Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act, is what we are going to talk about today.

The bill was passed in the House and referred to our committee. We're going to hear from Mr. Miller for the first hour and then we'll have some witnesses. On Tuesday we will have the Department of Foreign Affairs and then we will do clause-by-clause.

We would like to welcome Mr. Miller. Thank you for being here today. I see some guests here from other parties, so I want to welcome all the substitutes today.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Miller. I think you know how the process works, so we'll start with your opening statement, Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's great to be here with regard to my private member's bill. I'd like to thank the committee for dealing with it so quickly after it passed second reading in the House on October 3. I appreciate that. As you all know, it did pass with unanimous consent that day. While I won't characterize it as a grandma and apple pie bill, I think it's seen somewhat that way. It seems to be a non-partisan bill, and that was my intent in drafting it.

This bill, as you all know, amends the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. It strengthens prohibitions against bulk removals of water that currently are in place. The change ensures that all waters under federal jurisdiction are protected from bulk water removals. These amendments are meant to complement provincial protections that are already in place to protect waters under their jurisdiction. The bill also strengthens the penalty and enforcement provisions and moves some definitions and exemptions found in the regulations into the body of the act. It makes the provisions that much stronger, I think, and parliamentary oversight of the act will be a little easier to conduct. There are some minor exceptions, such as for firefighting, and humanitarian purposes.

Bill C-383 is very similar to legislation which the government introduced in the previous Parliament as Bill C-26. There was one criticism of that bill at the time by the Munk School of Global Affairs, and this bill has that amendment in it. The primary difference between Bill C-26 and Bill C-383 is an amendment to the International River Improvements Act that will prohibit a licence being issued for a project that links non-boundary waters to an international river where the purpose or effect is to increase the annual flow of the international water borders. This is intended to prevent the use of an international river as a conveyance to transfer water across the border.

Having spelled out those two issues, Mr. Chair, I understand some amendments are coming forward which, for technical reasons, aren't ready to be presented to the committee today, but I am aware of the ones being proposed. In my view they're housekeeping matters, and I have absolutely no problem with them.

With that, I'm certainly willing to take questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right, good. You're under your 10 minutes. It's as if you've done this before.

We welcome Mr. Julian to the committee. It's good to see you, sir.

[Peter Julian, Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you, Mr. Miller. On the NDP side of the House, we certainly appreciate your joining the NDP campaign to stop bulk water removals. As you know, in 1999 and 2007 we brought forward motions to the House of Commons that very clearly raised concerns around bulk water exports. In both cases they were adopted by a majority of members of the House of Commons. There's no doubt we're onside with the majority of the Canadian population on that issue, so we're very happy you're bringing this forward.

I did have some concerns and just wanted to get some clarification from you, particularly when we look at clause 3, regarding bulk removal. I will quote from your bill, “Bulk removal does not include the taking of a manufactured product that contains water, including water and other beverages in bottles or other containers, outside a water basin”.

I'd like you to explain what size and scope the containers and the removals are limited to. What is the framework around that particular clause in the bill?

[Larry Miller]

I can't give you exact the container sizes, Mr. Julian, but I can tell you that it would include, I would suggest, basically all containers from a 20-litre jug of water—there are a lot of water coolers in homes, offices, that kind of thing—down to the smaller water bottles.

There are a couple of water bottling plants in my riding, as well as a couple of small breweries. If we put something in there to restrict that, that would mean my local breweries, for example, couldn't sell their product out of the area, their product being beer. In fact, they have won some international awards with it. This would include soft drink bottling companies. I don't have any of those in my riding, but there are a number of them across the country and across the province of Ontario.

I deliberately kept that out of it. To put something like that in there would be a huge detriment to business, a lot of it small business.

But no, it's anything to do with that type of thing, a product that uses water as part of it, whether it's bottled water, soft drinks, or beer, and I'm sure there are others. That would put a huge stress on them. I'm very pro business, and I think that would be a huge mistake.

That's not the intent here. It's about bulk diversions or simply loading ships, whatever, for example out of the Great Lakes. That's basically what I'm trying to stop by this kind of thing.

Does that answer your question?

[Peter Julian]

In part. You do have terrific local breweries. I want to go back to this: are you saying your approach was to limit it to 20-litre containers?

[Larry Miller]

Don't quote me on that. I don't know the exact container size, or if there's even a container size in here. Bulk water, whether it's loaded by ship, say, or a pipeline, or a diversion....

In terms of a diversion, I'll use the example of water that's diverted out of Chicago. That was done probably over 100 years ago. This would not allow that type of thing to happen.

Mind you, the City of Chicago, or the City of Owen Sound, which is in my riding, get their potable water for their communities out of there. This isn't going to affect that kind of thing.

As far as putting a container size on it, I think that's....

[Peter Julian]

I understand your point about manufactured products. We wouldn't have an impact on breweries, which of course are exporting. For some of the local breweries in British Columbia, it's the same thing.

Looking through the bill, very clearly there is a prohibition on diversion. I don't see that same kind of language in terms of bulk removal of water, regardless of the container size.

You mentioned 20 litres, but I didn't see that anywhere in the bill, so—

[Larry Miller]

No, and I think under my definition, and I think under most people's, Mr. Julian, everybody understands what bulk water removal is. I'll just say reasonably sized containers. That's not what this bill is trying to deal with, nor do I think it needs to be dealt with. I have no concern with regard to that. Bulk water diversions or export are what I went after here, and I think this deals with that very well.

[Peter Julian]

It deals with it in terms of diversions; you're absolutely right, but it doesn't deal with it in terms of bulk removal containers.

[Larry Miller]

Well, we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

[Peter Julian]

You said 20 litres. That's not in the legislation, right? Right now there's nothing in there that—

[Larry Miller]

I want to be clear on the 20 litres. I used that as an example.

[Peter Julian]

I understand.

[Larry Miller]

Okay.

[Peter Julian]

I understand, but would you not agree that this is something that needs to be clarified?

If your principle, in approaching this bill, is to limit bulk water exports to 20-litre containers, and it's not actually contained within the bill, would you not agree there's a loophole? You could be looking at containers that are many, many times that size, and in a way, that's a loophole, through bulk removal of water, that can then be used for export, which is a concern that many organizations have raised as well.

Would you not agree that it bears to be clarified?

[Larry Miller]

I will take that under advisement, but no, I don't believe we need more in there. But I'll take a look at it. I think you realize what my intent is. I think this bill covers it off quite well. But if there's something that will improve it, I'm always going to be open to that.

Unless you had specific wording or something....

[Peter Julian]

I think we will, Mr. Chair. We'll be approaching that as the committee studies the bill.

I want to come to another aspect, which is the 50,000-litre limit. Again, there is a loophole here, I think, that would bear clarifying. You could export more than 50,000—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Julian, we're going to have to pick you up in the next round, because that's all the time we have for this particular one.

I'm going to Mr. Dechert, for seven minutes, please.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for being here today and for bringing forward what I think is a very important bill that all Canadians support.

I think Mr. Julian was just about to point out that there is a limitation on the amount of water, which is in paragraph 3(2)(b) of the definition of bulk removal. It limits it to 50,000 litres of water “taken outside the water basin per day”. I also think the committee needs to remember and understand that the use of water in any province or territory of Canada is regulated by the provinces and territories under their environmental protection legislation. Any manufacturer, whether it's a bottler of soft drinks or a brewer of beer, etc., needs a licence from the appropriate provincial or territorial agency to use as much water as they're going to use in that process. They apply for licences, and the licences specify the amount of water they're going to use on an annual basis.

That's the purview of the provinces and territories. It is regulated, in my understanding, in every province and territory of Canada.

[Larry Miller]

I can tell you that even to drill a well on a residential property in rural Ontario, you have to apply for a water-taking licence. Even a municipality that wants to expand its municipal water system has to go through that process.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Right. Therefore, your purpose is not to duplicate that legislation.

[Larry Miller]

Exactly. In fact, I deliberately stay out of provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Scarpaleggia had a bill earlier. I could have supported that bill, except, with all due respect, it went into some provincial jurisdictions. The last thing we need to be doing, I think, is jeopardizing relationships. We want to avoid duplication, as well. Clearly, to me, it's not necessary. The provinces have that covered off.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Your intention with this bill is to put in place a general prohibition on large-scale infrastructure projects that would divert large amounts of water from Canada to the United States.

[Larry Miller]

Exactly. There's one aspect of it, under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, that would include, for example, the Great Lakes, which are on both sides of the border.

The addition to the International River Improvements Act deals with that. Those are for waters that flow across international boundaries.

There are two things, and I think we've covered them off.