Debates of Feb. 9th, 1999

Supply

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that many in the legal field have argued that under agreements like the FTA and the North American Free Trade Agreement certain commodities were clearly excluded. Beer, logs and culture were named as exclusions and therefore, by implication, presumably everything else is left in. Bottled water was also mentioned.

It is clear that once water enters a container for sale it becomes a good, a commodity or a product. Whether that container is a vessel, a canal, a pipeline or whatever, the concern Canadians have is that we are not protected by the present wording of international agreements like NAFTA. I agree with my hon. friend that if the will is there by all countries then we should.

Let us face it, the northern part of Mexico, particularly in the Maquiladora zone where the big industrial belt is now developing as a result of NAFTA, and in the American southwest which is referred to as the sun belt where the large industries and populations are developing in the agricultural sectors, they are running out of water. It is clear that they are running out of freshwater. The wells and rivers are drying up and every conceivable ounce of that surface water is either being used or is locked up in legal agreements.

As those populations increase they are looking north to Canada as their obvious source to bail them out when the time comes, no pun intended. The issue of having as many cards in our hands as we can when the dealing begins is absolutely crucial.

While people will argue that we can pass legislation here banning exports and pass legislation in the provincial legislations of the country or wherever else, that trade agreement between three sovereign nations takes priority over national, state, provincial or local jurisdictions.

We have to do whatever we can to ensure that freshwater is in adequate supply for future generations of Canadians and that is why this motion is before the House of Commons today.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in one of the comments from the other side there was concern about the export of water, sharing our resources with other parts of the world. I wonder if the member could reference the fact that this motion does deal with the bulk shipment of water abroad.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. We acknowledge that today there are a number of agreements sharing water between Canada and the United States on the small scale. I am thinking Coutts, Alberta and Sweet Grass, Montana and others across the country.

However, let us also acknowledge that the country that wastes more water than any other is the United States. Crops are being grown in parts where they should never be grown. Swimming pools are filled with water from one end of Los Angeles to the other. Green lawns are all over southern California. There is a car wash every third block.

The day is not far off before the United States runs out of water because it abuses it so much. It pollutes and misuses its water resources. We want to send a clear signal that we are not going to be an easy source of bailing it out.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and certainly welcome the motion.

Some of the exchanges in the debate would lead me to put forward the thought that one of the reasons why previous governments have not taken the water issue seriously is a lack of knowledge or a lack of individual knowledge about the state of water in this country.

For instance, my colleague on this side suggested that Canada held 25% of the world's freshwater supply. Across the way the statement was 9% and in the notes I have information that it is 20%, so this is an indicator that the message is not clear.

What is clear is that water is a renewable resource. The water cycle replenishes our water supply on a continuing basis, but there is an old adage that you never miss the water till the well runs dry. This year in the province of Ontario the wells ran dry. There are wells that are still dry in Ontario. Farmers in the riding I serve are having either to buy water for their cattle or are having to move their cattle to other farms which have wells that are supplying water.

This year is the worst drought in recorded weather history in the province of Ontario. That should give us an indicator that we must be very conscious and very careful about the way we treat water and the way we look at it.

Until the present time it has been very difficult to convince municipalities and engineers that create domestic water supply to conserve water. It has always been the business of searching out bulk quantities of water without regard for water conservation. Yet many techniques could be put into place not only to help us conserve our water but to raise the consciousness of Canadians about the necessity to protect our water.

The concerns of members are very well founded. This is a domestic and global priority. Canadians feel strongly that water should not be removed from our country in bulk form. There are global shortages at the present time. The location of water is paramount. There may be demands placed on Canada's water in the future.

For environmental considerations more than anything else we need to protect our watersheds and the health of the ecosystems. The government is acting now and has acted in the past on behalf of all Canadians to preserve what is one of our most precious resources.

[An hon. member]

Where is the legislation?

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Wait for it. Not only has it been federal policy since 1987 to oppose bulk removal of water by tanker, diversion or other interbasin transfer. Our provincial partners have or have been developing similar policies or legislation to protect our natural waters from commercialization beyond current usage. Canadians can be assured that Canada is not on the verge of a major water giveaway.

There are federal and provincial responsibilities for the preservation of water. I will try to spell out the differences between the two. The federal government has a particular responsibility for boundary waters and transboundary waters along the Canada and U.S. border. Extending back to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 it is a responsibility that this government and many before it have taken very seriously, so much so that the government announced its intention—and my hon. friend raised this suggestion—to seek an agreement with the U.S. to make a reference to the International Joint Commission.

We have been consulting with provinces to ensure that our reference to the International Joint Commission will produce the kind of findings that will be useful to all governments. We are confident that the IJC will produce sound recommendations, as was the case with the 1977 reference on the Garrison diversion project, with the 1985 reference on diversions and consumptive uses in the Great Lakes, and with the 1997 reference to the Red River flood. We will soon be in a position to announce the terms of reference to the IJC.

There are legitimate concerns about trade obligations. A handful of critics believe that through the North American Free Trade Agreement Canada has somehow ceded control of our water resources to multinational corporations. The member has called for immediate steps on the part of the government. I state categorically and for the record that water resource management in Canada is in no way subject to the whims of multinational corporations. Nor is it directed by NAFTA. Water is a public good.

There is nothing in NAFTA that would prevent Canada from taking steps to prohibit the commercialization of our water resources. These principles date back to the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. They are not new. For the information of the hon. opposition member I refer to the 1993 joint statement of the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States following NAFTA which reads as follows:

Unless water in any form has entered into commerce and become a good or product, it is not a good or product.

That may seem like an obvious truth, but it leads to the next part of the same sentence which states in reference to water which is not a good or product that it “is not covered by any trade agreement including the North American Free Trade Agreement”. The statement goes on to affirm our sovereignty over water by stating:

And nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water in any form.

Nothing forces us to export water particularly in bulk. That leads to the final explanation of the 1993 statement:

Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, water basins 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.

Canada does not now take water from its natural state and package it in bulk form for sale. We do not support the commercialization of water in bulk for any reason.

We have chosen to put water in smaller quantities into bottles and to offer it for sale, but the total effect of such shipments is very small compared with the net effect of large scale removal. Consistent with these provisions we will shortly be announcing measures aimed at preventing water from being taken from its natural state and converted into a good. I hope all hon. members of the House will endorse that.

The provinces have a responsibility as well. We consulted with the provinces especially during the last half of last year. Under the Constitution provinces have the responsibility for water management within their borders. Permits to draw large quantities of water for an reason from natural sources are provided by provincial authorities. Our provincial partners are opposed to interbasin transfers, so clearly the federal policy of 1987 was on the mark. They agreed the proper management of water resources is first and foremost an environmental issue.

Perhaps what we have learned most from these consultations with the provinces is that a collective approach to water protection by governments is needed now before too many mistakes are made.

We were impressed by the degree of consensus with the provinces that exists on these issues. Our measures will be built on established and comprehensive environmental principles and on the concerns of all provinces and territories, not just on the question of exports but on the overall management of our water resources.

Such an approach is prudent and justified. Not only must we work with the provinces and territories to develop this understanding. We must work with our closest international ally, the United States, with whom we share the Great Lakes, the largest freshwater resource in the world.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He might be able to summarize his remarks in questions and comments.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has perhaps inadvertently made the case for why we are so concerned about the NAFTA.

I am not sure whether the statement issued in 1993 amounts to some kind of combination between a tautology and a catch-22. In any event it is not very reassuring when they say that water will not be treated as a good unless of course it is treated as a good, and it will be treated as a good if in any circumstance it becomes commercially exploitable.

That is precisely the point we are making. We do not want it to become commercially exploitable and, if it ever should, under the conditions of NAFTA there would then be no turning back. By the very act of commercially exploiting water in bulk we would be committing an irreversible act. From there on other partners to the agreement in NAFTA would be able to argue that it has become a good and is therefore now to be treated like any other commodity.

Our point is that what is wrong with NAFTA is not whether it is treated as a good but rather that should it come to be treated as a good it would come under the terms of the agreement.

What we want is an exemption stating that water is exempt whether it is in its natural state or whether it is being commercially exploited. We do not want it to be commercially exploited, but we also think an agreement which states that should it ever become commercially exploited it is then to be treated like any other commodity is not a good agreement either. It does not seem to me that the hon. member gets that about NAFTA.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously there was a concern in 1993 about this whole question and about the interpretation of when water is a good and when it is not a good. To suggest an amendment is required in NAFTA is not on because there is nothing in NAFTA now that obliges any export of water.

Canadian would make a decision as to whether to declare water in bottles are a good or not a good. There is nothing in NAFTA that demands an amendment. I do not know how much clearer I can possibly make it. It is not there.

Yes, we are concerned about the future of water. Yes, the government is taking action on it. I am sure the hon. member will agree with the statement when it is made, which we hope will be very soon. The fact is that it is not part of NAFTA.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member was talking about consultations with the provinces. He stated that the provinces have a consensus. They are opposed to interbasin transfers. He made no statement about whether they were opposed to bulk water exports.

Could the hon. member give us a clarification on where the provinces add up on that?

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can make it much clearer than I have. The provinces to this point are opposed to interbasin transfers. We have so far arrived at a consensus among the provinces that they share our concern. I do not know how much further I can take the member on that.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member about comments in the 1993 red book where the Liberal Party said that it would take the opportunity before signing the NAFTA to correct any flaws that existed in the original free trade agreement.

There are a number of Liberals who are currently sitting in this House who are on record as saying that one of those flaws was that Canada did not get protection over its water and that it would be part of the agreement.

Why did the Liberal government not take the opportunity to correct those flaws before it signed the agreement?

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will clear up a couple of things, if I might. My hon. colleague asked about bulk water export and that is within the purview of the federal government. I should have known that off the top.

The fact is that in the NAFTA there is no provision. Yes, there was concern about it and the concern was very legitimate because we do not want there to be any export of bulk water. However, after examining the NAFTA we found that it was not there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to address this motion.

The motion has been amended. The original motion reads, in part:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and inter-basin transfers and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and inter-basin transfers—

The amendment reads:

—and should not be a party to any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater against our will—

The original motion then continues:

—in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.

Clearly our water is of critical priority to all of us. It directly affects Canada's agricultural sector, regional economic development, rural infrastructure, sustainable development, our environment and potentially our economy.

Reform agrees with the basic principle of this motion. The issue here is sovereignty and we agree that this House needs to take action to protect and control our water. I believe that all sides of this House would not have any problem with that comment. However, how we deal with the problem I believe is the question of this debate.

This motion is only a temporary solution. It will not fix the problem that Canada is now faced with as a result of this Prime Minister's actions. A temporary moratorium on bulk water exports will buy this government some time to negotiate a solution, a permanent solution. That solution is an amendment to the NAFTA which explicitly excludes water from the NAFTA.

It is interesting to note that before the Liberals came to power, when the Mulroney government was negotiating the NAFTA, the Liberals opposed the NAFTA deal and voiced their concerns about protecting our water.

During the 1993 election campaign the Prime Minister promised that he would renegotiate the NAFTA to exclude bulk water from the deal.

On November 19 the Prime Minister insisted “Water and the North America Free Trade Agreement do not mix. Water remains under the control of the Canadian government. I can guarantee that”.

Here are more quotes from our present Prime Minister: “I will make sure it is like that. It is one of the elements I intend to discuss with President Clinton. I want Canada to maintain control over our own water. It is not for sale and if we want to sell, we will decide”.

Clearly the Liberals are leaving the door open for water to be sold.

The Prime Minister said he had a message for President Bill Clinton, which was “I don't even dream that the NAFTA gives the United States unlimited access to Canadian water. That is because water and the North American Free Trade Agreement do not mix”.

Those are nice quotes, but they simply do not reflect reality. The reason we are debating this motion today is because Canada does not have control over its water. That is a clear fact.

The Mulroney government insisted that the NAFTA applies only to exports of water in containers and not to large scale transfers or diversions which the government maintained was never even discussed during the NAFTA negotiations.

Clearly there has been a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding over this issue. Since the government came to power it has denied the fact that when the Prime Minister signed the NAFTA without renegotiating to specifically exempt water Canada lost its control.

The Conservatives failed in 1988 and the Liberals failed in 1993 to protect our water.

When I raised this issue in the House during the last parliament in my motion calling on this government to take steps to protect Canada's sovereignty over water, the government denied that our sovereignty had been compromised.

Here are some of the facts. My colleague, our international trade critic, will be speaking later to clarify some of the issues regarding the NAFTA and the free trade agreement.

The NAFTA implementation act states that nothing applies to water, except bottled water, and water is not excluded from the free trade agreement itself.

Article 309 of the NAFTA prohibits controls by Canada covering the sale or export of any goods destined for either the United States or Mexico.

The only specific permission that the NAFTA gives for export controls is for Canadian logs and unprocessed fish. This, in my mind, is the answer. Right now Canadian logs and unprocessed fish are not in the NAFTA. They are exempt. If we add water to that list, that gives us the control that we are looking for. That is the solution.

It is also likely that if the government were to propose legislation to ban the export of bulk water, as proposed in the NDP motion, we could be challenged under the NAFTA. Our legislation could be shot down by a trade dispute panel as unacceptable interference in the free market.

This is a dicey point and it is the difficulty I have with the NDP motion. The motion proposes that by banning the export of bulk water the problem will be solved. That is not the problem. The problem is the sovereignty, ownership and control of our water, which the Liberals have failed to fix. If we fix that we do not need to worry about the rest. Provincial control of the resource will then handle the next issue.

In passing any law banning water exports Canada would define water as a commodity and it would trigger the national treatment provisions of the NAFTA. Trade experts say that Canada could face a challenge under international trade rules if we explicitly define water as a good by passing legislation banning its export.

The Minister of the Environment stated that she wants to ban water export through legislation. However the minister has publicly stated that the government does not know how it will do this, simply because by putting water in legislation it will become a commodity.

We often hear about the trilateral statement made by the Prime Minister, President Bush and the Mexicans that we have a side deal which protects our water. We do not. All that side deal says is that if we do not export bulk water, then it could be okay. However, as soon as we export it we cannot turn the tap off. That is all that side agreement was about. It had nothing to do with fixing the problem.

The only way for Canadians to regain control of their water is for the federal government to negotiate a side agreement to the NAFTA that specifically excludes bulk water from the agreement.

The situation is getting urgent. The U.S. is facing water shortages. There have been at least 13 proposals for large scale diversions of water from the Great Lakes to the U.S. Clearly the situation is quite volatile because we have read in the papers that companies such a Sun Belt of California, the Nova Group of Ontario and the McCurdy Group of Newfoundland are pushing to get permits. It is the job of this government to fix the problem, and the problem is getting control over our water.

As well, there are jurisdictional issues affected by this motion. The management and protection of water as a natural resource is constitutionally provincial. It is a provincial responsibility. The only time the federal government gets into it is if it concerns trade. Any legislation that the House is prepared to bring in clearly has to have the agreement of all the provinces. My understanding is that that agreement would not be forthcoming at the moment.

I call on the Liberal government to take concrete steps to protect sovereignty over our water. I call on the Prime Minister to negotiate a side deal that specifically exempts water from the NAFTA, as he promised in the 1993 election, as he has promised all along and as he has failed to do up to this point in time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the New Democratic Party for this motion today.

My first campaign in Broadview—Greenwood was all about the free trade agreement. I can remember that about a week into the campaign I received a phone call from an associate of mine from Houston, Texas who was close to Clayton Yeutter who was the free trade negotiator for the United States. He said “Dennis, Clayton Yeutter spent his whole life studying water. In fact he did his doctoral thesis at the University of Nebraska and in 1961 published `North American Water Management'. You had better make sure that when you are going through this free trade agreement you understand exactly where water sits in the agreement because this is a man who has dedicated his entire life to water”.

I took the time to get a copy of Clayton Yeutter's Ph.D. thesis from the University of Nebraska. I urge all members to get a copy of it. It is a 600 page thesis. If there was ever any doubt in members' minds as to whether water was a part of the free trade agreement, this Ph.D. thesis will take that doubt away. It is a part of the free trade agreement.

In my very first speech in the House of Commons I begged former Prime Minister Mulroney to get a one page protocol letter from Ronald Reagan saying that water was exempt. The then government would not do it. I wrote several letters to Clayton Yeutter asking him to acknowledge that water was not a part of the free trade agreement. He never responded to those letters. I have them on file. I also know that in the last few days someone has talked to Clayton Yeutter and he will now publicly admit that water is in fact a part of the free trade agreement.

Canadians do not even have a proper inventory of what our water assets are. We waste a lot of water. Before we export a gallon of water we should take stock of what we have.

I would ask the member the following question, keeping in mind that we have not done an inventory of water in our country.

Let us imagine that we went through that exercise and discovered that we did have some excess water. If it were properly metered, priced accordingly and Canadians were looked after first, would the Reform Party member then consider the notion of selling? Again, I want to say that would only be after it was excluded from the free trade agreement. What would the member's views be on sharing and selling of water only after we took the necessary time to take stock of it as an issue, province by province, region by region?

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

Madam Speaker, the issue of inventory is clearly under provincial domain. The provinces own and regulate the water and it is for them to decide what they have and what they will do with it.

The member said he pleaded with former Prime Minister Mulroney to get water out of NAFTA. Has the member made the same plea to the current Prime Minister as he is now on the government side to make that happen? The issue we are debating today is to get control over our water. I would hope the member would approach his government to fix the problem. The member has identified the problem. Now it is up to the government to fix it.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, permit me to start with a quote from Plato. This Greek philosopher proved unequivocally the value we should place on this wealth, and I quote:

Water is the greatest element of nutrition ... but is easily polluted. You cannot poison the soil, or the sun, or the air, which are the other elements of nutrition ... or divert them or steal them: but all these things may very likely happen in regard to water, which must therefore be protected by law.

Water then has been of concern to humanity for thousands of years.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot support the NDP's motion. It means a significant step backward for the provinces in the area of responsibility for water, because the NDP is asking the federal government to intervene in two areas: to place a moratorium on the export of bulk fresh water and inter-basin transfers, and to introduce legislation to permanently ban fresh water exports and inter-basin transfers to affirm Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve its fresh water resources for generations to come.

We cannot agree with such a motion and such a procedure, which impinge on the rights of Quebec and the other provinces to legislate and manage their own water resources as they see fit. Once again, Quebec and the provinces of Canada are responsible for this resource and must remain so.

One thing is certain: this responsibility must be assumed by the provinces and they must legislate and manage this resource in co-operation with regional stakeholders, because it is they who are familiar with the problems and are close to the realities and consequences of good day-to-day management.

Section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides, and I quote:

Ownership of lands and natural resources rests with the provincial crown.

Quebec must protect this resource the best way it knows how.

In my remarks, I will show, with two examples from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, the importance and the absolute need to have those closest to the resource, such as our rivers, lakes and underground waters, manage them and be responsible for them.

Humanity's need for water has skyrocketed in the 20th century. In 50 years, the world's water consumption has increased more than fourfold. Meeting our need for water in the centuries to come is the challenge for which we must prepare. Each of the provinces therefore has a responsibility to manage this resource carefully, in co-operation with the public, for one thing is sure: it is a resource that will be highly prized in the future.

Just as an example, there are various approaches that the provinces could consider and where the federal government would be of no help: create structures, functions and responsibilities with a view to integrated management of water resources; recognize users of environmental water in order to get them more involved, and be able to identify minimum water requirements of aquatic ecosystems; develop exchanges of information and educational strategies in order to improve the dissemination of information, the results of pilot projects, best practices, case studies, and much more; develop environmental impact assessment procedures in order to improve the water resources management knowledge base; and, finally, encourage the public to get involved and give it additional responsibilities and a greater say in the planning and management of water resources.

The objective of all of these is to clearly illustrate the necessity for the provinces to be masters of their own water resource legislation.

Water belongs to everyone. It must be managed intelligently by the proper government levels. The Government of Quebec offers an excellent illustration, moreover, of responsibility in this connection. It has just announced broad public consultations on water management in Quebec, to be carried out by the Bureau des audiences publiques de l'environnement, a body which has unequivocally demonstrated its efficiency and its readiness to listen to public concerns. This body is one of the best examples of successful public consultation anywhere in the world.

Its purpose in carrying out consultations in all regions of Quebec encompasses four basic and fundamental orientations: improving the quality of life for Quebeckers; responding to the social needs and individual aspirations of the people of Quebec; respecting environmental quality and the need for sustainable resources; and, finally, achieving the greatest possible equity.

Attaining this is possible only if four major objectives are given priority: ensuring that the health of the public is protected, since water is necessary to life, health and well-being; seeking the sustainability of the resource, since it is our duty to leave future generations with the water supply needed for their development; raising awareness of the resource on the social, environmental and economic levels; focussing on balancing uses, so that legitimate needs are met.

Promoting and raising awareness of water means also raising awareness of the great diversity of its uses and the conflicts that can ensue.

This set of objectives are a clear illustration of Quebec's desire to have its own water policy, one that reflects the concerns of the people of Quebec. This resource belongs to us, and we are fully in charge of deciding what we want to do with it.

As for the expectations of the Government of Quebec with respect to this consultation, to quote Minister of the Environment Paul Bégin: “Our bottom line is to define a water policy to serve the interests of Quebeckers, while at the same time ensuring the protection of a vital resource that is part of the heritage of humankind.” This ultimate goal illustrates clearly Quebeckers' intention to determine the use of this resource according to the need for it.

In addition, the Quebec premier said in a speech that water management should be built on sustainable development, hence the need for careful and responsible management. This management must serve the public and its needs.

These statements and this consultation in Quebec on water will provide a clear picture for future Quebec water policy. The aim of the Government of Quebec is responsible management of this invaluable and vital resource.

I would like to quote remarks made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, on February 4, 1998:

We now have to determine the most effective means and mechanisms for ensuring Canada can effectively manage its water resources. That includes the very active involvement of the provinces because within their own jurisdictions they have full authority over water resources.

The remarks by the minister are reassuring, given that not very long ago, the federal government, with its Bill C-14 on potable water, unacceptably meddled in provincial jurisdictions by setting up national standards on the quality of drinking water.

It is clear, even for the federal government, that our resource should be protected under the aegis of each of the provinces, which are responsible for this resource.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Jonquière for her thoughts on this very important issue. I believe Quebec has done more on evaluating and studying the issue of water than any other province in Canada.

Over the years I have been amazed at the public service commitment to this issue and some of the creative ideas on pollution control and security of the resource, et cetera.

I believe passionately that the Government of Canada must speak for all of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind that we can have all the consultations in the world but let us look at the challenge we will face in time of the stabilization of the Great Lakes. Most experts on climatic control in this country will tell us that in time we will need to stabilize the Great Lakes.

We share those lakes with the United States. If we go through the exercise of stabilizing the Great Lakes, the Americans in my humble opinion would have to pay their share of that stabilization exercise.

My question for the member for Jonquière is whether she can see and support the notion that the Government of Canada must be the ultimate voice for a national water strategy and policy?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, before replying to the member opposite, I must say that I do not see the point of his comment. Right now, we are talking about drinking water, and which level of government has jurisdiction over that.

My response to the NDP proposal is to again refer to the Constitution of Canada, which says that:

Ownership of lands and natural resources rests with the provincial crown.

My authority is a constitutional document that says, beyond any doubt, that responsibility for the management of water resources rests with the provinces. This leaves the provinces free to develop a mechanism for managing the resources within their territory and ensuring that members of the public are truly protected and involved in decision making.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to clarify the term riparian rights. Dealing with the common law that has accumulated in Canada over a number of years, riparian rights have been misinterpreted as water rights. Riparian being derived from the French language, the member may have an insight into the difference between riparian rights and water rights.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Pardon me, Madam Speaker, but I did not quite catch the beginning of the member's question. Could he please repeat it?

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, when we are dealing with a national resource, such as water, which we deem to be of vital importance, our legal statutes and our legal history of common law have dealt with riparian rights but that does not deal with water rights. Riparian is more about the shore bed and property adjacent to water, but with respect to the actual body of water and the rights to that water, there is no legal history in this country.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can only repeat what I told the hon. member opposite.

From a constitutional point of view, the management of water resources is a provincial responsibility. It is up to them to pass legislation in line with what the public wants—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time is up.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to the NDP supply day motion which stipulates that the federal government act in co-operation with the provinces. I have to emphasize that very much. I want to pick up on what my learned colleague from Jonquière spoke about. It is imperative that the federal government recognize that there are jurisdictions with respect to water; they are provincial in nature rather than federal.

Having said that, the Progressive Conservative Party will support the intent of this motion that an immediate moratorium should be placed on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers and that legislation should be introduced to actually do so.

Perhaps no country in the world lives off its natural resources more than Canada does. It is intrinsic on us to ensure that we have a viable environment for us to cultivate a number of the industries which actually make our economy work.

I would like to bring a little bit of perspective to this debate. In January 1984 the Conservative government established an advisory committee to make recommendations for a federal government water policy. It was known as the Pearse commission. It reported in 1985 and formed the basis of the 1987 federal government document entitled “Federal Water Policy”. The policy clearly stated that the federal government would not support the bulk export of freshwater, nor would it support the interbasin transfer of water for the purposes of export.

In 1988 amid growing fears from the public that water exports would be permitted under the FTA, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-156, the Canada water preservation act. This reiterated the same position taken in the federal water policy document. An election was called and the bill was dropped from the Order Paper. However, when parliament resumed, the Conservative government opted instead to amend the Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act to specifically exclude bulk water for the purposes of export from the agreement.

The debate resurfaced again during negotiations for NAFTA. Once again the government was forced to argue that the agreement would not compel Canadians to turn the tap on for their American neighbours. Michael Wilson, the former Minister of Industry and International Trade, said in this House on April 1, 1992 “Let me state categorically that there has not been under negotiation, nor will there be under negotiation, any provision for the large scale export of water”.

Nonetheless to calm the reoccurring fears of Canadians, the government promised to introduce a side agreement at the time of ratification with the U.S. and Mexico that ensured Canadian sovereignty over domestic waters. Charles Langlois, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry and International Trade, said the following in this House on February 4, 1993:

As for water exports, Canada's position is clearly stated in the federal water policy adopted in 1987. This policy forbids large scale water exports from Canada through the diversion of lake or river water. Furthermore, section 7 of the law implementing the FTA between Canada and the U.S. clearly states that the agreement does not apply to water, except for bottled water to be drunk or stored in reservoirs. This law has been in force since January 1, 1989. Similarly the NAFTA does not include large scale water exports: the law implementing NAFTA will have a clause confirming Canada's sovereignty over its water resources.

The new Liberal government received the credit for the signed commitment as it was in power when the deal with respect to this issue was ratified. The Liberals said in their red book promises back in 1993 that they would bring forth further accords with the Americans with respect to ensuring that Canadian sovereignty over water would be held true. However, they are in the sixth year of their mandate and they still have not brought forth any substantive legislation.

The NAFTA and the FTA ensured we did not ship bulk water transfers to the United States or any other country, but things have changed. The world's desire for water has increased so it is imperative that we take this to a new level now and bring forth legislation.