Evidence of meeting #52 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Martial Pagé Director General, North America Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
If we go by what is specified in NAFTA, for a product to be manufactured, there has to have been a process. That is quite clear for us. So, for water to become a good, it has to be bottled and so on. If it is put into a truck, it remains a bulk system and, in our view, is not a manufactured product. That is the distinction we would make here.
In terms of the 50,000 litres, that is what was established in 2002, probably based on what was necessary on humanitarian grounds.
Director General, North America Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I imagine that is the case, but I would have to check again.
Director General, North America Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
For the quantity to be economically viable, someone would have to find a way to draw 50,000 litres per day and keep that water in conditions that would maintain the quality for several weeks, if not several months. That would probably not be possible.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
A year or two ago, there was an interview on radio station 98.5 in Montreal. I do not recall the name of the host.
Director General, North America Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Was it Arcand?
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Yes. He was interviewing a lawyer. Are you familiar with that interview?
Director General, North America Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
The lawyer claimed that, according to one of her clients whom she did not want to name, people were already taking water—I imagine it was from the St. Lawrence—and were transporting it in bags, probably for quite short distances and perhaps to irrigate farmland.
That is probably not viable in most cases, but it is a way in which it could be done. But I do not want to labour the point. Thank you for your answer.
Director General, North America Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Are you aware of that interview, Mr. Gluck?
Stephen Gluck Senior Policy Analyst, U.S. Transboundary Affairs Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Yes, I recall that radio interview. Of course, there was a lot of talk. We even contacted the Government of Quebec about that and followed up and nobody had absolutely any evidence of this actually taking place.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
But it's a plausible scenario. Really, what I'm getting at is that it's plausible, especially around that area of the country where there is farmland in the U.S. on the St. Lawrence. Anyway, it's something I thought I would mention.
Director General, North America Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
We would have to look at the business model because, as soon as you draw water, you are competing with people in the area who could get water at a lower price. By so doing, you are widening the perimeter within which that water could…
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
In effect, it becomes an economic argument. You are saying that putting water into a pipeline is not manufacturing a product, but some people do not agree. Last week, Mr. Saunders said that, by putting the pipeline idea into the bill, it was starting to look like a bill on international trade. Basically, it is not all that clear. Pipelines are used to export oil, which is a product traded between countries.
In any event, you have answered my questions. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much.
Is there any more discussion on that?
I'll go to Mr. Dechert.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Since we have the officials here, I wonder if we could ask them about the use of the 50,000 number in the regulations to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, which I understand was one of the concerns.
Also, following up on the questions that Mr. Scarpaleggia asked, if we focus on the amount of 50,000 litres as being the average backyard swimming pool, that gives you a good sense of the amount of water we're talking about.
The purpose of the bill is to protect from environmental harm. We all want to make sure that the bill stands up to any kind of court challenge and it doesn't stray into another area of jurisdiction, that being trade or commerce law. In this case, 50,000 litres is certainly a minimum number above which people could see some environmental harm. Certainly, if what's being extracted is less than the amount in the average backyard swimming pool on a daily basis, when you're talking about the Great Lakes, for example, I think most people would understand that's a fairly small number.
I'd like to hear from the officials on the use of 50,000 litres in the regulations.
John Moffet Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Environment
My apologies, but we're actually not able to provide you with details at this moment. We can follow up, perhaps in a few minutes, on precisely how the number is referenced in the IBWTA regulations themselves.
I would like to make a couple of points on the 50,000 number and its relationship to environmental impact that maybe the committee would be interested in.
First, you will recall the point that was made by the experts you heard, from the Munk School, who observed that 50,000 litres a day would be insignificant in terms of the impact on the quantity of water or the flow of water in or out of Canada.
The second point that may be relevant is that the flow of a typical international river would be approximately 1,000 times 50,000 litres a day. Again, it may be reasonable to conclude that the number is a relatively insignificant number related to the environmental impact, setting aside completely any of these trade considerations that we've been discussing.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I think that's very helpful, actually. Giving the comparison of 50,000 litres to the average flow of an international river, I think, is very helpful.
On that basis, and given that we all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to protect from environmental harm, we don't want there to be any kind of a challenge. I think the provisions of the bill have to be consistent with the concept of environmental harm.
I would urge the members of the committee to vote against this amendment.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
I won't prolong this. I only want to challenge the premise of Mr. Dechert saying that the evidence we're hearing, and we're going to have confirmed, is that the threshold is not something that is legally binding in the sense that if we changed it to 9,000, that would in any way, shape, or form affect our obligations. Mr. Dechert is suggesting that somehow this will cause a disruption to the rest of the legislation. I haven't heard that. Maybe someone else who hasn't spoken could clarify that.
We're not talking about moving water for a product. That's been established. We are talking about the threshold of moving water. As Mr. Dechert pointed out, 50,000 litres is the amount in an average swimming pool. We have Great Lakes right now that are under threat with respect to their levels, not rivers but lakes. The last thing I'd want to see is bulk water being taken over the border to fill American pools, for that matter, or some other methods we haven't even considered.
This was something that was clearly established, and we heard it from one of Mr. Dechert's colleagues, the concern over the potential to move millions of litres of water annually, if you add it up, from our country across the border. What we're simply putting forward here is a way to ensure that it's not going to be feasible for people to do that. Again, I haven't heard any evidence to suggest that this would affect agreements we already have, nor in any way, shape, or form disrupt the intent of the bill that Mr. Dechert is underlining here in terms of the environment. It's not about product.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I'll try it one more time.
As I mentioned at the outset, there is concern that unless the legislation is entirely consistent to indicate that the purpose of the bill is to protect against environmental harm, that some enforcement provisions of the bill might be subject to challenge on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Setting a maximum number for removal of water at what is less than one-fifth of the size of the average backyard family swimming pool, in my mind and I think in the minds of a lot of people and probably in the minds of justices, is reasonable, when you think of the average transboundary river having a flow of more than 1,000 times the amount of 50,000 litres per day, and you think of the size of the Great Lakes, etc.
It is hard to imagine that removing a maximum of less than the capacity of the average backyard swimming pool would cause great environmental harm and it would throw the entire legislation into doubt, in terms of whether it was really about environmental protection or some form of trade restriction. Further, my understanding is that this is a number that was established and is generally accepted as being the size of one truckload. In everyone's mind it is less than the amount that would make any kind of operation of this sort economically viable.
On that basis I urge the members to oppose the amendment, and I ask you to call the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
All right. If there's no more discussion, I'll definitely call the question.
We'll start with NDP-1, though. I'll do that first and then I'll do NDP-2.
(Amendment negatived)