Debates of May 31st, 2007

International Trade

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that I have, as a long sitting member of this House, is that when people read Hansard or when they might be watching these proceedings on television, they might presume that the people in this House are basing some of their comments on facts. Unfortunately, that is simply not true of the interventions by NDP members. They are feeding the black helicopter crowd. They are distorting the facts. As a matter of fact, they are not even coming close to the facts as they actually exist.

I would like to read into the record that through the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the Government of Canada prohibits the bulk removal of water from the Canadian boundary water basins, including for the purpose of export.

The federal government's prohibition is both environmentally sound and consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. It builds on sound water management principles and the need to protect the integrity of Canada's watersheds.

The IJC has commended the Government of Canada for its actions to prohibit bulk water removals.

In the case of NAFTA, Canada, the United States and Mexico clarified, through a joint statement issued on December 2, 1993, that nothing in the agreement would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use, or to begin exporting water in any form.

The difficulty is that the NDP does not understand that there is an agreement to open, as this motion proposes, the--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the parliamentary committee was told by the government's own people that once the export of bulk water starts, foreign investors can sue the Government of Canada if they are denied access to bulk water exports.

I think the member is wrong on many levels in his comments. The NDP does understand what happens with the export of bulk water. Canadians across the country are demanding that the federal government withdraw any talks of bulk water exports from any international trade discussions. They know full well, as does the member, that if we go down this slippery slope and export our bulk water that we will lose control of it. We will lose our sovereignty over bulk water.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague in the NDP on her speech. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and we often have similar views on how important it is protect our natural resources and manage them well. However, I do not agree with her proposal to establish a national water policy. The NDP has this mania for constantly proposing centralizing policies in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Apart from the legislation that was just mentioned, most water management is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

How can the hon. member explain this proposal? Does she not think that her proposal for a national water policy is a 100% infringement on areas of provincial jurisdiction?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I do sit on the natural resources committee and her work on environmental issues has been very good and we do share a lot in common on those issues.

However, the one thing that we do not share in common with the Bloc is on the issue of national policy versus provincial policy. The Bloc sees many issues as provincial jurisdiction, whereas we see them as national jurisdiction. Child care is one of them, water is another and environmental regulations, in some respects, is another.

When her party looks at forest policy as being provincial, I must ask my colleague why, in the face of the softwood lumber deal, her party supported that deal when mills are now closing and jobs are disappearing, not only in Quebec but across the country. Now the Bloc needs to go to the U.S. to change its forest policy. On so many levels, we would be better off with national policies as opposed to provincial policies.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I came into the House today prepared to do battle, as it were, with the NDP and the idiocy of this particular motion that says that there is a problem and that we must address the problem.

There is no problem. The Government of Canada has absolutely no intention of entering into any agreement. As I said previously, through the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the Government of Canada prohibits the bulk removal of water from Canadian boundary water basins, including for the purpose of export.

The federal government's prohibition is both environmentally sound and consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. It builds on sound water management principles and the need to protect the integrity of Canada's watersheds.

The International Joint Commission has commended the Government of Canada for its action to prohibit bulk water removals.

In the case of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, the United States and Mexico clarified, through a joint statement issued on December 2, 1993, that nothing in the agreement would oblige any NAFTA party to either exploit its water for commercial use or to begin exporting water in any form.

Water in its natural state is not a good and hence not subject to trade agreements. Tariff schedules do not define what is a good. They only determine what tariff applies to water that has been transformed into a good, that is bottled water.

The NAFTA has made all three partners more competitive by providing their firms with preferential access to markets and more than 431 million consumers.

An increasingly integrated market has stimulated capital flows, promoted the spread of technology and contributed to increasing productivity, higher wages, lower prices and more choices for consumers.

Canada's merchandise trade with its NAFTA partners has increased 122% since 1993, reaching $596.7 billion in 2006, accounting for 82.6% of Canada's total merchandise exports. The NAFTA has also had a positive impact on services and investment flows among the three countries.

Again I say to the NDP, on the question as to whether the Government of Canada is preparing to enter into negotiations to export its water into the United States, no. The Government of Canada has no intention of entering into negotiations on bulk water exports.

The NDP members subscribe to the wonderful theories about black helicopters and conspiracies because of a meeting that occurred somewhere. I think it was in Calgary or some such place. Of all things, the meeting was held behind closed doors and the press was not invited. People actually had a meeting to discuss bringing together the positive forces between Canada, the United States and Mexico under the NAFTA agreement and to bring together the synergism that occurs between those three nations, the economic, security and other issues that are common to those three nations. The NDP members continue to call this a conspiracy because, of all things, the meetings were held behind closed doors. I guess it just comes from the NDP members not having the capacity to ever form the Government of Canada.

The Liberals being the former government and our party being the current government, I do recognize that there are certain restrictions and constraints on any leader of any party that has the most members in the House. I also recognize that there are certain constrictions relating to the cabinet that he or she has chosen to form and the bureaucracy, the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office. However, that does not preclude any government from making choices as it sees fit to give direction. However, nonetheless, it is constrained by the terms and conditions of the agreements and the international treaties under which previous governments have entered.

Under those constraints, as I have already read, bulk water is not a commodity. It is not a merchandise.

I find it so unfortunate that the sincere and well-meaning people in my constituency, who I have listened to and talked to, are convinced that just because people make speeches, like some of the NDP speeches today in this House of Commons, no matter how badly informed those members are or how devoid of anything approaching fact they are, somehow we must listen.

In the speech by the member who spoke just before the last NDP member, her major concern was the fact that an American think tank said something, whatever it was that was said, and therefore it must be fact. That absolutely underscores my proposition that the conspiracy theory that the NDP are propagating here today is founded on absolutely nothing except fabrications around black helicopters.

If we were to follow, and heaven forbid that we would, what the NDP members are talking about, do they actually believe that when the NAFTA is opened for this issue the other parties that are covered under NAFTA would not open it up for one, two, five, fifty, one hundred or five thousand other amendments that they would want? Of course they would.

The worst thing in the world that could happen with the NAFTA, particularly frivolously, as this motion is, would be to open it up for a frivolous, vexatious, useless, needless motion like this and then open up the entire floodgate of debate, discussion and renegotiation and put us back into morass.

Whether we like it or not, the fact is that up to 80% of Canada's exports and imports occur under NAFTA. Whether we like that or we do not like that, that is a fact. We are talking about over half a trillion dollars a year of imports and exports. These people, under this motion, would open up a half a trillion dollars a year of trade among our sovereign nations and all the jobs that means and all the issues that means to our joint societies over this frivolous, needless, useless fabrication of an idea.

There is no problem. I would suggest that they might want to take a look at Yogi Berra's axiom, which is, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary used disingenuousness, bordering on dishonesty. He read a phrase without giving the second part of the sentence. When he said, and it is very true, that water in its natural state is not a good under NAFTA, he left out the second part of the sentence, which is that once it is treated as a good it does fall under NAFTA.

That is the unbelievable attempt by the Conservatives to try to mix up a debate that they clearly do not understand.

This is something that Liberals took no action on, and now we see the Conservatives, in the most disingenuous way possible, trying to pretend that because it is in a natural state now they do not need to worry about the fact that once water exports starts we cannot stop them and foreign investors are actually entitled to compensation from Canadian taxpayers. They clearly do not understand the issue.

They throw around black helicopters, which seems to be an obsession on the Conservative side of the House. I do not understand it and I do not think anyone watching here today would understand it either so I will leave that point aside. However, I will go back to NAFTA.

Statistics Canada says very clearly that since the signing of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement in 1989, 80% of Canadian families are actually earning less in real terms. Yesterday, thousands of laid off workers who have lost their jobs came before Parliament Hill.

My question is very simple. What is it about the Conservatives that they do not understand simple issues like water exports, job losses and the fact that their economic policies have failed and most Canadian families are doing worse now than they were 18 years ago?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the proposition that Canadians are worse off now than they were previously. I absolutely reject that. That is absolutely stupid.

Maybe I can make clear my reference to black helicopters, which is to conspiracy theories that black helicopters are hovering around all over the place. Conspiracy theories seem to be what fuel the paranoia of that member and his fellow colleagues. There is no conspiracy.

The Government of Canada has made it crystal clear. There is no intention whatsoever to enter into bulk water exports. To go past that point and say if we did, we would end up with it being covered under NAFTA is a leap into an abyss that simply does not exist. There is no intention to enter into any kind of agreement.

As much as I have significant differences between our party, my position and the position of the Liberals, I do not believe for a split second that any national party, with the good of Canadians in mind and having the responsibility of being the government, would ever enter into an agreement like that.

They are talking about fixing something that does not exist all on a whim of this conspiracy idea, and what happens? We open up NAFTA and create all kinds of problems for over half a trillion dollars worth of trade annually. It is absolute lunacy.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, believing the conspiracy theory of the NDP is almost like believing the California Golden Seals are going to win the Stanley Cup next week.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage a question. The previous member from the NDP talked about job losses, water, et cetera. First, those members are really the cause of this because of what they did last time.

Given this is a provincial and federal responsibility and given the member's government has been in power for almost a year and a half and there has not been one meeting with the premiers, could he then consider passing on to the Prime Minister that at least one ministerial meeting be convened with the first ministers of the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada so they can discuss this issue and lay it to rest, once and for all, that there is no such conspiracy?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make every effort to accept the Liberal member's comments in a positive vein. The difficulty being that to gather first ministers together is not an incidental issue. We are talking about many tonnes of carbon in the air from planes that will be flying them and their advisers and I do not know how many tens of thousands of dollars to actually convene a meeting about something that is pure piffle by the NDP. I do not think the member really expects that.

However, I point out that the Prime Minister has an outstanding relationship with all the premiers of this great nation, no matter what their political stripe is. He and they recognize the importance of the fact that we as a government and they as respectively responsible for their provincial legislatures have the same responsibility to their people in their particular constituencies.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with my Conservative colleague. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois are in complete agreement on this question.

However, I would like to read my Conservative colleague a short memo. On October 7, 2005, in a debate about nationalizing water on the Télé-Québec program Il va y avoir du sport with Marie-France Bazzo, the Minister of Industry, the Conservative Minister, who was at that time the Vice President of the Montreal Economic Institute, stated that water is a commercial commodity that belongs to no one and that should be subject to the laws of the marketplace like any other product. That was the Minister of Industry who said that. And in his delirium, he went so far as to say that water was in nature and now is in a bottle, and he asked what the difference was.

When a minister of industry says things like that, there are probably grounds for concern. The government decided to have a dissenting opinion when this report was tabled. According to it, the dissent relates to “Bulk Water Removals, Water Exports and the NAFTA”, a document submitted to the committee. It simply chose to “dissent respectfully” from it. On the other hand, that report says—and that is where the member is not making the distinction—that the treaty does not apply to water in its natural state. And any lawyer or legal expert in the world could have a field day with those two words.

The United States is starting to get thirsty. When it gets really thirsty, not just for water for human use, but for water for residential development in the desert, to make huge recreational lakes, and to use for everything imaginable, I think there will truly be a danger. They say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We might rather say that if it is too strong, it won't break. We have to raise the stakes and exclude water.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, as the member would know, I am unfamiliar with the specific comments made by the current Minister of Industry or the context in which they were made.

I can advise him though that what I said previously still stands. We understand the difference between water and water. Water in a pipeline, or in a bulk export or in a diversion is a totally different legal issue than water in a bottle, which is transported back and forth across the border. They are completely separate. The commodity may be the same, but the form it is in makes all the difference in the world.

There is no point in repeating what I have already said. The Government of Canada has no intention of entering into any agreement. I cannot imagine that the Liberals, on their worst day, would even contemplate such a thing. This is a problem that simply does not exist.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss this question and speak in favour of this report.

We have heard a number of arguments in this House. Some reasons were good, others perhaps less so. It must be acknowledged, however, that now, in the agreement with the United States and Mexico, there is no provision for trade in water, but it is also not excluded. It does not say that if one day, whether in 10 or 20 or 50 years, we decide to permit bulk water exports, that will not become a product covered by NAFTA. I therefore consider it to be entirely reasonable for us to discuss the subject in this House.

I was surprised to hear a Bloc member—not the last member who spoke, but the member who spoke earlier—say that this is a matter under provincial jurisdiction, that we should not have this debate at the national level, and that it was a question of drinking water management.

On the contrary—I think that it is in the interests of all the provinces for these discussions to take place. Ontario may suddenly decide, in 20 or 40 or 50 years, to export water from the Great Lakes. That would have not insignificant repercussions on the St. Lawrence, and so on Quebec and the Atlantic, through the Gulf. This is a question that must be debated in Parliament and we must take it seriously.

A few years ago I was driving in the Annapolis Valley with my mother, who was not elderly but advancing a bit in age. It was a very hot day. I went into a grocery store and came out with two bottles of water for each of us.

I asked her what her grandparents and great-grandparents would have thought. They worked so hard in the Annapolis Valley to build the dykes, the sluices to take the water out of the land. I asked her what they would have said if they thought at one point we would be buying water. She said that they might understand that, because water is a necessity of life. She said that she would not want to explain to them about the aisle in the store, which was 100 feet long by 40 feet wide, and the fact that one side was for dogs and the other side was for cats.

The world changes. We could not have predicted 60 years ago that there would have been such a huge market for cat food and that we would sell bottled water in Canada. We also cannot predict what will happen in future provincial or federal governments, whether they will have the desire to export bulk water.

I think it is completely reasonable that we look at the question of the NAFTA and ask, “Should that happen?”. I agree with the member from the Conservative Party who said that nobody now in their right mind would think of that, that it would be a huge mistake.

However, should one province at one point do it for one reason or another, ship a truckload, or boatload, or a cargo load or put a pipe in to answer to an emergency situation in one community of our neighbour to the south, would we at that time be stuck with the position that because of our agreement, NAFTA, we would have to continue those exports, which we turned into a marketable commodity, a good?

I am not an expert in international trade and I do not pretend to be. The question is raised in the community and it creates apprehension. I hear of it often in my community. If we can clear that question, if we can give surety for the future, which is what the report seeks to do, then that would be a reasonable thing to do.

I have a situation now in my riding. We have Digby Neck, a very pristine area, low population, fishing communities, retirees, families who have been there for almost 400 years. It is a beautiful area of nature. Most of the people who live there choose to live there for its intrinsic value. If they wanted economic opportunities, except perhaps for the fishermen, they would be living in the city or other areas. They live there for those values.

Now we have a company that wants to export basalt rock out of that community. It wants to make a huge quarry and mine to export basalt into the U.S. Why would the Americans want to come to Nova Scotia, such a pristine coastal community, where all or most of their eastern seaboard has the exact same typography and geology? It is because they have decided, in their communities, that they would not risk those intrinsic values or diminish their quality of life. Therefore, for their aggregates for road construction, concrete and other things they are looking to Nova Scotia.

There is a huge fear because of the North American free trade agreement. If the province wants to close this first quarry or not permit its expansion and stop the exports to the United States, because of the articles of NAFTA it would be in the situation of lawsuits for economic loss for the American companies. It is a valid concern. In that case, the Liberals, when we were the previous government, struck the joint panel review process. It was the toughest level of environmental scrutiny available to Canadians.

That also brings in the provincial criteria. When we looked at the Canadian level, we know it was purely on the scientific basis, whether it would be hazardous to fish stocks, air or water quality, or done safely within it. Although those questions has not been answered, they would be the federal concerns. Provinces can look at the questions of socio-economic factors. They can look at whether 20 or 40 jobs are worth the loss in quality of life to the remaining residents and the loss to the tourism industry.

Dr. Fournier, a noted oceanographer, is chairing that panel. We hope to see his recommendations soon. Hopefully, it will make the people happy and that the province will play its role.

Those are the difficult questions that come in under NAFTA, but here we are looking at water, which makes it even more visceral and unnerving for people, because it is a huge factor.

We are the guardians of the greatest freshwater resources on the planet, a lot of them in pristine condition, and some of them we have damaged already. This debate is good in that it makes Canadians realize what we have.

We know that to the south of us there is a huge demand. We know that with global warming the demand within Canada is going to increase.

We know that the demands for irrigation in our prairie provinces is going to increase. Anybody who has flown over Alberta and has seen the areas that have been irrigated and the areas that have not, has seen the difference between starvation and life. The future is going to be more in that direction based on what we are hearing about global warming. It is important that we take care of our freshwater resources. It is important also that there be surety.

I would ask the member not to discount it completely based on the situation today. We have to think of how the situation could evolve in the future. This is a matter for reasoned debate. We have had very good debates in the House of Commons this year on questions of legislation brought forward by the government and some by private members dealing with apprehensions in the area of criminality. In some cases the fears were warranted and in some cases the fears were not necessarily warranted. We take action, we have debate and we have considerations. Sometimes a law passes and sometimes it is modified, but it is based on the apprehensions out there.

If we look at the question of minimum sentencing, if we look at the question of mandatory release, all the statistics show us that the crime rate is decreasing. The effect of our criminal justice system in Canada is much better per capita than that in the U.S., but there is a desire by the Conservatives to “toughen” criminality based on reducing criminality. Nothing tells us that that is true, but that perception is out there, that demand by the Canadian public that we have those discussions. We have the discussions, and that is right and correct.

Now we are looking at the question of water. I do not think we can do any less. The member was raising the question of basins, and that is correct. We have the International Joint Commission. We have had very good discussions in those areas, but as time goes by, there are areas outside of those basins that will become important also, because of the possibility of a pipeline, the possibility of trans-shipments. There are demands. People have wanted to buy some icebergs in the past, put them on ships and sell iceberg water, because there is a market value. It is among the highest quality untreated water that can be bought.

We cannot neglect these questions. We have to have a serious look at them. If we look around the world and see what water is, the proper management and the proper dialogue among neighbouring states is often the difference between war and peace, whether we can properly use the water and properly protect it.

I encourage the bottling and exporting of bottled water. We see Perrier water being sold in Canada. Why could we not be selling Montclair in the United States and other areas? I encourage that. They are value added. It creates a lot of jobs in Canada and creates water now. If we look at the average bottle of water in the grocery store, people are paying more for it than they are paying for milk or fuel. A litre of water most times costs more than a litre of gasoline.

It is a renewable resource and it should be managed that way. It should be managed properly. We should know that in the future our kids in this country will have the benefit of the resource that we have had and that we will continue to have.

That being said, I rise in support of this motion. I thank members of the committee for bringing this discussion forward to the House of Commons where it belongs, because it is a matter of national importance.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am going to have to take back my feeling that the Liberals would not possibly support this motion on the worst day. This must be one of their worst days. I suggested to some of my friends on the other side that when they moved from this side of the House to the other side of the House they must have had lobotomies if they are going to be supporting this motion.

I put it very directly to the member that as a former cabinet minister, surely he would be able to answer this question. If we were to propose to the United States and Mexico that we open the NAFTA this one time for this one issue, does he not realize that by asking to open the NAFTA, it would open all of the NAFTA? Does he realize that we would be putting $600 billion a year of trade between us and the United States at risk by doing so?

Surely as a former cabinet minister, I would anticipate his answer to be in the affirmative, that in fact by supporting this silly, frivolous motion and opening the NAFTA, we would be putting our trade at risk, because it would open up all parts of the NAFTA. Is that not correct?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that to be false. The recommendation is quite clear. It says:

That the Standing Committee recommend that the government quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

If that statement said that at all costs reach an agreement, the member would be correct, but it says “recommend that the government quickly begin talks...to exclude water”.

The member pointed out earlier that there was an exchange of official letters by the three partners in 1993, stating that covering bulk water was not the intent of NAFTA. My feeling is that what we are looking at here is clarification for the future.

Again I point out that I am not an expert in international trade. The suggestion is out there; there is that apprehension in Canada. I am sure it is there in the other countries that should ever any trade of that nature happen, that bulk water becomes a good or a commodity and therefore is captured by NAFTA, the three partners within NAFTA have already stated that it was not the intent. In my mind, all that the recommendation does is ask the three partners to clarify that, to make sure that we have surety for the future.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the previous questioner, I do not think anything in the report suggests that we have taken leave of our senses.

I do not know what the hon. member has against “Canada's water resources must be protected”. It seems like a self-evident statement. And “NAFTA covers all goods, except those that are expressly excluded” and water is not excluded. That seems like an interesting point. “Whereas this situation puts the provincial and federal laws concerning the protection of water including the prohibition of bulk water exports at risk” seems a reasonable conclusion from the previous statement. “Whereas a simple agreement by exchange of letters” may not cover the entire situation, “the standing committee recommend that the government quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA”.

I cannot quite fathom why the committee of all three opposition parties has therefore taken leave of its senses to propose what appears to be a straightforward and clarifying recommendation. Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, one must put this in context. This is not a private member's bill that puts legislation forward, puts articles forward or possible legislation, this is a recommendation to the Government of Canada that it put in writing in the agreement what it already has done through an exchange of letters, to “legitimize” it, I think might be the closest word that I can come up with immediately. It has been stated that that is the desire. The desire is that water not fall under NAFTA and the exchange of letters said that.

The open-ended question remains, if there is some trading at one point or another for whatever reason, does bulk water then get captured by NAFTA under the heading of a good and it becomes a marketable and a commercial good? At that point it would be because the exchange of letters refers to water in its natural state. I believe that was an error at that time. I would not think that the Government of Canada would not have wanted to go further and make sure that it covered bulk water. All this motion is doing is inviting the Government of Canada to enter into those discussions, not to reopen NAFTA, although I would dearly love it if we did have some discussion around NAFTA.

We saw in the free trade agreement where it cost us a billion dollars to capitulate and now we see the trouble that we are having in the industry. There is a risk of being challenged again by the American side. NAFTA is not perfect. There is no reason that we should shy away from having some discussions with our partners in a trade agreement at any time.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, standing here among the supposed conspiracy theorists of this party, I look upon what the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia is talking about. He is saying that the sky is falling, that we cannot discuss anything about our trade agreement because it will throw it all open and catastrophe will strike us, that we will be slowed down in our trade deals, leaving the Canadian people homeless and hapless. That kind of rhetoric does not work in this Parliament. It does not work to call us conspiracy theorists either.

I had the opportunity to speak to an environment assessment panel on liquefied natural gas in Quebec. We raised the point about proportionality and the fact that it was not understood how this works in Canada. The chairman agreed with me. He said that we would have to make a ruling on this because it has not been done. That was the third environmental assessment on liquefied natural gas in Canada. We are taking a product into Canada and we still do not know how it affects our trade deals.

Why should we not be dealing with the issues in Canada that affect us, whether they are attached to trade deals or not?

When it comes to water, Canadians want answers about how these trade deals affect our water supply and the future of our lakes and rivers. Let us get on with it.

Does my hon. colleague agree that this is what the recommendation is about and it is not about causing a catastrophe in the Canadian trade system?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree that this is a question of clarity. It is a question of clarifying what has been the stated intention.

Looking at the oil and gas industry, we have the Sable oil and gas field off Nova Scotia. We developed it fully knowing that the bulk of the exports would go to the U.S.

We are on the North American energy grid. What happens in energy in one country has an impact on the other country, similar pricing, similar distribution and those problems. We did it with open eyes. We knew it was within NAFTA. Whether the decision was right or wrong, that is the decision that was made. We want to be 100% sure that we do not do the same thing with water.

If at some point there is a shortage of natural gas and there is a little bit left on Sable Island, we will get the same proportion we are getting now of what is being exported, and the rest we will have to share with the Americans or our partners within NAFTA.

I would never like to see that situation happen with water, because water is a mainstay necessity of life. We are the guardians of the largest freshwater resource in the world. It is important for this planet that we manage that resource properly and that we do not get it caught up unintentionally in some international trade deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to the motion by my colleague from Sherbrooke. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I wish to thank the member for Sherbrooke and congratulate him for having proposed this motion to the Standing Committee on International Trade. I can tell you in plain words that he did not have it easy, because the Conservative members on the committee played the strategy game in order to delay the adoption of the motion.

This brings back some strange, though not so distant, memories: I found myself in the same situation in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, when the Conservatives joined forces with the chair to delay the adoption of the report following up on the Alberta tar sands study. We can see that these techniques are still going on, and are spreading, in order to avoid debates in the House.

Do you want to tell me what advantages it gives the Conservatives to avoid debates in the House of Commons on subjects as important as the tar sands, and today the export of water? They have to tell me what is in it for them to avoid debates on this question?

Since this morning, I have listened to all the speeches by members of all the parties. Each time I am surprised by the arrogance and contempt of certain Conservative members, who practically call their colleagues “paranoid”—that is a loose translation.

When I learned on April 27 that lobbyists, business people, intellectuals from Mexico, Canada and the United States were holding a sixth meeting to discuss the continental nature of natural resources, it was quite natural for citizens of Quebec and Canada to become suddenly concerned and to alert their MPs. Indeed our role as members is to inform and report on the questions and concerns of our citizens in the House of Commons.

Earlier I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage trivialize the April 27 meeting. This meeting was held behind closed doors, secretly, away from the general public and the media, so that the public could not take part in this important debate. He trivialized this meeting, and I think it was a mistake to do so. All meetings by major lobby groups on topics as important and crucial as this one for our society must be brought to light. I was disturbed by the oil company lobby, when we did the tar sands study. I saw how much power they have to influence the government and Canada’s various elected representatives. I cannot help but see similarities, and I understand people’s concern.

This is not only of concern to parliamentarians. I have received letters from people from my riding and the ridings of many members from the Bloc Québécois. The Canadian Council, the S.O.S. Water Coalition and one of the most important central labour body in Quebec have also expressed concern. Speaking of the Canadian Council, this is not a bunch of volunteers who do not know what they are talking about. We are talking about a political economist from the University of Alberta, who is also the director of the Parkland Institute. We are talking about Steven Shrybman, who is practising international commercial law in Ottawa, and Ms. Louise Vandelac, a renowned researcher in Quebec. We are talking about people, scientists, researchers and citizens who are concerned because NAFTA does not currently exclude the possibility of water ever becoming an exportable, marketable commodity.

Where there is doubt, it is only natural to want to dissipate it. All that is asked of the government is that it open negotiations to exclude water from NAFTA. Of course, we have heard about the agreements entered into by Mexico, Canada and the United States in 1993, which have enshrined the principle that water ought not be exported in bulk.

However, 1993 was 14 years ago and, at that time, we did not know as much about climate change as we do today. We can expect—it has actually been documented—water shortages, particularly in the United States, to hit hard in coming years.

We, the public and the various organizations advocating on this issue, fear that the shortage of water they might experience could drive our neighbours to the South to challenge the agreements which currently protect against bulk water export. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to prevent a potential challenge on this issue in the future and it is also our duty to protect our resource.

Frankly, I cannot understand why the Conservative government stubbornly refuses to listen to different points of view. It is so closed-minded and standing so firm, while many scientific witnesses now have doubts.

I should point out that NAFTA is a free trade agreement which includes all goods and services without specifically excluding water. Article 309 of NAFTA reads, and I quote:

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

Clearly, Quebec and provincial legislation, which currently prohibits the export of water in bulk, constitutes a prohibition or restriction on the export or sale for export, prohibited by NAFTA.

As long as water is not excluded from NAFTA, our legislation prohibiting the export of water could be challenged or even quashed. Thus, some risk and doubt remains. We believe that, above all, it must not be underestimated. We must therefore assume our responsibilities and begin talks with Mexico and the United States to have it excluded.

In the debates here in the House, we hear some dubious statements. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage told us earlier that reopening NAFTA would be the worst thing in the world. It is not a question of entering into negotiations to open NAFTA and renegotiating the entire agreement from beginning to end, but rather, of allowing for the addition or even a clarification on the matter before us here today, namely, excluding water.

If everyone finds this so obvious, why are we hesitating to remove it? In response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I would like to inform him that, on March 24, 2006, the Government of Canada found a way to amend NAFTA through a simple exchange of letters, to clarify the definition of certain products covered by the agreement.

How is it possible that we can clarify a definition in NAFTA with a simple letter, but that we cannot clarify this issue and exclude water from the agreement?

I strongly urge the Conservative members to reconsider their position and, as called for by Quebeckers and Canadians, quickly begin talks with our Mexican and American counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech and for having addressed the important reasons our colleague from Sherbrooke put forward this motion.

Could my colleague tell me, if the current government is against clarifying this in NAFTA, is it because it has perhaps already concluded agreements, particularly trade agreements, with the Americans? I would like to hear more about trade, because it seems as though they have now decided to purchase all the oil produced by the oil sands, while Canadians get theirs elsewhere.

Could my colleague tell me whether there could very well be informal agreements for them to purchase our oil in exchange for our water?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Brome—Missisquoi for his question.

We spent three months taking a very careful look at the oil sands and what we saw leaves us to conclude that it is entirely possible that there are informal negotiations going on.

We often hear about the water shortage in the United States. But it is not about providing Americans with drinking water. The Americans have a growing need for water for industrial and agricultural production. Domestic consumption is barely 8%. We think that the Americans will need water to be able to meet the requirements of their industrial, energy and agricultural sectors. That is a problem.

If we do not exclude water from NAFTA, will we let the Americans challenge NAFTA and come take our water, so that they will able to further their economic development and provide water to their industries and agricultural businesses?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for participating in this very important debate.

I would like to ask her a question in light of the comments made a little earlier by the Conservative member. Terence Corcoran of the National Post enthusiastically predicted that in 10 years we will have a cartel based on the OPEC model and that Canada will export considerable amounts of water to the United States.

What does she think of the Conservatives' statements that the problem does not exist and that we will not be exporting our water? They are turning a blind eye to the U.S. desire to one day draw from our reserves. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, for his question.

It is important to realize that there have already been attempts by different businesses to export and market water. In each case it was not a profitable operation. Water is the future and is Quebec's and Canada's blue gold. When the shortage eventually makes itself felt, when we really need water, when our neighbours to the south also really need it, will it not be too late to protect ourselves and to stop it from being taken away? The deepest pockets will prevail. If the Americans want our water, they will find a way—as they did with softwood lumber—to challenge the agreements of Quebec and the other provinces and to obtain bulk water to export for their use.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the ninth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

This report, tabled by my colleague the member for Sherbrooke, a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, recommends that the federal government:

quickly begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA.

The reason the Bloc Québécois has proposed this motion is that we are determined to ensure that Quebec’s fresh water reserves and those of Canada never become the subject of bargaining and will not be sold to the United States, where the need for water is becoming more and more urgent. We are under pressure now from some American states that want water.

Before explaining our motion in more detail, I want to emphasize that in committee the Bloc Québécois received the support of the NDP and the Liberal Party, at least, we hope it is still there. However, we did not receive the support of the Conservative Party, which used all kinds of manoeuvres to try to sidetrack or derail the debate. The Conservatives even tried to delay adoption of the motion by all sorts of procedural strategies that bring shame on democracy. They have done the same with other motions in many other committees, as my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry pointed out, including the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

I must confess that it is rather disturbing to see the Conservatives using these partisan procedures with respect to a subject as important as water management. The reason we have proposed this motion is that we want to ensure that this vital natural resource is protected. For a number of years, more and more serious thinkers and economic decision makers from Quebec, Canada, the United States and Mexico have been meeting to discuss water exports. This is known as the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which is made up of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Other countries are beginning to covet our water. Several bulk water export projects have been developed in recent years, and other projects are now on the drawing board. All of these projects have been abandoned or will not be realized because they simply are not profitable. It is easy to believe today that the value of water will increase considerably when shortages become more serious and the pressure increases. The companies that are interested in exporting water will come forward with proposals for new projects. Economic issues will not even be a concern at that point.

The Conservatives say there is no question of exporting water. However, water scarcities among our neighbours to the south are appearing now as an increasingly important subject of negotiations. The importance of this motion becomes fully apparent in connection with NAFTA. We should remember that NAFTA is a free trade agreement applying to all goods and services unless they are explicitly excluded. For example, NAFTA does not apply to hydroelectricity generation or to products subject to supply management. They are explicitly excluded from the agreement. However, nothing in writing states that water is excluded. This means, therefore, that it is included under NAFTA. If it is not explicitly excluded, it is included.

It is important to know that this situation, which falls under federal responsibility, poses a danger to the provincial legislation currently prohibiting the exportation of water. Quebec prohibits exports of this kind. Water is under provincial jurisdiction in Canada. Quebec and eight other provinces have legislation prohibiting the exportation of bulk water. We want to preserve this valuable natural resource.

If water becomes a key issue in the United States and they are prepared to make a national security issue of it, it is easy to imagine the laws of Quebec and the provinces being challenged under NAFTA.

The Americans are going to want to bargain over water, and in return, they will lean on another free trade or export issue. They will bring pressure to bear on our economy and companies. We saw what happened in the softwood lumber issue. When the Americans put on the pressure to get something, they often get what they want.

Section 309 of the agreement states:

No Party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the importation of any good of another Party—

The laws of Quebec and the provinces protecting water and preventing bulk water exports would apparently constitute a prohibition or restriction on the exportation or sale for export, as prohibited by NAFTA.

So long as water is not excluded from NAFTA, our legislation forbidding water exports can be challenged and possibly struck down.

Even though water is within Quebec's jurisdiction, international trade is always under federal jurisdiction. Free trade agreements are currently under federal jurisdiction.

We want the government to assume its responsibilities and immediately launch discussions with its NAFTA partners aimed at specifying in an accord that water is not included in NAFTA. This accord could take the form of a simple understanding—an exchange of letters among the three governments—stating that water is not included in NAFTA. This understanding would have to be viewed by international courts as an integral part of NAFTA.

The Conservative Party even tried to sabotage the work of the committee and prevent a witness from sharing his views on this issue. I suppose the Conservative chair of the committee did a good job of reading his manual on how to sow chaos and avoid dealing with subjects that do not suit the government. That is what he did to our committee when we introduced this motion on water.

It was in 1999 that the Bloc Québécois first asked the federal government to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA. The response from the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has always been the same: it is pointless to exclude water from NAFTA because water, in its natural state, is not governed by NAFTA. Of course water in its natural state is not governed by NAFTA. In fact, no product in its natural state is governed by NAFTA or any other trade agreement. Since the Liberals already used this ridiculous argument, the Conservatives should have at least found another kind of sophistry to explain their opposition.

The Conservatives clearly do not have enough imagination to hide their inconsistency. Many seem to have grasped the fact that the Americans are not interested in water in its natural state. What they want is to take it south of the border. That water would no longer be in its natural state and would therefore be subject to NAFTA, as a commodity. That is precisely our fear.

To use the government's own examples, who would dare say that lumber, iron or fish are excluded from the scope of trade agreements? That is precisely what the government is saying with its ridiculous argument.

Water is a natural resource that must be closely and carefully protected. That cannot be negotiable.

We are calling on the Conservative government to stop repeating its arguments intended to mislead Canadians and take action to reach an agreement that clearly excludes water from NAFTA.