Bill C-383 (Historical)

Transboundary Waters Protection Act

An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act

This enactment amends the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit the bulk removal of transboundary waters. Some definitions and exceptions that are currently found in regulations are transferred to the Act. The enactment also provides for measures to administer and enforce the Act. Lastly, it also makes a consequential amendment to the International River Improvements Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

That completes the clause-by-clause study on Bill C-383.

I want to thank our officials from DFAIT and from the Ministry of the Environment. Thank you very much for taking the time to be here today to clarify and help us work through some of those issues.

With that, we are going to suspend the meeting and give our witnesses a chance to go. We will come back to look at the report.

Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

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

May I propose a further amendment to Bill C-383?

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

Mr. Chair, could I propose something? If the fact is that Bill C-383 doesn't include an amendment to section 7, can we not propose an amendment now? I think we all agree we want the bill to be consistent and the definitions to be consistent. Could we not propose an amendment now supported by the committee to include section 7 in Bill C-383 for the purposes of this amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Before we move that, though, I've been instructed by the Library of Parliament that this amendment seeks to amend section 7 of the International River Improvements Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766 and 767 that: ...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 7 of the International River Improvements Act is not being amended by Bill C-383, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, my ruling is that the amendment is inadmissible.

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

The first change, Mr. Chair, makes it clear that the prohibition is for the purposes of potential risk through environmental harm resulting from a loss of water.

The second change avoids redundancy in new prohibitions introduced by Bill C-383. The amendment accomplishes this by replacing the words “non-boundary or boundary waters” in clause 14 with terminology that is consistent with that proposed in clause 4 of the bill for the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Clause 4 of the bill amends the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit the bulk removal of boundary and transboundary waters and the taking of that water outside the Canadian portion of the water basin.

To avoid redundancy, the new prohibition in the International River Improvements Act should also focus on linking of all waters not covered by the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, in other words, all waters other than transboundary and boundary waters. To accomplish that, we are proposing to amend clause 14 to use the phrase “neither boundary waters nor transboundary waters” to replace the current language, which is “non-boundary or boundary waters”. It's adding the transboundary part. This amendment would eliminate the redundancy between the two acts.

The third and final proposed change in clause 14 clarifies that the new prohibition applies only to an improvement that increases the annual flow of an international river at the border. This clarification is necessary to respect provincial jurisdiction in water management, while still ensuring that international rivers are not used as a conveyance to transfer additional water across the international boundary.

Perhaps we could ask the officials to clarify those amendments again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Good morning, everyone. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 3, 2012, the orders of the day are Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act. We are going to look at clause-by-clause consideration. Also, pursuant to Standing Order 75.1, consideration of clause 1 is postponed. We are going to start with clause 2.

Do I have any opening remarks before we get going?

Yes, Mr. Dechert.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned briefly that he thinks there is something missing in private member's Bill C-383. I am curious to know what he thinks is missing from that bill because I am looking forward to its passage to ban bulk water exports.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this morning to rise once again in the House to debate a 2012 budget implementation bill. This is the second round of debate on the 2012 budget. I would like to start by taking my colleagues back 20 years in time, to 1993 and 1994, when three events took place that I believe are relevant to the debate today in the House.

The first event was the election of a Liberal majority government headed by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, which set Canada, the state, the federal government, on the road to sound economic and fiscal management. The Liberal government bequeathed to the Conservative government a budget surplus that was extraordinary and unprecedented in Canada's history and that could have been used to maintain economic prosperity. In the end, that did not happen.

The second event occurred in the House of Commons before I was elected. However, I was on the Hill at the time. I remember the arrival of about 50 Reform members, including today's Prime Minister, who was the member for Calgary at the time. As I recall, he arrived in the House with 49 Reform Party colleagues.

The third event I will mention has to do with the Liberal government of the day, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. That government introduced Bill C-17, its budget implementation bill. I would like to remind the House of the length of that budget implementation bill. Mr. Speaker, you and my other colleagues in this House might be surprised to hear that, in total, Bill C-17 was 21 pages long and amended a total of 11 pieces of Canadian legislation.

Let us compare that to the current situation. Last fall, we debated a budget implementation bill that was about 500 pages long and amended about 70 pieces of Canadian legislation. Today we are debating Bill C-45, which is 443 pages long and amends 60 Canadian acts. In less than 12 months, we have debated two bills that together total about 900 pages and amend about 130 Canadian acts. We have come a long way since 1993.

What is interesting is that even the short, 21-page budget implementation bill that I just mentioned, that modest bill, triggered a strong reaction from the member from Calgary who is now the Prime Minister of Canada. He said, and I quote:

The particular bill before us, Bill C-17, is of an omnibus nature. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule it out of order and it should not be considered by the House in the form in which it has been presented....

I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

If people were outraged at the time, in 1994, regarding a budget implementation bill that was 21 pages long and amended 11 Canadian acts, well then they should be 45 times more outraged today.

What we have seen recently in the House is about 45 times worse than what went on in 1994 with Bill C-17. This should put things into perspective a little bit.

It is interesting that we heard the member opposite speak about family. That is an important point. It is important that every now and then we bring things back to the perspective of the communities and families we represent here in the House.

Sometimes things get a little too complicated here. They get too broad and complicated, layer upon layer, to the point where parliamentarians have a hard time seeing things clearly. Imagine how hard it is for our constituents, who are not engaged in this House every day, who are going about their business, earning their living, bringing up their kids, to wrap their minds around what is going on in this House, especially around a budget?

Let us look at what a family does when they create a budget. Let us say, hypothetically, that a family sits down, the parents and the kids, to discuss the family budget. What would they discuss? They would discuss the revenues they expect for the coming year, what they expect to spend and how they perhaps expect to lower their debt levels. That is what they need to talk about, if they are to have a good budget. If they start to talk about junior's hockey schedule or how much time the son or daughter should be allowed to watch TV per week, and so on and so forth, they would go astray from the subject at hand. They are not going to be as effective in managing the household economy essentially, the household budget.

I would suggest that the fact that we keep bringing in complex pieces of legislation, such as these two budget implementation acts, may be distracting the government's focus and not allowing it to be as effective as it might be.

I have seen two bills, which are unrelated to this bill, come before the House, and they had glaring holes in them. One was Bill C-383, and I do not understand how it got by the lawyers in the trade department, quite frankly. We saw another bill last week, the nuclear terrorism act, which my colleague said omitted a very important and central piece.

We should simplify things a bit and not spread ourselves too thinly, so that we can do our work properly as parliamentarians and the government can achieve some focus and get some results.

On that theme, the budget implementation act obviously does include measures which should be in a budget implementation act. That goes without saying. Even if we disagree with what the government is doing with the SR and ED, the scientific research and development tax credit, it belongs in a budget; it is a budgetary matter.

I would add that I think it may be dangerous that the government is getting away from a kind of broad-based program to stimulate innovation in this country in every small- and medium-sized business across the land, to an approach whereby the government would be giving subsidies instead of tax credits for research. It would be giving subsidies to a few bigger players in an attempt to pick winners and losers in the 21st century economy. We have issues with that, but I would agree that it belongs in a budget bill.

However, there are some things that do not belong in a budget bill. One is rewriting laws that protect Canada's waterways. I do not know what that is doing in a budget bill. Another is redefining the definition of aboriginal fisheries. What is that doing in a budget bill? Eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is about human health and public safety. That is not about revenues and expenditures and debt levels and so on.

I have an issue, like many of my colleagues in the House, with the budget going astray and including all kinds of extraneous elements.

However, to get a subject that is of great interest to me, I would concur with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands that when the Fisheries Act was passed and the Navigable Waters Protection Act was passed, the word “environment” did not exist. If we are to be literal, as the government likes to be, let us go back to the quote that I just read from the then Reform Party member and now Prime Minister, who said that 21 pages amending 11 acts is too long.

[J. Owen Saunders, Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor, Canadian Institute of Ressources Law, University of Calgary]

Good morning. I would like to begin by echoing Adèle's thanks to the committee for the opportunity to be with you this morning.

My remarks today reflect the long-standing interest that CWIC has had in the issue of interbasin removals of water generally, and water exports more specifically. Over four years ago, CWIC developed a model act for preserving Canada’s waters with a view to stimulating debate on this very subject. While the model act suggested one approach to foreclosing the possibility of water exports, we recognized there were other possible legislative avenues for addressing the issue. Regardless of the particular approach, however, there is no doubt about how Canadians feel about the ultimate goal. Canadians have been consistent and firm in their insistence that they do not want to see their endowment of water put at risk through interbasin transfers in the name of chasing, at best, doubtful economic gains.

In this respect, while Bill C-383, the transboundary waters protection act, takes a somewhat different approach than that suggested in CWIC's model act, it nevertheless achieves the same goals that CWIC has been pursuing for several years.

As members of this committee are no doubt aware, the issue of water exports has arisen on a number of occasions over the past five decades, beginning with a series of proposed megaprojects in the 1960s, and then emerging again, first in the context of trade negotiations in the 1980s and 1990s, and subsequently as the result of an abortive private sector proposal to export water by tanker from the Great Lakes. This proposal led to an amendment to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act in 2002 and the issuance of a joint reference, the water uses reference, by Canada and the United States to the International Joint Commission.

In the 2002 amendments, the government addressed only one potential threat to Canada’s waters by prohibiting, with certain limited exceptions, the interbasin removal of boundary waters, that is, those waters through which the international boundary runs, for example, the Great Lakes. It did not address the potential threat of water export by means of transboundary waters, that is, principally rivers that cross the boundary. While this approach had the constitutional advantage of fitting squarely within the empire treaties clause of the Constitution, it also had the obvious disadvantage of leaving unprotected important potential pathways for water export. It was in light of this legislative deficiency that CWIC took on the task of encouraging debate on a more ambitious approach toward limiting the possibility of water exports.

Subsequent to its throne speech undertakings of 2008 and 2009, the federal government did indeed bring forward its own legislative initiative on water exports in the spring of 2010 with the introduction by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bill C-26, which eventually died on the order paper with the calling of a federal election. CWIC had the opportunity to comment on that bill in a letter to the minister. While we in general supported the intent of the bill, our view was that it did not go far enough in precluding bulk removals and, in particular, those proposals for bulk removal that were the most likely to be brought forward.

We therefore welcome the current bill, Bill C-383, which, in our view, while building on Bill C-26, goes beyond it in a crucial respect through its amendment to the International River Improvements Act and, in particular, through the addition of proposed subsection 13(1), which would prohibit the issuance of a licence under the act for any international river improvement linking non-boundary or boundary waters to an international river, the purpose of which would be to increase its annual flow. Especially in light of the broad definitions of “international river” and “international river improvement” in the legislation, this seems to us to accomplish the task of truly precluding the use of transboundary rivers as a vehicle for carrying out the export of water.

CWIC recognizes that Bill C-383 will not address all the concerns that have been raised by some Canadians with respect to the export of water. For example, potential marine tankers from coastal lakes and rivers would not be covered. Similarly, there would continue to be statutory exceptions that permit the export of manufactured products containing water, including bottled water or other beverages. However, while we do not preclude other legislative initiatives, apart from existing provincial legislation, to address this possibility, we also recognize that neither the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act nor the International River Improvements Act is likely to be the appropriate vehicle for such measures.

In sum, based on our research, the Canadian Water Issues Council acknowledges that the goal of protecting Canada's water resources from bulk export is significantly accomplished by way of this proposed legislation. We are particularly pleased to see the level of cross-partisan support it seems to have achieved to date.

[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]

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.

The House resumed from October 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Transboundary Waters Protection Act

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally get to second reading on my private member's bill. My riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, like yours, borders on beautiful Georgian Bay as well as Lake Huron on the west. Therefore, this is very important to me and a lot of other members in the House, including you. I want to thank my colleagues today who have all stood to speak to this, including the opposition.

This is an issue that carries on, as has been pointed out many times, Bill C-26 tabled by the government in 2010. In the throne speech of 2008, the government made a commitment to address this issue, but we ended up going to an election. I thank the opposition for that because I probably would not have had a chance to bring this bill forward.

One thing that needs to be pointed out, and has been pointed out by a couple of members today, is that this bill is be stronger than Bill C-26. Some issues were raised by some different groups and organizations at the time. Showing that we want to get along and address all the issues, that amendment has been addressed. I know the comments from those groups have been very positive and they thankful for that.

The Prime Minister has said many times that our water is not for sale. I do not know how many times he has to say that before people get it, but this bill really fortifies that. Yes, water is a commodity, but it is not a commodity like oil or minerals, or trees or lumber. It is something that has to be treated differently. It cannot be sold on the market in the same way. It has to be protected, as pointed out by my colleague across the way.

That same colleague wanted to know if the government would treat this bill differently from Bill C-26. I think it is very clear to anybody who has a clear mind on this that Bill C-26 would have gone through had the opposition not been intent on an election. Therefore, we had to shove that one aside.

I was glad the member for Burnaby—New Westminster rose to speak in favour of the bill. I have not had any recent reason to doubt him in any way. However, his leader is on record as being in favour of the sale of bulk water. I will take his word for it that on Wednesday, when we vote on the bill, his leader will be here and will vote in favour of it. I guess until that night comes, I will not know for sure.

Bill C-383 stays out of provincial jurisdiction. Some people wanted to know why it did not go further. Provinces like Alberta, Quebec and others do not like it when we step into their jurisdiction, and with good reason. The bill is deliberately designed to stay out of their jurisdiction We are looking after our jurisdiction. We know they will look after theirs. This needs to be pointed out.

I want to personally thank my colleagues from Elgin—Middlesex—London and Niagara West—Glanbrook for their support. They both have ridings that border the Great Lakes. I certainly appreciate their support.

With no further ado, it appears as though I will have widespread support for this bill, as I should. It is a bill that is not partisan in any way. I think it looks after water, which is vital to all of us for life. I certainly thank members for their support on Wednesday night and as this bill carries on to third and final reading.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views regarding the bill before us, Bill C-383, introduced by the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

This bill has to do with our water resources, and as a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I have a special interest in this issue. I am therefore pleased to be able to add my two cents to the debate.

With just one exception, Bill C-383 is identical to Bill C-26, which was introduced by the government in 2010 following its promise to bring in legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian water basins.

On the positive side, the bill before us today addresses a large gap that existed in the previous bill and was pointed out by the Canadian Water Issues Council, specifically, that Bill C-26 did not address the most plausible threat to Canadian waters: the threat of transfers from a water basin that is neither a boundary nor transboundary water body from Canada into the United States.

This bill would amend the International River Improvements Act to prohibit the issuing of permits for projects that link non-boundary waters to an international river when the purpose of said projects is to increase the annual flow towards the United States. This important change would prohibit the issuing of a permit to build, operate or maintain a canal or pipeline transporting Canadian water to an international river.

Although Bill C-383 does have some strengths and represents a step in the right direction, it is obvious that it does not prohibit all bulk water exports. Consequently, because water is considered a commodity, NAFTA has long been a threat to Canada's sovereignty over water resources.

To counter this threat, in June 2007 the New Democratic Party introduced a motion sponsored by the hard-working and extraordinary member for Burnaby—New Westminster asking the government to initiate talks with its U.S. and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA. This motion was adopted by the House, but the government has not followed up with these countries.

In 2010, the government introduced Bill C-26, which was mentioned earlier. The bill did not progress past first reading.

In 2011, our brilliant colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster raised the issue again with a new motion for a national water strategy.

I hope that Bill C-383 comes to fruition, unlike Bill C-26 and the motions of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I hope that this time the government will take Bill C-383 seriously and implement it.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to Bill C-383, the transboundary waters protection act. This bill, introduced by my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, would prohibit the bulk removal of water from transboundary waters, waters that flow across borders. This would strengthen the protections against bulk water removals from boundary waters, waters shared with the United States such as the Great Lakes.

As members know, in May 2010, our government introduced Bill C-26. That bill, like the one we are debating today, would have amended the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. At the time, we introduced that important legislation after reviewing options for improving and strengthening protections for the purpose of preventing bulk water removals. Unfortunately Bill C-26 died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved.

This issue did not go away with the election call and, as we all know, protection of our waters is an issue of critical importance to all Canadians. I am confident it is something all members in this House will agree with, no matter on which side of the aisle they sit.

Why is this the case? It is clear from an environmental standpoint that the bulk removal of water is both environmentally and ecologically damaging. It removes water from the basins that depend on it. It deprives those living in the basin and the ecosystem itself of a critical resource. It also increases the risk of invasive species transfer if previously separated water basins are connected. It is this environmental component that is critical. The potential harm this could cause to the environment led our government to introduce Bill C-26, and I am happy to see the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has taken up the cause and introduced this legislation, which I would like to call Bill C-26-plus.

In a few minutes I will explain what I mean by Bill C-26-plus, but now I will discuss why the approach found in Bill C-383 is the appropriate way and the best path forward. In previous parliaments we have seen multiple bills aimed at preventing bulk water removals. These bills may take different approaches to addressing the issue, but the goal is the same: prohibiting the bulk removal of Canada's water and protecting Canada's fresh water for the communities and ecosystems that depend on it.

We have recently debated another bulk water bill, Bill C-267, introduced by my Liberal colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. That bill takes the approach of banning all inter-basin transfers. Bill C-383 takes a similar approach but focuses on water within federal jurisdiction. This difference recognizes that the provinces have a key role to play in the protection of Canada's water. Water is a natural resource, and so we must recognize that the provinces have their constitutional jurisdiction. They take this role seriously. They have protections in place to prevent bulk removal of water in their territories and from their territories. They have the same commitment to the protection as the federal government and as Canadians in general. Our government intends to keep working with the provinces to ensure that these protections remain robust and that all jurisdictions take care of waters under their purview.

As we all know, there are already strong protections in place at the federal level to prevent bulk removals from boundary waters, those that straddle the international boundary as I mentioned earlier. This obviously includes the Great Lakes, but transboundary waters, which are those that flow across the border, are not protected federally. Bill C-383 aims at bringing these same prohibitions to transboundary waters, which are also under a federal jurisdiction. This would bring much-needed consistency and would ensure all of these types of waters are protected.

Looking at the approach taken in Bill C-383 to prohibit bulk removals, I emphasize that this legislation focuses on water in its natural state in lakes and rivers. We view this as being the best way to protect water. Other approaches that are mentioned from time to time, such as export bans, would not provide the same level of protection as dealing with water in its natural state. We believe that taking an approach that focuses on the sustainable management of water in its basin as a natural resource is the best way to ensure it remains there.

While on the subject, I will take this opportunity to clarify the issue of NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement, and water. Water in its natural state, such as a river or a lake, is not a commodity and has never been subject to any trade agreement.

Although this has been stated from time to time, given the confusion over the issue, it is worth repeating. Nothing in NAFTA, or for that matter in any of our trade agreements, prevents us from protecting our water. These agreements do not create obligations to use water. Nor do they limit our ability to adopt laws for managing our water resources.

The status of fresh water under NAFTA was reaffirmed in 1993 when Canada, the United States and Mexico declared that the agreement created no rights to the NAFTA resources of any party to the agreement and that unless water had entered into commerce and became a good or a product, it would not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement. Further, it was agreed that nothing in NAFTA would oblige any party to exploit its water for commercial use or to begin exporting water in any form.

Finally, it was declared that water in its natural state was not a good or product, it was not traded and therefore it was not, and never had been, subject to the terms of any trade agreement.

As we have said, Bill C-383 is similar to Bill C-26 in terms of the added protections provided to water under federal jurisdiction. However, as I said early, it is Bill C-26-plus, and here is why.

As mentioned by previous speakers, this bill contains an amendment to the International River Improvements Act, which would ensure that the waterways flowing from Canada across international boundaries could not be used to deliver water coming from other sources out of the country.

For example, there would be a prohibition to linking non-transboundary waters to an international river for the purpose of increasing the annual flow of that river. An international river is one that flows from any place in Canada to any place outside of Canada. This increase in annual flow would be bulk water transport and would be forbidden.

When our government introduced Bill C-26 last Parliament, some groups stated that we did not do as much as we could in protecting our waters. What my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has done in his bill is add an additional protection by including this amendment to the International River Improvements Act. By prohibiting the use of an international river to transport water originating from outside its watershed, the legislation would prevent what could be a potentially efficient way to transport water long distances from being used for bulk removals.

This small change from Bill C-26 is a significant protection and I hope that groups in our country, which have been long-time proponents on behalf of protecting Canada's water, will recognize that Bill C-383 is worthy of their support.

Finally, I would like to briefly touch on the penalty and enforcement provisions included in Bill C-383. These provisions are in line with those found in the other environmental statutes, which are amended through the Environment Enforcement Act of 2009. This includes an enforcement regime that would allow the Minister of Foreign Affairs to designate enforcement officials for the purpose of verifying compliance with the act.

The penalties for violations are steep, such as up to $1 million for an individual and $6 million for a corporation. These penalties are cumulative, meaning that each day the violation occurs will be considered a separate violation. In addition, courts will be able to impose additional fines on offenders where there are aggravating factors, including environmental damage.

I would like to once again thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing the bill. He comes from an area surrounded by the Great Lakes, the rugged shores of the Bruce Peninsula, sandy beaches like Sauble Beach in Oliphant. He recognizes not only recreationally but economically what water can be for Canada. Coming from a riding on the Great Lakes myself, I commend him for what he has done.

I believe the approach taken in Bill C-383 will ensure that Canada's waters are protected and that bulk removals of water from Canada will never take place. The legislation covers waters under federal jurisdiction and recognizes the good work that the provinces have undertaken over the years to prohibit bulk removals of water from their territories.

Both federal and provincial governments understand the potential harm that bulk removal can have on the environment and our government is committed to doing its part to protect our waters. I encourage all members of the House to support the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound on Bill C-383.