Evidence of meeting #51 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was river.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Except now we're allowed to destroy fish habitat. That's the difference. Now we're allowed to destroy fish habitat, as a result of your omnibus bill.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
We're saying if you want to divert water and it destroys fish habitat, then that's okay from now on because of the amendments to the Fisheries Act.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
I don't believe your bill covers pipelines. I'll make that statement and I'll be bringing it up with the Munk School as well.
Nothing in this bill stops a province from building a pipeline from a non-boundary water into the United States. I don't think this bill covers that. I would mention that the Canadian Alliance did not believe that NAFTA protected water in its natural state, and as you know, I've brought this up before.
Your Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs said so in a speech when he was with the Canadian Alliance. He said we have to reopen NAFTA because it doesn't protect our water in its natural state.
I would add that the U.S. Department of Commerce doesn't think water in its natural state is protected either.
I think there are many problems. I congratulate you on this effort.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
That's all the time we have.
I have a feeling this won't be a point of order, but go ahead.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I think it is. You just need to read the definition of “bulk removal” in the bill, which indicates that a prohibition of bulk removal of water by any means of diversion—
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Mr. Dechert, I was right, that's not a point of order. Mr. Tilson.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
—including by pipeline, canal, aqueduct or by any means whatsoever.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you. We're going to start the next round with Mr. Tilson, followed by Mr. Julian, and then back to the Conservatives again.
October 25th, 2012 / 9:10 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller, as you know, I have a big quarry application in my riding, which is south of you. You may have heard me reading petitions from time to time.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
This quarry in application—it's under provincial jurisdiction of course—is going to be a big quarry. It's 2,300 acres. It's going to go below the water table. It's going to affect a number of rivers, not only in my riding but in your riding, because you are immediately north of me.
I believe it's going to affect drinking water. It's going to affect aquifers. The proponents are from a Boston hedge fund, an American-based company. The whole area is full of water and they haven't made it quite clear what they're going to do with the water or how they're going to get the aggregate—I think it's limestone—out.
I've heard different theories. One is that they're going to pump the water out and hold it somewhere, which will affect the streams and the rivers. The other is they are going to put it on trains, ship it up through your riding, put it on boats, and send it off somewhere, probably to the United States.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
No, I'm talking about the water. They have to get the water out of this area to get the limestone. They have to go below the water table. They are going to go below the water table; they've said so in their application.
I have two questions. Would your bill affect removing large quantities of water from the ground and holding it somewhere? Would it affect taking large quantities of water out of the ground, putting it on trains, shipping it somewhere, and putting it on boats to go to the United States?
9:15 a.m.
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC
Regarding your first question, I would have to think the answer is a clear no, my bill wouldn't address that. In answer to the second one, my first thought to that, Mr. Tilson, is I'm quite familiar with the general area where the quarry is proposed. I've driven through the area. I'm not familiar with their plans. Usually in a quarry, when water comes up from the water table, as they go down it's pumped out into a marsh or a stream or whatever.
There are pretty strict controls through the Ministry of the Environment for doing that. As far as loading it on trains and taking it out, I think it would be fantastically expensive. I can't imagine something like that, but if you say that's the proposal—
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
These are theories. You hear rumours flying around. People are quite anxious.
9:15 a.m.
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC
To carry on with the answer, if they were to take that water out and load it on cars, it seems far-fetched to me. I think that it would have to be given a lot of consideration. I'm not 100% clear whether it would come under this bill or not. I think I'd have to see it.
It's certainly removal of water in pretty vast amounts; there's no doubt about that.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'll draw the attention of members of the committee to clause 4 of the bill, which amends section 13 of the act and reads "despite section 11, the bulk removal of boundary waters is prohibited."
The definition of removal appears in subclause 3(2) of the bill and the bulk removal definition reads as follows:
means the removal of water from boundary or transboundary waters and the taking of that water, whether it has been treated or not, outside the Canadian portion of the water basin—set out in Schedule 2—in which the waters are located (a) by any means of diversion, including by pipeline, canal, tunnel, aqueduct or channel; or (b) by any other means by which more than 50 000 L of water are taken outside the water basin per day.
It seems to me that that's pretty comprehensive: any method of taking the water and anything that's not specified, including a pipeline, as I think Mr. Scarpaleggia raised, and it also says by any other means.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Mr. Dechert, that's all the time we have.
I'll start back with you on Mr. Schellenberger's time.
We're going to move back to Mr. Julian, for five minutes.