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.