Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion.
Recently I had the occasion to be in Washington. While there, I and some of my colleagues had the opportunity to speak with Ambassador Chrétien about this particular subject. His comments were quite interesting.
He made the point, which I thought was very valid, that in some states in the United States a litre of water is actually more expensive than a litre of gasoline.
When we talk about water we get into all kinds of emotional conversations about nationalism and how precious this resource is and things of that nature, but I think the point the ambassador was making was that water has already been reduced to being a commodity. It is a commodity with a price. It is a commodity that can be bought and sold, and the pressure for it to be a commodity will ever increase upon us.
The irony is that a litre of gasoline or coal, or oil for that matter, is a litre of product that is dug up, transported and consumed, much like a litre of water can be transported and consumed. Therefore the question becomes: What is the significant difference between a litre of water and a litre of any other product?
As other speakers have alluded to over the course of the debate, the real difference is that a litre of water is something on which life depends. Therein lies the distinction between a litre of another resource based product, a product that is dug up, transported and consumed, and this particular product.
I want to continue to emphasize the point that water is a commodity that will continue to be subject to trade disputes and that it is a limited resource.
In Canada we live under some illusions. We occupy something in the order of 7% of the world's land mass and we have about 9% of the world's freshwater resources. That would be good if we stopped there, but of that 9%, 60% drains north, while 90% of our population is south. Therefore, 90% of our population has access to only about 40% of our water.
Given the population spread and the concentration of our population that should be adequate. But, arguably, we are not a water resource rich country. We have more water resources than do many countries; nevertheless, we do not have water to squander. We do not have water to give away. We do not have water to use in a way that would be an improper stewardship of the resource.
How should we, as a House, respond to the resolution that is before us? It states:
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 and should not be a party to any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater against our will in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.
I would refer my hon. colleagues on the government side to the joint statement made by the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico following the NAFTA in 1993, which reads:
Unless water in any form has entered into commerce or become a good or product, it is not a good or product covered by any trade agreement, including the NAFTA.
Nothing in the NAFTA would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or begin exporting water in any form, and I emphasize “in any form”. The thrust of the resolution, as I understand it, is that it is with respect to bulk transfers.
The joint statement goes on to affirm that Canada and every NAFTA partner has sovereignty over their water.
Water in its natural state—in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers, water basins and the like—is not a good or a product, and that is critical phraseology with respect to these trade agreements. It is not a good or a product. It is not traded. Therefore it is not and has never been subject to the terms of any trade agreement. Nothing forces us to export water in bulk.
I suppose the distinction is that water is a resource on which all life depends. Therefore it is a resource that is significantly different than other resources.
I refer to the text of the NAFTA, but I also refer to the fact that this is an area of joint jurisdiction. Usually at this point in my speeches I tend to beat up on the Government of Ontario because I profoundly disagree with the attitude of that government in many areas. But in this particular case I think the Government of Ontario is moving in the right direction.
Initially it had a bit of a brain cramp. It issued an export license with respect to what is known as the Nova project. It was prepared to export water and saw nothing wrong with doing that.
However, quite a number of people saw something wrong with it. Representatives from the United States governments, both at the state and federal levels, saw something wrong with it. Many federal members as well saw something wrong with it.
Initially and immediately the Ontario government revoked its license. It has entered into a public process to review how licenses are to be granted pursuant to the Ontario Water Resources Act, which states “The purpose of this regulation is to provide for the conservation, protection and wise use and management of Ontario's surface water because Ontario's water resources are essential to the long term environmental, social and economic well-being of Ontario”.
It goes on in article 3 to talk about the considerations that a regulator is to enter into with respect to export licenses. These are the issues: protection of the natural functions of the ecosystem; private domestic uses; livestock and other uses; municipal water supplies; groundwater that may affect or be affected by the proposed surface taking; other existing and planned uses; whether it is in the public interest to grant the permit; and such other matters that seem expedient to the director.
In my view, those are intelligent regulations which need and deserve the support of this House and this government. The resolution of the Government of Ontario is worth supporting, which is something that I frankly thought I would never say in the House.
Canada is not a party to any agreement which compels it to export water in bulk. It is not a party to any agreement in the NAFTA. It is not party to any agreement outside of the NAFTA. In fact in the joint management provisions under the International Joint Commission, the reference that that body acts in the best interests of the basin, as opposed to the best interests of each individual country or jurisdiction, is an area that is well protected.
Ontario has done something which is quite cleaver. It has entered into the protection of the watershed area. That, in and of itself, takes it out of the trade jurisdiction.
In summary, water is a product. The pressure is building. It will continue to be a product and we need to be wise stewards. Jurisdictional initiatives on the part of the federal government and on the part of the provincial governments are, in my view, wise initiatives.