House of Commons Hansard #177 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nafta.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, there is nothing in NAFTA that obliges Canada to take water from its natural state and convert it into a good.

Management of water is a shared responsibility between the provinces, territories and the federal government. The federal government has key responsibilities for boundary waters, primarily the Great Lakes, and for transboundary waters along the Canada-U.S. border. This is all under the aegis of the boundary waters treaty of 1909.

The government's position has been consistent. We stated our position in 1988 and stood by it in 1993. We stand by it today. The government has consulted with the provinces and the territories and we continue to work to protect our water. Would the member care to dispute any of those facts?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Madam Speaker, with regard to the NAFTA situation, I do not think we are absolutely comfortable that NAFTA would protect the water. There is no question that the government caved in on MMT. We did not wait for an absolute ruling to take place. It settled ahead of time. It has left Canadians feeling vulnerable to what could happen with water.

I do not want to wait until they say sorry, NAFTA does not protect your water. Why not put something in place to ensure that the water is protected? They have a lot more faith in that agreement with NAFTA than I have.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I am very proud today to participate in the debate on the motion from the New Democratic Party. It is a very important motion, as a number of members have already noted.

The motion calls on the House to place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations. This is something that obviously is very significant. It is important that it be debated in the House.

Listening to the comments of my colleague in the NDP from Churchill and understanding that in her constituency of northern Manitoba, water as a resource, as a way of life, as a part of the environment, as part of the history of that province, is very important.

I represent a very urban riding. Water does not pop up on the agenda every day. I deal with issues of drug abuse and homelessness and poverty. Yet when I talk to constituents in my riding of Vancouver East about the importance of having a sense of national purpose around the very precious resource of water, there would be very strong agreement.

I am certainly not an expert in this area and many of us in the House are not experts. However, we fundamentally understand as Canadians that one of the things that makes this country very great and one of the things we are very proud of is our natural environment.

As Canadians we have a very strong sense that one of the purposes and roles of our federal government is to preserve and protect the natural resources we have been endowed with. We are the custodians of those resources for future generations.

That is why the motion before us today is very important. It is here to be debated because regrettably we do not have a national policy about the protection of this resource. That is why we are here debating this motion today.

We have certainly heard from members opposite, from the Liberal government. We have heard many debates, many promises, many campaign slogans that water as a natural resource is something that will be protected by legislation and by national policy.

We have yet to see that happen. I think it is a real tragedy. I hope today in debating this motion there will be an acknowledgement and a recognition that this issue is now very critical.

In my province of British Columbia I am very proud that we have had a provincial government with the courage to enact legislation to protect water as a very precious resource. That legislation is being challenged by a foreign corporation under NAFTA which is now claiming damages in the order of $300 million from the B.C. government.

On the one hand, it is very important for us as parliamentarians and as policy makers to make it very clear that we do agree there should be national legislation, that there should be a moratorium as an immediate measure to prevent the bulk export of freshwater from Canada to other places.

But we also need to take action to show that we support that legislation in British Columbia. It is something we need to have right across the country. We have already heard in debate today that different promises have different kinds of policies around this question.

In the New Democratic Party we are saying this issue goes to the very heart of what it means to be a sovereign nation. It goes to the very heart of what it means for democratically elected governments to be able to enact public policies around issues like health care or the management and protection of water. That is what this debate is about today.

I think Canadians would agree that we cannot afford to continue along a direction where basically water is up for grabs in this country where under different situations provincially we may have various licences that are handed out, we may have bulk export and it becomes something that a province may or may not pass legislation about.

We need leadership from the House. We need leadership from the federal government to make it very clear that there is a commitment to put into place what has been stated so many times. There is a public consciousness about this issue.

The Council of Canadians, which has a very broad and diverse network and membership across Canada, has made this one of its key issues. In its recent Canadian Perspectives there is a very good article entitled “Our Water's Not for Sale” by Maude Barlow:

Before this goes any further, we need a public debate in Canada. I believe that water is a public trust. It belongs to the people. No one has the right to appropriate it or profit from it at someone else's expense. An adequate supply of clean water for people's daily living needs is a basic human right and is best protected by maintaining control of water in the public sector.

I wholeheartedly agree with those comments and call on the government to basically bring in that legislation that has been promised.

I hope this will be a unanimous vote in the House of Commons today. I have heard debate from all sides of the House and I think we understand the importance of this issue. We need to unite on this issue, represent the interests of Canadians and protect the future of our environment and say that we are willing to stand up for this resource and not just see it treated as a good or commodity that can be traded away for vast profits.

We must take the honourable course and say there is a public interest here that overrides private interests. The public interest is that we have to protect that water resource.

I urge all members of the House to basically support this motion and for Liberal members to ask themselves why their government has not brought forward the legislation and see this motion as a first step to a real commitment to take the legislative steps necessary to make this motion a reality in terms of protecting this resource. I urge all members to support the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member of the New Democratic Party is right to say that the federal government was all talk in the past. It has been all talk and no action with respect to the export of drinking water. Nothing has been done to protect the quality of our water, this vital resource for humanity.

That is what I am so uneasy about in the NDP motion before the House today. After all is said and done, this government has indeed done nothing. Some provinces, like British Columbia, passed legislation on water exports. Others have seen to it that anything having to do with their freshwater or drinking water requires legislation to be passed; this way they are in control. This motion would be putting in this government's hands Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.

I am sorry but I think that what this motion is saying right now is “You the provinces have done what you had to do; now that the bandwagon is on the move, let the Canadian government jump on and take over everything you have done”.

I do hope that is not the intent, but that is how I interpret it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and her question.

I want to point out the intent of the motion presented by New Democratic Party. Very clearly the motion is calling on the government, in co-operation with the provinces, to place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments, et cetera. I think we are very mindful of the fact that in this day and age we need to develop an approach to federalism that is co-operative and responsive to provincial needs. That is why the motion was written in that way.

I do not think the motion has been brought forward because all of a sudden we have noticed there is a problem. This has been an issue of public debate for a very long time. There are environmental groups, organizations, individuals and even members of the Liberal cause, as well as other members of the House, who have campaigned to ensure there is a sense of national purpose around the preservation of this precious resource. This motion has not suddenly popped up on us today.

However, I would point out that there is a very critical situation in B.C. because of claims being made by Sun Belt, which is, in effect, taking on the B.C. government. It is very important that the response to that be based on what is our national policy. Unfortunately we do not have one. It is very important to have that so it is not one province at a time which is trying to take on this issue.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, the member will know that the Sun Belt case is not about our right to manage Canadian waters.

I have a brief question for the member. She probably is aware that the government does not support the bulk selling of water and that in fact the motion states support for the existing government policy with regard to the export of water.

Is the member suggesting that this motion is to reaffirm a position which this government has already taken?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, first of all, the issue involving Sun Belt is about dealing with this resource and managing it in terms of the public interest. It raises very serious questions about the kinds of trade deals we have signed, like the NAFTA, which place in jeopardy our ability to have a public policy around these issues. Therefore I would disagree with the member's assumption.

In terms of it already being policy, I think that begs the question: If it is already in place and operable, then why do we have these kinds of situations developing? The fact is, there is no national legislation, and legislation has been promised by the Liberal government.

If the member believes that it is already in place, then I would assume he would enthusiastically support the motion and carry it further to ensure the legislation comes forward.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion.

Recently I had the occasion to be in Washington. While there, I and some of my colleagues had the opportunity to speak with Ambassador Chrétien about this particular subject. His comments were quite interesting.

He made the point, which I thought was very valid, that in some states in the United States a litre of water is actually more expensive than a litre of gasoline.

When we talk about water we get into all kinds of emotional conversations about nationalism and how precious this resource is and things of that nature, but I think the point the ambassador was making was that water has already been reduced to being a commodity. It is a commodity with a price. It is a commodity that can be bought and sold, and the pressure for it to be a commodity will ever increase upon us.

The irony is that a litre of gasoline or coal, or oil for that matter, is a litre of product that is dug up, transported and consumed, much like a litre of water can be transported and consumed. Therefore the question becomes: What is the significant difference between a litre of water and a litre of any other product?

As other speakers have alluded to over the course of the debate, the real difference is that a litre of water is something on which life depends. Therein lies the distinction between a litre of another resource based product, a product that is dug up, transported and consumed, and this particular product.

I want to continue to emphasize the point that water is a commodity that will continue to be subject to trade disputes and that it is a limited resource.

In Canada we live under some illusions. We occupy something in the order of 7% of the world's land mass and we have about 9% of the world's freshwater resources. That would be good if we stopped there, but of that 9%, 60% drains north, while 90% of our population is south. Therefore, 90% of our population has access to only about 40% of our water.

Given the population spread and the concentration of our population that should be adequate. But, arguably, we are not a water resource rich country. We have more water resources than do many countries; nevertheless, we do not have water to squander. We do not have water to give away. We do not have water to use in a way that would be an improper stewardship of the resource.

How should we, as a House, respond to the resolution that is before us? It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and inter-basin transfers and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and inter-basin transfers and should not be a party to any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater against our will in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.

I would refer my hon. colleagues on the government side to the joint statement made by the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico following the NAFTA in 1993, which reads:

Unless water in any form has entered into commerce or become a good or product, it is not a good or product covered by any trade agreement, including the NAFTA.

Nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or begin exporting water in any form, and I emphasize “in any form”. The thrust of the resolution, as I understand it, is that it is with respect to bulk transfers.

The joint statement goes on to affirm that Canada and every NAFTA partner has sovereignty over their water.

Water in its natural state—in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, water basins and the like—is not a good or a product, and that is critical phraseology with respect to these trade agreements. It is not a good or a product. It is not traded. Therefore it is not and has never been subject to the terms of any trade agreement. Nothing forces us to export water in bulk.

I suppose the distinction is that water is a resource on which all life depends. Therefore it is a resource that is significantly different than other resources.

I refer to the text of the NAFTA, but I also refer to the fact that this is an area of joint jurisdiction. Usually at this point in my speeches I tend to beat up on the Government of Ontario because I profoundly disagree with the attitude of that government in many areas. But in this particular case I think the Government of Ontario is moving in the right direction.

Initially it had a bit of a brain cramp. It issued an export license with respect to what is known as the Nova project. It was prepared to export water and saw nothing wrong with doing that.

However, quite a number of people saw something wrong with it. Representatives from the United States governments, both at the state and federal levels, saw something wrong with it. Many federal members as well saw something wrong with it.

Initially and immediately the Ontario government revoked its license. It has entered into a public process to review how licenses are to be granted pursuant to the Ontario Water Resources Act, which states “The purpose of this regulation is to provide for the conservation, protection and wise use and management of Ontario's surface water because Ontario's water resources are essential to the long term environmental, social and economic well-being of Ontario”.

It goes on in article 3 to talk about the considerations that a regulator is to enter into with respect to export licenses. These are the issues: protection of the natural functions of the ecosystem; private domestic uses; livestock and other uses; municipal water supplies; groundwater that may affect or be affected by the proposed surface taking; other existing and planned uses; whether it is in the public interest to grant the permit; and such other matters that seem expedient to the director.

In my view, those are intelligent regulations which need and deserve the support of this House and this government. The resolution of the Government of Ontario is worth supporting, which is something that I frankly thought I would never say in the House.

Canada is not a party to any agreement which compels it to export water in bulk. It is not a party to any agreement in the NAFTA. It is not party to any agreement outside of the NAFTA. In fact in the joint management provisions under the International Joint Commission, the reference that that body acts in the best interests of the basin, as opposed to the best interests of each individual country or jurisdiction, is an area that is well protected.

Ontario has done something which is quite cleaver. It has entered into the protection of the watershed area. That, in and of itself, takes it out of the trade jurisdiction.

In summary, water is a product. The pressure is building. It will continue to be a product and we need to be wise stewards. Jurisdictional initiatives on the part of the federal government and on the part of the provincial governments are, in my view, wise initiatives.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Madam Speaker, Lavoisier, the great 16th century scholar, brought us the principle of the conservation of matter. There is a set amount of water on the planet and this amount does not change.

Earlier, my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi, reminded me of the floods in the Saguenay region and in Manitoba. The fact that it rained heavily in these two places does not mean that there is more water on the planet. If more rain falls in Chicoutimi one year, less will fall in Washington, Tel Aviv or Paris the following year.

The planet's resources in water—or ice, of course—x number of years ago are the same resources it will have x number of years from now. This is known as the water cycle, and we have Lavoisier to thank for our understanding of it.

I have a question for the member for Scarborough East and I will use Newfoundland as an example, rather than Quebec. I am sure the member has seen Churchill Falls. The number of cubic metres of water that go over it per second is mind-boggling. Newfoundland could fill a huge ship with containers of water and sell it somewhere like New York. It is said that, in that city, a litre of water costs more than a litre of gas. Newfoundland could make a lot of money that way. It would be more lucrative to sell water than oil.

If we are to believe what we are hearing, Newfoundland will not have this opportunity. If not just a truckload, but a whole boatload of water is removed from the Churchill River as it flows to the Atlantic Ocean, nothing is lost and the water will eventually return to the Atlantic Ocean via New York, because of the principle of the conservation of matter.

Obviously, I too will object to major changes in the courses of rivers or to draining lakes dry, but when we look at examples as simple as these, I do not see why the sale of water in containers would be prohibited when, in fact, it does not deplete the ecosystem in any way.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question has a certain logic to it which needs to be addressed in an unemotional and logical way. It is true that the volume of water remains constant in the environment. It may be placed here or placed there or misplaced or misused.

The response to the question as to why not, that if the people of Newfoundland can make a bit of money what is the harm, is another law of physics which is for every action there is an equal opposite reaction. I do not think we are at the point where we can remove water in bulk and not expect an ecosystem reaction of some kind or another.

The Ontario government's regulation in this area is wise. It deals with the entire watershed, the entire basin, and how all the streams, rivers and lakes, et cetera, are impacted with respect to the removal of water in bulk.

I think that is the response to his very logic question. In principle there should be no good reason but there inevitably has to be a reaction of some kind once water is continuously removed in bulk. It is not as if the boat backs up and takes it once. It is there time after time after time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Northumberland Ontario

Liberal

Christine Stewart LiberalMinister of the Environment

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate today. Parliament needs to debate important national issues, and certainly the debate today on freshwater is such an issue.

Water is very important to all of us. In Canada we must learn how to care for this resource. Freshwater, a primal resource, has always been valued highly throughout history and has often been referred to as the font of life. Water is a substance of great spiritual and sacramental significance for Christians and for those of many other faiths and beliefs.

Freshwater sustains our life and health on a daily basis. We depend upon water for food production, transportation, commercial purposes, recreation and tourism. The sight, sound, feel and taste of clean water nourish our sense of well-being.

For Canadians freshwater has important real and symbolic value. Nine per cent of the world's renewable freshwater resources and twenty per cent of the world's freshwater resources including waters captured in glaciers and polar ice caps are found within Canada. We are proud of our beautiful lakes, our powerful rivers and waterfalls and the majesty of our natural heritage which frames our water resources.

Yet even in Canada our abundant water supplies are vulnerable on a daily basis to a host of outside influences and activities. These range from inadequate waste water treatment to hydro electric generation, industrial activities, pollution and the effects of climate change, cycles of flood or drought that have devastating impacts on people's lives. As well, how we as individuals treat our freshwater resources is an issue for consideration.

Canadians rank second in the world for their per capita water consumption and yet pay for only half the cost of water supply. Over the next 10 years costs for maintaining this infrastructure in Canada are estimated to be $40 billion to $70 billion. Therefore we as custodians of freshwater must manage this resource wisely not only for today but for our grandchildren.

The federal government is leading several initiatives to restore, conserve and protect major Canadian watersheds. Current initiatives are focusing on the St. Lawrence River, the Great Lakes, the Fraser River and Georgia Basin, the Atlantic coastal action plan and the northern rivers ecosystem initiative in Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

A study of the northern river basin has provided information on the cumulative impact of development of the Peace, Athabasca and Slave rivers. The new northern ecosystem initiative is in the design phase and will focus on Canada's Arctic regions.

These initiatives are built on the principle that we cannot manage water simply on a resource or sector basis. We must take an integrated ecosector approach that looks at the full range of pressures affecting both water quality and quantity.

Each of these initiatives addresses specific regional needs and priorities in each watershed, promotes partnerships that involve all sectors and encourages community involvement. Each results in the development of basin-wide action plans to resolve complex environmental issues, particularly deteriorating water quality that threatens human and environmental health in these areas.

Through these programs we have seen a 96% reduction in toxic effluent discharges by 50 major industrial plants along the St. Lawrence, reductions in contaminant levels of targeted pollutants in the Great Lakes, clean-up of contaminated harbours such as Collingwood harbour, the implementation of best practices and pollution prevention plans in many businesses and industries along the Fraser River.

Watersheds include much more than lakes or rivers. They are complete ecosystems in which the waters are drained toward a common waterway or drainage basin. A single watershed, such as the Great Lakes, can include a large segment of the Canadian landscape because, in addition to the lakes themselves, it includes all the waterways and their tributary streams.

Whether it is through a channel, by ship, by water tanker truck, or through a water system, the removal of large volumes of water from a watershed has a direct and major impact on water resources and the environment.

Bulk removal can adversely affect the quality of a watershed. It is important to better understand the immediate and cumulative effects of such removal, and to know how to improve the management of our freshwater resources. By contrast, the taking of small volumes of water for the purpose of bottling that water does not have the same adverse effect.

Major water extraction may change the environment, altering the habitats of native species and possibly introducing new exotic species not normally found in that ecosystem. These changes to the ecosystem could also impact on how people live and work. Water resources everywhere face growing pressure from urbanization, industrial activities and the sheer growth in the number of people on the face of the earth.

Climate change affects how much water is available and determines water quality. Because it is a renewable resource water is vulnerable to the potential effects of climate change and variability. We have already seen what happens to water resources when there is not enough rain or average temperatures increase over an extended period.

Recently we have seen the flow rate of the Ottawa River which feeds the St. Lawrence Seaway drop 50% below normal levels due to unusually warm weather last fall. At the port of Montreal water levels dropped to 30 year lows. The impact on river transportation was immediate.

Just before Christmas the Ottawa Citizen reported that the shipping industry was losing over $1 million per week in freight rates.

How can we prepare for an impact that has yet to be fully measured? The answer is through research. Water is a major issue that transcends science, the possible impact and the adaptation of the climate change action fund.

This fund, which was announced in the 1998 federal budget, shows the federal government's firm commitment to support research on our country's water resources. In each of the next three years, $50 million will be allocated to the fund.

That fund will help us better understand the basic scientific data that will support a sound and inclusive process to develop the national implementation strategy. This information will help individuals participate in the national effort to think globally and to act locally. This initiative will speed up the development and implementation of a greater number of technologies that are respectful of the climate.

Concern over freshwater led to the development of a federal water policy more than a decade ago. The time has come to update it and include the full range of issues which threaten our watershed, one of which is the bulk removal of water.

There is a host of other programs and strategies in play ranging from ways to improve water quality in the St. Lawrence River basin, the Fraser River and the Great Lakes to local grassroots initiatives.

To address the issue adequately there must be more co-ordinated national action on water. Internationally the federal government has responsibility for foreign affairs that relate to water such as the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Domestically the federal government has a large role in fisheries, navigation and water on federal lands.

The provinces have primary responsibility for water management within their borders.

This ecologically oriented approach is what underlies our approach to environmental strategies. This essentially holistic approach is more effective because it focusses on causes, not symptoms.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs and I will describe the main thrusts of a new strategy aimed at protecting and managing Canadian hydrographic basins.

Along with the provinces and territories, we shall address the main issues relating to water in Canada. Along with our American neighbour, we shall address problems affecting boundary waters, through the International Joint Commission.

Canada does not export huge quantities of freshwater at the present time, but in recent years there have been a number of proposals relating to exports of large quantities of water, via pipeline, tanker or diversion canal.

These ideas have supporters in some areas because they say we have an abundance of water. The fact is we do not have enough scientific and technical information on the long term effects of such withdrawals either on an individual basis or cumulatively.

The elemental nature of water requires a comprehensive approach and one that is based on co-operative stewardship if it is to be protected and well managed. To do anything less would fail to provide Canadians with the assurance that our watersheds are protected for our children and future generations.

I believe that collectively Canadians share a strong desire to manage and protect our watersheds and that all jurisdictions in Canada can work together co-operatively to prohibit the bulk removal of fresh water and interbasin transfers, including water for export, in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am afraid I must interrupt the minister. The time has expired.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Reform

John Duncan Reform Vancouver Island North, BC

Madam Speaker, my question is very brief. Does the government consultation with the provinces have all-province consensus on bulk water exports?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Christine Stewart Liberal Northumberland, ON

Madam Speaker, the consultation with the provinces has taken place over the last several months on the part of officials in my department and myself in meetings with my environment counterparts. The discussion has been thorough.

The concern from coast to coast is mutual and we do see the need to study, analyse and protect our freshwater resources and make sure we have the capacity to prevent the withdrawal of bulk water.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister could indicate a couple of things. She talked about consultation with the provinces. Has there been a dimension to this exercise that her department has been going through in terms of consulting with aboriginal people who have an obvious interest, many of them in water resources?

Second, is the minister saying to the House that government members intend to support the motion, in particular the main motion?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Christine Stewart Liberal Northumberland, ON

Madam Speaker, I was not able to conclude my remarks but my last statement was to be that the government and I support this motion.

To answer the hon. member's previous question, yes, it is the practice of my department. I have asked that my department on every occasion possible consult with aboriginal peoples as we develop our policies.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Madam Speaker, in the Minister of the Environment's speech, she spoke of a number of past or present proposals relating to the bulk sale or purchase of freshwater.

Could the minister tell us more about these proposals?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Christine Stewart Liberal Northumberland, ON

Madam Speaker, I think the member is aware of a few of the proposals that have been very public over the last part of the year, in particular the Nova request to withdraw water from Lake Superior. There is also a request by a company to withdraw water in Newfoundland. There was a request to withdraw water from B.C.

Since our discussions have begun several provinces have taken action to put in place laws, regulations and policies with regard to the extraction of bulk water from their provinces.

So there is a lot of work together in light of the growing concern that we may see yet more requests for withdrawals. If we do not have policies, regulations and legislation that can protect us, it could get out of hand.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Louise Hardy NDP Yukon, YT

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the minister's reference to the Arctic. I do not know if she has been there but the Arctic is really very lush and quite stunning with the amount of water.

The Gwich'in refer to water in their name, Gwich'in. The territories have a different standing in our Constitution which heightens their vulnerability to exploitation, plus the fact that there is not a high number of people there to object.

I would like the minister to reaffirm the protection she is stating toward the people and the land and water in the north.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Christine Stewart Liberal Northumberland, ON

Madam Speaker, the federal government is conscious of the enormous resources in fresh water that do occur in the far north of our country and the concern of people who live in the north for their freshwater.

The federal government is in the process of providing the same capacity to the territories to regulate and control waters within their territories as the provinces now have.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the time is going to lapse for the minister in questions, but because she is the minister and we seldom have the opportunity to question individuals on these issues, I would ask for unanimous consent to extend question time for her for a period of five or ten minutes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is there unanimous consent to extend the period of questions for five minutes?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, transport; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, highways.