority of Canadians are opposed to water exports and diversions and they are opposed for a number of reasons. One is because of the environmental devastation that results from that, and we have seen in case after case where Canadians have spoken out on these issues, but also because it makes no public policy sense whatsoever. We may have a bank account that is rich as we have 20% of the world's freshwater, but we only have about 6% of the world's renewable freshwater. In a very real sense, when we talk about our water resources that is our bank account. That is the 20% of standing water resources that is largely invested in our lakes, streams and rivers across the country, but the renewable resources of this are actually only equivalent to the United States. The United States has been reckless with its use of water and, unfortunately, even though many Americans are speaking out on this issue, what we are seeing from those who would seek rather than apply environmentally sustainable polices is pressure now to simply take Canadian water, as if somehow having a few more years of freshwater supplies in Canada is going to avoid the environmental catastrophes that many people apprehend in the United States. It is simply not acceptable to share our water. If any bulk water exports or diversions start, under NAFTA right now they cannot be stopped. That is why the NDP is supporting this motion. We need to make it very clear that bulk water exports and diversions are unacceptable and not environmentally sustainable. The NDP corner of the House will be fighting the SPP agenda and water exports and that is why we in the NDP support the motion. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Brampton South for his question. Unfortunately he is not going to like my response, because I have to repeat the issue of the Liberal involvement in the softwood sellout. If the Liberal Party had chosen to work with the NDP, it would have been able to stop the softwood sellout. I understand the Liberal minister across the floor, with the original draft softwood sellout that came from the Liberal Party, brought it over to the Conservatives. I realize he was not a member of the trade committee at the time and that is unfortunate, but the Liberal trade committee members pushed with the Conservatives to get it through, despite the consequences. They wanted to get it through no matter how many how many thousands of jobs were lost, no matter how they compromised Canada's position. We actually won in the Court of International Trade, so the Americans were obliged to pay every single penny back. We were a few months away from the finish line of winning every single cent back and unimpeded access to the American market, and the Conservatives, instead of saying, "We now have a court decision that gives every penny back, subject to one appeal", blew it up and destroyed it because they simply did not understand the file. The Liberals on the trade committee helped get it through. Liberals in the Senate then adopted it, when they could have stopped it. Unfortunately I cannot give the answer the member is looking for. The results have been disastrous. Why did the Liberal Party not try to work with the NDP to stop this deplorable, reckless-- __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Windsor West for his work on that file. This was extremely important, and in this corner of the House, the NDP always seems to be on top of our files. That is why we have pushed against the SPP, the only party in the House to do so. That is why we fought against the egregious softwood sellout, the appallingly bad and irresponsible softwood giveaway, which certainly will leave very few Conservatives standing in British Columbia after the next election. They well know that that is why their numbers are collapsing in British Columbia, because B.C. has been at the epicentre of the thousands of lost jobs because of this egregiously bad policy. Do I have any confidence in the government's ability to negotiate? Do I have any confidence in Mickey Mouse or Daffy Duck negotiating on our behalf, any more than the trade minister? For goodness' sake, softwood lumber, the firing ranges on the Great Lakes, now we have the South Korea agreement, giveaway after giveaway-- ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary used disingenuousness bordering on dishonesty. He read a phrase without giving the second part of the sentence. When he said it is very true that water in its natural state is not a good under NAFTA, he left out the second part of the sentence, which is that, once it is treated as a good it does fall under NAFTA. That is the unbelievable attempt by these Conservatives to try to mix up a debate that they clearly do not understand. This is something that Liberals took no action on, and now we see the Conservatives, in the most disingenuous way possible, trying to pretend that because it is in a natural state now they do not have to worry about the fact that once water exports starts we cannot stop them and foreign investors are actually entitled to compensation from Canadian taxpayers. So, they clearly do not understand the issue. Now, they throw around black helicopters. There seems to be an obsession on the Conservative side of the house with black helicopters. I do not understand it, and I do not think anyone watching here today would understand it either, so I will leave that point aside. But I will come back to NAFTA. Statistics Canada says very clearly that since 1989, since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, 80% of Canadian families are actually earning less in real terms. Yesterday, we had thousands of laid off workers who have lost their jobs come before Parliament Hill. So, my question is very simple. What is it about the Conservatives that they do not understand simple issues like water exports, like job losses and like the fact that their economic policies have failed and most Canadian families are doing worse now than they were 18 years ago? ________________________________________________________________ Ms. Catherine Bell (Vancouver Island North, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for sharing his time with me today and for his work on the international trade committee. We have heard his passion and dedication. His work on this file is where this motion comes from. It is a result of the direct work that the NDP did at this committee. I know the hon. member works long and hard there. I want to talk about water policy and water in general. Water is vital to people's health and livelihoods. In Canada we do not have a national water policy. We do not have a strategy to address urgent water issues. We have heard that there is no federal leadership to conserve and protect our water. Our federal water policy is over 20 years old and is badly outdated. There is a growing list of the crisis facing our freshwater, including contamination, shortages and pressures to export to the United States and Mexico through pipelines and diversions. The government needs to implement a comprehensive national water policy. What should that policy include? For starters, it should include a ban on the bulk export of water. Water is a finite resource and Canada has about 20% of the world's freshwater supply, but only 7% of the world's renewable freshwater. The rest of the water is trapped in ice and snow and glaciers. Unfortunately, we are losing that part of our trapped water supply. Canada and the United States share interconnected water systems. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 45 million people. The Great Lakes Annex agreement was signed back in December 2005 by Ontario, Quebec and eight U.S. states. This will allow diversions through permissive exceptions, but it does not guarantee a strong role for the Government of Canada to preserve and protect our water supply. North Dakota is just one state that is facing water shortages. It is looking north for a new supply through diversions and inter-basin transfers. Bulk water exports and diversions would leave Canada's water vulnerable to environmental depletion and to international trade challenges that could permanently open the floodgates to the parched U.S. states. A new national water policy must ban the export of water, implement strict restrictions on diversions and affirm the role of the federal government in international water issues. Once water is a commodity there will be no chance to turn off the tap. In April of this year, as my colleague spoke about, we learned about a document produced by a Washington think tank, revealing that business and government leaders in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are actively discussing bulk water exports. They met in Calgary on April 27 of this year to discuss the issue in a closed door meeting as part of a larger discussion on North American integration. This is something that thousands and thousands of Canadians are totally opposed to. These meetings have many Canadians concerned about the government's direction with regard to the protection of this precious resource. I support the recommendations that the government quickly begin talks with their American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA. Our thirsty neighbours to the south do not lack sufficient water resources. What they have is unsustainable urban sprawl and mismanagement of their resources. It is important to exclude water from NAFTA because NAFTA is designed to protect trade above all else. Water could be traded and exported even if it had a negative impact on Canada. We see that with our oil exports. We export 60% of our oil to the U.S. Even if Canada had a shortage we would still have to do that. There are many reasons why Canada needs a national water policy. In the year 2000, seven people died in the community of Walkerton, Ontario when their drinking water was contaminated with the E. coli virus. In 2001, more than 7,000 people were made sick during a three month period by parasite infected water in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. In 2005, the people of Kachechewan, a Cree community in Ontario, were forced to evacuate their homes because of water contamination, and there are still problems in Kachechewan today, as my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has so passionately pointed out on many occasions in the House. According to the Government of Canada, municipalities issue hundreds of boil water advisories a year, most as a result of water contamination. Since December 16, 2006, hundreds of boil water advisories have been issued for first nations communities in Canada. This is an alarming trend. We see ourselves as a very clean, safe country, yet issue hundreds of boil water advisories. A new national water policy must create national clean drinking water standards, something that we do not have. Communities across this country are in desperate need of money to pay for water pipes and filtration systems, which are now the responsibility of municipal governments. These governments are looking to private investors to rebuild infrastructure through public-private partnerships. Water is a public health and safety concern and is best managed, regulated and financed by public systems that are accountable to their communities. If we lose that accountability, we lose control of our water. When for-profit interests control drinking water, the quality decreases and cost increases, and there are many examples of municipalities which have gone down the P-3 road far enough to learn that it is a bad deal for their communities. The federal government has tied infrastructure money in its 2007 budget to public-private partnerships. It is forcing municipalities down a very slippery slope to privatization and the loss of control of municipal water supply and management. A new national water policy must commit to the federal government investment plan for municipalities. Water is essential for all life, but it is a finite resource. Even in Canada, a water rich nation as I said earlier, one-quarter of Canadian municipalities have faced shortages and currently one-third rely on groundwater, a resource on which we have dangerously little data, to provide for daily needs. Water shortages in the prairies cost $5 billion in economic damage in 2001. We should think what $5 billion could buy in infrastructure for some of these communities which are sorely lacking. At the same time, Canadians waste a tremendous amount of water every day. A new national water policy must implement a comprehensive conservation strategy and invest in water resource research and monitoring. Simple things such as turning off the tap while we brush our teeth can save an entire swimming pool of water per person per year. It is as simple as that. However, people need information to go on. The North American Free Trade defines water as a service and an investment, leaving Canadian water vulnerable to thirsty foreign investors. Once Canada allows water to be withdrawn and transported to other countries for large scale industrial purposes, foreign investors must be given the same national treatment as Canadian companies. A new national water policy must also ensure that water does not become a tradable commodity in current and future trade deals. Canada should also oppose the privatization of water as it allows for some of the worst human rights violations. We saw this in Ecuador, where the water supply became so expensive after being privatized that ordinary people could not afford it. Only the wealthy had access to water. This caused a revolt in the community when ordinary families had no other alternative but to demand access to their water. Recognizing the right to water would allow international law to address issues of unequal distribution and safe water for drinking and sanitation in other countries. Canadians are concerned about the lack of the current position on bulk water exports and the Conservative Party did nothing in the election to address growing concerns about the stability and quality of Canada's water supply. Canadians know that the free market does not guarantee access to water, that bulk water exports could open the floodgates to trade challenges, that Canada's water supply is limited, that public water is safer, cleaner and more affordable and that water is essential for people and nature.

Note: http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/...