Debates of May 10th, 2007

Water Resources Management

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a member of the environment committee. He, like me, had the opportunity yesterday at the environment committee to look into an issue that affects water, the issue of coal bed methane, raises a very good point.

There is a problem with the extent and depth of our knowledge concerning watersheds and other aspects of water. In fact, this is definitely one of the areas where I believe some federal investments are required in order to collect the information we need to make those proper and effective decisions affecting the future of our water supplies.

This is something that will have to be explored in greater detail, and we will have to marshal resources in the service of greater research on issues like the one that my hon. colleague raises.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to address Motion No. 249, introduced by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

We all know that water is perhaps one of the most valuable natural resources. It is essential to life. It is critical to the health and well-being of Canadians. It is critical to aquatic systems.

It is also vital for economic prosperity across sectors such as agriculture, oil, gas and shipping. That is why it is also important to this government's environmental agenda, which includes conservation of species and spaces, clean air and climate change.

In dealing with one of our most precious resources, Motion No. 249 calls on the federal government to immediately develop, in consultation with the provinces, territories, aboriginal groups, municipalities, local community organizations and others, an integrated water resources management strategy.

The main focus of this motion is to advance the concept of integrated water resources management to measure, monitor and protect freshwater.

After examining this motion and its implications, the point that I would like to address is that much of the spirit and substance of this motion is already being implemented by the federal government.

For example, integrated water resources management is a water management approach that advocates decision making based on engaging stakeholders and incorporating ecological, social and economic considerations.

As well, the global water partnership sponsored by the United Nations development program advocates an integrated water resources management based on principles of openness, transparency, inclusion of stakeholders, accountability, responsiveness, efficiency and equality.

These are principles that Canada is already using to help guide integrated water resources management approaches here in Canada.

As a matter of fact, Canada has been taking an integrated water resources management approach for many years. We have already adjusted our thinking. We have created new tools for the job. We have put these tools to work in a wide range of integrated water resources management initiatives across Canada.

Integration is happening at many levels. Our work on water is bringing together provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal peoples and stakeholders, municipalities, industry, energy, agriculture, non-governmental organizations, community groups and research teams.

This government is also working toward effective planning and decision making on water management through partnerships.

The fact is that collaborative water management is a cornerstone of integrated watershed management. This means that stakeholders need to be actively involved in water management decisions.

We are continuing our work to put in place inclusive and transparent coordination mechanisms that will allow us to widen the application of this broad principle.

In fact, if we look at the 1987 federal water policy that was passed by former prime minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government, we will see that this policy calls for integrated water management planning. It also calls on the federal government to achieve this through its programs, policies and laws.

So for 20 years we have had a federal water policy that is already consistent with integrated water resources management, and all the actions proposed in Motion No. 249 have already been captured in the policy's five strategies.

As well, the federal water policy is a statement of our government's goals for Canada's freshwater resources. Today, this government is on track toward achieving those goals. This year alone, we announced $4.5 billion in new spending on the environment.

This includes the national water strategy, where we have invested $35 million on freshwater initiatives: $11 million over two years for cleaning up Great Lakes areas of concern; $5 million over two years for the International Joint Commission to study Great Lakes water levels; $12 million over two years to support the cleanup of Lake Simcoe; and $7 million over two years for the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg.

Our national water strategy also supports healthy oceans by investing $382 million for conservation and protection of fisheries and ocean habitats.

Budget 2007 also includes a long term infrastructure plan that will help support investments by provinces, territories and municipalities to improve water and waste water infrastructure, including treatment facilities, sewage collection and water distribution.

Our government will be pursuing these budget initiatives in an open and consultative manner.

As for the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions, this government recognizes their responsibilities with respect to water delivery. We consistently favour a collaborative approach that is respectful of the roles and responsibilities of each order of government.

Fortunately, the provinces and territories also recognize the need for collaboration and an integrated approach to water management.

Our mutual understanding of the need for collaboration is important, because the reality is that the provincial and territorial governments are responsible for many aspects of land use planning and development that impact water quality and availability. Many provinces are demonstrating their commitment to this approach by introducing new policies and legislation that moves toward integrated collaborative approaches.

For example, the province of Alberta's new water for life strategy introduces a transition from traditional water management planning for water allocation issues to integrated watershed management planning supported by a shared governance model.

Ontario is moving forward with a comprehensive approach to protecting sources of drinking water.

The Quebec water policy is based on full integration of the different aspects of water management by adopting an integrated watershed management approach relying on citizen involvement, integrated management of the St. Lawrence River and recognition of water as an integral part of the collective heritage of the citizens of Quebec.

There is no doubt that many Canadian jurisdictions are using integrated water resources management to guide their central water management approach. Considerable progress is being made in many areas and we expect this trend of policy and legislative reform to continue as jurisdictions come more fully to terms with the need to manage their water resources for economic, social and environmental reasons.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments are also cooperating on the national collection of water quality information through national agreements on water quality and quantity monitoring. There is movement toward integrated management with better data and information and an emphasis on clear and transparent goals and results.

As well, where water management issues are a shared federal, provincial and territorial interest, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment also provides a formal mechanism for effective intergovernmental discussion and coordinated approaches to regional and national environmental issues, including water management.

The council also recently introduced national initiatives to promote drinking water protection from source to tap and options for a Canada wide strategy for managing municipal waste water effluent.

Regional cooperation in water management is also achieved through bodies such as the Prairie Provinces Water Board and the Mackenzie River Basin Board. These boards ensure that interprovincial surface waters and groundwaters are equally shared by Canada's prairie provinces and they help to prevent potential conflicts.

When we look at all of these initiatives that are taking place, we can see there is no doubt that ensuring clean and safe water for Canadians is a joint undertaking that is being taken very seriously by municipal, provincial and federal governments.

It is clear that this government is committed to collaborative, integrated management of water in partnership with these orders of government.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Lac-Saint-Louis for introducing this motion, which gives the Bloc Québécois an opportunity to speak again about this major issue and express its concerns about this resource. The Bloc Québécois is very concerned about protecting water and water quality.

As it is worded, the motion before us gives us a great deal of scope for debate. I could have opted to talk about drinking water, groundwater or aquifers—and my colleagues may have already done so—but in light of recent events having to do with bulk sales of water, I have chosen to speak about this particular aspect of the motion.

Recent discussions on water management, including the Calgary forum held on April 26 and 27, organized by the American CSIS, the Conference Board of Canada and Mexico's CIDE, have renewed fears about massive water exports.

I have received many comments from people in my riding and elsewhere and from environmental and other organizations. Without exception, these individuals and groups have serious concerns about what could become of the water in Quebec and Canada. To the vast majority of the people I represent, the crux of the matter is that our water is a very important resource that must be protected.

I would like to quickly review the division of powers with respect to water in Canada, to clarify what we are debating today for the people who are watching.

As the parliamentary secretary explained, the federal government has very limited powers over water. They extend to shipping, fisheries and the powers the federal government exercises as the trustee of the first nations and the owner of certain lands.

Section 132 of the BNA Act gives the federal government the power to implement the Boundary Waters Treaty signed by England in 1909 on behalf of the empire. However, it cannot go beyond the treaty provisions, because it would be interfering in the jurisdictions of the provinces, which own and manage the water.

Quebec and the provinces are responsible for water. Water, as a resource, is a provincial jurisdiction. The bulk of the jurisdiction over water belongs to the provinces.

Under the Constitution, they have ownership of lands, including the waters, and have the right to administer or use them as they see fit. They have the exclusive right to regulate municipal facilities, including their drinking water distribution system. They have exclusive jurisdiction over the “development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy”.

The Constitution also gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over the “development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province”.

As such, Quebec already has its own water resources protection system. When André Boisclair was environment minister, he provided Quebec with a water policy in 2002.

This policy already implements the objectives proposed in the Liberal motion, namely: ensure the protection of this unique resource; manage water with a view to sustainable development; better protect public health and ecosystems.

With this policy, Quebec wanted to recognize water as a valuable asset of Quebec society and reaffirm that water is an integral part of Quebec's collective heritage.

By giving water this special status, the Quebec government took on the responsibility of regulating water use, establishing priority uses and preserving water quality and quantity, while taking the public interest into account.

Quebec has a real legislative framework to ensure the protection and quality of its water resources, whether for human consumption or activities involving contact with water such as swimming and water sports.

The Government of Quebec tightened its standards by adopting the Regulation respecting the quality of drinking water and the Regulation respecting groundwater catchment.

The Liberal motion before us would simply duplicate what is already being done by the players who truly control the resource.

Let us now consider the commercial aspect of water issues. In response to a series of questions the Bloc Québécois raised in the House of Commons over the past few weeks, the government said that NAFTA does not restrict our ability to protect our water resources. However, the situation is not that clear.

Currently, NAFTA applies to all trading among the three North American countries, with a number of exceptions, including hydroelectricity, military equipment, and so on. Unless a commodity is specifically excluded from NAFTA by means of an exception under chapter 21 or a reservation, NAFTA applies the moment a commercial transaction is concluded. There is no formal exception or reservation for water. Therefore, we do not believe it is covered by NAFTA.

Article 309 of NAFTA states that:

—no Party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction ... on the exportation or sale for export of any good destined for the territory of another Party—

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade asked the Minister of International Trade for clarification in 2001. The minister's response was that “—water in its natural state ... was not included in NAFTA”.

Water is in its natural state when it is not being used. If a proposal to take water for export is put forward, we can no longer say that it is not being used. If a contract is signed to that effect, a commercial transaction exists and trade agreements apply. Unless a commodity is specifically excluded from NAFTA through an exception under chapter 21 or a reservation, NAFTA applies the moment a commercial transaction is concluded.

In the absence of an exception, it is not the nature of the commodity that determines whether it is a marketable commodity, but the existence of a commercial transaction or even a plan to commercialize the resource.

In a nutshell, regardless of what the government says, water is not excluded from NAFTA.

Although no government is currently planning to dispute Quebec or Canadian legislation, there is no reason to believe that that will continue to be the case once North Americans begin to feel water shortages more acutely because of over-exploitation and global warming. When that happens, it is not at all unlikely that Quebec's laws will be challenged by those wishing to take water directly from our lakes and rivers.

The Bloc Québécois believes that it is irresponsible to wait for this situation to arise. The federal government must initiate discussions with the Americans and the Mexicans to exclude water from NAFTA right now, before water shortages reach the crisis stage.

That is why the Bloc Québécois tabled a motion at the Standing Committee on International Trade formally recommending to the government that it quickly initiate talks with its Mexican and American counterparts to exclude water from the goods governed by NAFTA.

Motion M-249 completely ignores this avenue, which nonetheless is the only one that will provide real protection for water.

I would like to conclude by briefly speaking about the discussions on water exports that were held in Calgary at the end of April.

The North American Future 2025 Project is an initiative of the U.S. Centre for Strategic and International Studies. The Conference Board of Canada and its Mexican counterpart are participating in this project.

The three organizations met last April and discussed the future of the North American environment, and more specifically water consumption, water transfers and the artificial diversion of bulk water, with the aim of optimizing the joint use of the available water in North America.

This is very worrisome. Although the Conservative government has finally indicated that it will not participate in such discussions, the simple fact that it is not taking action to exclude water from NAFTA encourages such discussion about bulk water exports.

Rather than suggesting that the federal government limit itself to its own jurisdictions over boundary waters and water in native communities, or suggesting that the government adopt the only sensible solution—excluding water from NAFTA—the Liberal Party proposes to eliminate provincial jurisdiction over water and to introduce a new federal integrated strategy, even though this is a provincial jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the principle of this motion.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the motion by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I was pleased to hear him say that he would also be supporting the motions that two of my colleagues have before the House, the member for Parkdale—High Park and the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

Water is a very precious resource. It is one of the real necessities of life. It is one that we often take for granted, but it is not always in plentiful supply. We have seen, with climate change around the world, areas of the world that are in dire need of water.

In fact, we can reflect back on our own history and think of the time in the thirties in Saskatchewan when there was a real drought for a number of years. We can recall how devastating that was to the people of the prairies when that drought went on and really contributed to the whole period that we call the dirty thirties in Canada.

As I said, the NDP will support this motion. I want to say that for many years New Democrats in this place before me have talked about the issue of water. I remember the member of Parliament for Kamloops who was here during the eighties and nineties, and the early part of 2000 who raised this issue repeatedly in the House of Commons, Nelson Riis.

We also know that there are pressures and demands for water being placed on the U.S. and that the issue of water exports is at the top of mind for many of us as Canadians.

Last year I had the pleasure to attend a workshop in my community that was put on by KAIROS, which is an ecumenical, social justice movement. The people in KAIROS had been committed to social justice issues and are promoting the whole issue of water as a basic human right. That event took place at St. Laurence Anglican Church in my community and I was very pleased to participate in that. I was invited by Ross Bremner and other activists in the community. The title of their workshop last spring was “Water: Life Before Profit”, and it relates quite well to this motion, as does the work that that organization is doing.

In the New Democratic Party election platform in 2006, we committed to laws that would crack down on big polluters and help guarantee a healthier environment for both our current generation and future generations. We said that Canada should have a clean water act to establish national standards and protection for drinking water, including those jurisdictions under federal control such as first nations communities and reserves.

We need federal standards for solid waste disposal, dump management, mine site operations and rehabilitation, forestry and farming practices and pesticide use.

We can see again, with climate change in my province of British Columbia, the devastation that the pine beetle infestation is having on the pine forests in B.C., the significant danger of slides, and degradation of our water supplies and our rivers in British Columbia. We do not have the forests there to hold onto the soil and stop the slides from happening.

We need to provide infrastructure financing to provide funding for badly needed improvements to public sewers and water systems in Canada. That would make a real improvement in water quality. We have the horrible example and tragedy of Walkerton that I think brought to the front of people's minds in Canada the necessity for prevention and purity of our water, something that when I was growing up we basically took for granted. We now realize that we have to take this issue seriously.

In British Columbia, we have more and more boil water advisories happening all the time. In fact, in the greater Vancouver region last year we had a boil water advisory that went on for weeks, something that had been unheard of anywhere in the Vancouver region previously.

We support this motion and we want to establish a Canadian water strategy that would include federal legislation supporting pollution reduction and prevention, watershed planning, research and development, investment in water infrastructure and support for standards for safe drinking water.

We do support the idea that water is a public good and that it has an inherent importance to Canada's ecosystems and for future generations of Canadians.

The people of Canada recognize the vital importance of freshwater and are committed to its protection, its conservation and environmentally sustainable use. We also believe that we should declare water as a basic human right and work nationally and internationally to ensure action to implement this policy for all Canadians for in fact people throughout the world.

Bulk freshwater diversions and removals from Canada will not address the future water needs of ordinary citizens elsewhere in the world and would have a potentially devastating ecological consequence for Canadians and Canada.

At the time of the debate and negotiations around NAFTA, the government of British Columbia opposed the passage of the NAFTA, in part because of the threat it proposed and still poses to democratic control over water.

The B.C. government repeatedly urged the federal Liberal government to obtain a clear and definite exclusion from the NAFTA for water. Sadly and unfortunately, the Liberal government of the day did not obtain that exclusion for water. I know my colleague from the Bloc Québécois has raised that issue today in her remarks to this motion.

She talked about the fear in Quebec that the law that the government of Quebec passed to protect water could be challenged because of NAFTA. I can tell her and people in the House that it has already happened in British Columbia.

We do have in B.C. a water protection act that was passed under a New Democratic government in 1995 and a very troubling development has been the attempt by California based Sun Belt Water Inc. to seek $200 million in damages from the B.C. government. It says those are lost potential profits because of the B.C. water protection act and so it is suing and trying to get compensation.

If the Liberal government of the day had ensured that we had an exclusion on water of course this would not have happened. We hope that the Conservative government today will deliver on a commitment to ban freshwater exports. Where these governments have failed us in the past, this has to happen in order to ensure Canada's water supply.

Today we ask the government to protect our freshwater by passing federal legislation to ban water exports from Canada and to obtain an unequivocal exclusion in NAFTA for water. As I said earlier, this should have been done years ago. We want to urge the government of the day to move on that file.

We oppose the deregulation and privatization of water resources. We do not support any existing or proposed trade and investment agreements that threaten our democratic control and public ownership of water in this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert for taking the Chair for a few moments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brant.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to move an amendment to the motion of my distinguished colleague for Lac-Saint-Louis. My motion to amend, I anticipate, will be seconded by an equally distinguished colleague, the member for Kenora. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following after the word “instruments”:

--and should appoint a Minister of State for Water, under the authority of the Minister of the Environment, to oversee and administer the water resources management strategy.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93(3) no amendment may be proposed to a private members' motion or to the motion for second reading of a private members' bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis if he consents to this amendment being moved?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

I do, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The amendment is in order.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Motion No. 249, introduced by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

Many of us here, at least those of us on this side of the House, agree that sustainable water use and management are fundamental to Canada's and the world's social, economic and ecological health. That is why water is part of this government's environmental agenda and that is why we are here today to debate Motion No. 249.

Motion No. 249 calls on the federal government to “immediately develop, in consultation with the provinces, territories, Aboriginal groups, municipalities, local community organizations, and others, an integrated water resources management strategy”.

This motion focuses on advancing the concept of integrated water resource management to measure, monitor and protect freshwater.

Integrated water resources management is a water management approach that advocates decision making based on engaging stakeholders and incorporating ecological, social and economic considerations. It is an approach that this government is already on track with.

In fact, we are doing more than that. This government is making progress at advancing integrated water resources management. For example, our work on water is already bringing together provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal peoples, and stakeholders such as municipalities, industry, energy, agriculture, non-governmental organizations, community groups and research teams.

Our government is also working to ensure that our plan is effective. We are working through partnerships when making water management decisions.

This concept has been in place for more than 20 years. In fact, the Mulroney Conservative government passed the 1987 federal water policy. The federal water policy that was introduced then called for integrated water management planning.

It also called on the federal government to achieve this through its programs, policies and laws. This government has been working to make many of these principles a reality.

The federal, provincial and territorial governments all have responsibilities when it comes to water.

For example, the provincial governments are responsible for many aspects of land use planning and development that can impact water quality and availability. To fulfill these responsibilities, the provinces and territories have recently introduced a number of water policies that promote protection from source to tap as well as broader watershed management planning.

For the federal government, boundary and transboundary waters shared with the U.S. are areas where our federal jurisdiction is clear, so we have put in place programs to measure, monitor and protect freshwater in these areas.

These are areas where the jurisdictions are clear, but because we all recognize that many of these responsibilities are shared, there are also a number of integrated partnerships that already exist here in Canada.

For example, the Atlantic coastal action program and the Great Lakes 2000 program are two solid examples of integrated planning, leading edge water science and extensive partnerships. These initiatives are based on federal-provincial cooperation and extensive engagement of municipalities, NGOs, industry and citizens.

There is also the National Water Research Institute, which has led influential national assessments of current and emerging threats to water quality, water quantity, and aquatic ecosystem health for more than 30 years. As well, across our country there are many Canadian universities that are also involved in water research.

There is also a federal water research agenda that identifies several priority areas for integration of federal water science carried out by many departments.

That is not all. This government has taken a broad approach to the environment that covers a number of priorities such as conservation of species and spaces, clean air, climate change and, of course, water.

As well, this government has also made it a priority to help ensure that all first nations residents have access to safe drinking water.

We are working to address the needs of communities with high risk drinking water systems by building on the plan of action for drinking water in first nations communities. We will also be basing future efforts to improve water quality on reserves on the options raised by the report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations.

There are many examples of cooperation on water at the national level, but this cooperation happens most significantly at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. We see this cooperation there because there is a formal mechanism for effective intergovernmental discussion and coordinated approaches to environmental issues, including water management, which is provided by the council.

However, it does not end there. That is because, for the most part, the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions all recognize that there is a real need for both collaboration and an integrated approach to water management.

There are many examples of the integrated water resources management approach in practices. Federal, provincial and territorial governments regularly cooperate on the national collection of water quantity information through national agreements on water quality and quantity monitoring.

There is also a great deal of cooperation when it comes to integrated watershed management, so much so that collaborative water management has become a cornerstone of integrated watershed management requiring that stakeholders be activity involved in water management decisions.

At the watershed level, management generally involves the local advisory board with members from provincial, territorial and local municipal governments, aboriginal peoples, industry, educational institutions, local stewardship groups, development groups, wildlife groups, environmentalists, landowners and, of course, the concerned public.

There are many examples of this, such as the Fraser Basin Council, the Great Lakes action plan and the South Saskatchewan River basin. In my home province of Manitoba, the Red River Basin Coalition not only includes all of the stakeholders in Manitoba, but also stakeholders in the states of North Dakota and Minnesota, working cooperatively to address the issue of our common basin.

As well, my riding includes both Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba, some of the largest freshwater lakes in the world. Our Conservative government has taken a very proactive approach to protect these lakes and their basins by investing $7 million for the protection of the Lake Winnipeg basin and a further $450,000 to support the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium.

There are many examples that we can look to but there is not enough time today. Rather, I invite the members of the House to look at what the government is already doing in partnership with the provinces and territories.

The government is already acting on its commitment to collaborative, integrated management of water policies and programs through action. The government is already implementing much of the spirit and the substance of the motion. We will continue to work with our partners.

We are working together with the provinces and territories to find concrete and realistic solutions to Canada's environmental challenges, which is why we introduced our turning the corner action plan last month. We are continuing to make Canada's environment a priority, not only for this government but for all our governments and our people for today and in the future.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Motion M-249, presented by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. I will not read the entire motion, but you will understand why I would like to read part of it.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately develop, in consultation with the provinces, territories, ... municipalities, local community organizations, and others, an integrated water resources management strategy—

Quebec and the provinces are already masters of their own water. Because it is a natural resource, water is under provincial jurisdiction. The basic powers pertaining to water belong to the provinces. This is set out in the Constitution, which also grants the provinces title to the land, including water, the right to administer these resources and to use them as they see fit.

Thus, Quebec administers its water. Furthermore, Quebec already has its own water resources management strategy. In 2002, when he was environment minister, André Boisclair gave Quebec its policy on water. That policy covers exactly the same things as the motion. That policy already applies the objectives proposed here today, namely, to ensure the protection of the resource, to manage water with a view to sustainable development—which is even better—and to better protect public health and the health of ecosystems.

The Bloc Québécois cannot vote in favour of this motion because it encroaches on an area of provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, all the provinces—with the exception of New Brunswick—have already taken measures to prevent the export of bulk water. This just goes to show to what extent the provinces have a—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He has 10 minutes in total, but he has just one minute remaining today.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying that what is so very important is NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, as my colleague was saying a little earlier. This agreement must absolutely protect the export of water in bulk. Article 309 is very clear on this.

The Bloc finds that the responsible thing to do for future generations is to take the export of water in bulk seriously and look at the future impact of climate change on water shortages.

Before adopting a water management strategy, we should determine whether there will be any water left for our children. If I understand correctly—

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When Motion M-249 comes back for debate, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi will still have seven minutes left.

It being 6:15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:15 p.m.)