Debates of Feb. 8th, 1995

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[An hon. member]

What is wrong with that?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

There is a lot wrong with it. You would have to go a long way in this country today to find many people who would want Liberal Party hacks or friends of the government or anybody else appointed to the Senate. That is what is wrong with that. Elect them. Give the average, ordinary Canadian citizen on the street an opportunity to be a senator.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the minister a hearty nice try on his Bill C-65. The bill is

an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies. This is good. It would be a lot better if it were just a bill to dissolve certain federal agencies.

I represent a riding with a major sea coast and my constituents will sleep better knowing that the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation has been dissolved. I also cannot express anything but pleasure at the knowledge that the National Film Board has been reduced from eight to six members. I hope it will not find itself unable to make appalling decisions due to its short staffing.

I want to say with a straight face that I am confident that the President of the Treasury Board experienced real difficulties in getting the civil service to agree to these cuts. I mean no sarcasm by saying this.

In Mr. Martin Anderson's book Revolution: The Reagan Legacy he describes his own bureaucratic battles to get rid of the board of tea tasters within the U.S. executive branch. He failed. I think the minister deserves credit for what he has done. Let us have a hearty nice try for him and then let us get serious.

How big is our spending problem? How big are our debt and deficit problems in Canada? The Liberal government appears recently to have noticed that its own lust for big government coupled with Progressive Conservative incompetence has saddled this nation with an on-book debt of over $500 billion and an unfunded liability in the Canada pension plan of about a like amount, and we continue to have annual deficits in the range of $35 billion to $40 billion.

For years the established political parties laughed the debt off: "We are creating assets. We owe it to ourselves. What is a billion? We have a culture to create". Whoops. I will tell you what a billion is. It is a one followed by nine zeros. It is so much money that if you spent $1,000 a day since the birth of Christ you still would not have spent a billion dollars today. As a matter of fact you could go on for approximately another thousand years. If you spent $20 a day since the dinosaurs vanished, you still would not have spent $500 billion. What I am getting at is that it is a lot of money even by the standards of this government.

How much has the minister saved us? How long has it taken him to save us that money? It was Albert Einstein who once said it is impossible to solve a problem by thinking on the same level that caused it. He was right. If we are going to try to eliminate our deficit and get our budget under control we are going to have to do some bold new thinking.

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Winnipeg South rose at the time when the member for the Reform Party rose. I would ask that you consider allowing the member for Winnipeg South to speak.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary is absolutely right. The Chair made an error. A name had been taken off the list and the next name on the list was the member for Skeena.

If the member wishes to interrupt the speech to go back on line to get it correct, the Chair is obviously happy to do that. I am in the hands of members.

Does the member for Skeena wish to stand down to get the order right? Or does the member for Winnipeg South wish to let the member continue and the public will understand that the mistake was made by the Chair?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would only be appropriate since I am approximately halfway through my remarks that I be allowed to continue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will call on the hon. member for Winnipeg South to make a point of order if he wishes to do so.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is fine.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to try to get our deficit and our budget under control we are going to have to engage in some bold new thinking. We cannot go on the same old way. We cannot go on making the same old assumptions. It really is true that as Tony Robbins expressed, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

The Progressive Conservatives certainly proved it with their refusal to tackle program spending. What they did was considered insane either politically or in terms of the national interest.

Apparently the Liberals were too busy scoring partisan points to notice what had happened, let alone why. Look at the minister's social policy review. Having helped create our impossibly expensive social programs, having made many extravagant promises that drive our welfare state, the minister set out to produce sweeping reforms without changing his approach. He failed.

While we all feel a little pain at his embarrassment, even humiliation, in failing so spectacularly and so publicly in the most important assignment of his long and sterile career in politics, those of us on this side also feel a certain annoyance that the minister, given such responsibilities, was unable to rid himself of old and discredited ideas about the proper role of government.

The idea the minister did not have and the idea that the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs did not have are one and the same. They did not ask whether the programs we are spending too much money on are working. They just assumed everything was fine, but we were not quite efficient enough.

The programs are not working. What we need is bold and original thought. We need clearly expressed yardsticks for measuring their success. If they are not working we need to shut them down.

Actually, as I stand here and say that it does not sound all that clever or difficult. I wonder why the minister did not think of it, or the Prime Minister, or the President of the Treasury Board. If they had they would have noticed something, not something small and subtle, not a little tiny point of light in the distance. They would have noticed a huge, roaring fire, consuming money in amounts that are literally astronomical, and for nothing that we can see that we want.

I refer to our social programs. They consume two thirds of non interest spending by the federal government. They consume more than $80 billion a year. In a country that is unimaginably rich by historical standards, these immense social program expenditures are taking place side by side with the apparent disintegration of our society. We spend billions on poverty relief but apparently poverty keeps getting worse. We spend billions on health care and our spending grows geometrically. Yet waiting lists lengthen, equipment deteriorates and our politicians go for treatment in the United States.

We are paying 5 per cent of payroll into the Canada pension plan yet it is an unfunded liability and has reached half a trillion dollars to date. Half a trillion is a five followed by eleven zeros.

Meanwhile, the President of the Treasury Board, to save us all from bankruptcy, has decreased the board of directors of the CBC from 15 to 12. Were they spending over $12 billion each? Perhaps the government will tell us every little bit helps. I am here to say that it does not, not enough. I am here to say that Ralph Klein was right when he said: "You have to go hunting where the ducks are". The ducks are in the social programs, not in the board of the Canadian Cultural Property Export and Import Act, and that is where we have to go hunting.

When the minister spends as many months and as much political capital as he has to eliminate the post of secretary of the Canadian Film Development Corporation, it is that many months and that much political capital he cannot spend on changes that would really matter.

I do not know whether hon. members opposite ever watch Yes, Minister or whether they are too busy living it. However, they should watch it because it is not just funny, it is very accurate. In one episode when the minister is criticising his permanent secretary, Sir Humphrey Appleby, for the amount of bureaucracy that exists, Sir Humphrey tells him quite rightly that it has nothing to do with him, it has nothing to do with the bureaucrats. The reason there is so much bureaucracy'', he insists,is that the Parliament keeps creating programs and they all need to be administered''.

The total cost of administration for the federal government is $20 billion. The deficit is close to $40 billion. We would have to shut it all down twice to balance the budget. This bill does not come close.

I realize that to make a real dent in the deficit, the government would need two qualities it does not possess in any great quantity: courage and imagination. Even the Republicans in the United States have found that what the public wants to hear is that they are cutting bureaucrats, not programs. To say that is to take the easy way out. It is not the bureaucrats who are causing the deficit, it is the programs. Before one can say that, one has to be able to think it and that is where the active imagination comes in.

Many members opposite have been in politics a long time. They do not realize that the ideas that were once bold and new have gone stale and timid in the decades since. They do not understand that "government knows best" has been tried and it has failed miserably.

However, I put it to them directly that when one is looking at a roaring fire that is consuming some $40 billion a year and one responds by changing the definition of a peace officer under the laws governing the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, one is totally missing the point. One had better take a step back and take a good hard look at the overall structure of government and then one had better be willing to tell people openly and honestly what was found. The government has to tell the people that Ralph was right. It has to tell them that we have to go hunting where the ducks are and that they are in big social programs, not in the board of trustees of museums. Then it has to cut them.

Let us have a rousing "nice try" for the minister but let us be clear that he failed. Maybe it is time that he stepped aside. Maybe it is time that the human resources minister and the Prime Minister stepped aside and let a party that truly knows and truly has the vision to resolve these problems take control.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard some talk today from both of the speakers of the Reform Party on this bill about bold new thinking, new vision, a new way of doing business and yet all I hear is very old political rhetoric. I would like to ask the member in all seriousness what he feels is served by coming into the House and talking about the long and sterile career of a member of the House or denigrating the person. It is one thing to come forward and raise a legitimate concern about an individual who may be misperforming his or her task or about a policy decision of the government. But it is another to come forward as members of his party have done today and, as some might call it, slander other Canadians, without a scintilla of evidence, without any proof, in fact standing up and admitting that they had not bothered to check the qualifications, but of course they were unqualified.

The question I would like to ask is in the business of good government, how is a bold new vision served by that kind of tactic?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member's comments by stating that the minister has been in the House for a long time, not always on the government benches. He is part of a government that began its administration in the late sixties with a vision of "we can help Canadians because we are all knowing and all powerful and able to solve all Canadians' problems for them. All we need is their money and their co-operation. If we do not get their co-operation we will force it down their throats".

This vision was expressed by the Liberal Party and has been around for some two and a half decades now. It has failed miserably. The consequences of that failure is what we are dealing with today. Yes, the Conservatives had a hand in it too. The Conservatives are culpable because they had an opportunity to do something about it in 1984. They looked it in the eye and walked away from it.

It is a creation of the Liberal Party. It is a creation of ministers such as the one I was referring to. It serves the Canadian people to understand not only how we are going to deal with our problems but how we got here in the first place and the bad ideas that brought us to the brink of debt and ruin.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the sad part of Bill C-65 is that the government is acting pretty well like the Conservative Party acted in encouraging patronage. The government is not implementing a law that is reducing patronage at all. It is a public relations exercise, as our colleague in the Reform Party mentioned earlier, scratching the surface.

I wonder whether or not it is confusing a lion's roar with a burp. Yesterday when the government introduced Bill C-65 it mentioned it as being a great improvement in government, a great advancement, aggressive government, progressive government. It is as though we are dealing with Conservatives who are giving us the impression that they are really changing something when in fact they are not. We are living with the same system of patronage, give or take a few things. Certainly it is the case of the mouse that roared or mice that are trying to roar but they are certainly not giving us much to deal with anyway.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in rare agreement with my colleague from the Bloc. I appreciate his remarks.

I think what he is getting at is essentially what I was trying to say in my intervention. The government is trying to display to Canadians that it is doing something but when you get beneath the surface, it is not. It is really sad when Canadians not only are expecting but are hoping against hope that the government really is going to do something.

They understand it is crunch time. They understand that it is time to pay the piper. They are saying: "Let us get on with it. Let us face up to our problems in this nation and let us overcome them". The government is telegraphing false hope.

I think that is what the member is alluding to. We do not see real systemic change. What we see is window dressing.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard comments about surface scratching and burping and other qualities.

Yesterday when we talked about the actual numbers I recall the government had eliminated 589 positions. It has appointed only 700. That strikes me as far more than scratching the surface.

Moreover in the Globe and Mail article that was frequently cited today and yesterday, 80 people were identified with ties to the Liberal Party out of 700 appointments. One would find in the public opinion polls that there are probably more Liberals than that.

The Reform Party has difficulty with the kind of argument it is making. What I have heard from members of the Reform Party in the past is that the problem is Ottawa, the problem is government, the problem is the civil servants.

These boards are made up of Canadians from across the country. Many of them are regionally appointed. Many agencies are regional. Certainly some of them are appointments of people who reflect the views of the government. That is natural because you do have to change things. The majority on the boards are not now Liberal because they were appointed by the previous government.

If you in the Reform Party are out to change-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary and all members will please put their remarks to the Chair for the reasons that have been explained many times in this House.

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party surely will recognize that there is an advantage for their party to have people appointed from outside the House of Commons, from outside Ottawa to supervise activities carried on by Ottawa.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of the hon. member by saying that he is trying to insinuate that there are really not many political patronage appointments being made.

Yet we sit in the House week after week asking the Prime Minister why he continues to make political appointments. He keeps shrugging his shoulders and saying that there are only Liberals in Canada, there is nowhere else to go.

I cannot believe the arrogance of that response. It will come back to haunt this party and the Prime Minister. It is indicative of the fact-everyone who sits in the House knows it-that virtually all of the important political appointments that have been made since the government was elected are patronage appointments. They are going to friends of the government. They are going to Liberal hacks and insiders. Canadians are starting to get the message. The media is reporting it. It is going to come back to haunt the government much as it came back to haunt Mr. Mulroney and his Progressive Conservatives.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to my friends from the Reform Party and the way they talk today, I fully understand why they will probably form the next government. They know how to target the real problems.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question. He was talking about having an active imagination and looking at the overall structure of the government. I would like to ask him if he would agree to start with plucking the other place.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has long been the position of this party and of myself personally that the Senate can be an important place if we adopt the principles of triple E. As long as it is a haven for patronage political appointments it will never be regarded with any credibility by Canadians anywhere.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.35 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Fresh Water

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support a policy that Canada's fresh water, ice and snow will be protected so that at all times and in all circumstances Canada's sovereignty over water is preserved and protected.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present and speak on this motion. The motion I am presenting to the House today deals with the need for the government to support a policy that protects and preserves Canada's sovereignty or control over its own water.

Let me begin by emphasizing why we should pursue a policy which protects and preserves Canada's sovereignty over water. On the surface it appears that we already have control over our water. However this is not the case.

The present terms of NAFTA-and I will go into them in more detail later-directly affect Canada's sovereignty over her water. We have sovereignty only until a sale has begun or a river has been diverted. At that point the supply of water under NAFTA cannot be stopped and we lose control of this very precious resource. At this point in time Canada's control over water is hanging on a thread and we need to take action to rectify the situation.

I will go into detail later to explain exactly how the terms of NAFTA affect our sovereignty over water and how this situation can be fixed. However, first I wish to emphasize to the House why we must protect our water because it appears that the significance of this resource has been underestimated by many Canadians and this perception is likely due to the fact that water is so abundant in Canada.

Canada has more water per capita than the vast majority of nations in the world but clearly its value should not be underestimated. Water is our most valuable resource and our sovereignty or control over this resource must be protected at all times.

In the view of many experts water will be the most important resource of the 21st century. Clearly Canadian control over this political, economic and environmental commodity is paramount. Many experts have suggested that what oil has been in the past century water will be for the next.

Canadians have such an abundance of water that it is often taken for granted. We often forget to look at the future and conserve our supplies or to look at the larger picture, which may only be as far as our neighbours to the south, to see where water has become the commodity of the future.

Its value has been underestimated and overlooked in international agreements and the consequences will be serious. Water is a precious resource. It could also be a valuable bargaining tool, a card that we should not be too quick to play.

Most of Canada's fresh water supply is concentrated in the Great Lakes, which accounts for 20 per cent of the world's fresh water supply and represents 95 per cent of North America's surface water. The Great Lakes are the most important natural resource shared by Canada and the United States. The Great Lakes provide a reliable source of fresh water for one-fifth of the U.S. and one-half of Canada, supplying 26 million people with drinking water.

The 1985 international joint commission concluded that consumptive use of water in the Great Lakes basin is likely to double by the year 2000. Current estimates suggest that the total global consumption is likely to rise tenfold during the 20th

century and that water scarcity will be of increasing concern, particularly for most arid and semi-arid countries to the south.

Of increasing importance to Canadians is that right next door Americans are facing significant water shortages as their resources are dwindling. The only natural source of water from Colorado to California is the Colorado River and its tributaries which provide water to seven states. It has been drastically reduced as a result of overuse and mismanagement.

The most important source of underground water in the U.S. is the Ogallala aquifer. Six states from Nebraska to Texas are completely reliant on this aquifer, yet it is currently being drained at a rate 50 times faster than it is naturally refilling. To paint an even bleaker picture, we must consider the fact that U.S. land west of the Rockies to the Pacific coast is arid and agriculture in these areas depends almost exclusively on irrigation. A significant portion of North America's fresh produce is grown in this region.

Clearly the American water crisis is serious and under increasing domestic pressure. With our abundance of water we are the closest and most logical source of water for our American neighbours. The Americans do and have looked to us for water.

There have been at least 13 proposals for large scale diversions of water to the U.S. from the Great Lakes. In B.C. there are 19 Canadian companies that hold surface water licences to bottle four million litres of water every day for the American market. More than 30 companies have planned to export fresh Canadian coastal water by supertanker.

One B.C. company was on the verge of negotiating a deal to ship 12.4 billion litres of water to Santa Barbara, California, in 1990 at an estimated price of $34 million U.S. However the deal was never finalized because of local contentious issues.

Last month Alberta announced its proposed water conservation and management act which would make Alberta the first province in Canada where water rights could be bought and sold. This has been viewed by many as opening the door for eventual exports of water to the U.S.

This motion is not about whether we should or should not export water to the United States. However it is about our ability to make decisions without losing sovereignty or control over our water, ice and snow.

There are many arguments for or against water exports on political, economic and environmental grounds. This motion is about Canada's ability to maintain the right to choose how or if we wish to market our water and Canada's right to maintain its sovereignty over water in any given circumstance.

We must retain our ability to choose what we want to do with our water, whether we want to sell it and, if so, we must retain the ability to choose whether we wish to continue such activities, particularly in times of shortage of our own domestic water supply.

Economically it may make sense to market water to the Americans or elsewhere some time down the road. However, before these exports take place there must be an agreement with the Americans that allows Canadians to proceed with water exports without the threat of loss of control over that resource.

As it now stands Canada is vulnerable in the event of any water exports or diversions. Despite our abundance of water it would not be to our advantage to begin or enter into any major water exports because our ability to control the use and planning of that resource is undermined by the North American Free Trade Agreement.

There has been a great deal of confusion regarding NAFTA and water, particularly during the last election when the agreement had not yet been signed. There are still many problems with NAFTA and water rights and these concerns must be addressed.

The main area of concern is that water is not one of the items specifically exempted under the terms of NAFTA. Article 309 prohibits controls by Canada covering the sale or export of any good destined for either the United States or Mexico. Water in Canadian rivers and lakes is not mentioned in the export prohibition that NAFTA directly sanctions, which means that water will be freely exportable. Under NAFTA we cannot place restrictions on our ability to sell water.

In addition, water is also subject to the same rules as tradable goods under NAFTA and includes the right of national treatment. This means Canada cannot give Canadians better access to Canadian water than it gives to the Americans or the Mexicans. The concern is that under NAFTA once water is diverted to the U.S. it cannot be stopped even in times of our own domestic shortage. Once we begin to sell our water to the Americans our control over that resource is lost.

Article 2101 of NAFTA requires that any trade restrictive measure taken relating to the conservation of any exhaustible natural resource, including water, be made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption. In other words, any trade restrictive measures on water must be applied on a national basis. If we are to cut back on our water supplies to the Americans, we must take the same cuts ourselves no matter what kind of domestic shortage we have at home.

Under the present deal we cannot give ourselves any better treatment regarding water than we do to our NAFTA partners.

Whatever we charge ourselves for water must be in line with the price we charge other NAFTA partners.

These restrictions place a heavy burden on Canada. Under the present agreement it would be extremely unwise for Canadians to enter into any large scale water exports with the Americans. Personally I find it incredible that Canada actually agreed to such restrictive terms in the first place.

Whether or not water was included in NAFTA negotiations is unclear. Previous and current governments have argued and continue to argue that we have not sold our rights to water in the NAFTA. The argument or justification for the deal is that Canada is not obliged to sell water to the U.S. under NAFTA. This is just political banter because once we begin to sell we cannot turn the tap off. Our sovereignty over water has clearly been sold out in the present NAFTA.

No matter how we look at it, the truth is that we no longer have the control to do as we choose with our water. It is a Pandora's box, for once it is opened sovereignty is lost. The deal has placed Canadians in a precarious position that must be addressed before control of this resource is clearly lost.

Government legislation such as Bill C-156 sought to ban large scale exports in 1988. However it died on the Order Paper before being implemented.

The Prime Minister's pledge to prevent any large scale water exports from taking place as long as he is Prime Minister made in early November 1993 is meaningless without corresponding backup legislation and a NAFTA subagreement. I challenge the Prime Minister to back up his resolve to control Canadian water with strong legislation ensuring sovereignty and control over this precious resource, followed up with NAFTA negotiations to ensure the same.

An additional point I wish to make is that these laws and any future restrictions are completely redundant because NAFTA states that no party may restrict the export of any good destined for the territory of another party. Any domestic water policies could also be shot down by a trade dispute panel as unacceptable interference in the free market.

Clearly the only possible solution, if Canada is to maintain sovereignty over water, is to negotiate a side agreement to NAFTA that specifically exempts water from the terms of the agreement.

Negotiations of the agreement regarding water were promised by the Liberal government before the agreement was signed. Are we about to see the Liberals fail to deliver on yet another promise? I surely hope not.

Immediately after the last election, early in November of 1993, the Prime Minister publicly stated: "It is time to talk about Canada's desire to renegotiate aspects of the deal". The Prime Minister promised that he would not sign any international or bilateral trade agreement that would oblige Canada to export water.

Shortly after the election the Prime Minister guaranteed to Canadians that "water remains under the control of the Canadian government". He guaranteed that this was a fact and promised to "make sure it is like that".

The Prime Minister went on to say that he had a message for President Bill Clinton: "Do not even dream that NAFTA gives the United States unlimited access to Canadian water. That is because water and the North American Free Trade Agreement do not mix". These are simply empty promises as the Prime Minister has so far failed to follow through.

Canadians are still waiting for the government to live up to its commitment. If water and NAFTA do not mix, why did the Prime Minister sign the deal? And why has he made no effort to negotiate these other aspects? The only justification the Prime Minister and his trade minister had for signing the deal was that nothing in NAFTA forces Canadians to sell a good that we do not wish to sell.

It is true that NAFTA does not force us to sell our water. However, NAFTA forces us to continue sales once we have begun, and places severe restrictions on our ability to regulate and control the marketing of our own resource. It is not enough to have the power to make the decision to sell water. Canadians must have the power to shut off the tap when it is felt necessary.

Once a decision is made to export water, future exports should not be mandatory. It is simply not good enough for this government to merely pledge to prevent the export of bulk water to the U.S. as was done immediately after the NAFTA agreement was signed in November 1993.

Canada caved in on an opportunity to provide special protection for water in the original free trade pact with the U.S. and should have taken the opportunity to make the necessary amendments before signing the deal. It is still not too late to act.

I would like to point out that earlier this month Mexico received a $20 billion aid package from the Americans to help stabilize the Mexican peso, on the condition that credit lines be guaranteed with Mexican oil export revenues. What does this have to do with water, you ask.

Canada is in a similar situation to Mexico with the current load Canada and Canadians are presently carrying. There are predictions that Canada may require a bailout from the Americans, and similar to American conditions on Mexican oil exports, loans will undoubtedly put conditions on Canadian resources, such as water.

In conclusion, we desperately require a clear written understanding that Canada has sole control over its water resources. Canada must protect its sovereignty over water and negotiate a side agreement to exclude water from NAFTA. This issue is far too important to ignore.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very appreciative of the intervention by the member for Comox-Alberni. I share his concern and the government shares his concern for the maintenance of Canada's riches, Canada's natural resources.

I also have some particular interest in this subject because it touches an area in which professionally I have given it some attention. It is of course true that sovereignty is the basic constituent element of a state and sovereignty extends to its territory, its land, the resources of that land both under and above it, fixtures, to the air space above, and to the territorial sea. It is elementary that sovereignty cannot be derogated from except by the sovereign personality himself.

So to this extent Canada retains full sovereign rights unless we ourselves choose freely to contract out of those and that would be an obligation entered into under international law. It is a fact that we have led in the international law related to protection of natural resources, our own and also those of other countries. We have been interested in clean air. We have pioneered the treaties and the protection of the atmosphere. We have led the way in the proper utilization of the law of the sea, and its protection from pollution.

Also, I may say in pursuance of this, because not all states have accepted our high standards, we have not merely negotiated and led the way to international treaties and multilateral treaties extending protection of the law of the sea, but we have negotiated bilateral treaties with numbers of other countries when the international or multilateral action was slow in coming. For example, we have extended zones of 200 miles from our coast, the better to exercise these international law norms.

I mention this simply to say that Canadians have led in this area. It was something very much in our minds when we negotiated specific agreements with the United States in relation to the Great Lakes, in relation to international waters, international rivers. It was also very much in our minds when we negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, the trilateral agreement with Mexico and the United States.

It happens that during the election campaign in October 1993 this issue was raised in the public debates: Is there any derogation from Canada's control over its natural resources, over its water in particular by virtue of the NAFTA agreement. This was something to which all candidates, certainly in my part of the country, addressed themselves. The answer is very clear: There is nothing in the NAFTA agreement itself derogating in any way from our sovereign powers over our water resources.

However there is a point in international diplomacy and international law in which for greater security one acts inaccord with the Latin phrase, Mr. Speaker, and you and I both deplore, as Lord Justice Denning called the attempt to fetter law by recourse to Latinisms. I will quote the Latin phrase ex abundanti cautela but I will repeat it in its essential, for greater assurance. I said to those who asked me then: I will seek a clarifying statement that makes assurance doubly sure. Immediately after the election and in fact during the campaign, I asked the Prime Minister if we could address ourselves to this and this is what has been done.

A trilateral agreement was signed by the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of the United States and the President of Mexico. It is what is called a joint declaration. Annexed to the NAFTA agreement is the joint declaration of December 2, 1993. It says it very clearly and recites what is in any case I think as a matter of interpretation clear in the NAFTA agreement itself.

The statement annexed to NAFTA establishes that NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the agreement. Unless water in any form is entered into commerce and becomes a good or a product it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement including the NAFTA. I could read the balance of this but I think therein is the essential.

What is the legal status of a joint declaration of this sort, a statement annexed to the NAFTA agreement? I do not want to bore you with technicalities but the fact is that what are called by various names, joint declarations, agreed interpretations, joint statements, provided they are signed by the parties to the agreement become part of the agreement.

The best known example of this is of course the SALT I treaty, the strategic arms limitation treaty of 1972 between the United States and the Soviet Union. It has many, perhaps 30 such declarations and agreed interpretations annexed to it, and they are binding in terms of interpretation of the treaty.

I would simply say this to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. We are sensitive to his concern, which we share, for the preservation of our great natural resources, for the preservation of our water. There is nothing in NAFTA, nothing in any international agreement to which Canada is party derogating from our retention of full sovereign rights over water within Canada, whether it be in lakes or whether it be in the water supplies on mountain slopes unless and until it enters into a commercial form, which means in this context, bottled. In this situation it will not be subject to NAFTA arrangements. There is no recourse to any one of the NAFTA arbitral or dispute settlement procedures.

I do not see any reason to go beyond this at this stage. However, the government may at some future stage wish to make declarations for purposes of Canadian internal needs of this sort. However in international law we are fully protected. Our sovereign rights are fully preserved.

On that basis I would simply say again that I welcome the expression of sentiment by the member for Comox-Alberni. I share his views. I believe all members of the government do. I do not believe though that there is any need for any further action to be taken at this stage. I thank him again for his thoughtful intervention.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni as he presented his motion. I also listened to the remarks made by his colleague opposite, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

Let me read the motion over, for the benefit of those who are watching the debate:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should support a policy that Canada's fresh water, ice and snow will be protected so that at all times and in all circumstances Canada's sovereignty over water is preserved and protected.

It is not the first time that this issue is raised in the House of Commons. We will recall that in May 1991, Mr. Fulton, who was a member then, presented a notice of motion asking for a national water council to be established to control, among other things, all freshwater export proposals. He was not the only member involved in this debate.

In another notice of motion, the current Liberal member for Davenport suggested that, in the opinion of the House, the government should strengthen the federal water policy by tabling a bill prohibiting the export of water by tanker, through a channel, a new pipeline or by interbasin transfer.

Clearly, this debate is not new. In fact, it goes back such a long way that I would like to quote what the current Minister of Human Resources Development, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, said in this House on Friday, May 28, 1993.

At the time, the minister was a member of the opposition. He said: "-we must afford national treatment to all goods and services. Goods are defined as having the definition given under the GATT. Article 2201 of the GATT defines natural water, including ice and snow, as a good".

He also said: "If the United States sometime in the future, next year or the year after, decides it wants to exercise its legal right as contained in the agreements to require Canada to export up to the proportion then it would supersede any policy that is now on the books".

Further on, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre added: "I think the very first item would be that the federal goverment make it very explicit that the present moratorium on water exports that the British Columbia government has introduced is the policy of Canada. The federal government should very clearly take an immediate position on that question".

We are now in a new Parliament. Last year, the governement, with Mexico and the United States, issued a declaration on the interpretation to be given to the terms of NAFTA. In essence, that interpretation is as follows: NAFTA does not establish any rights to the natural water resources of one of the parties. Water, as found naturally in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, hydrographic basins, is not a good or a product, is not for sale, and consequently is not and has never been covered by the terms of any agreement. International rights and obligations concerning natural water are set forth in separate treaties and agreements, negotiated for that very purpose, such as the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the 1944 treaty signed by the United States and Mexico.

However, this joint declaration by the three countries does not mean that Canada has an overall policy regarding sovereignty over water resources.

In short, Canada does not possess any policy on water resource as a commodity.

Mr. Speaker, you know, as we all do, that Canada is the country with the largest fresh water resources in the world. In November 1987, the hon. Tom MacMillan, the then Minister of the Environment, announced a federal policy on water resources, clearly stating that the federal government was opposed to large-scale exports of Canadian water. The minister then introduced Bill C-156 to enact this commitment into law. But since that bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on October 1, 1988, we do not have a policy at this time.

According to the Constitution, jurisdiction over water resources is shared between the federal and provincial governments; in general, the provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources, including water, within their borders. However, the provinces' very wide jurisdiction over water resources within their territory is limited by the specific powers granted exclusively to the federal government, including fisheries, shipping, relations with foreign governments, federal lands, Indians, projects likely to benefit Canada in general, as well as peace, order and good government for the country.

I might add for the benefit of my constituents that, unfortunately, the federal government does not always live up to its responsibilities regarding outboard motors on certain lakes, as in the case of the unfortunate lakeside residents in Lac aux Sables. Some problems are also emerging with respect to

seaplane bases; I am, of course, talking about the people who live along the shores of Lac Saint-Augustin.

But let us get back to water as a commodity. Canada currently exports water to the U.S.; a network of canals carries the water to population centres at the Canada-U.S. border and then on to nearby communities in the U.S.

For instance, the water supply system in Coutts, Alberta crosses the border to meet local needs in Sweetgrass, Montana. Under another agreement, Gretna, Manitoba supplies Neche, North Dakota with water. Similar arrangements exist between St. Stephen, New Brunswick and Calais, Maine.

These cross-border water transportation systems are small in scale and do not require inter-basin transfers. They offer a practical way to rationalize local supply, so we are not talking about exports as such. As for exports by water tankers, the volumes contemplated at this time are insignificant.

The North American Water and Power Alliance project, developed by a Californian engineering firm, was among the major projects that attracted a great deal of attention. It would have necessitated the diversion of water from the Mackenzie and Yukon river systems, going south, through a passage in the Rockies, down to the United States, to supply southwestern states with irrigation water and produce hydro-electric power, perhaps also create waterways. But this project, fortunately, was never considered viable by the Canadian government or the American government.

Another project, namely GRAND Canal, was first submitted in 1959 and has been a focus of attention ever since. This project calls for the impounding of James Bay to collect the waters flowing from Ontario and Quebec rivers as well as the reversal of 17 per cent of their flow towards the south. Water from the Great Lakes would then be diverted to the southwestern part of the U.S. and the arid zones of Western Canada.

Simon Reisman, at the time the chief negotiator for Canada in the free trade talks with the United States, and former Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa championed this water diversion project. But opponents of the project argued that its benefits were purely theoretical and that even its economic impact could be negative.

In the 1985 report, the authors of the study on federal water policy pointed out that transfers between basins, like any other major water development project, cause major changes in the environment by interrupting the flow of waterways, flooding regions, transferring forms of life and even modifying conditions in the atmosphere and the oceans. The ultimate consequences of these changes are unpredictable.

We believe that federal criteria should emphasize the federal and national interests to be considered in a framework policy on the water resource. Factors to be considered would include: first, the consequences for the fisheries and navigation in federal waters, international waters and waters under more than one jurisdiction; second, international considerations of an economic, political and strategic nature; third, the possible impact on the capability of our water reserves to meet the long-term needs of Canadians and Quebecers, bearing in mind the lack of certainty about those needs and the cumulative effect of exports at the regional and national level; fourth, the impact on the environment and the economy at the regional level; fifth, the consequences for aboriginal people and other social groups and the size of compensation payments in the event of adverse effects; and finally, the general economic benefits for Canada.

How we should manage our water resources is a very timely question. It was raised this evening, and now we must decide what the answer will be.

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Canadian sovereignty over water.

More than any other country Canada is blessed with an abundance of fresh water. Water is a fundamental part of our heritage. It provides the basis for much of our industrial activities. Our lakes and rivers along with the snow and ice of winter provide recreational opportunities for Canadians and support a thriving tourism industry.

The preservation and protection of our water resources is a matter of vital concern to all Canadians. The issue of large scale exports of fresh water has been the subject of public debate at various times over the last three decades within Canada.

Concern has focused on proposals such as the grand canal and proposals to divert water from British Columbia to California. However, no scheme for the large scale diversion of Canadian fresh water across the border has won the support of any level of government within Canada.

More recently concern has been expressed that first the free trade agreement and then NAFTA diminish Canada's sovereignty over its water by obliging us to sell water to the United States.

I would like to make it clear that the Government of Canada considers sovereignty over our valuable water resources a fundamental principle that must and will continue to be upheld.

The Canadian government will not support any plans for the export of water through independent transfer or diversion from the Great Lakes or from any other water body.

Small scale exports such as bottled water must meet the environmental requirements of both the federal and provincial governments. Steps have been taken to ensure that Canada retains full control over the use of water in all its forms.

For example, the federal water policy approved by cabinet in 1987 provides a strong expression of Canada's intention to maintain sovereignty over its water. The federal water policy states that the government will permit no large scale water exports. It also provides for the federal and provincial governments to work together to develop a licensing return for small scale water exports.

To ensure federal responsibilities for environmental protection and international trade are taken into account, regarding the NAFTA it is the position of the Government of Canada that Canada's sovereignty over its water resources is in no way diminished.

Under the NAFTA Canada maintains complete discretion over the exploitation and use of its water. The NAFTA does not oblige any partners to exploit its water for commercial use, sell it to other countries or export water from its lakes or rivers. Thus Canada has no obligation to export water under the NAFTA agreement.

The NAFTA applies only to water that has entered into commerce and has become a good or a product such as bottled water or water in tanker trucks. Water packaged as beverage or in tanks is the reference in section 7 of the Canadian implementing legislation for the NAFTA.

On December 2, 1993 the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States as parties to the NAFTA issued a statement confirming that NAFTA does not oblige any of the parties to export water. Here is what the trilateral statement has to say about water:

The NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any party to the agreement.

Unless water, in any form, has entered in the commerce and become a good or product, it is not covered by the provisions of any trade agreement, including the NAFTA. And nothing in the NAFTA 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, waterbasins and the like is not a good or product, is not traded, and therefore is not and never has been subject to the terms of any trade agreement.

Clearly the Government of Canada has been vigilant in protecting our precious supply of water in all its forms. I can assure the House that Canada will continue to preserve and protect its sovereignty over water resources.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at least I will get the last word this way.

I want to basically develop a case for the importance of water. Many of the speakers who have gone before agree this is certainly an important commodity in this country. We have to really address the question of protecting Canada's sovereignty over this water. Again it is an example of where Canada has shown leadership but needs to continue its vigilance and its leadership.

The member for Vancouver Quadra introduced some of our leadership in the law of the sea, the Great Lakes clean-up and all of those examples. However, he then closed by saying that we do not need any action. I really disagree with that comment. Action is essential to ensure this valuable resource maintains its position and that we retain our sovereignty over it.

We should not take this commodity for granted. In the future demand is going to do nothing but increase. Anybody who has gone to California might know, as the member who introduced this bill mentioned, the aquifer being drained at 50 times its replacement in California and the central U.S. is a major problem. Anyone can look at the Colorado River and see what has happened there to realize that California is short of water. California has a population of 32 million and because of that the demand for water is only going to increase. I think it is reasonable to say that the price of water will be greater than the price of oil or gas down the road some time.

Since Canada has a major supply of fresh water, it is essential for humans, for agriculture, for industry, for our future well-being that we preserve this water.

I would like to talk a little bit about the preservation and then what I see as being threats to the sovereignty and control of this water. It is a renewable resource but it is only renewable if it is managed properly. Groundwater is renewed by rainfall and by snow melt. It can, however, be very quickly overused and the aquifers can disappear. There are many examples where aquifers that were once very productive have gone down dramatically. I mention the central U.S. as the biggest example.

Certainly agricultural and industrial uses put a severe drain on aquifers. In many cases, permits are given without looking at the big picture. One more project is approved and then one more project and then another. No management is involved until a disaster occurs.

One of the contaminators of our water supplies is industry. It has improved a lot, but we can see what happens when we do not manage it simply by looking at the Great Lakes and what we did there.

Of particular interest to me are landfill sites. All across Canada we are implementing more and more landfills. We have the time bombs from the past that are leaching into our groundwater. We are installing new landfills but we say they are okay because we are putting liners in them. The only problem is the liners are only good for 25 years. The leachate collection system plugs up and we do not know what will happen after 25 years. Experts are now telling us that contaminants could leach from those landfill sites into our groundwater for 800 years. Cana-

dians had better take note of this and had better start managing this resource much better.

I foresee a federal umbrella organization to provide the information, the technology, the collection of that technology. The provinces would then be involved in the actual distribution of this information, with the municipalities delivering the service. We must have this organization or this resource will be lost.

We need to look at our rivers and our streams. We need to look at the protection of our watershed areas. Logging, recreation and development are having a great impact on our watersheds. Above all, I again emphasize the government's involvement in this.

We are not moving very far in this direction and I would encourage the Minister of the Environment to get involved now. I am glad the member put this forward so we can talk about water again. The last member who spoke indicated how significant he felt it was. Certainly the member from the Bloc who spoke indicated a real understanding of this as a resource.

Let us manage it then and let us not let things like pollution, sewage problems, industrial waste problems, landfill problems and the lack of planning that destroyed the Great Lakes literally and will take who knows how long to revive, happen in the future.

What are the two major problems facing Canada in 1995? They can be related to the sovereignty of water. Two things should be thought about here. Number one is the Quebec situation. One might ask how that relates to water and its sovereignty.

One thing I have heard very little talk about is the St. Lawrence Seaway and the St. Lawrence River. Who controls this waterway? Who has sovereignty over it? Is it Canada? Could it be Quebec? Could it be the U.S.? This is something that the Quebec people should be asking Mr. Parizeau and the federalists. Let us talk about this issue. Let us talk about the potential threat that the negotiations over this major seaway could have in relation to the whole issue of Quebec. I see that as being a threat.

Hydroelectric power could relate to water. The member from the Bloc mentioned there have been proposals for draining water from Quebec and Ontario into the United States.

The second major issue relating to this is the debt and deficit. That has already been touched on. How does that affect water sovereignty? Let me put this scenario to you.

If the Minister of Finance fails to make the necessary cuts or raises taxes causing a financial crisis, and there will be a financial crisis if he fails to deal with the problems we have right now, what might be the reaction? A great deal of our debt is held by U.S. creditors. The IMF literally becomes a receiver if Canada becomes insolvent. We have seen what happened to Mexico. That has been mentioned as well. The Americans are tough to deal with, they are hard dealers. They put on conditions and say: "You will perform this way". Mexico has lost its sovereignty because of the $50 billion bailout that Mr. Clinton arranged.

These are concerns we should be thinking about. It is fairly obvious that if our creditors decide to call their loans the one thing that 32 million people in one state in the United States need is water. It seems kind of far fetched and does not seem possible.

We have heard about inter-basin transfers but that is not possible. Fifty years ago there was a project in Alberta called Prime that I was a bit involved with. It was a plan to drain water from Alberta down to California. The idea is there, it is on the table. If we in fact do become insolvent water will be one thing that will be called for as a way to repay some of our debt. When you are in debt you really do not have much choice. I see that as a threat to our sovereignty.

In conclusion, Canada must deal with its debt and deficit. It must deal with the Quebec situation and ask about the St. Lawrence Seaway. We must not sign long term deals.

The British Columbia power situation where long term deals were signed is a good example of what happens if you sell the farm too soon. A side deal must be negotiated in NAFTA so that we will never start shipping water to the U.S. As has been pointed out although there is no obligation to start, once started there is no cutting back. It cannot be reversed. The Prime Minister promised but he did not keep that promise.

I believe we must control this resource. We are going to leave future generations a debt. Let us not leave them the loss of a valuable resource like water.