Mr. Speaker, in February 1999 the government announced a three point strategy to protect Canadian water basins. The three components of the strategy are: first, amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act; second, a Canada-wide voluntary accord negotiated with the provinces to prohibit the bulk removal of water from all Canadian water basins; and third, a joint Canada-U.S. reference to the International Joint Commission.
The first component, the amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, were introduced on November 22, 1999. Some concerns have been expressed, including mine, about this legislation.
As to the second component, the International Joint Commission issued its report on March 22 on the protection of the waters of the Great Lakes. The commission said that in order to protect the Great Lakes' ecosystem, Canada and the U.S. should erect such high barriers to bulk water exports that they would practically constitute a ban. The commission also said that trade law obligations do not prevent Canada and the U.S. from taking measures to protect our water resources.
On March 1, I asked the Minister of the Environment what progress he had made on the second component of the strategy, namely, the Canada-wide voluntary accord with the provinces. Today I would like to speak about the urgency of enacting a federal ban on water exports.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment attempted to reach agreement in November on the accord for the prohibition of bulk water removal from drainage basins. Nine ministers endorsed the accord, but four jurisdictions have reserved their position pending further consideration.
The provinces have been very critical of the federal government's approach, saying that the federal ban on water exports is necessary.
British Columbia's minister of the environment wrote, and I quote:
Without strong federal legislation, I fear—and fully expect—that provinces will be faced with ever-increasing pressure from corporate interests who want water treated solely as a commodity.
The International Joint Commission does concede in its report that if one company were allowed to export water, others would have to be given that right.
I should add that those corporate interests have come close three times already to making bulk water exports a reality. When Sun Belt Water Inc. applied for a permit to export water from British Columbia, when the McCurdy group tried to export water from Gisborne Lake in Newfoundland, and when the Nova Group obtained a permit from Ontario to siphon water from Lake Superior and ship it by tanker to Asia, public outcry led to provincial refusal to grant such permits. As a result, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have passed legislation to ban bulk water exports.
Now the federal government plans to make reliance on provincial goodwill as a formal policy through a voluntary accord. It is time the federal government acts where it has jurisdiction because in light of our international trade agreements a patchwork of provincial initiatives is inadequate. What we need now is a watertight federal ban on water exports.
Once the federal government is in a leadership position, then it can sit down to negotiate an accord with the provinces. This is urgently needed because of increasing corporate interest in our water resources, and also because in The Hague, Holland, on World Water Day, delegates from 118 countries acknowledged, in a declaration on water security, the severity of the water crisis.
In light of this development, tonight I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary, will the federal government take leadership, ban water exports and then actively seek agreement with the four provinces which are still holding out?