Debates of Nov. 29th, 1995

Canada Water Export Prohibition Act

[An hon. member]

What about water?

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Water was not mentioned. The evidence has shown that water was never part of the discussions. The negotiators now have admitted that. The politicians involved in the negotiations have said that water was never even mentioned in any serious way.

Therefore, to understand the basis for the inclusion of water in the trade agreements one must first look to the relevant section of the harmonized commodity coding system of GATT. The harmonized commodity coding system for classifying goods for customs tariff and other purposes adopted by the GATT include the following: "2201: It includes waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters not containing sugar or sweetening material nor flavoured, including ice and snow". It then goes on to article 2201(90) and lists all other water.

Let me provide a clarification of this harmonized commodity coding system. The GATT harmonized commodity description and coding system explanatory notes were adopted by the GATT signatories. The explanatory notes state the following: "This heading covers ordinary natural water of all kinds, other than sea water. Such water remains in this heading whether or not it is clarified or purified".

I could recite a whole number of these subsections and the technical aspects of NAFTA, but fundamentally it states that water, under the World Trade Organization and under NAFTA, is considered a commodity or a good. This obviously causes people a great deal of concern.

I think it is fair to say that at a time when NAFTA opens the door to this type of export and knowing that we have to treat, as a result of NAFTA, American and Canadian entrepreneurs on a level playing field and that we cannot discriminate against Americans in favour of Canadians, since Canadians right now are diverting water within the country, exporting water, and selling water in a variety of forms, an American entrepreneur can now use NAFTA and come forward and do the same. They could export water from the North Thompson River in British Columbia to the Los Angeles basin.

I think it is also clear in international law. I am not an international lawyer, but I have talked to many of them. They say that if it comes to a dispute in this area, provincial legislatures will not have much impact. Even national legislation will not have much impact, although this is what we are doing tonight. The provisions of the international trade agreement between three sovereign nations will be paramount if there is a dispute. Of course a dispute settling mechanism panel will take into consideration that the three signatories to the North America Free Trade Agreement have agreed, as per the schedules I have indicated, that water is a commodity, just like coal or codfish or wheat or anything else, to be bought or sold among three countries.

For that reason and to give us some influence at that international dispute settlement mechanism table when the time comes, I think we should pass this legislation to very clearly indicate where the people of Canada stand on this issue.

In closing, I will simply say the following. For Canadians water is something special. I think we all agree that water is a commodity unlike cod or timber or nickel or whatever. It is virtually like blood itself. It is the life of Canada. Water is something very special in the Canadian psyche.

I would urge my colleagues to pass this legislation in order to send a very clear message that this is where Canada stands.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops on this bill concerning our water resources, which are so obviously valuable for our communities and all of Canada.

We wholeheartedly share the hon. member's goal to conserve our water resources and to keep a tight control over the development of these resources. But at the same time, with all due respect, we think that the hon. member's approach is too narrow, and that the whole issue of water resources should be looked at in a much more comprehensive and integrated way.

We think the whole issue should be looked at in the broadest context possible.

Water is our most precious resource. We have the greatest freshwater reserves of the world. It behoves us to use them wisely. Our jobs, our economy, our quality of life, our environment, our farming and our forestry depend on water. All other resources depend on water for sustenance.

It is clear that we have to control our water exports. At the same time we have to do more than look at interbasin transfers or interbasin exports. For instance, today a large part of the water exports are being carried out through supertankers which load water from our coastal areas, lakes, streams and rivers, and carry it to other parts of the continent and beyond. We have to look at that type of export. We also have to look at the draining of water resources such as the mining of our groundwater reserves that might go southward.

I agree with the content of Bill C-202. It is in sync with the present water policy of the federal government which opposes water exports through interbasin transfers. We should look at the whole question of water in a formal, comprehensive manner, looking at not only the exports themselves but the use of water, water conservation and conception, the impacts of the use of water on ecosystems generally and the impacts of various processes such as industrial manufacturing and others on our water. We must also take into account the jurisdictional question, the input of provincial and municipal governments that deliver our water and have much to do with the retailing of water to Canadians from coast to coast.

The government has been looking at the water issue for some time now. For some 10 years there have been consultations and workshops. We have decided to accelerate the process. We are reviewing our water policies and our water legislation. Throughout next year we will consult broadly across Canada to find out from Canadians and various levels of government that have a clear interest in and responsibility for water issues how we should deal with the question of water comprehensively, including the key question of water exports.

We fully back the principle of the bill. At the same time our decision is that a much more comprehensive approach has to be taken. We want to look at the full range of water exports, including supertankers and the mining of groundwater. We do not want to limit the study and future legislation to the question of exports. We must treat water issues much more broadly, look at an ecosystemic approach, treat water as the most precious resource of the 21st century for us and for generations that follow.

To our aboriginal people water is the essence of life. They see streams, lakes and rivers as the veins and the arteries in the body of mother earth. They say that the cleaner the water flows, the cleaner the arteries and the veins in the body of mother earth. They also say that the healthier the veins and arteries, the healthier mother earth.

I thank the member for Kamloops for having brought the subject forward and enabling us to discuss it. I commit myself to the issue being looked at very broadly by the government in an overall consultation next year which hopefully will lead to comprehensive legislation on water for Canada.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the bill introduced by my colleague from the NDP, an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.

The purpose of this bill, introduced by the member for Kamloops, is clear from the title: to prohibit the export of our water by interbasin transfers.

Many questions come to mind that are not answered in this bill. These questions occurred to me after I read an article by Louis-Gilles Francoeur, published yesterday in Le Devoir . Its title is rather instructive. It is a question: ``Scientists' recommendation: fresh water under federal control?''

The journalist was referring to the report by the Canadian Water Ressources Association and to the Canadian Global Change Program, which recommends that the federal government get involved in managing fresh water resources, especially by taking over control of the main hydrographic basins such as the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.

This report, published in August under the auspices of the Royal Society of Canada, suggests that the federal government review its 1970 Canada Water Act in terms of the new outlook and the new circumstances in this area.

The bill presented by the member for Kamloops is similar, since it suggests that the federal government get involved in the export of its water resources.

I will now go back to the report, which Mr. Francoeur quotes extensively in his article. It says: "The way the situation is evolving, management of fresh water, a provincial resource-again, a strictly provincial resource- could become a constitutional issue, like many other environmental management issues, for that matter. Water resource management is a strategic issue, particularly in Quebec, considering the importance of hydro power".

In light of this quote, one can clearly see that fresh water and the management of this resource is under the provinces' jurisdiction. I do not know if the member for Kamloops consulted the authorities in his province, British Columbia, before introducing his bill. I am sure his province would not agree to lose this jurisdiction. In fact, if his province, or any other, decided to export water by interbasin transfers, could they not do it since it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction?

I cannot see how the federal government would once again intrude on matters of provincial jurisdiction. We know that it is a habit dear to the Liberals, especially with regard to the environment, but for a New Democrat to get into the fray, asking the federal government to put its big fat paws into his own province's business, is beyond me. I cannot see what the member is trying to do with his bill. To protect water? To conserve water? These are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Does the member not trust his provincial government in this respect?

As a matter of fact, his province, the member will correct me if I am wrong, made its position very clear with Bill C-9, The Water Protection Act, tabled by the minister Moe Sihota. I would like the member for Kamloops to tell us more about this piece of legislation. Right from the start, minister Sihota stated his intentions on this matter.

In a press release issued on April 27, 1995, Mr. Sihota said, and I quote:

The key is for the province to have control over that development, not the federal through NAFTA or the United States.

I believe it is quite clear. Minister Sihota wants to deal with water himself because it comes under his jurisdiction, "not the federal", as he said so well in his press release .If the Environment minister of his own province says that he wants control over this matter and is telling the federal government not to interfere, why does the hon. member for Kamloops seek to impose a new act on his province and on the others? Would it not be better to leave the question of water management to the provinces, like British Columbia, that have jurisdiction over it?

Unfortunately, I have not looked at this issue with regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement. We should certainly look at this question of water exports, or trade in water, in connection with this agreement.

I sense that, once again, this will be served to us with an ecosystem sauce, that is to say, we will be told that we should consider the large living systems as a whole, because they justify the interference of Ottawa with provincial jurisdictions. The report referred to before is asking Ottawa to develop a strategy for interwoven basins. Under this strategy, Ottawa would look after large basins like the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, while provinces and municipalities would manage small basins in accordance with federal policies.

I will read to you two paragraphs from Francoeur's article which show clearly the interfering intent of the federal government. He says: "Ottawa proposes to reduce the role of the provinces, which own water resources, by drowning their constitutional responsibilities in a sea of intervenors. For example, the report suggests that we create a consortium with representatives of the public sector (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments), the First Nations, the universities, the colleges and private sector

businesses, who would tackle various problems related to water on a national and international level. The scientific societies' report also suggests that we extend federal jurisdiction to estuaries like the St. Lawrence estuary and to coastal zones, which are provincial properties, in the context of a global approach focused on ecosystems and nested drainage basins."

This report puts forward the same arguments as the federal government uses to justify interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Ecosystems, the nation, globalization, the ingredients are always the same and they bring the federal government to push provinces around. Contrary to Obelix who was the only one to fall into the kettle of magic potion, the federalists have all been cooked in the same pot. The hon. member for Kamloops is no exception because his bill reflects perfectly the centralizing views promoted by the federal government in environmental matters.

Finally, the report goes on to say that Environment Canada should enhance the protection of fresh water ecosystems by assuming jurisdiction over fresh water fishing. Yet, since 1922-

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Oh, my God, it is unbelievable.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite listened they might learn something.

Yet, since 1922, Quebec has been managing fresh water fishing within its boundaries, which shows the inconsistency of a system where water belongs to the provinces and the fish belong to Ottawa.

It is clear from this report that fresh water is under provincial jurisdiction. In B.C., minister Sihota goes even further by legislating on trading in provincial water.

In a federal paper entitled Media Backgrounder Federal Water Policy-Executive Summary , we can read this, and I quote:

-the provinces exercise direct control over many aspects of water management within their boundaries. Their competence to legislate in water matters derives from their jurisdiction over management of public lands, property and civil rights, and matters of a local and private nature. Provinces, therefore, have authority to legislate in areas of domestic and industrial water supply, pollution control, non-nuclear thermal and hydroelectric power development, irrigation and recreation.

Moreover, in Quebec, the Gérin-Lajoie philosophy, which says that Quebec's constitutional jurisdiction should be extended to its international relations, has always been the object of an undeniable consensus since 1965.

If we combine all this, that is, provincial jurisdiction over water, the provinces' wish to take charge of their international relations, as the member of Kamloops' province does through its Water Protection Act, and if we add to that the federal government's mediocrity, or even paucity in terms of the environment, it must be recognized that Bill C-202 is not a desirable bill.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like a point of clarification. Does debate on a private member's bill go from one side of the House to the other?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Usually, but we try to give all three parties a chance to speak first. According to my list, it is the hon. member for Peace River who now has the floor.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit of interest in this bill. We have been interested for some time in the matter of water and water exports.

It is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-202, which is an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers. I know the hon. member for Kamloops has been following this issue for quite a few years. Since he is from British Columbia, I can understand his interest in the subject.

Contrary to what the previous speaker stated, these rivers quite often run through more than one province and quite a big area is affected.

We in the Reform Party have also been interested in the topic of water exports. Our 1993 blue sheet, which contains the Reform Party's principles, policies, and election platform, states that the Reform Party supports the position that notwithstanding the inclusion of water in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement, exclusive and unrestricted control of water in all its forms will be maintained by and for Canada and both free trade agreements should be amended to reflect this.

The blue sheet went further to state that until federal policies related to the free trade agreements are initiated and Canada's control over water resources is established within both free trade agreements, the Reform Party would not support the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I believe we are covered here. However, in examining the research I can see that there are cases that can be made for either side of the argument. The first argument is that the free trade agreement and NAFTA entitle the United States to a certain share of Canada's fresh water. The second argument is that the trade agreements do not entitle the U.S. to our water. I would like to

address these two arguments. I will speak about the second argument first, which is the Canadian government's official position.

Water was never mentioned during the free trade negotiations. The free trade agreements are commercial agreements, which deal with traded goods and services. Of course bottled water is a traded good, but water in rivers and lakes is by no stretch of the imagination a traded commodity, so what is the big fuss?

Furthermore, the Canadian government amended the implementing legislation to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement by stating that none of the free trade agreement provisions, such as the proportional sharing agreement, applied to natural surface or ground water, other than article 401, which deals with tariff elimination.

It would seem that our water is secure. Just to make triple sure there is no room for misunderstanding or legal manoeuvres by the Americans, in December of 1993 the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States put out a joint statement, which states that "NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the agreement. Unless water in any form has entered into commerce and has become a good or product, it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement, including NAFTA. Nothing in the NAFTA agreement would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or begin exporting water in any form. Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, water basins and the like is not a good or product and is not traded and therefore is not and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement."

The official argument goes even further, to state that international rights and obligations respecting water in its natural state are contained in separate treaties and agreements negotiated for that purpose. Examples are the United States-Canada boundary waters treaty of 1909 and the 1944 boundary waters treaty between Mexico and the United States.

It would seem that any reasonable person would be completely satisfied that all the t 's had been crossed and the i 's dotted. But of course we are not all lawyers. Lawyers can find tiny holes and drive trucks through them. Before we know it, water could be making its way south of the border.

Let me give some mention of the other argument, the one that says we have goofed and we have allowed the trade agreements to be finalized without specifically exempting water in our rivers and lakes.

The argument could be made that water is a good under the free trade agreement and NAFTA. This is because both trade agreements state that a good is one that is understood to be a good in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Sure enough, the GATT tariff schedule has a heading for water, which is very broad. The heading, numbered 22.01, is reserved for waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing sugar or any other sweetener matter for flavouring, plus ice or snow.

With that kind of a description, it would seem that natural water of all kinds, other than sea water, could be classified as a good. Since the trade agreement says we must allow all parties to the agreement the same rights in respect of trade in goods and services, we could be forced to give the United States and Mexico the same rights to our water resources that we now enjoy.

Fancy lawyers notwithstanding, I would like to think that the side agreement signed by all three governments carries a lot of weight. Even though the free trade agreement and NAFTA were never changed to include clarification about Canada's sovereignty over its water resource-which is a mistake we could rectify if we have a chance to open this agreement again to allow a new country in-I believe we still are protected and can never be forced to sell our water to our neighbours in the drier climates.

Of course our final safeguard is that we can always opt out of NAFTA or the free trade agreement. That is our bottom line: if we are not happy with what we are expected to deliver, we have the right to opt out. All we have to do is provide our neighbours with written notification six months in advance.

Let me get back to the bill under debate. I agree fully with its contents and intent. I do not think that any party in Canada, no matter what its political stripe, would support the exporting of water by interbasin transfer. Apart from a threat to our sovereignty, water exports also carry ecological risks. Interbasin water transfers can introduce parasites and other organisms to new environments, which could have a very negative effect. A good example of this is the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes by ocean-going vessels.

Other problems occur when the flow of fresh water is reduced in estuaries where sea water and river water mix. This upsets the saline balance of the water and has detrimental effects to the birds and fish that depend on that particular ecosystem. It is also reported that dams can cause a change in weather patterns and climate and can cause mercury contamination in the food chain.

I would agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that more research could be done into the effects of interbasin transfer. To that end, I would agree to sending Bill C-202 to committee for further study.

I support this bill, although I am not entirely sure that it is necessary or that we are not sufficiently protected already. However, if there is any concern at all that we are not, let us pass this bill. It can be added as a further safeguard we can take to protect our very valuable water supply.

[The Deputy Speaker]

A point of order, the hon. for Kamloops, who has already spoken on the matter.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short point of order before my friend from Broadview-Greenwood participates in the debate.

In light of the suggestion by my honourable friend who has just spoken for the Reform Party, I wonder if I could ask you,Mr. Speaker, to ask the House whether there would be unanimous support to put a motion on the floor to send this matter to committee for further discussion and examination.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is clearly not unanimous consent.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my very first speech in the House of Commons in 1988. This was the issue I talked about when I opposed the free trade agreement; that water was a part of the free trade agreement.

I congratulate the member for Kamloops for bringing this private member's bill forward. On this issue we should have a general debate. Basically our country is water blind when it comes to understanding the complexities and depth of what is going on around this issue.

When I left high school and went to study in Texas I kept in touch with a few of my friends over the years. When I was running in 1988 for the first time to become a member of Parliament I received a call from an old college classmate of mine who said in that free trade agreement there has to be something dealing with water.

I asked my good friend Bert Edmondson to tell me more. He said the chief free trade negotiator for President Ronald Reagan was a personal friend of his and spent his entire life, including his Ph.D. thesis, studying North American water management, Clayton Yeutter. He worked as a young political assistant for Congressman Jim Wright who spent most of his time studying North American water management.

My friend, even though he was in Houston, an American looking out for the United States, gave me a little friendly heads up that there has to be something in that agreement dealing with North American water management.

I then talked to a few other people, lawyers and experts, much more expert than I was on this issue. I was going to focus on the whole issue of unfettered foreign investment, something I was opposed to, chapter 14. However, when this water dimension came into the deal that got my interest even more.

I remember standing on the other side of the House saying to then Prime Minister Mulroney: "If water is not part of this free trade agreement and yet there is so much worry about it, why do you not ask your friend, President Reagan, for a one-page protocol letter signed by him and you stating water is not a part of this deal? That would put all Canadians across Canada at ease." As the member for Kamloops said, whatever we do in the House or in any provincial house on the whole issue of water is subservient to the free trade agreement.

I could not sell Prime Minister Mulroney on getting a one-page protocol letter exempting water and of course the deal went through.

However, that very first month I was elected I discovered as an MP I had access to the Library of Parliament and the researchers. I remember asking them to find out a little more about Clayton Yeutter's Ph.D. thesis. Apparently it was on the whole issue of water. Lo and behold, about four months later his Ph.D. transcript from the University of Nebraska, pulled off microfiche, landed on my desk. It was about 700 pages on how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was to replumb the entire North American system. I remember after I received that Ph.D. thesis of Clayton Yeutter sending him letters complimenting him on this great thesis on how to replumb the North American water system. I asked him if he would comment as the chief free trade negotiator on whether it was in or out of the free trade agreement.

I never had an answer to the first letter, the second letter or the third letter. Therefore we must have our heads up on this issue.

I can remember the hon. member for Kamloops in opposition presenting thousands of petitions on the floor of the House, giving us a heads up on interbasin transfers. We have to deal with this issue.

To the member for Kamloops, his private member's bill today is in the right direction but it is too narrow. The member has said no interbasin transfers. As my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment knows, we already have an interbasin transfer from Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence. That is one of the reasons we can maintain Montreal as a port. If we ever stopped that transfer from Lake Ontario, a joint decision made by the International Joint Commission, Montreal would not be a port.

This of course is something that was never discussed during the last referendum. Our friends who want to create their own country do not realize that Canada and the United States together, nation to nation, decide on the flow of water from Lake Ontario. We happily maintain Montreal as one of the great ports of the world. That in a manner of speaking is basin transfer.

I am happy to participate in this debate today. It touches on an issue we will have to deal with in a comprehensive way over the next three to five years.

A chapter in one of the books by the former premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, dealt with the grand canal, the recycling of water from James Bay up over Mount Amos, down into the Georgian Bay system, through the French River, into all the Great Lakes and through Lake Michigan into the United States. This chapter had a contribution by Tom Kierans from Newfoundland who spent his entire life working for that great U.S. firm, Bechtel Group Inc. I am intrigued by this idea.

What I am trying to say is this is an issue we will have to face up to. Fifteen years from now our American friends will not be able to carry on without Canadian water. What will we do?

The member for Kamloops, who has been consistent on this issue and is pricking our conscience and our thought process here again tonight, is giving us a heads up on a very important issue. I hope through my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, and other colleagues we can take this issue on in a comprehensive way in the not too distant future.

Maybe, as the member said in his speech, there are many different factors in this equation, many intricacies related to our first peoples, our aboriginals, and our whole environmental system. There are the different types of waters, processes and everything else that we have to deal with. I hope we can get into that in the not too distant future.

With respect to my colleagues from the Bloc, water is really not a provincial debate or issue. When we look at the way 65 per cent of our waters flow north into James Bay, when we see the way waters flow back and forth, if there was ever a reason for my colleagues across the floor to convert from Bloc Quebecois to Bloc canadien, it is around the whole issue of water.

Unless we have a strong national government managing our water resources for the interests of all Canadians, the entire community is in jeopardy. The best way to secure the precious resource of water for all Quebecers is by making sure the national Government of Canada is working on behalf of all Quebecers. Quebec alone would not have the same capacity or the same thrust.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to our Standing Orders, this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 6.39 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)