Natural Resources Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could just ask one short supplementary question.

The issue is with respect to the Athabasca River, and the nature and interface with respect to the development of the tar sands and the technology that is being used. I don't wish to put the deputants on the hot seat with this one, but this issue is one that crosses ministerial silos and jurisdictional silos also.

Is this an issue you would be concerned about and on which you could give some direction with respect to the ongoing oversight of this committee, or other committees of the House?

[Dr. Ian Campbell]

I'm reluctant to go too far with “shoulds”. As a civil servant, I officially represent my minister who, I guess, right now, is the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. I'm not going to say, on his behalf, what this committee should be doing.

Certainly looking at the use of water in fossil fuel extraction is something that could be of great interest, particularly for this committee, where it would be involving multiple natural resources, as opposed to involving a single natural resource. Certainly oil and gas exploration activity in northern Alberta also has an impact on the forestry sector, so if you were to look at that you would certainly be getting your fingers into multiple different pies at the same time, and that could be quite attractive.

The difficulty, of course, is that as soon as you look into any specific issue like that, you potentially get into spending a lot of time on determining where the federal-provincial jurisdictional boundaries are, which can always complicate any natural resource question.

[Dr. David Brooks]

Let me skate around the Athabasca River, which is probably the wrong metaphor right now.

You asked about putting environmental protection first. Five or ten years ago, the library bookshelf on how much water is required to keep ecosystems healthy was small indeed. The field has exploded in the last 10 years. I think it would be very useful if this committee were to survey the literature. I'm not sure what authorities a committee has, and so forth, but you could request Environment Canada to look over the various books and articles that have been published by highly qualified people, and ask them to apply those methods to a sample of Canadian rivers and lakes to find out what is needed and how the water has to be available. It's no longer enough to say, well, it needs a flow rate of so many cubic metres per second, but it's also a case of how much water the flow pattern needs.

They've come up with some results that are initially strange, that rivers in arid parts of Canada are actually more resilient than those in temperate parts of the climate, because they have had millennia to get used to wild swings of rainfall, whereas those in, say, Ontario and Quebec have been used to a relatively stable climate, and they haven't learned to adapt their ecology.

But there are no methods that are available; they're not going to give it to you down to the last 10 cubic metres, or patterns, but I think it would be very instructive to have that. I don't know of any researcher who is working on this in Canada, but activity is flourishing in Europe and the United States.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

I'm looking at the clock, and I note that we are going to keep you right till 1 o'clock. If that's all right with the witnesses, I thank you.

Monsieur Cardin, could I ask you to try to keep it to five minutes and then we could give everybody an opportunity to ask at least one question.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good day, gentlemen.

Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond my control, I wasn't able to familiarize myself with this publication prior to arriving here. However, I find it quite fascinating. What struck me from the very first was the title: Freshwater for the Future. The words bring to mind development, economic growth, and so forth. Perhaps I would have preferred to see the words “vital resource and life source”. That's what comes to my mind when I hear the word water.

You quoted some impressive statistics on water usage. Water withdrawal is measured in cubic metres. Municipalities withdraw 4 million cubic metres, whereas the figure is 28 million cubic meters for thermal power generation. Other statistics for other sectors are equally impressive. Even the agricultural sector does not use as much water as municipalities do.

Still according to your notes, we read that less than 3 per cent of the water treated by municipal water treatment plants is technically for consumption, or drinking, purposes. We see that the actual amount of water consumed, percentage wise, is minimal compared to water usage in other spheres of activity. All of which leads me to think that water has increasingly become a market commodity. I'm wondering -- and I hope I'm wrong -- if all of the efforts to protect the resource are in fact being made so that this resource can be marketed. As we all know, water is a protected resource and cannot be exported in bulk. However, if things continue as they are, will outside pressure ultimately result in governments, or the principal stakeholders, viewing water as a highly lucrative commodity?

[Ralph Pentland]

There are two issues, the consumption versus withdrawal. Generally speaking, you withdraw water, a small amount is consumed, and the rest goes back to the environment. In the case of a municipality, normally you'll consume about 10% of what you withdraw. In thermal power, you might only consume 1% of what you withdraw. In agriculture it might vary from 20% to 80% of what you withdraw. So it depends on the use and so on.

In terms of the question of water as a commodity and so on, and water rights, what happens in Canada is that you have two different systems for managing water use. In the parts of the country such as Ontario, Quebec, and the east, where you have a lot of water, we consume less than 1% of the water that's available. So we don't need a system of water rights and a system where we can buy and sell water. There's lots of water. In those provinces we generally have a licensing system. We license water use so that we make sure this water use is not going to interfere with the environment and other things. In Quebec, Ontario, and the Maritimes and so on, we license water use.

In the west, where you actually have a water shortage in the Palliser Triangle and other places, you don't have enough water for the uses that you want to use, we have something called a water rights system. People are issued a right to use water. In the extreme now, for instance in Alberta, they've now introduced legislation whereby a person can get a right from the government and sell it to somebody else. So you're actually into a situation now in parts of the country that are water short where you can actually obtain a right to use water and you can actually sell it.

So the situations are very different where you have lots of water and where you don't have lots of water, and the legal systems are adapted to take that into account.

[Dr. Ian Campbell]

Regarding the marketing of water resources, I would simply add that exporting water in bulk to the United States could conceivably be a cost-effective move, as the distances involved are not too great. However, exporting water in this manner elsewhere is absolutely not cost-effective. Indeed, it would be more cost-effective to build a new filtration plant in Africa than it would be to ship water to the continent.

The same is true in Canada. Shipping water is an extremely costly undertaking. Water is heavy, cannot be compressed and cannot be dehydrated. Therefore, marketing water is not very useful, unless it is done on site. In that case, it's not really a question of selling water, but rather a matter of withdrawal and usage rights. It's not easy to find a way to make water a profitable commodity, especially in Canada.

[Dr. David Brooks]

That's true, for the time being. The soft path approach is used, more or less, for academic studies.

I appreciate what you're saying, but as we go ahead with our studies, we intend to formulate real policies to address these different issues. Right now, people are wondering how to use and conserve water? With the soft path plan, the question is: For what purpose is water needed and what are the alternatives? We are concerned about the use of drinking water for non-essential purposes. Why do we have a system in place that ensures an optimum water supply to grow food products? Conceivably, the same results could be achieved with perhaps one-third of the amount of water currently used.

This is one Middle Eastern model where various techniques are employed to conserve water. Can we create a similar model here in Canada? We don't have an answer to that question yet, but ask us again in six months' time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That was a great question, and thank you very much for that, but I think we're going to have to move on.

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for Mr. Campbell. We talked around the subject of bulk water exports. Of course, they're not permitted at this time in Canada. Mr. Pentland has basically stated that the demand for Canada's water by the U.S. is perhaps not as large as it's generally thought to be.

With respect to that, you made a statement earlier that the treaties Canada signed with the aboriginals never extinguished the water rights. By that, I have to assume that aboriginal bands still have, or believe they have, rights to water. In your opinion, what would Canada's response be should one or more of the aboriginal bands in our country decide that it would be a pretty lucrative business arrangement--and of course it would--if they were to bulk package some pristine water that happened to be within their territory and decide to begin exporting it to the U.S.? Depending on the quality of water, they could probably get a pretty good dollar for it.

I'm very curious about this and serious about the question too, because there are a lot of things that aboriginal bands can export that non-aboriginals cannot. If you would be candid about your answer, I'd appreciate that.

[Dr. Ian Campbell]

To be absolutely candid, I really have no idea what would happen. It has not been tried.

One of the problems with bulk export in most situations is that it's simply not economical. You're not going to make money; it will cost more to do than it will be worth. So it's not likely to happen any time in the near future.

Certainly, there is the export of bottled water, which is essentially something of a luxury item in a North American context. I don't think there would be anything to prevent anybody from bottling water and shipping it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I realize that, but let me give you a scenario. Let's say there is a first nations community in the southern part of B.C. or Alberta where the Rockies cross the border. There's some pretty nice water down there. If they make arrangements with a company across the border to do some bulk shipments to that community--of course you know when you put a tanker truck full of bulk water into little bottles, it dramatically increases in price--it is then a lucrative arrangement. That's the scenario I'm thinking about. No one else under Canada's laws can do that.

Would it be possible, and how would Canada respond to that?

[Ralph Pentland]

There is no Canadian law that says you can't do it. There's no law, but there is a Canadian policy that prohibits inter-basin diversions. In the scenario you're talking about, there wouldn't be an inter-basin diversion.

The Canadian policy talks about inter-basin diversions between the five major Canadian basins--Hudson's Bay, the Missouri, the St. Lawrence, and so on--but the scenario you're talking about would not be prohibited by any policy or law as far as I know--even if you did it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Okay. I appreciate that answer.

[Dr. Ian Campbell]

There is a sign in Las Vegas at an outdoor shopping mall fountain that says: “The water in this fountain does not come from the Colorado River Basin. It comes from northern states or Canada”. We tracked that down. It does not come from Canada; it comes from just a few miles outside the Colorado River Basin. But the point is that there's nothing to prevent anybody from filling a truck with water and taking it south, except in some places. I'm not sure, Ralph, if you know if that would be against some provincial laws.

[Ralph Pentland]

In the Great Lakes area, it would violate a provincial-state agreement.

There's an interesting history here that you might want to look into. During the free trade negotiations, the federal government of the day introduced a bill called the Canada Water Preservation Act, which would have prohibited water export from Canada. There was a free trade election; there was a free trade agreement. Afterwards, you'll note that proposed law didn't come back to the House. If you were to get a serious bunch of lawyers together, I suspect you'd find out that the reason it didn't come back was because it couldn't come back.

We probably couldn't pass of a law of that sort today without violating international trade agreements. That's probably why the Canadian government has a policy based on river basins, rather than on countries. It's likely that we would run into problems if we tried to absolutely prohibit export from a country under the current trade arrangements. We can do it between river basins for conservation and environmental reasons, but to do it between countries would be questionable today.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I appreciate that answer.

I will also add the comment that there seems to be a myth out there that bulk water shipments in any form are not the policy of Canada--I'll use the term “policy”--and anyone who tried to do it could be subject to a challenge of some sort. But if that's not the case, then I'm glad you've clarified that for me.

[Ralph Pentland]

In my written version, the Canadian policy is outlined, and the provincial governments have all adopted the same policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have time for one more.

Just in fairness—

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I'd like to make a comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right, you can make a quick comment, and I'll go back to Brad at the end.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Brooks, you mentioned earlier that it would be interesting to institute legal responsibilities here in Canada, much like we have under the building code.

However, the building code merely contains guidelines, which can be amended and evaluated. It is not an enactment. The provinces are responsible for enacting legislation. Furthermore, if the building code is applied, it is solely because of and by the insurance companies. It is the insurance companies, not governments, that can take credit for these regulations.

It's rather hard to imagine the federal government having the will to install a dual water pipe or waterless urinals. What do you think?

[Dr. David Brooks]

I agree. It was difficult to imagine during the 1970s and it's still difficult today.

The building code is very influential. Some provinces use it as a reference tool. It is the only one the federal government has.

Perhaps we could arrange a kind of competition, as we had during the 1970s when the provinces competed to see which one could design and build the most energy efficient building. Toronto and Calgary were competing against each other. Perhaps we could arrange an informal competition to see who can design the most efficient building or neighbourhood in terms of water conservation.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

That's already happened. Three weeks ago, the Zero Energy House initiative was launched.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, gentlemen.

With that, I think we'll wrap it up.

I want to thank you for coming today, for the presentations, and for some great answers to help inform this committee. I do appreciate it, and I thank you for your attendance.

To the rest of the committee, we have distributed a calendar for the next month of meetings and of witnesses who will appear. Of note is the meeting on June 6 with the Energy Dialogue Group. We had intended to be in Alberta on that day, but the clerk advises me that there is some problem there and that we have had to postpone that meeting. So we're just going to have them come down here, rather than go to Fort McMurray.

I'll let the clerk take a minute to explain that and where we go from here.