Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

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

To clarify again, Mr. Chair, my friends in the opposition don't seem to understand the concept of the Canadian Constitution and the division of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments. We've seen this in other things we've done in our committee. They seem to want to duplicate or triplicate every law in Canada.

What the definition of “bulk removal” says is that the only exception is the taking of a manufactured product. That is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, according to the Canadian Constitution. Maybe Mr. Julian could take a look at that. As he knows, every province and territory regulates, under their environmental legislation, the use of water for any manufacturing process, and for many other purposes as well.

Therefore, there's no loophole here whatsoever. The 50,000-litre figure is a maximum amount for things other than for manufactured products, like bottling of water, bottling of soft drinks, bottling of beer, etc., and anything that falls under commercial use is in the purview of the province, according to the Constitution of Canada. That's simply the division of powers in the Constitution.

I'll leave it to my colleague, Mr. Tilson.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks, Mr. Dechert.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

You've just clarified the question that I was asking you, Mr. Miller.

I believe the federal government is interested in water. It's interested in fish. It's interested in migratory birds. That's what it is interested in when you're having a federal environmental assessment, Mr. Chairman.

I also believe that the taking of massive amounts of water out of the ground—and I'm talking about my favourite issue, this quarry, and they will be doing this—is taking out bulk water. Now, I have no idea how they're going to get rid of it. It's speculation. I don't want you to think I'm saying they're going to put it on trains. They may not. But they're certainly going to take it out. All of that water normally goes into these rivers that go through your riding and into my riding into Georgian Bay, and ends up in the Great Lakes. Therefore, I think it's relevant to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

I believe your bill does cover the removal of bulk water from the ground, whether it's storage or whether it's transporting it on trains. I don't know, maybe I agree with Mr. Julian, maybe I don't. All I know is that's a rumour that's flying around, that they're going to put this water on trains and ship it. I have no idea how they're going to do it. They may not even do it. But I think there are two possibilities: one is to store it and one is to put it on a train, on a boat, and take it out. And that's bulk water.

Therefore, I believe, for all the reasons I've given, this bill affects this quarry, which in turn affects the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

[Larry Miller]

I'm going to respectfully disagree a little bit, Mr. Tilson, on the part that it comes under the realm of this bill, and I'll try and explain why.

When and if this quarry application goes forward, if at some point they're removing groundwater--which I hear they are--they will have to apply under the Ministry of the Environment for water-taking or whatever. If one of the scenarios is to load it on train cars and ship it out of the country, and to be honest with you, I think that's far-fetched but anything is possible, in the event that it comes through there, again it would have to go through that provincial process. But I can assure you that if that proposal was coming forth, I would be screaming bloody murder, even though I'm in the riding adjacent to yours, and I'm quite sure that MP David Tilson would be, as would many other members.

Some time in the last 10 or 12 years, there was a proposal for ships from Saudi Arabia to come over, basically go up into one of the Great Lakes, probably Lake Ontario, load up with bulk water and then take it back to Saudi Arabia. There was a public outcry from the public and elected people, both provincially and federally, which put a stop to that. To be honest with you, I cannot see that scenario ever being successful. You can never stop somebody from trying to do it or asking for it, but I think I know you well enough to know that you'd be one of the first ones to stand up, and I'd be with you on it. I simply don't see it happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Just to clarify, we're actually into the second five minutes of the next round. We just got started. We're going to start with the Conservatives and move back to the NDP and then finish off with a Conservative.

Mr. Schellenberger, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Miller, for being here today.

I'm quite concerned again with the Great Lakes. I think this is a great bill going forward. I know where you are on this. I do have property on Lake Huron, and I've watched the water level go down about three and a half feet over the last number of years. I know it's more prevalent in Georgian Bay, because you can almost pace it off as you see the edge of the water moving out.

I know there has been a proposal put forward many times to divert water from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi River, and that's to keep the water flow up in the Mississippi so commerce can work that way. I think this bill works very well to stop something like that. That is probably some of the overview that's here. I do have concern about water taken from the Great Lakes and border waters. I look at the St. Clair River and the Detroit River that separate us. Those are the flowing boundary rivers, I think, which were of concern to Mr. Scarpaleggia.

I've always had this concern, and it's just a theory of my own. When you talk about water basins, I look at water coming out of Lake Huron and feeding into London, and then being discharged into the Thames River, which then empties into Lake Saint Clair, which doesn't divert the water back into the same basin it came out of.

Relatively, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie have kept their water levels somewhere close to where they were. Lake Huron, Georgian Bay, and Lake Michigan have all gone down. Chicago takes a lot of water that way. If Chicago doesn't divert that back, if it diverts it into the Mississippi, it goes down into the Gulf of Mexico.

Again, I think that's the main gist of this, to stop that big exodus of some of those waters. I would hope that in this bill, where it says, “by any other means by which more than 50 000 L of water are taken outside the water basin per day”, it might pertain to sometimes the taking out of water from one water basin and discharging into another.

My theory, my understanding, is that on this earth we have so much water, and it's been that much water forever. It evaporates and turns into clouds. When it rains, it comes back down, maybe in the form of snow or whatever. I feel that your bill does cover those things. Is the intent to stop big bulk water diversion that might go into the Mississippi, or something like that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Miller, we have one minute left, so—

[Larry Miller]

I'll be very brief.

Yes, the diversion at Chicago that you referred to isn't going to change. Let's call it grandfathering it in or whatever. It's there, but it will stop any new diversions similar to that.

You mentioned the pipeline that goes to London, and I'm quite aware of that. While, yes, it goes into Lake Erie instead of back into the St. Clair River or Lake Huron, you might argue that the water would eventually make it down there. I'm not going to get into that argument. There's not enough time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right, thank you very much.

We're going to go over to Mr. Julian again, and then we're going to finish off with Mr. Dechert, and that will be all the time we have today.

Mr. Julian, you have five minutes, sir.

[Peter Julian]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Miller, when we were in the last go-round, you said you didn't think the scenario Mr. Tilson outlined would be possible, but you didn't point to any clause of the bill where there would be a restriction or restraint on an export of bulk water as, essentially, a manufactured product being sent down across state lines. I'll give you another chance to answer, because it was right at the end. Where is the clause in the bill that, to your mind, stops that from happening?

[Larry Miller]

With all due respect, I actually did respond to that. I'll do it again, Mr. Julian.

If that proposal, as Mr. Tilson stated, was to be proposed by the proponents of this quarry, it would come under those provincial jurisdictions. The water being taken would not be coming out of transboundary waters or waters that flow across international boundaries.

[Peter Julian]

We understand that.

You also raised the very valid point that there are provinces like British Columbia that have actually moved for bulk water export. If we rely on provincial legislation, I don't think we're doing our job as federal legislators. We're certainly not responding to the concerns that are out in the Canadian public. Granted, you did say you'd be screaming bloody murder if Mr. Tilson's scenario came true. I think a lot of us would. Please join the crowd. With what happened last spring with respect to environmental assessments, I think there are a lot of Canadians who are upset. However, the reality is we do have a loophole now that is quite present in this legislation. I think that's very clear from your testimony. I think there are some parts of your bill that work very effectively, but others do not. The railway car loophole is a real problem.

Now, if we rely on provincial legislation and if the provinces in some cases have actually been pushing toward bulk water exports, then the other concern—and Mr. Scarpaleggia touched on this—is the issue around NAFTA and how water as a good enters into the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the impacts there. That's something the international trade committee has already discussed. We've discussed it in Parliament as well. The NDP brought forward a motion saying there had to be concrete agreement to exclude bulk water from NAFTA. To date, that has not happened.

[Larry Miller]

Well, I would respectfully disagree with you on that.

[Peter Julian]

We still have this problem with relying on provincial jurisdiction and it ultimately leading to entrenching bulk water exports as a good through NAFTA.

I would like to come back to the loophole clause, which basically doesn't set any limits in terms of container size and doesn't set any limits in terms of the overall bulk water removal. Would you be favourable to removing that loophole from the legislation?

[Larry Miller]

Mr. Julian, I'm glad your persistence hasn't changed since our days on the international trade committee. You're a dog with a bone.

I think that Mr. Dechert spelled it out quite clearly. Basically, in my opinion, there is no loophole that you're referring to. It comes in there, it's protected. I don't think there's a loophole there and therefore I'm not going to entertain something which I feel is unnecessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. We're going to end it there.

This is just a short four minutes. We'll finish off with Mr. Dechert.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I understand it, then, Mr. Miller, it appears that the NDP policy is that in every area of jurisdiction, whether it's municipal, provincial, or federal, especially in respect of the municipal and provincial jurisdiction, if they're concerned this level of government doesn't do its job now or some time in the future, they will put in place federal legislation just in case the province doesn't do its job, regardless of what the Canadian Constitution says about the division of powers between the federal and provincial levels of government. That's interesting policy. It sounds to me like a lot of extra cost and bureaucracy and regulation on the people of Canada and business enterprises in Canada. I can only imagine that would have a significantly deleterious effect on the Canadian economy.

Do you want to comment on that?

[Larry Miller]

Yes. I think by the federal government trying to bring in legislation, as you said, to compensate or cover the provincial jurisdiction, that's sending a message to the provinces that we don't trust them to make a decision.

To Mr. Julian's earlier comments about British Columbia declaring that they're open to bulk water, I hadn't heard that, but I guess that would make me very leery about electing an NDP government out there.

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

Well, I agree with your concern in that respect.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

They're not entirely consistent, because in the last Parliament, you'll remember that the government proposed a national securities regulator to protect, in part, the retirement savings of Canadian citizens, but the NDP was against that bill because they thought it infringed on the division of powers and the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. I thought that was interesting.

I just wanted to clarify another point, Mr. Chair. Mr. Scarpaleggia asked why this bill was before this particular committee. That, as he knows, is because the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act—

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

On a point of order, I did not—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's not a point of order.

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

I'm clarifying—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, actually, there was a point of order, but it's not a point of order.