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.

Transboundary Waters Protection Act

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to begin second reading debate on Bill C-383, An Act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act. It sounds like a mouthful, but the subject matter of this legislation is straightforward and simple. It is simply to strengthen protections at the federal level to ensure that our waters are protected from bulk water removals.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga South, a relative rookie MP but a great colleague and a member who has a riding that borders on one of the Great Lakes and who realizes the importance of our water. I would like to thank her for her work on that.

Preserving and protecting Canada's freshwater has been a concern of mine for many years. Representing my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, a riding that is defined by Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, which surround it on three sides, I understand very well the significance of freshwater to Canadians.

I am often asked what prompted me to put this bill forward. There are many who have said that I could have waited for the government to put this forth rather than introduce it as a private member's bill. However, I saw a need for the protection of our water and decided to act. I personally live on Georgian Bay and our lakes and waters are extremely important to me. I want to ensure that our freshwater will remain where it belongs: in Canada. I am hopeful that my granddaughters will be able to grow up and know the water in Canada will not be leaving.

For Canadians, water is more than a natural resource. It is one of the symbols that defines our country. Whether it is water found on our glaciers, on the Great Lakes, our large and small rivers and the almost countless lakes, ponds or fishing holes across this country, our freshwater is an important part of who we are and the protection of Canada's water is of paramount importance to Canadians in all parts of the country.

Our government has been committed to protecting our water and has introduced many measures to ensure that our water remains safe. We recently announced measures to protect our Great Lakes from Asian carp. Over the next five years, $17.5 million will be allocated to systems of prevention, early warning, rapid response and management and control against the invasion of Asian carp. We have also created tougher laws on the dumping of ballast water and introduced many other measures to protect our lakes.

Canadians want us to ensure that our waters are well protected. They want to know that Canada's freshwater will remain in Canada, supporting healthy ecosystems and communities. They want to know that both the federal and provincial governments have strong protections in place to protect waters under their jurisdictions from schemes or projects to remove them in bulk. After all, bulk removal would be a permanent loss of water from their ecosystems and communities and would risk upsetting delicate ecological balances, as well as depriving communities of an essential resource.

Before getting into the details of the proposed changes to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act that are found in this legislation, let me provide some background on the protections that are currently in place to ensure that our water remains within Canada and protected from the harmful impacts that bulk removal would cause.

I am pleased that the waters in my back yard, Lake Huron, Georgian Bay and all the Great Lakes, are already protected from bulk removals. However, under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, bulk water removals are prohibited from boundary waters. Boundary waters are those waters through which the international boundary passes. The statute is explicit in this regard. Section 13 of the act states, “no person shall use or divert boundary waters by removing water from the boundary waters and taking it outside the water basin in which the boundary waters are located”.

Looking at the Great Lakes, I should also add that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and our neighbours in the United States share the view that bulk diversions of water from the Great Lakes Basin are not desirable and that these waters should be protected. The Great Lakes compact, signed into U.S. federal law in 2008, contains strong protections against bulk diversions of water outside of the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes Basin. The eight Great Lakes states signed a related side instrument with the governments of Quebec and Ontario as part of that compact and they now work closely together on this and other Great Lakes issues.

Our provinces are focused on protecting water resources within their territories and for some time now provinces have had laws, regulations or policies in place to prevent the bulk removal of water. Going forward, therefore, they have a vital role in continuing to protect and maintain this important natural resource. The provinces recognize this. They have different ways of protecting waters under their jurisdictions, but are all committed to ensuring that water resources are protected and maintained for Canadians. I recognize that any way forward involves the federal government working closely with the provinces.

I have provided some background on the protections already in place to prevent the bulk removal of water. However, as I have said, we have good protections but there is an opportunity to go further. Public policy advocates have identified the lack of federal protections for waters, other than boundary waters, and have brought these concerns to our attention. For instance, there are no federal protections to prevent the bulk removal of water from transboundary waters. Transboundary waters are those waterways, such as rivers, that flow across the international boundary with the United States. This area was a focus of our government's previous legislation, Bill C-26, and is now found in Bill C-383. Everyone will know that Bill C-26 died on the order paper when we were forced into an unnecessary election a year ago.

A major focus of the legislation is to bring a coherent federal approach to covering boundary and transboundary waters. The foundation of our existing legislation is the view that water is essential to the functioning of healthy ecosystems and, by extension, to supporting healthy communities. Therefore, any removal of this water in bulk is deemed to be a permanent loss from the basin. Given the dependency of ecosystems and communities within a basin on its supply of water, we consider bulk removable to be unsustainable and having the potential to cause great harm to the environment.

First, Bill C-383 would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to provide transboundary waters with the same bulk water removal prohibitions as those currently in place for boundary waters. By bringing transboundary waters under the same protections as those for boundary waters, all waters that are covered by federal jurisdiction are brought under the same prohibitions against bulk water removals. In so doing, I must stress that the role of the provinces is respected. As a natural resource, the provinces maintain that jurisdiction over water within their territories. Some criticism of the bill was why it did not go into provincial jurisdictions. I deliberately stayed out of there. Provinces, like Alberta and Quebec, have always been sensitive to intervention by the federal government. When it is unnecessary, as in this case, we should stay out of there. We will leave that up to them. Our waters are protected.

For water on the international boundary, or for those crossing the border, the federal government maintains a jurisdiction as well. Taking this step, the federal government is ensuring that its current jurisdiction is exercised and that all waters under federal jurisdiction are treated equally.

Second, the bill makes further changes to strengthen the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. Amendments to this act bring some of the definitions and regulations currently found in the international boundary waters regulations into the act itself. This is an additional strengthening of the act because it would now entrench key definitions, such as what constitutes the removal of water in bulk. Moreover, any exceptions of bulk removal would have to be approved by Parliament. By being in the act, the exceptions are clear. They cannot be changed or weakened unless it is the will of Parliament to change them.

I should be clear that the exceptions considered have to do with water used for such things as ballast or water used in a vehicle that transports animals or people outside the basin. The exceptions also allow for the removal of water temporarily for emergency or humanitarian purposes, such as firefighting, but not for commercial purposes. These exceptions are understandable and do not violate the purpose of the bulk water prohibition. I want to ensure that nothing in the act prevents those important exceptions from taking place.

Moving some of the definitions and exceptions from the current regulations into the act incorporates some of the changes promoted by two former senators, Pat Carney and Lowell Murray, who were long-time strong advocates for protecting Canada's waters.

In bills that those two senators introduced in the other place, they expressed the position that these exceptions were reasonable, but they worried that they could be too easily changed if they existed in regulation only.

In former Bill C-26, the government's bill during the last Parliament, these provisions were included, and I believe they should be included in the bill we are debating today. These provisions make the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act a stronger statute. I thank the two senators for their hard work on this issue over the years.

To further strengthen protection, Bill C-383 includes a provision not found in former Bill C-26. We have included an amendment to the International River Improvements Act that would prevent linking non-transboundary waters with a waterway flowing across the border for the purpose of increasing the annual flow of this waterway. This is significant as it would prevent an international river, that is a river flowing from any place in Canada to any place outside of Canada, from being used as a conveyance to move water out of this country.

Finally, I will take a moment to discuss the enforcement and penalty provisions in this bill. Bill C-383 would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to authorize the minister to designate inspectors for the purpose of verifying compliance with the act. Furthermore, it introduces a sentencing and penalty regime to the act, puts in place minimum penalties for certain offences and substantial maximum penalties, and directs courts to impose additional fines on offenders when the offence involves aggravating factors, such as damage to the environment and when the offender has profited from the offence.

I am pleased to present this bill for debate to the hon. members of this House. While protections currently exist at the federal and provincial levels, there is an opportunity to make these protections stronger.

It is my firm belief that Canada's water should remain in Canada for the use of Canadians. I am committed to ensuring that Canada's water cannot be removed in bulk from our transboundary and boundary waters, and believe that the amendments introduced in the legislation serve to achieve that purpose.

It is fair to note that a lot of members from all parties across the House have indicated their support for this bill, even some individuals who represent small parties, and I appreciate that. I think everyone realizes the importance of this bill and I hope everyone takes due consideration of it. It is a bill in which politics has no part.

Some critics of the bill have expressed concern about there being nothing in the bill that would stop the bottling of water, which would include not just water itself but breweries, soft drink companies, fruit drink companies, et cetera. I deliberately left that out because, in my opinion, that kind of thing is not what one would call bulk water removal. We know the flow of drinks of all kinds, alcoholic and non-alcoholic, make their way across the country and, indeed, around the world and it would be foolish to include that in here.

I thank all my colleagues who have indicated their support for this bill. I again thank the members from the other side of the House who have indicated their upcoming support for this bill. I encourage everyone to get behind this bill.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our party does intend to support the bill at second reading and I applaud the member for introducing it. It is important legislation that would contribute to safeguarding our water.

The member mentioned the $17.5 million put toward protecting Asian carp and yet the parliamentary secretary travels to a foreign capital to urge it to loosen its ballast water regulations. There is a bit of an imbalance in terms of the approach the government is taking, which leads me to my question.

Protecting our water resources requires strong environmental regulation. We have seen from the omnibus legislation that is coming down that those regulations will be loosened. While I applaud the member for this legislation, I wonder how the government will be able to deal with protecting biodiversity, protecting the integrity of our soil, our air and our water. Could the member speak to this? Maybe he has other legislation prepared to fill in the gaps that would be created by Bill C-38?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his positive comments on the bill. As for his comments about a minister's comments on ballast water, I am not familiar with the comments he is referring to. However, I can tell the member that his wording of “loosening” certainly would not be a true statement because we have tightened the ballast laws on incoming foreign ships into the Great Lakes system and other lakes and rivers in Canada, not loosened them. Therefore, he is certainly mistaken there.

As far as Bill C-38, there are all kinds of good stuff in there and fear-mongering by the opposition and others about some of those changes are simply that, fear-mongering.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the member for bringing forth this bill. It is very useful legislation.

In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a number of years ago there was a proposal to ship water in bulk out of a place called Gisborne Lake.

One of the concerns raised, and this might fall into his fear-mongering category but it was believed by us, was that once we start exporting water in bulk by shiploads, it then becomes a commodity and perhaps subject to the NAFTA rules and then we cannot stop doing it and we turn water into a commodity, which we feared at the time and it was a grave concern.

Does the member share that concern? Is that one of the reasons that he is bringing forth this particular legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly right. I agree with him that water is a resource. However, like oil, timber or gold, it is not a commodity and should not be treated as such. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that in the last five or six years.

That is a question that I could have written myself. I thank the member for allowing me the chance to clear that up. I appreciate his support and thank him for realizing that water is not a commodity to be traded like other resources.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for bringing forward this very valuable legislation.

Does the member believe that this is a bill that would benefit just rural Canadians or would it also benefit Canadians living in urban area, the banning the bulk water transfers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga South for her work in support of the bill. She is absolutely right in pointing out that there might be different meanings to our freshwater from rural to urban, but urban ridings and communities like her own probably in some ways have more to gain from that. My drinking water, even though I come from a small community on Georgian Bay, comes directly out of Georgian Bay. Therefore the protection of both its quality and quantity is of the utmost importance, by all means.

We welcome people from her riding to come to my riding and enjoy the water in other ways.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for this legislative initiative intended to better protect Canada's fresh water. The member dares tread where his government has refused to go, namely, toward protecting Canada's fresh water from the future threat of export in bulk.

Bill C-383 highlights the government's continued and stubborn inaction on this vital national issue. However, the fact remains that Bill C-383 is a timid response to four years of Liberal pressure on the Conservative government to show robust federal leadership on pre-empting bulk water exports. In the end, I believe Bill C-383 is intended as face-saving legislation meant to inoculate the government against charges it is not protecting Canada's fresh water.

Liberals nonetheless support sending the bill to committee to examine its shortcomings, of which there are at least five.

First, the bill is incomplete. It fails to cover the vast majority of Canada's fresh water. It leaves out of its scope more than 90% of Canada's water resources.

In retrospect, the government should not have combined with the Bloc Québécois to defeat Liberal Bill C-267, which was comprehensive and watertight legislation covering all water basins in Canada. For the record, two courageous Conservative MPs broke ranks and voted for the Liberal bill.

Bill C-267 was developed by Canada's foremost water policy experts and would have protected Canada's water from export in the event a province decided to lift its own internal prohibition on selling water in bulk outside its borders. At the moment, any province could lift its prohibition against bulk water exports at any time in future in response to economic or political pressures. Unlike Bill C-267, Bill C-383 does not provide a backstop against such an eventuality.

Bill C-383 fails to create an over-arching national prohibition against moving water from anywhere in Canada to the United States or elsewhere that would fill the void should a province lift its ban on water exports. Bill C-267's prohibition on taking water out of its home basin anywhere in Canada so as to protect aquatic ecosystems was such over-arching legislation.

Second, Bill C-383 may be dangerously counterproductive. It may unwittingly leave Canada open to a trade challenge under NAFTA should a province together with, say, an American entrepreneur decide at some point in future to challenge the bill's putative prohibition on water exports by pipeline. In other words, rather than resolving the current uncertainty surrounding the status of fresh water under NAFTA, Bill C-383 may amplify this uncertainty. I will explain in a moment.

In the meantime, I should mention that Bill C-267 avoided the possibility of a NAFTA challenge because it was primarily environmental legislation, not an attempt to create a trade barrier.

Third, Bill C-383's prohibition on moving water to the U.S. through transboundary rivers does not break new ground in protecting Canada's water security and sovereignty. It merely formalizes the core principle in the 1909 Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty which stipulates that neither country shall do anything to affect water levels on the other side of the border.

Fourth, while Bill C-383 has intuitive appeal because one can visualize rivers flowing into the U.S. acting as conduits for water exports, the fact is that most water export projects will likely involve tanker trucks, tanker ships, water bags, or pipelines.

The grandiose water diversion schemes where northward flowing Canadian rivers are reversed and diverted south to the U.S. appear to be a dream from the past. For example, the GRAND Canal project developed in the 1950s by Newfoundland engineer Tom Kierans is perhaps the most well-known and iconic of these unrealistic water export schemes. It envisioned among other things using transboundary rivers to channel water normally flowing northward toward Hudson Bay southward to the U.S. Not only does Bill C-383 merely consolidate prohibitions on water diversions implied in the boundary waters treaty of 1909, its approach appears to be outdated.

Finally, it bears mentioning that Bill C-383 does not prohibit water exports by tanker truck, tanker ship, or water bags from non-boundary waters, or even possibly by pipeline. For example, Bill C-383 would not have stopped Sun Belt Water's attempt in the 1990s to export water from B.C. coastal streams to Goleta, California in the absence of the fortunate provincial action that followed to block the company's efforts. Nor would it prevent the export of water from Newfoundland's Gisborne Lake should the current provincial prohibition on bulk water exports in that province ever be lifted.

Some would argue that exporting the water from coastal streams carries no negative consequences because such water is lost to the ocean anyway. Coastal streams do support sensitive coastal ecosystems, including spawning grounds.

As Ph.D. student and water expert Janine MacLeod has said, “The outflow of fresh water into the oceans at deltas and estuaries is not 'wasted'”.

With respect to pipelines, which are perhaps a viable means of someday exporting water to the U.S., Bill C-383's attempt to block water exports by such means could prove problematic. It is difficult to fathom that a Canadian law eliminating the possibility of building a pipeline from, say, a Canadian inland body of water into the U.S. would not be viewed by a NAFTA tribunal as a barrier to trade. It is one thing, as the bill does, to ban the construction of a pipeline into a transboundary river that would change the river's water levels in violation of the Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty, but it is quite another to, as the bill also claims to do, legislate a ban on building a pipeline to carry water for export across the Canada-U.S. border and pretend that such a conduit, at the point where it crosses the border, becomes de facto a transboundary river—in other words, like water flowing in its natural state—and hence falling outside of NAFTA's provisions against erecting barriers to trade, according to some experts.

While some would argue that water in a pipeline is not a product in the strict sense, it is not really water in its natural state either. It is water that definitely has been captured. In conjunction with the fact that in the U.S. water in its natural state is viewed legally as a good because it is used to produce goods, it is not outside the realm of plausibility that a NAFTA tribunal would rule that water crossing the border in a pipeline should be seen as having entered commerce and that any attempt to prohibit such commerce constitutes an illegal barrier to trade under the agreement.

We have had mixed signals from Conservatives on the issue of bulk water exports for years. The current Conservative government, as well as previous incarnations of the governing party, have a history of sending contradictory signals with respect to their interest in and desire to prohibit bulk water exports, beginning with the Mulroney government through to the Canadian Alliance to the current government. Let me explain.

In order to allay fears that free trade with the U.S. would result in Canada eventually having to export its water south of the border, the Mulroney government introduced Bill C-156, which would have banned large-scale water exports. The bill died when Parliament was dissolved for the 1988 free trade election and it was not revived after Mr. Mulroney was returned to power in that election. No wonder there are those who believe the bill was merely a symbolic gesture meant to blunt opposition to the impending Canada-U.S. free trade agreement from those who feared a sellout of Canada's water resources if the agreement came to pass.

Later, in opposition, the Canadian Alliance admitted that NAFTA leaves Canada vulnerable to market-driven bulk water exports. Speaking in the House of Commons at the time, the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs thus advocated for reopening NAFTA to insert a specific exemption for water, similar to that which the agreement granted to Canada's cultural industries.

More recently, in its 2008 Speech from the Throne, responding to the earlier introduction of Liberal private member's Bill C-535, a predecessor to Bill C-267, the Conservative government promised to introduce legislation to ban bulk water exports by prohibiting interbasin transfers of water within Canada. This commitment reversed the government's position to that point that federal action on the issue of bulk water exports was unnecessary because of existing provincial prohibitions. However, the government never followed through on its commitment, reversing itself yet again, arguing as recently as this past fall that federal legislation to ban bulk water exports remains unnecessary.

In conclusion, Bill C-383 is a very modest step in the right direction by a member who has obviously grown weary of his government's procrastination on an issue of prime national importance involving our most vital natural resource. The bill appears to have serious shortcomings, including the fact that it could even weaken Canada's ability to control its water future.

We look forward to exploring these possible shortcomings in committee.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my constant quest to convey the viewpoint of members of isolated communities, I would like to take the opportunity presented by our examination of this bill in order to inform the entire Canadian population of the destructive impact of indiscriminate extraction of natural resources in remote areas.

I represent a riding that covers over 220,000 square kilometres. It begins at the 50th parallel and goes all the way up to the 53rd parallel. It is also important to understand that my riding is completely covered by forests. There are 22 watersheds—I checked this number—in my riding. I thought it was important to share certain information that has to do with preserving the integrity of this resource.

Industrial vitality is palpable in my riding on a daily basis, as equipment, heavy machinery and workers are forced to roll through the urban centres before heading off onto the land. The urban centres are the cities of Sept-Îles and Baie Comeau. There is only one highway, highway 138. The drilling equipment used for all mining and forestry initiatives—basically, all equipment—comes through on highway 138. The road has suffered the consequences of this heavy traffic.

It is crucial that we pay more attention to the real environmental footprint of these extraction initiatives on traditional Innu and Naskapi lands. I would like to reiterate that these are traditional lands, and I will expand on these comments a little later on.

When I returned to my riding after my university studies, I did legal aid work for two years. After that, my band council, the council of the Innu Takuaikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam nation, approached me and offered me a position as a legal advisor to the community management organization, the band council.

Early in my mandate, I was tasked with handling consultation requests from Quebec's provincial department of natural resources and wildlife. About two or three times a week, my band council received consultation requests regarding various mining and forestry development initiatives.

I used the services of a cartographer, Carole Labarre, who is from my riding and my own community.

Each request was recorded and placed on a map to make it easier for everyone in the community to understand. Each initiative that targeted the traditional lands of designated families was placed on the map.

I was asked to carry out a rather summary analysis. When we looked at the map, we saw that these initiatives were mostly located in areas with water resources or watersheds. We realized that the mining industry was putting its equipment and facilities near waterways because it needs water, especially for drilling and lubricating drilling equipment. That is one of the issues I am attempting to highlight.

Over the years, and based on my observations, I criticized the poor management of natural resources by provincial authorities.

I would like to note in passing that the provinces are primarily responsible for the water within their boundaries.

By extension, the shortcomings with respect to the guidelines for and monitoring of the construction of industrial infrastructure in areas with significant water resources lead me to doubt the true extent of government efforts with respect to freshwater resource management.

To support my comments, I will refer to the specific case of Lake Kachiwiss. When I was working for my band council, it received a request for consultation regarding uranium exploration near Lake Kachiwiss, which is located about 10 km from Sept-Îles.

I was asked to go to the site with other representatives of my community to verify the extent of the real footprint of drilling and prospecting in the area. Photos were taken. We were accompanied by experts. We carried out analyses. We also took water samples, which were sent to Quebec City for analysis.

When we arrived at the site, we could clearly see that the drilling sites were very close to water supplies.

There were drilling sites in the mountains and every site was linked to a stream. We also noticed that many containers of fuel and oil had been left at the site and some had spilled. Oil had spilled into the basins on the mountainside. This is an example of the negative impact of the absence or lack of follow-up in these undertakings.

There were risks at the mining exploration stage, not to mention the risks involved in drilling to the water table, since we were talking about uranium. Radon gas might reach the water table. Things were already problematic at the exploration stage.

I thought it would have been better to address the challenges of maintaining the integrity of the surface water in the north before dealing with the issues related to bulk water exports. Even though the bill concerns bulk water exports, I wanted to highlight the fact that preserving the integrity of the resource is essential because, in the end, water is vital to human existence. To even consider economic development, we have to safeguard the quality of the resource.

I do hope that the Conservatives are duly noting what I am saying since they are in charge of the situation.

Considering how vital this prized resource is, it is essential to safeguard its integrity, and to exclude any notion of profit associated with a hypothetical economic potential. We know that this resource has economic potential. However, as I was saying, it is best to make the efforts needed to safeguard the quality of the resource. I submit this respectfully.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to lend our government's support to my hon. colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and to take a few minutes to discuss what I believe is an important subject for all Canadians. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has a long history of working to protect Canadian waters and has been an advocate on behalf of the Great Lakes, for instance, going back many years.

Bill C-383, transboundary waters protection act, aims to prohibit the bulk removal of water from Canadian transboundary waters, which are waters that flow across the border, and to further strengthen protections against bulk removal from boundary waters, which are waters like the Great Lakes that straddle the border. The bill would be an important improvement for protecting Canada's water resources. A similar version of this legislation was tabled in the previous Parliament by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and in the 2008 Speech from the Throne. Our government committed to introduce legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins. Bill C-383 would achieve just that.

My hon. colleague mentioned earlier today that previous legislation unfortunately died on the order paper as a result of that unnecessary election in May 2011. I have to say, the result was a good one: a strong, stable, national majority Conservative government. It has brought a number of good members to this House, such as the member for Mississauga South, who spoke earlier today, the member for Simcoe—Grey, the member for Yukon and many others. For that, I guess I am grateful for that unnecessary election.

As my hon. colleague pointed out, there are already protections in place at the federal level under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to protect boundary waters such as the Great Lakes, but there are also possibilities for improvement. This bill strengthens these protections in several ways.

First, as I have already said, transboundary waters would now be protected in the same manner as boundary waters. Bill C-383, by expanding the protections to transboundary waters, also expands the area covered by a bulk water removal prohibition. Now the protections would extend to transboundary waters throughout the country. The legislation would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to have these basins named in the act itself and not just in the regulations.

The second area of improvement in Bill C-383 is that the penalty provisions and enforcement mechanisms would be tougher. The bill would provide the Minister of Foreign Affairs the power to designate inspectors to verify complaints with the act. As my colleague previously stated, there are provisions in this bill, including minimum and maximum penalties, for violations of the law.

The bill would improve on current protections by moving certain definitions and exceptions from the regulations into the act itself. This would codify them into the act, ensuring that parliamentary approval would be required to make any future changes to the exceptions.

I carefully watched the House debate on Bill C-267. I know that several members in the NDP expressed their concern about a government being able to rewrite exceptions or definitions almost at will. Well, by moving exceptions and definitions into the statute, Bill C-383 would make it much more difficult to make any such changes. As a matter of fact, it would require parliamentary scrutiny.

Long-time water advocates, such as former Senator Pat Carney and other senators, pressed for this while they were in the other place. These senators, like many others who follow water issues closely, recognize that the exceptions in this act are reasonable. For example, an exception for short-term, non-commercial bulk removal in order to supply water to put out a massive forest fire is not unreasonable, but rather a humanitarian need.

We need these exceptions in the act. We would not want to stand in the way of a humanitarian action by telling our neighbours that we would not allow the removal of water to put out a fire because it is against the law in our country. Instead, we want to ensure that there is a place for reasonable exceptions and that those exceptions are stated clearly in the act and cannot be changed in the same manner that a regulation can be changed.

As I stated earlier, Bill C-383 is similar to Bill C-26, introduced by our government in the last Parliament. However, in this bill, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound added an important new provision that was not previously found in Bill C-26, which is an amendment to the International River Improvements Act.

The purpose of the International River Improvements Act is to ensure that international rivers, water flowing from any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, are developed and used in the national interest and assures that Canada meets its obligations under the Boundary Waters Treaty.

The specific amendments to the International River Improvements Act proposed in Bill C-383 define international river improvements to include pipelines and prohibit the issuance of a licence for an international river improvement that links non-transboundary waters to an international river, the purpose or effect of which is to increase the annual flow of the river. This is a significant improvement and protection.

We can look at risk areas for potential bulk water removals or transfers and determine areas where we find the greatest risk. One could be the Great Lakes, which some would consider the El Dorado of freshwater in North America, but, as I mentioned earlier, the Great Lakes are already protected from bulk removal by the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

Incidentally, I should add that the Great Lakes are also protected on the U.S. side of the basin due to the Great Lakes compact. Ontario and Quebec are partners with the Great Lakes states as part of a side agreement to that compact. Both of these provinces have legislation to prevent bulk water removals from their territories. Thus, all eight Great Lakes states are in agreement with us in Canada. No one wants to see Great Lakes water transferred out of the region. The Great Lakes are protected by the provinces on the U.S. side and federally in Canada under the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

Besides bulk water removals from the Great Lakes, another worry could be the potential use of a river flowing across the international boundary as a means of conveyance to transfer water in bulk outside Canada. Although this type of transfer is not occurring, we have been told that this is a potentially efficient way to move water across the border. The fear is a possible scheme that would seek to link, for instance, a body of water to an international river and this increased flow of water would then be the bulk transfer. To prevent this, Bill C-383 would amend the International River Improvements Act to prohibit the issuance of a licence for this type of activity.

I once again would like to thank the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing this legislation. This is in keeping with the direction that the government pursued during the last Parliament and remains the best way to proceed to protect Canada's water from bulk removal.

Bill C-383 would respect the role of the provinces in protecting water within their jurisdiction. By supporting it, members of the House can ensure that water under a federal jurisdiction, boundary and transboundary waters would also be protected from bulk removals and that this protection would be consistent throughout the country.

I am thankful for this opportunity to discuss Bill C-383. We understand the need to protect this vital resource and this legislation would do just that. I urge all members of the House to support this bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to a report by the Conference Board of Canada, Canadians use an average of 300 litres of water a day. Three hundred litres a day when, according to one report, the world average is 20 litres per day.

Of the 16 OECD countries, only Americans consume more water than Canadians. The Conference Board of Canada gave Canada a D for its feeble efforts to conserve its water resources.

If it seems we have an insatiable thirst for water, our thirst for energy and profit is just as bad. It takes 3 to 4.5 barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen. This figure does not include the water that is used to refine the crude oil. Shale gas uses 4,000 cubic metres of water for each step of the hydraulic fracturing process, not to mention the other types of energy we use.

Southern Canada's streams, lakes and rivers are polluted. Municipal waste water infrastructure cannot meet the demand. Waste water that is untreated or that has received only primary or secondary treatment is dumped into our watersheds. This has disastrous consequences for aquatic life and the entire ecosystem. Urbanization and surface impermeability also have an impact by increasing the amount of polluted water that runs off into waterways or is directed to overburdened infrastructure. The intensification of agriculture has also increased the erosion of farmland and agricultural runoff, which carries sediment that is high in phosphorous. As a result, cyanobacterial blooms are suffocating our lakes and waterways.

This is what Canada is doing with one of our greatest resources, which is now called blue gold. Canada has a large percentage of the earth's drinking water, 9% of which is considered renewable. Some of that water is trapped in glaciers, which, by the way, are melting into the oceans. An abundance of precipitation means that this resource is renewable in part. However, water is not like other resources. It is essential for life, like the air we breathe.

The reason why this bill is so close to my heart is that, when I worked as an agronomist, I was a project manager responsible for improving the quality of water for agriculture. I was able to see first-hand the state of our waterways and the challenges Canada faces in preserving this valuable resource.

Furthermore, the southern border of my riding of LaSalle—Émard runs along the St. Lawrence River and the Lachine Rapids, the largest rapids within an urban environment. The Parc des Rapides, which surrounds the Lachine Rapids in the LaSalle borough, is one of the six main urban parks in Montreal and is part of the greater Montreal parks network. The park, which has an area of 30 hectares, is the perfect place to view the famous Lachine Rapids and has been a refuge for migratory birds since 1937. The site has remarkable diversity and has more than 225 species of birds, including the great blue heron, which is a protected species, and 1,000 nests of three species of herons. The biodiversity does not stop there, since the park also houses 80 species of fish, including some that are at risk.

The Lachine Rapids are located in the St. Lawrence watershed. The St. Lawrence is the cradle of our history, and also a hugely diverse aquatic and shoreline environment. I believe that the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound thinks that the Georgian Bay watershed in his region must also be preserved.

Bill C-383 would amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit the bulk removal of water and to improve current protections.

This bill would amend the International River Improvements Act by prohibiting the issuance of licences for projects that link non-boundary waters to an international river where the purpose or effect of the project is to increase annual flow to the United States. This amendment will prohibit the issue of a licence to construct, operate or maintain a canal or pipeline channeling Canadian water into an international river.

We know that large-scale removal of water from lakes and waterways would negatively affect their ecosystems by increasing pollution concentrations. Water removal will dry up waterways, upset ecosystems and endanger plants and animals that depend on water and shorelines. This bill is a step in the right direction, a step toward preserving and protecting Canada's transboundary waters.

Still, the Canadian Water Issues Council is critical of the fact that this bill covers just 10% of Canada's fresh water while Bill C-267 went farther. This bill also fails to prohibit bulk water exports. This private member's bill proves once again that the Conservative government does not consider water to be a national priority and is not at all interested in developing a national water strategy in co-operation with its provincial counterparts.

New Democrats have been consistent in calling for a ban on bulk water export. We see a ban as an essential part of a comprehensive national water policy, something Canada lacks. Such a policy would establish clean drinking water standards and strong environmental protection for Canada's water resources, including recognition of water as common right. Passing forward-thinking legislation that recognizes a healthy and ecologically balanced planet is the most important gift we can give to future generations of Canadians.

A number of massive bulk water diversion plans, in the form of water corridors, have been proposed over the past four decades. These water corridors would have transferred massive amounts of water to the U.S. from Canada. For various reasons, none of these projects has gone forward, but the potential for such projects remains, hence the need for strong legislation to prevent them.

My message is clear. First, water, the source of life, is not like other resources. Second, we must urgently reduce our consumption of water and preserve the quality of our watersheds. Third, we must prohibit bulk water exports. This should begin with the establishment of a national water strategy with our partners to ensure that we have standards for safe, potable water, solid environmental protection measures, and conservation measures for Canada's water resources.

Bill C-383's intentions are valid and that is why I support sending this bill to protect boundary waters to committee for examination. This bill calls on the political class and thus all Canadians, reminding us of our responsibility to use water rationally and conscientiously in an overall vision, an ecosystem vision, of our watersheds. We are the guardians of water, which is a public good and a fundamental human right. We must demonstrate leadership in preserving and conserving water, the source of life.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour on resuming debate, I will let her know that we will need to interrupt her at about 2:18 p.m., about four minutes from now, this being the end of time allocated for private members' business today.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to lend my support to the private member's bill of my colleague, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, which seeks to ensure that all waters under federal jurisdiction are protected from bulk water removals. Protecting Canada's water resources is an issue that I believe in strongly and that our government is committed to. I believe all of us in this House agree that Canada's sovereignty extends to our natural resources, including fresh water. This is the position of the majority of Canadians. It is something I hear from my own constituents in Simcoe—Grey, especially those bordering Georgian Bay.

Water is an emotional issue for Canadians. It is something that defines us. There is a reason we and visitors to our country see images of crystal blue lakes and pristine mountain streams when we think of Canada, and it strikes us as the essence of Canada.

However, beyond the symbolic issue, there are numerous reasons to prohibit bulk removal of waters. First, the ecosystem and the people who live in a watershed are best served by keeping water within the basin from which it originates. Removal of water in bulk deprives that basin of that water, potentially causing harm to the environment and to ecosystems as well as to the people living in these areas, now and in future generations. The prevention of bulk transfers of water between basins along international boundaries is also an important environmental concept to help in the fight against invasive species.

Although there are several different ways to approach preventing the bulk removal of water, Bill C-383 works to amend two acts: the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act. In crafting this legislation, there is the recognition that the federal government cannot do this alone, as water in much of Canada is under provincial jurisdiction, so in order to ensure the protection of water, it is necessary for the federal government to work together with the provinces to prevent bulk removals of water. The good news is that the provinces understand very well that we need to protect waters under their jurisdictions, and they oppose the concept of transferring water in bulk outside of their territories.

It is important to note that Bill C-383 is aimed at waters within federal jurisdiction, namely boundary and transboundary. This bill would strengthen protections in place against bulk removals from boundary waters, those bodies of water through which borders run, and create a prohibition against the removal of water in bulk from transboundary waters, waters which flow across the border.

These prohibitions would be backed by strong penalties and enforcement provisions in this bill that are in line with those in the Environmental Enforcement Act.

Provisions found in Bill C-383 amending the IBWTA closely follow the regimen from the Environmental Enforcement Act in terms of the fine schemes, sentencing provisions and enforcement tools available. These provisions would include minimum and maximum penalties for violations of law and would create categories depending on whether the offences are committed by individuals, small-revenue corporations or corporations.

Each of the categories would face stiff penalties for violations. For examples, an individual could face up to $1 million in fines and a corporation up to $6 million. Fines for contravening the law would be cumulative, meaning a violation that continues for more than one day would be seen as a separate offence for each day that it continues.

I make it abundantly clear that the Government of Canada will not allow a project aimed at increasing the flow of an international river at a boundary as a means of transfer of water in bulk outside of the Canadian basin, and, for the sake of this clarity and to ensure that this prohibition is solid and covers all bodies of water where the federal government has jurisdiction, this amendment to the International River Improvements Act has been added to Bill C-383.

Once again I offer my thanks to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing this legislation. As I have said, this is a great bill. It reflects our government's long-term policy and delivers on the promises we have made to Canadians. I hope all members of this House will support Bill C-383.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey will have six minutes remaining for her remarks when the House next resumes debate on the motion.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:18 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:18 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion that 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.