Debates of April 30th, 2001

International Boundary Waters Treaty Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that conference and the agreement. Before I fully answer the question, let me make this point.

The real problem with that agreement is that it is an understanding between three sovereign governments, but it does not control the conduct of some company that might come in say that since we have treated it as a commodity they will challenge that sovereign government. It does not prohibit that company from taking that action.

The answer to the question and the resolution of the issue is for a ban to be passed in Canada and in the United States, and I suppose in Mexico as well, so we have national legislation. We need an amendment to the NAFTA agreement, and in the FTAA if we ever go ahead with it, that specifically exempts water from those types of challenges. It would recognize that it is not a commodity, that it is a fundamental right of those individual countries and cannot be challenged in any way by any private corporation.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in posing my question and I will rephrase it.

In November 1999 the council of environmental ministers of Canada met, concluded and agreed, that is my understanding at least, on the need to prohibit bulk water removal.

If the member concurs with the decision of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, how would he propose that we build on the agreement to ensure bulk water is not removed from Canada? That is the question.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the hon. member for Davenport. My answer remains the same. We need legislation. We need specific provisions in the treaties to prohibit the export of water and prevent challenges under chapter 11. I do not know if I can be more explicit than that. That is the manner that I see for dealing with it and it is consistent with legal opinions we have heard on the topic.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse the comments of the NDP member. However in 1993 we thought that NAFTA was one of the greenest agreements that could be negotiated and one on which we could agree regarding trade. Now, the fact is that there have been many legal challenges under chapter 11 on relations between companies and the government.

I am thinking in particular of the legal challenges issued by companies, which I will not name, when they wanted to get a permit from a province such as British Columbia. This is a fact.

Therefore would it not be fair and appropriate to include in the future agreement on the free trade area of the Americas which, if I am not mistaken, is scheduled to be signed in April 2005, provisions that cannot be legally challenged, to ensure that water is not defined as a good but rather as a resource and an investment?

As parliamentarians should we not immediately show leadership in the negotiations to ensure that water is not a good, but a resource to be protected?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree in any way with my friend from the Bloc. The point he has made is well taken. We must not only prohibit companies from doing that. We must define what water is. It is not a commodity; it is a natural resource. We should move it to a higher level where it is a basic human right, and we should define it that way in the treaties. In all respects, no matter how broadly we looked at it, that would prevent water from ever being treated as a commodity.

It brings to mind the Sun Belt challenge we are facing in British Columbia. If water is classed as a basic human right no corporation in the world would even think of mounting such a challenge. My friend from the Bloc is correct. The wording must be strong and clear so that we never again face such a challenge.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comment about stopping corporations from suing. I am quite surprised. I know the hon. member across the floor was a barrister in his previous career. I also practised law for 18 years before entering the public sector.

It perplexes me that the member is now proposing that we bring in legislation to forever prevent corporations or governments from suing. As the member knows, legislation and lawsuits are based on interpretations of legislation every day. How do we prevent a corporation from issuing a $75 or a $125 statement of claim and suing? We can never prevent that. There are frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. As the hon. member knows, lawsuits are undertaken for many reasons and not necessarily because they are right.

In light of the hon. member's expertise as a barrister in this area, can he tell the House how we or any government can prevent a corporation, individual or country from pursuing a claim against a government or individual? I would be happy to hear how he addresses the issue.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the list is fairly long and the answer must be short. The easiest answer, as I said in my response to the member from the Bloc, is that we make the wording of the legislation and the treaty so clear that they would not even think of starting a lawsuit. That is the first answer.

There are a number of other ways. The introduction of a cost disincentive is one method we have used traditionally in the court system.

The most important is who gets to make the decisions. The decisions must not be made by faceless, non-elected, non-responsible panel members. The composition of the panel would make a big difference as to whether such litigation attempts are made.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this very important subject. The aspect of the debate that peaks my interest is how fast the water issue has changed. For hundreds of years we have taken our water supply for granted. We have always just turned on the tap and had good, clean, clear water, although lately we are finding some of our water to be contaminated.

We have heard of Walkerton and the issues there. In my own riding there are two or three areas where, for the first time, water is contaminated and no longer drinkable. We are becoming greatly inconvenienced and facing real problems because of contaminated water.

A little community called Nappan in my area has water that is totally contaminated, perhaps by certain practices in the farming community. This will happen more and more.

The water issue is important and deserves far more attention than the government is giving it. As my colleague from St. John's West said in the last few minutes, we need to stop pussyfooting around and enact legislation with teeth. He is absolutely right.

This legislation is kind of interesting. It broaches the subject and starts to deal with it but does not go nearly far enough. In a very few years water will become the most priceless asset and important resource a country can have. We should be addressing the issue now that we know what is happening. We need legislation far stronger than the bill before us today.

The legislation is somewhat similar to Bill C-156 that the Conservative government tabled in 1988. However that was a different time and the bill was a prelude to other legislation. This legislation is final and we have an opportunity to do much more than we are doing with it.

I hope the government takes our comments seriously. We want better legislation that is more comprehensive and has teeth. We want the government to take a stand on all freshwater in Canada and not just border water supplies.

The hon. member for St. John's West recently raised the issue of the proposed exportation of Newfoundland water. He was told in the House of Commons by the minister that there was nothing to worry about because the government would deal with it in Bill C-6. Here is Bill C-6, and it does not even come close to addressing that important issue.

The last speaker mentioned rogue governments, which was rather interesting. I think he was referring to the Liberal government of Newfoundland which is proposing to export water. We have no protection against that. The government has no way to stop it, control it or deal with it. This could be the bill to do so but it is not. It deals only with boundary water systems and allows for the export of even those waters. It is not at all appropriate or what we need.

The government is sending mixed messages about its position on water exports, which is confusing. It says one thing in question period, another thing in the media and another thing provincially. Now it has this bill which dances around the issue but does not really address it.

The government is talking about setting up a committee next fall to study issues, such as the selling and exporting of freshwater. Why is that not part of the bill? Why are we not dealing with it now? Why are we passing a half-baked bill with no teeth, as the hon. member for St. John's West has said, that pussyfoots around the issue but does not really deal with it?

The bill will not even come close to dealing with the Newfoundland issue. After the Prime Minister's negotiations with the American president he suddenly changed his position. At one point he was adamant about water exports and then he shifted ground. He is now sending a message that we will change our position, and that is scary.

The government is sending another mixed message regarding the NDP's call for a moratorium on water exports. Everyone supported the motion, including all the Liberals. Where is the motion now in the bill? It is not there. It is completely invisible.

Then again, maybe we should be used to that because the government seems to always say one thing and do another. Need I mention the promises to cancel the GST, change the free trade deal and bring in an ethics commissioner answerable to parliament? Those things have never happened and no commitment on freshwater is being honoured here.

The PC Party has been very clear on this. We support the total prohibition of the selling of bulk freshwater. That is very clearly the way to go for the future, to guarantee protection for our water supply which we see changing very quickly.

I listened to a program on CBC Prince Edward Island the other day about how the province must revamp its agricultural processes. It must cut back on agricultural production and completely change the way it does business because of the poisoning of rivers and lakes. Obviously the agriculture industry does not want to be part of that.

Prince Edward Island has a serious problem. We also have problems in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Newfoundland is talking about selling water. This is going on and on. There is no excuse for not dealing with the issue now but we still do not know the real position of the federal government.

Apart from the prohibition we would like to see, the amendments in the bill allow for a licensing regime for boundary projects such as dams and obstructions. Here we are talking about a licensing regime for exceptions. We are talking about passing a bill but are already including exceptions that would contravene the rules, go around the system and ruin whatever strength and teeth the bill has.

Of all the countries in the world we are the most vulnerable, although we have the biggest supply of freshwater. We have 300 lakes and rivers that share boundaries with the United States. Dividing them up in the future will be extremely controversial, yet the bill does not deal with the issue.

As I mentioned earlier, Canada has 40% of the freshwater in the world and we should be protecting it. Eventually it will be the most priceless commodity and valuable asset any country can have. At present, one billion people do not have access to safe water. We have it now and should do everything we can to protect it.

As far back as 1984 the Progressive Conservative Party was concerned about the issue of exporting water. We formed a committee to study the issue and ensure the right steps were taken.

Unfortunately when the Liberal government came to power it dropped all interest in preserving freshwater. It made deals, such as the free trade agreement which, prior to being in power, it opposed vehemently. It was entirely against the free trade agreement and then all of a sudden switched positions, became in favour of it and supported the enhancement of the delivery of water, which is what we are talking about here today.

In the late eighties and early nineties, the Progressive Conservative Party repeated that Canada's water was not for sale and that it would not be affected under the free trade agreement. Now we hear talk about loosening it up, being a little more flexible, bringing it to committee and finding out what is appropriate and what is not.

We are saying that there should be no sale of bulk water. We do not need to bring it to committee to discuss it. The sale of bulk water is prohibited and it should stay that way.

Again I bring up the changing environment with which we are all dealing. We have all taken freshwater for granted for years and years and all of a sudden it is no longer applicable. We cannot take our water for granted anymore. We have to take steps to protect it or we will no longer have it.

Our world population is expected to grow to eight billion people by the year 2025. By then it is estimated that half of the world's population will not have access to clean water. I hope that the changes we make in parliament will not mean that Canada will be part of the population that does not have access to clean water.

One statistic recently estimated that water consumption would increase by 40% and that 17% more water would be needed to grow food for our growing population. Water could become our most valuable asset.

Section 21 of the bill details areas that the governor in council, basically cabinet, could regulate. This is scary because cabinet, this cabinet or the next one, could change regulations without bringing them to parliament or to the public for discussion or debate. Regulations affecting our water could be changed with no consultation with parliament. No regulations referring to exports of water should be made without full consultation with parliament, and the opportunity to debate it and hear from the public.

I hope the legislation opens up the freshwater debate in a way that would allow everyone in Canada to speak. If Canadians are given that opportunity, the vast majority would say that we should not export our water. A few people who want to make big profits and take advantage of an opportunity would say that we should export water but I believe the vast majority of Canadians would oppose any move to make our water available to others.

I hope the government eventually states its position on the sale of Canada's freshwater and that it clarifies it in all respects. I hope the Liberal position supports the Progressive Conservative position that Canada's freshwater is simply not for sale.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Cumberland—Colchester for his intervention. I want to make sure that I understood him correctly. Could we take it as a firm commitment on the part of the member and his party that they are opposed to any form of bulk water exports, including a proposed export by the province of Newfoundland that may occur one day?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is as concerned and interested in this subject as are we. We are totally and absolutely against the export of bulk water from Newfoundland. Our Newfoundland members support that position, as does our entire party. We are against the export of bulk water from Canada.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although this bill is relatively clear but rather broad in scope, we are once again going to look at the issue of exporting water while the Minister for International Trade is here in the House. He has of course played a very active role at the summit of the Americas.

I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks that the Minister for International Trade should do everything in his power to ensure that water is not considered a commodity, something that is negotiable and can, to a certain degree be exported, thus depleting our natural resources.

With the Minister for International Trade here in the House, I ask the Progressive Conservative member to tell us his position with respect to the upcoming negotiations which, in December 2005, will result in an FTAA agreement which, to a certain degree, is very desirable.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be unclear at all. I am very clear that we are against bulk exports.

I have seen the whole subject of freshwater change dramatically. In Atlantic Canada we are considered a pristine part of the world. We have a lot of freshwater resources, but even there we have places where our freshwater is now at risk and our water is contaminated. Over the last 12 months, for the first time in history, I have had three areas of my riding which have reported back with contaminated water.

We have to take steps now to address the issue because it will get worse. I mentioned earlier that I listened to a long program on CBC Prince Edward Island the other day. Agriculture in Prince Edward Island would have to change its practices and cut food production dramatically because the result of the increased food production would be contaminated water and less water.

It is a very serious issue. We cannot take any chances. In many of these trade agreements, if we start to deliver a resource and it becomes a commodity we are locked into that delivery. If in the future our resources decline we cannot cut back on those exports and we cannot cut back on supplying foreign countries this product.

Once we establish a pattern we have to maintain it. We cannot get into this subject at all, especially on P.E.I., where the water has been contaminated and the farmers there are cutting back. They are required to do so. I wanted to point that out to the member from Prince Edward Island who is making interventions and trying to help me make my point.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I could make the same argument that we would make in the province of Newfoundland when we talk about bulk exports. We have many requirements for the funding of health and education. Where do our new dollars come from? They would come from the development of our resources including the proper development of our water supply.

The government seemed to be on our side when it responded to questions I asked earlier. The Prime Minister then came back after his chat with the president of the United States and was very wishy-washy about it.

We cannot afford to export bulk anything unless we maximize every job possible in that resource. Does the member not believe that it is time that we salt down a deal to stop the export of freshwater in the legislation?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my riding has the highest tides in the world and the Prime Minister's position was similar to the tides. It came in and then it went out. The tide came in when he was establishing his own position. He was totally against the export of water. Then when he had a little visit with the president of the United States, the tide went out. He changed his position and said maybe we could negotiate this, maybe we could bring it to committee and talk about it.

I believe that we should have legislation with teeth in it. We should not pussyfoot around, to use the hon. member's own terms. We should be very clear on our position and not have an ambiguous proposal for legislation such as we have here.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question of the member for Cumberland—Colchester. In November 1999 the Canadian council of environmental ministers agreed on the need to introduce a ban on the export of bulk water. Given that commitment, does the hon. member think that a voluntary commitment by the provinces on banning bulk water exports would work?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I do not think it is enough because governments change too fast. We are about to see some provincial governments change and hopefully the federal government as well. However I think in the very bear future we will see provincial governments change. There is no guarantee or assurance that a commitment by a government today will be honoured by the next government.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Or even by the same one.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Or even by the same one because we have seen local governments change position on subjects right away. No, that is not enough. It has to be embedded in ironclad legislation by the federal Government of Canada.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to speak on the act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, Bill C-6. I welcome this opportunity because it gives me a chance to also address some of the concerns that have been raised and also perhaps address some myths that have been raised in the debate.

There is a very strong consensus in Canada that governments should act to ensure Canada's waters are protected from bulk water removal. Therefore, the issue before us then is not whether to protect the water but how best to accomplish that common goal.

In February of 1999 Canada announced a three part approach to prohibit the bulk removal of water out of all major Canadian drainage basins. The environmental approach would protect and regulate water in its natural state in the water basins and was comprehensive, environmentally sound, respectful of constitutional responsibilities and consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. Bill C-6 embodies all aspects of this approach.

Some people and groups advocated that the federal government should take unilateral action by bringing in an export ban on water. I would respectfully submit that such a trade based approach is wrong. It is unrealistic especially in a federal-provincial context. It would be ineffective, but worse it would actually undermine the goal we all share.

I will outline why Canada has pursued an environmental approach and why that approach is better than an export ban.

The International Joint Commission also known as IJC delivered a landmark report in February 2000 entitled “The Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes”. I will reflect briefly on the IJC's conclusions and recommendations. They are consistent with and supportive of the broad environmental approach adopted by Canada on the issue of bulk water removal.

The IJC concluded that water was a non-renewable resource. The vast volume of the Great Lakes was deceiving. Less than 1% of the water was renewed every year through the hydrological cycle. The other 99% was a gift of the glacial age. Furthermore, unlike a forest that could be replanted, taking water out of the water basin was like mining. When it was gone, it would never return.

The IJC report stated “If all the interest in the Great Lakes Basin were considered, there was never a surplus of water. Every drop of water had several potential uses”.

Forty million Canadians and Americans depend on the waters of the Great Lakes for every aspect of their lives: day to day living, industry, recreation, transportation and trade. On top of this, the ecosystem of the Great Lakes has its own equally important demands on the water. As we are dependent on the future health of the Great Lakes, the future health of the ecosystem is dependent on our action.

I see, Mr. Speaker, you are telling me that time is up. Perhaps when we continue the debate, I will be allowed to continue at that time?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Absolutely, and I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. She will have 17 minutes left in her speech when debate resumes on Bill C-6.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)