Debates of Sept. 27th, 2001

International Boundary Waters Treaty Act

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House of propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[The Speaker]

Resuming debate on the main motion. When this bill was last debated, the hon. member for Sherbrooke had the floor, and he still has 17 minutes of debate left.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to continue with debate on Bill C-6 for 17 minutes.

I would of course be tempted to provide a brief summary of my first 23 minutes. I had thought of asking you to provide one, but the person in the chair has changed, so I cannot do that.

What I said, in substance, as my introduction, was that water, like air, is a vital and essential element that we should in no way compromise.

Water is such an essential element that having too little is as bad as having too much. When there is none, things dry up, and when there is too much, things drown. A balance must therefore be maintained, both in quantity and in quality.

I referred to several past experiences which related to water or which had taught me more about it. I said that I was quite quickly introduced to the concept of a water basin involving a good many people.

I spoke of the rights and obligation, again in terms of quantity and quality, each person has toward his neighbours, both upstream and downstream. I also referred to the rights and obligations the municipalities and regions have toward each other, not to mention countries, such as Quebec and Canada.

I also said that we tend to think that the water level in lakes and rivers stays the same. This is, however, completely wrong.

We need only consult my illustrious and eminent colleague from Terrebonne--Blainville on this. A great fisherwoman, she has told me of catching fish whose bellies showed the effects of having to swim on the bottom to keep themselves submerged.

I also touched briefly on the entire problem concerning water and the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

On average, barely 1% of the waters of the Great Lakes is renewed annually by precipitation, surface water runoff, and inflow from groundwater sources. Under the circumstances, we must recognize that, while the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River system represents one fifth of the earth's fresh water, this resource is not unlimited.

Because of climatic risks, increased desertification worldwide, limited supplies of drinking water around the world and energy development based on this resource, the idea of exporting large quantities of water on tanker ships or of diverting rivers has emerged as a serious option in the past ten years or so in Quebec and Canada.

To the list of environmental threats to water supplies is added the new and significant threat of bulk water exports and large scale diversion of our lakes and rivers.

After a quick overview of Bill C-6, I of course came to the issues involved in this bill. I mentioned that, while most people agreed that water resources need protection, it is far from clear that Bill C-6 ensures their increased protection.

Is the Liberal government not using the current panic over the issue of water protection to grab powers that are beyond its jurisdiction? That is a legitimate question.

We identified three major problems that could be raised in connection with the bill we are looking at today. The first relates to the definition of a water basin. The second concerns the many powers given the federal minister in connection with exceptions and with licensed activities. The third relates to the usefulness of the bill we are looking at.

Because of these three elements, Bill C-6 goes beyond federal jurisdictions and infringes on provincial ones.

The fact that the notion of watershed is not defined in the bill is of course a source of concern, but the fact that it is up to the governor in council to define it by regulations, on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is hardly acceptable. This is undoubtedly very dangerous from a jurisdictional point of view and regard to the ownership of natural resources, which essentially belong to the provinces.

In fact, in a document dated February 10, 1999, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade clearly indicated what a watershed is, and I quote:

A land area draining into a common watercourse. Often called a catchment area, drainage basin or river basin. Examples of watersheds in Canada include Atlantic (including the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River), Hudson Bay, Pacific and Arctic. A single watershed can cover a relatively large section of the Canadian landscape. For example, the waters of the Great Lakes include not only the lakes themselves but also the many rivers, and their tributaries, that ultimately flow into the lakes.

Why not make this clear in the act? Chances are the definition that will be proposed through regulations will be the one found in the February 1999 document and will therefore directly infringe, by law, on relevant provincial jurisdictions.

The second point concerns the powers given to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. These powers are considerable. From issuing licences to selecting the types of projects that may be eligible, not to mention the practices that may be exempted from the application of the act, the minister's responsibilities under the constitution are being greatly expanded.

It is true that, under the 1909 treaty, projects directly affecting boundary waters already require a review and the approval by the parties concerned. In case of a dispute, it is up to the IJC to settle the issue. Under the treaty, Canada cannot take any unilateral action that would change the level and flow of waters on the American side of the border.

In that sense, the bill only formalizes the already common practice of requiring a licence to build a dam, for example, or to install works that obstruct waters.

However, article VIII of the 1909 treaty sets out the three possible uses of water in order of precedence and, as long as there is no conflict among these uses, the contracting parties have equal and similar rights in the use of the waters.

The various uses of water provided for are as follows: uses for domestic and sanitary purposes; uses for navigation; uses for power; and for irrigation purposes.

In Bill C-6, only the ordinary use of waters for domestic purposes, the concept can be stretched, for uses are not necessarily that clearly defined, and for sanitary purposes is expressly excluded. There is no reference to the use of water by the provinces for power purposes.

The provinces' energy choices could be ignored, especially since, with a broad definition of water basin, the extent of waterways affected by Bill C-6 could be greater.

Amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act could allow the Minister of Foreign Affairs to interfere in the management of Quebec's natural resources. Yet these provisions clearly violate established law and the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government.

Section 109 gives indisputable property rights to the provinces. It is this section, taken together with sections 92.5, 92.13 and 92A, which prompted Senator Gérald Beaudoin to say, in his book on the Constitution of Canada, that the provinces have:

--broad powers with respect to the use, acquisition and management of lands, and the development and marketing of natural resources.

What comes to mind here is the development of the extensive hydroelectric resources in Quebec. Jurisprudence has also established that the expression “lands” in section 92.5 also extends to waters and mines.

What we have here therefore are flagrant, I would even say reprehensible, encroachments on provincial jurisdictions.

Finally, we must also question the relevance of the bill.

To protect water resources from the perils of unlimited trade, Canada, Mexico and the United States declared in 1993 that “NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources of any Party to the Agreement”. The federal government is thus saying that, given the existence of this joint statement, as long as water is not considered a good or a product, and is in its natural state, it does not come under the provisions of trade agreements, including NAFTA and WTO. However nothing could be less certain.

Such a statement, common or not, would have no value whatsoever before an arbitrator because, as the Vienna convention on the law of treaties stipulates, the contexts, the elements external to a treaty or international convention, cannot be taken into consideration in its interpretation if the text itself remains obscure and if the parties agree on the pertinence of these external elements.

Since the United States has clearly stated, the very day of the joint statement, that nothing in it changes the NAFTA treaty in any way, it is therefore legitimate to state that water is subject to consideration as a good within the meaning of the various international trade agreements.

In fact, from the moment that Canada exports this resource, it becomes a good under NAFTA and GATT. Even if not legally considered a product, it could be the object of proceedings under NAFTA chapter 11 on investments and services, and under national treatment. In addition, it is clear that, if the federal government issues export permits, water will henceforth be considered a commercial good within the meaning of these trade agreements.

However, should a province decide to issue a licence, this appears to be applicable only within its own jurisdiction, within one territory, according to the department, and I quote:

--the fact that certain projects have been approved does not in any way indicate that future bulk water removal projects must also be approved. Canada's federal and provincial governments retain full sovereignty over Canada's water.

Officials have indicated that:

Any precedent due to the approval of a water export project would be limited to the province concerned and linked to the legislation that allowed the water to be exported, not to trade agreements.

Despite these statements by the government, a reading of the trade agreements, NAFTA in particular, does not leave one convinced of this. We cannot know what the outcome might be of court proceedings entered into by private investors against Canada or a province if an export permit were issued to a foreign company. In addition, the IJC states that certain observers make reference to Canada's tariff listing to conclude that all waters must be considered a good and that this stance is incorrect.

It goes on to say that this list “merely indicates that, when water is classified as a good, it enters into a specific tariff category”. According to a number of observers, we do not know with any certainty whether water could be considered a good, and the BAPE itself could not settle this.

It would be safer to be sure of the situation before passing such a bill. For now, it appears completely inadequate and clearly threatens the jurisdiction of the provinces over their natural resources, in this case, water.

The federal government is clearly using opposition to water exports to justify, in the eyes of the public, its interference in the form of Bill C-6. However, this legislation appears inadequate, and the effect it would have on international trade is uncertain.

Furthermore, the important issue of groundwater, despite the fact that it was clearly raised in the IJC's preliminary and final reports, is not even mentioned. Yet this issue is directly linked to flow maintenance and to both the level and quality of the Great Lakes waters. The federal government is silent on this issue.

The Speaker has indicated that my time is running out as swiftly as the spring runoff. I will therefore wrap up quickly.

The government, through Bill C-6, contrary to what it says, is overstepping its constitutional jurisdiction with respect to boundary waters, is interfering in Quebec's jurisdiction with regards to potable water, and is, in reality, offering no satisfactory guarantees as to the impact of this bill on international trade agreements.

There is a fairly quick solution to the problem, since we know quite well that a sovereign country has complete control in negotiating its own treaties. If procedure will allow me, I would like to make a proposal. In order to sign its own treaties, Quebec must become sovereign if it wants to continue to have water that is good in terms of both quality and quantity.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear in the past, the bill would not meet the commitment made by the government and the entire House in February 1999 when it declared to Canadians that it would introduce legislation to prohibit, and I emphasize prohibit, bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers. Bill C-6 would not do that. It is a failure with regard to that commitment.

At the same time that commitment was made the NDP put forth a motion in the House that was unanimously adopted and supported by all parties. The motion stated that Canada:

--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.

Bill C-6, which is before the House today for debate, fails to address the vital concern that we would be compelled by international agreements to export our water.

It is appropriate to set in context the pressure Canada is under with regard to conserving and preserving its fresh water. I draw to the attention of the House two issues that are very current.

First, the whole issue of climate change and specifically climate warming could have a potential impact on our fresh water and our freshwater reserves and supplies.

Second, flowing in part from that and in part from a number of droughts around the continent has been pressure to export water to other parts of North America and the world to deal with drought conditions elsewhere. Statistics show the pressure the international community is under with regard to supplying fresh water to its citizens. We must play a leading role in dealing with the problem.

However the export of bulk water from Canada is not the answer. As I pointed out during second reading, I found it somewhat odd that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the Environment led the debate on the bill instead of the Minister for International Trade. I was surprised because the bill is to a great extent about trade and, more specific, the failure of the government to protect our fresh water from trade challenges.

As I noted previously in debate, the bill is about trade. The Minister of Foreign Affairs said Bill C-6 is “consistent with Canada's international trade obligations”. That is the problem. Bill C-6 represents the government's continued failure to keep our freshwater resources off the international bargaining table and safe from the unfair trade deals it has negotiated. During debate on Bill C-6 earlier this week the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra stated in the House:

Canadian governments have full sovereignty over the management of water in its natural state, and in exercising this sovereignty are not constrained by trade agreements, including the NAFTA.

The reality, contrary to what the member and those in his government claim, is that the strategy of the Liberal government is not necessarily NAFTA proof. Bill C-6 is part of a water strategy designed more to protect NAFTA than to protect Canada's water.

The 1993 joint statement on which the government's argument is primarily based is not legally binding. That statement was made by the three NAFTA partners and their governments, namely Canada, the United States and Mexico. However, the way NAFTA works, under the investor state procedure investors have the power to challenge Canadian water protection laws.

In fact we have seen that. We have the outstanding challenge by Sun Belt Water Inc. against the province of British Columbia that is still pending. We have seen the ability of a private company to come forward and make that challenge, specifically on fresh water.

That joint statement was not agreed to by the investor sectors. There would be no way of doing that. Therefore it offers no protection whatsoever against claims made directly by investors.

We could say to the governments of the United States and Mexico that they agreed to this, but we cannot say it to Sun Belt Water Inc. because it was not at the table and is not bound by the letter exchanged among those three levels of government.

It is important to look at the history under NAFTA because international trade tribunals, and I should not just say under NAFTA but under a number of other international agreements that we have entered into, have been very willing to strike down environmental protection laws if they are simply disguised as trade barriers. That is open to very wide interpretation, as we have seen.

For example, a GATT tribunal rejected Canada's ban on the export of unprocessed fish even after it was redrafted. We went through it and we lost. We redrafted it and focused it exclusively on environmental conservation, and we still lost.

Simply stating that a bill is motivated by environmental rather than trade concerns will not likely be enough to withstand a trade challenge. The fish case is a clear precedent in that regard.

The bill is fairly limited in the geographical area that it covers. The strategy of the government has been to say this is what it would do and this is how it would do it. As I have indicated, that is nowhere near sufficient. It does not do anything to prohibit a province from exporting bulk fresh water.

I would assume any province that wishes to seek a financial opportunity in that regard is in no way prevented from doing so.

The bill, if it becomes law, would not be binding on the provinces. We could change that. Enough jurisdiction has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in this area indicating that we could do that as a legislature at the national level. That is what we need to do. We need to provide a legislated ban that would be binding on all provinces that would prohibit the export of bulk water. This is not a fancy. It is not something out there in the ozone. Newfoundland is currently looking at the export of bulk water.

My next point concerns NAFTA. It was raised when the bill was before the foreign affairs committee. One of the witnesses suggested much more forcefully than I did how questionable the interpretation was and how out of touch the government was with the reality of how we saw NAFTA functioning.

There are very strong legal opinions that the bill would not protect us from a NAFTA challenge. The government, therefore, should not be so confident that its approach would withstand those challenges. What it should be doing is looking at how to fix NAFTA, how to incorporate into NAFTA the real protections we need, because that is where we need them and not in this type of legislation.

We have heard explanations from the government on how the bill would work if it became law. The government is saying that the bill contains a ban, but there is also a licensing provision to allow for the diversion and export of water. We are hearing that there are regulations, which we have not seen, that would define more extensively when that licensing would be allowed.

I say to the government and to the House that we should take the government and the minister at face value in that they would not allow for this type of licensing for the diversion or export of water.

What about the next minister? What about the next government, whether it be this party or some other? Rather than putting into place an absolute ban, what it has done is left the door open to what could very easily be major diversions of our water and abuse of our environment in that regard.

I will make one point with regard to the amendment, and I want to give the foreign affairs committee an acknowledgement in this regard. As originally drafted, the bill did not contain a provision that recognized there would be no derogation to treaty rights of the first nations. As a result of a motion made on behalf of my party at committee stage the committee recognized the necessity of including that, and it has been incorporated into the bill. I acknowledge the work done by the committee and its willingness to respond to that type of amendment.

The NDP is not willing to support Bill C-6. We would not be protected from the NAFTA provisions with this bill. It would not apply to the whole of the country and would not be an absolute bill. For those reasons we will be voting against the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the NDP critic for the environment on the sentiment he expressed and on his willingness to ensure that we do not have exports of bulk water, whether they be in bulk form or interbasin transfers. That is the intent of the particular piece of legislation. I state publicly that the Progressive Conservative Party clearly supports the position that our natural heritage water is not for sale.

However I want to correct a particular point with respect to the Sun Belt application that was made under chapter 11 of NAFTA. It had nothing to do with the capacity of actually selling bulk water. The lawsuit was initiated because the province of British Columbia had granted permission for bulk water to be considered to be sold. It then got its head on straight and said it was not something it was interested in doing and chose to compensate the British Columbia company.

Once that was done, under NAFTA companies need to be treated equally on both sides of the border. The provincial government in B.C. compensated the B.C. company but did not want to compensate the American company. It made sense from the perspective of the approach and that is why the company was able to launch the challenge. It is not a bulk water perspective. It is a matter of treating companies on both sides of the border properly.

We suspect that the absurd amount the company is asking for will not be awarded in any way, shape or form. The most it should ever expect to get is what the province of British Columbia had initiated in the first place, and that actually protects investors.

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

Mr. Speaker, the points made by my friend from the Progressive Conservative Party are well taken with regard to the very specific aspects of that case. We have not had a ruling on it, but we must be very careful.

It is quite clear that we could not stop the application in the Sun Belt case. We cannot say that there is a ban, even though that is what the province British Columbia did. It did not protect the province from it, so the case went ahead.

I am also struggling with another case that I remember where a Mexican community was challenged on having to accept a toxic dump by a private investor from the American state of California. There are a great number of similarities. The award in that case was not pennies. It was millions of American dollars against a very small community in Mexico.

There is a provision for licensing the export of water. In effect we have set up a framework, which I realize has been an historical past practice. We have now incorporated that into the legislation. The framework was there for Sun Belt to bring forth the application.

As I said earlier in my address to the House, most of the trade experts to whom I have spoken are very uncomfortable about the outcome of this case. They are very concerned that Sun Belt is likely to win.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in my colleague's speech on bulk water and on Bill C-6. I find it somewhat parallel to the culture issue with which I deal on a daily basis.

As critic for culture and heritage for the New Democratic Party I constantly hear parallel assurances that culture, which is another valuable commodity, is protected within our trade agreements. I get that kind of assurance from the foreign affairs department. I hear that there will be carve-out clauses and that there is work afoot to protect culture. However, when the rubber hits the road, I do not see that language in NAFTA or in GATS.

Therefore we have to be very vigilant about language and about what is to take place at the table when some kind of claim is made against our valuable commodities.

I guess we have to talk about water as a commodity, but what provisions would my colleague say we need in the bulk water act to make this precious commodity truly sacred and protected from trade challenges?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we require goes well beyond the legislation. As I said earlier, the legislation is geographically restricted. It does nothing to mandate the provinces to prohibit the export of water. We need an all-encompassing bill for the whole of the country which is an absolute ban on the export of water. That deals with the domestic issue.

The second requirement is an actual amendment to NAFTA to incorporate wording that would be binding on both governments and private investors and that would allow Canada, the United States and Mexico to control their water without any challenges from other governments or private investors.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. The U.S. is trying to change the natural flow of water into the Mississippi so that it would go into the Red River which flows north into Canada. We are opposed because the water could be polluted. More important, our dam procedures and our frequent flooding of that river, particularly in Winnipeg, is always iffy.

Does the member see any opening in the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act which would guarantee that Canada could prevent this from happening?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the existing treaty, as I read it, that prevents water from being dumped in that way. In that case the water is highly polluted and would flow north into Canada. However, there is nothing in the treaty that would prevent the United States, and I believe it is the state of Minnesota, from doing that. The amendments being proposed in Bill C-6 would also do nothing to prohibit a U.S. state from doing it or, in the converse, a Canadian province from doing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.

Like so many of these issues that come up, they are very interesting to me because I was here when the Conservatives were on the other side of the House and the Liberals were on this side, and of course the argument was completely reversed.

In that case it was very vocal. The Liberals were adamant that we must ban all bulk water exports from Canada. They were adamantly against us and raised a huge furor in the House about it during the free trade debate in 1988-89. Now all of a sudden they have come in with this half-baked half measure of a bill to protect some of our water, the water closest to the United States border but not the water in the inland provinces, such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, only those waters that straddle the borders.

This is a complete reversal of their position in 1988-89 when they were most eloquent and forceful in their arguments about banning all bulk water transports. They were fearmongering about all the things that were going to happen, that all the bulkwater was going to be transferred and sold. Now what do they do? They come up with a half-baked, half measure program to ban some waters, put in some rules and put on some restrictions but it in no way addresses the needs and feelings of Canadians and the actual issue at hand.

It is absolutely amazing to hear the Liberals now stand and defend their position when just a few years ago they were on this side demanding far more measures. In fact, we have had events in Canada that increase, not decrease, the sensitivity and the demands for protection. The Liberals are slipping and going the other way instead.

Some of the things we have talked about in the House recently really focus on the need for the protection of our water. One obviously was the Walkerton issue involving safety. The other more recent one was the terrorist acts in the United States which involves security. However, both involve potential demands and potential threats to our water.

Since the Walkerton case, there have been many more examples of contaminated water as we become more sensitive to the issue, which means our water is even more important than ever. The future and safety of our water is far more important than it was even 10 years ago. We have had changes in reporting and in identifying the contamination and the sources of contamination of water. We have had complete changes in the responsibility and accountability for the safety of water right across the country. Probably every single member of parliament in the House has had reports of contaminated water since Walkerton because the standards are so much higher and our sensitivities are so much more focused on our water.

The recent terrorist acts in the United States present tremendous security issues for huge amounts of water. There is now speculation that some terrorists have planned to contaminate water using spray planes. Some of these discussions and plans appear to have occurred in Canada and could involve Canadian waters. However, whether it is in the United States or in Canada, if any water is contaminated through natural sources or through man-made initiatives, it would mean an increased demand for water in North America, which would also mean an increased demand for our water and increased pressure on us. If we do not have the legislation to prevent bulk water transfers we will be under a lot of pressure. As the last speaker said, the effects of global warming and droughts will put increased pressure on our water supplies.

This is not a time for half measures and half-baked actions like Bill C-6. Any of the three issues I have talked about could create a large shortfall in the water supply in Canada and in the United States, which will put increased demands on our Canadian water and demands for access to Canadian water.

Those of us involved in foreign trade recently have had just a sample of the strength and the power of the Americans and the tools they use to access our resources. In the case of softwood lumber, they have used laws, legislation, political influence, the administration, the media and every possible angle to prevent access to our softwood lumber by the U.S. and to gain access to our raw materials in the softwood lumber industry. They leave no stone unturned. They apply extreme pressure. If there is a shortage of water in the U.S., their efforts to access our water will be even more focused and more intense.

We require legislation to ban all exports, not just some exports, not just the export of water in the 300 lakes and rivers that straddle the border between the United States and Canada.

We have thousands of lakes and natural reservoirs. They must all be protected from bulk exports, not just those that straddle the border. Now is the time for strong legislation on this, not after the horse is out of the gate, not after the fact.

Many people predicted that it was just a matter of time before terrorist acts took place in the United States but no one reacted or prepared for it. I predict that it is just a matter of time before North America has a strong demand on our water. I do not know where it will come from or what the reason will be, but I predict that we will have increased demands on our water, even above the projected increased demands by demographics, which predicts a 40% increase in demand on water in Canada and a large explosion of growth in the world's human population. Many millions of people already have no access to water. As the population grows the demands will be more and more.

Bill C-6 does not meet current realities. It does not meet potential threats. It does not impose conditions on provinces. Even if Bill C-6 passes, bulk sales of water are still possible. If the bill is not amended we will be subject to demands on our water, and when the pressure does come, it will be enormous.

I hope that somewhere in the bowels of government there is a group of people drafting further legislation or amendments to the bill that would ban all water exports. As I have said, it is just a matter of time before the demand for our water will be unbearable.

So often a government tries to react on issues but this government, in particular, reacts after events have happened even though they were clearly predicted in advance. One that comes to mind is the one in my area close to Burnt Church where everybody predicted there would be a problem with the fishery when the judgment came down. The government was not prepared for it and is having a huge problem now trying to react to it. It is trying to manipulate the rules. It is trying to work with the natives and the non-natives and the lobster fishery. It has been a disaster and is continuing to be a disaster.

The government had lots of warning but it did not act. It has lots of warning now on the water issue and it is not acting. It has brought in this half-baked bill to protect some of the water but none of the water on Prince Edward Island especially. It is imperative that the government move quickly to bring in a full ban on all bulk water exports.

We will reluctantly support the bill even though it is a half-baked measure. However, we will continue to press the government for the proper legislation that bans all exports of bulk freshwater from Canada.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform my hon. friend that if he were to follow some water treaties that were made in the past, and I am including the Louisiana Purchase, there is a fair amount of land just south of where I live that drains into the Mississippi River. It is the only area in Canada that does so. Therefore, according to that treaty, where I live would be part of the U.S.

Two places in Canada, and I refer to Newfoundland and British Columbia, have large tarns. These are lakes way up on the mountains. The only drainage is right into the ocean. One inch is billions of gallons of water. There is lots of rain and they could very easily use that as an income to fill a bulk boat below and ship the water. It would not interfere with anyone, which is the argument B.C. and Newfoundland would put forward.

What would the hon. member have to say about the argument that it is provincial jurisdiction, that it is income for the people and that they have the right to take the water, which normally runs down the rocks into the ocean, and sell it.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in a question the member addressed to a previous speaker, I thought he was using unparliamentary language. I was so shocked when I heard him refer to our damn procedures. I now realize that he was referring to our dam procedures.

In answer to the member's question, the Liberal government in Newfoundland proposed the bulk sale of water but it has since retracted that proposal. The fear with any export of bulk water is that once we start to export it to the United States or some other country we are obligated to continue that export. If we do not export there is no obligation to export it. Once we start there is an interpretation under our trade agreements that would convert water to a commodity, which means we cannot stop.

If sometime in the future British Columbia or Newfoundland needs that water, they are committed now and obligated to continue to export, even though the people in British Columbia would not have a glass of water to drink.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the federal environment minister for taking a watershed approach with the bill. Such an approach would ban the removal of water from its natural basin. Hopefully, this will be a more comprehensive approach than a simple export ban, and we will agree that it makes good ecological sense to stop the bulk water removal at the source, not only at the border.

However, the Minister of the Environment relies on a federal-provincial voluntary agreement to ban water removal from major drainage basins. This approach, I suggest, ought to be broadened and expanded to include all Canadian water bodies and not limited only to boundary waters.

I say this for three reasons. First, the proposed voluntary accord would be just that; it would be voluntary. It would not legally bind any province to protect our water resources. We recently had some ideas ventilated in Newfoundland, which have to be taken very seriously.

Second, the proposed accord would not prohibit export initiatives undertaken by municipalities, crown agencies, corporations or even private parties. Even if the provinces wanted to ban water removals and exports, the federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate trade.

Understandably, the federal government hopes that a province by province voluntary ban would keep water protection strictly as an environment issue and that trade lawyers perhaps would not notice this disguise. However, water removals and exports seem already to be a trade issue since there is a challenge under NAFTA brought by a water export company against the Government of Canada for compensation because of British Columbia's decision to ban water exports.

Through the proposed accord, the federal government is thus asking the provinces to take their own action on banning water exports, and we may hear more from that.

Before I go into the third reason, Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed and distinguished colleague, the member for Toronto--Danforth.

Third, the current proposal would only prohibit removals of water from major basins but would allow the export of water as long as it stayed in the same basin. The government's definition of basins as Canadian leaves a lot to be desired because basin describes a geographical feature without regard to political boundaries.

The concept of basin is problematic and we understand it. However, for an accord or legislation intended to secure resources management for political institutions, it is a very key central issue. It is also an essential concept for any legislation that intends to withstand trade challenges that are exactly intended to transcend political boundaries.

The proposed accord will lead to some kind of a patchwork of provincial initiatives, thus possibly making Canada more vulnerable to trade challenges. I regretfully conclude that the legislation tabled today is too limited in scope to provide protection to most of our water bodies.

It seems quite clear that any meaningful protection of our water resources requires the federal government to face the reality of international trade agreements. This is the point that I would like to make as clearly as I can.

In search of the most effective strategy to protect our water resources from exports, I would recommend first, that we enact federal legislation designed specifically for the purpose of banning bulk transboundary water removals from Canada.

Second, I would recommend that we renegotiate international trade agreements to seek an exclusion or waiver of water from such agreements, which would perhaps be the easier route at the present time.

This debate is an extremely important one and has long term significance. The Great Lakes are a tremendously important water body as we all know. We are passing this legislation hoping that it will work, but we have no assurances at the present time that a mirror legislative initiative is not being launched and completed by our neighbours to the south.

Therefore, I will conclude by urging the government to see to it that in Washington an initiative that would mirror the Canadian initiative, as contained in the bill as a minimum, would be launched so that we would have reciprocity in this very delicate field, which is of great significance for many generations to come.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member and think he zeroed in on the main concern, which is the Great Lakes. However, we would be remiss in this debate if we did not refer to and mention those rivers which have their origin in Canada and flow into the U.S. Through real co-operation, the damming of those rivers or streams in Canada has helped to control the flow into the U.S. In most cases this has worked very well to the benefit of both nations. We have to say this because we have so many wonderful examples.

In my constituency, for example, we built a dam with the help and approval of North Dakota. It controls the flooding down there. That river then flows back into Canada, which is rare, and comes out in Souris, Manitoba.

Overall, I would not want people listening to think the House was at odds with the U.S. on this issue when we have had so many good treaties and outcomes from damming water.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Souris--Moose Mountain for his intervention and for what he said about rivers which originate in Canada.

Let me first deal with his last point. We certainly are not at odds with the United States on this matter. On the contrary, we are interdependent. We have a classic example just looking at water. We would be wise though to pursue legislative reciprocity so that we are not the only ones to pass legislation and that our legislation is reinforced by American legislation that has, hopefully, exactly the same objectives as the Canadian.

As to rivers that flow into the U.S. and then come back into Canada, this is a very complex issue on which I am not really competent to comment.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member from Davenport for his remarks. I also want to congratulate him on the leadership role that he has played with regard to this specific issue. I know this is one that he holds very near and dear to his heart as do other members. He has certainly shown the way for many in this regard.

With respect to the subject matter before us, I have a rather specific question for him regarding the requirements under NAFTA for Canada to continue the exportation of water when we enter into these agreements, whether it be for bulk water or bottled water or any natural resource. Is there an obligation upon entering into these contractual obligations to then continue regardless of the source or the amount? Could he enlighten the House and Canadians in this regard?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could. This is a subject of intense discussions and different interpretations of the NAFTA agreement.

As I understand it from having read the sections in the NAFTA agreement dealing with water, the agreement only contemplates the trade of water in bottled form. Therefore, my interpretation would be that water is not in the agreement.

There are people, however, who like to raise this issue and interpret it in a different way, but I would like to think that we would stick to the written agreement and make sure that water never becomes a traded commodity.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to follow my colleague from Davenport. He has been a constant source of inspiration and guidance for all of us who have been working on the issue for the last number of years.

The bill is a good first step. It is not complete but it is a start. The challenge we will have in dealing with the whole issue of water security over the next 10 to 15 years is inextricably intertwined with the same challenges our neighbours to the south will face.

As the member for Davenport said near the end of his speech, if Bill C-6 is to be effective there must be a mirror of the bill in Washington. As legislators that is where our biggest challenge will be.

My riding is on Lake Ontario. I have a Great Lakes riding. It is no secret to everyone in the House that the Great Lakes governors of the United States signed a deal this summer with the Great Lakes premiers. If 10 years from now the midwest governors or legislators found themselves in desperate shape in terms of water, the geopolitical reality is that those legislators would outnumber our Great Lakes legislators and we would have a challenge. The leaders to the south would not sit there unable to function in terms of water requirements while we sat here pretending we were an independent operation. It would not work.

The words of my colleague from Davenport, who has been my environmental mentor for the 14 years I have been here, are important. He said we must have a mirror of the legislation in Washington.

There is another problem. At the foreign affairs committee in May we heard from witnesses who talked about the Great Lakes. Some of them said we must preserve the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes.

Who would argue with that? We all know that levels are down and that with climate change the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes is at risk. We share them with the United States, so what will we do? Will we look the other way? In my humble opinion we must examine every option within our water inventory to preserve the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes.

As much as I respect the bill and say it is a good first step, it is only the tip of the iceberg. It is for this reason that I have been trying for a long time to interest leaders of all parties in a committee that would look into the comprehensive nature of dealing with water security.

My first speech to the House of Commons in 1988 was about water and the free trade agreement. I gave the speech because I went to school in Houston, Texas, at the University of St. Thomas. Houston is the home of Clayton Yeutter, chief negotiator for the United States during the free trade agreement talks.

Clayton Yeutter did a doctoral thesis on North American water management at the University of Nebraska. His entire life has been devoted to water. He worked for Congressman Jim Wright as a young assistant. Congressman Wright, as we all know, wrote the book The Coming Water Famine . When a man who has spent his entire life dealing with water becomes the chief free trade negotiator I cannot believe his interest in water and the free trade agreement are separate. I have always held that view.

I appealed to then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to attach a one page protocol letter to the free trade agreement saying that water would be excluded. I never got the letter but Hansard will show that I asked for it.

I think most people would agree that I am not a person who scares easily. However I am deeply concerned because the issue of water security is complex and involves economic realities with our neighbours. The U.S. has incredible leverage over us in terms of our economy.

The bill before the House today should be used as a first step to lever our complex discussions, hearings, investigations and relationships with legislators in the United States in such a way that North American water policy will ensure sound water management and the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes. These issues will affect not only our citizens but ultimately all citizens of the United States.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke talked about a special committee being struck to study the whole issue of water. Could he tell the House what the progress is in that regard?

He mentioned that in 1988 he pleaded with then Prime Minister Mulroney for an addendum to the free trade agreement that would deal with water. In 1993 his government came to power. It added one line to the free trade agreement that caused more confusion rather than solve the problem and deal with the issue of water.

Could the hon. member comment on those two issues? What is the status of the special committee on water? When his government came to power why was the member not able to persuade it to deal with the water issue in a more complete manner?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my House leader is responsible for designing and organizing committees. As the hon. member knows, the government cannot strike committees without the co-operation of all opposition parties. That is where the committee system sits right now. The discussion is ongoing.

With regard to the hon. member's second question, I stood in the House as a government member and supported Nelson Riis, the NDP environment critic, who had a private member's bill on banning bulk water exports.

I have sent flyers in my riding regarding bulk water exports and the Grand Canal. I have had townhall meetings. I have found that one of the most difficult challenges of being a member of the House of Commons is trying to get not only my own government but all MPs to grab the issue and deal with it in a comprehensive way.

That is why the issue should not be looked at by a subcommittee. That is why I have appealed to my House leader and other leaders that it be a special committee of the House, the same status as the committee that looked into the Meech Lake accord.

It is that serious. Anything less would not give the issue its proper due. I would apply the same pressure here. I am saying in the House what I have said privately and publicly, that we as a government must deal with the issue.

I am constantly hopeful that we will and I am seeing signs that we are. My government House leader is trying hard to get the committee going but we need the support of opposition parties.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is justifiably concerned about the environmental impact that a change in the water level of the Great Lakes would have.

As a Quebecer, I too am concerned about this because when the water level of the Great Lakes goes down, it affects the water level and shipping on the St. Lawrence.

This is a serious issue and the solution that he is proposing is a major one, but he is forgetting something critical; namely, the constitutional aspect of the issue. Water is under provincial jurisdiction.

What did his government do, or what does it intend to do regarding this responsibility, which is usually assumed by the provinces? Does his government intend to consult provincial ministers responsible for this issue?

Before passing such an important bill, we should consider this aspect. I do not know whether the hon. member agrees with me, but we cannot downplay the importance of this issue.