Bill Gilmour

[Petitions, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, containing 380 signatures, the petitioners request that Parliament revoke the directive of the Minister of Transport to proceed with a program of unmanning all west coast light stations and that Parliament hold a complete and thorough public inquiry in British Columbia into the need for manned light stations on the west coast.

[Petitions, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the following three petitions from constituents in my riding of Comox-Alberni.

In the first, containing 477 signatures, the petitioners request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

In the second petition, containing 37 signatures, the petitioners request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718(2) as presently written and in any event not to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the bill.

[Bill C-41, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, this last petition comes from across Canada and contains 550 signatures.

The petitioners request that in memory of Dawn Shaw, a six-year-old girl who was murdered in my riding of Comox-Alberni, that this petition be brought to the attention of Parliament.

The petitioners request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of offenders.

[Bill C-41, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following three petitions from my constituents of Comox-Alberni.

The first petition contains 780 signatures and calls on Parliament not to enact any further firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in council.

The second petition comes from constituents all across British Columbia and contains 454 signatures. It requests that Parliament refuse to accept the justice minister's anti-firearms proposals and insist that he bring forward legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute the innocent.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, March 17th, 1995]

What was the total dollar amount (direct and indirect) and source of government funding per annum from 1990 to the present to the following interest groups: Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Sierra Club of Western Canada, Greenpeace, the CANI-Clayoquot Project, the Environmental Youth Alliance, and the Clayoquot Biosphere Project?

(Return tabled.)

[Sydney Tar Ponds, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is only part of the problem. A full environmental assessment needs to look at all the problems, including the coke ovens.

Yesterday the minister replied that the tar ponds project was operating within CCME guidelines. The minister's answer is inconsistent with the 1994 consultant's report which lists federal guidelines and compares them with the tar ponds operating permit, showing many discrepancies.

Will the minister explain the glaring inconsistencies between the tar ponds consultant's report and her answer yesterday?

[Sydney Tar Ponds, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the clean up of the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia is under a dark cloud.

The tar ponds, described as Canada's worst environmental disaster, were exempted by the previous government from an environmental assessment.

Because of this deadly blunder the list of compounds and their concentrations in the tar ponds is not fully known. In addition, the toxic coke oven site is not included in the clean ups and the ability of the incinerator to destroy PCBs is in question.

Given these severe limitations, will the environment minister order a full environmental assessment of the Sydney tar ponds project, including the coke oven site and the incineration process?

[The Environment, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the minister. Her own project manager says the project does not work. It is going to have to go out to private tender to make it work.

The Canadian Council of Environment Ministers agreed to a set of environmental guidelines for the burning of toxic waste. Both the Nova Scotia minister and the federal minister are signatories.

Can the minister explain why the Sydney incineration permit completely disregards these guidelines? The permit allows levels 10 times higher than those allowed in the guidelines.

[The Environment, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, located in Sydney, Nova Scotia is what has been described as the worst environmental disaster in Canada, the Sydney tar ponds.

Over the last nine years both the federal and provincial governments have been working on an incinerator to burn over 700,000 tonnes of toxic waste which includes PCBs and a deadly brew of various hydrocarbons. Nine years and $55 million later, the project still does not work.

Can the environment minister justify why the people of Sydney, Nova Scotia now have the highest cancer rate in North America and the government waste, mismanagement and inaction on the cleanup of this toxic cesspool?

[Fresh Water, February 8th, 1995]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support a policy that Canada's fresh water, ice and snow will be protected so that at all times and in all circumstances Canada's sovereignty over water is preserved and protected.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present and speak on this motion. The motion I am presenting to the House today deals with the need for the government to support a policy that protects and preserves Canada's sovereignty or control over its own water.

Let me begin by emphasizing why we should pursue a policy which protects and preserves Canada's sovereignty over water. On the surface it appears that we already have control over our water. However this is not the case.

The present terms of NAFTA-and I will go into them in more detail later-directly affect Canada's sovereignty over her water. We have sovereignty only until a sale has begun or a river has been diverted. At that point the supply of water under NAFTA cannot be stopped and we lose control of this very precious resource. At this point in time Canada's control over water is hanging on a thread and we need to take action to rectify the situation.

I will go into detail later to explain exactly how the terms of NAFTA affect our sovereignty over water and how this situation can be fixed. However, first I wish to emphasize to the House why we must protect our water because it appears that the significance of this resource has been underestimated by many Canadians and this perception is likely due to the fact that water is so abundant in Canada.

Canada has more water per capita than the vast majority of nations in the world but clearly its value should not be underestimated. Water is our most valuable resource and our sovereignty or control over this resource must be protected at all times.

In the view of many experts water will be the most important resource of the 21st century. Clearly Canadian control over this political, economic and environmental commodity is paramount. Many experts have suggested that what oil has been in the past century water will be for the next.

Canadians have such an abundance of water that it is often taken for granted. We often forget to look at the future and conserve our supplies or to look at the larger picture, which may only be as far as our neighbours to the south, to see where water has become the commodity of the future.

Its value has been underestimated and overlooked in international agreements and the consequences will be serious. Water is a precious resource. It could also be a valuable bargaining tool, a card that we should not be too quick to play.

Most of Canada's fresh water supply is concentrated in the Great Lakes, which accounts for 20 per cent of the world's fresh water supply and represents 95 per cent of North America's surface water. The Great Lakes are the most important natural resource shared by Canada and the United States. The Great Lakes provide a reliable source of fresh water for one-fifth of the U.S. and one-half of Canada, supplying 26 million people with drinking water.

The 1985 international joint commission concluded that consumptive use of water in the Great Lakes basin is likely to double by the year 2000. Current estimates suggest that the total global consumption is likely to rise tenfold during the 20th

century and that water scarcity will be of increasing concern, particularly for most arid and semi-arid countries to the south.

Of increasing importance to Canadians is that right next door Americans are facing significant water shortages as their resources are dwindling. The only natural source of water from Colorado to California is the Colorado River and its tributaries which provide water to seven states. It has been drastically reduced as a result of overuse and mismanagement.

The most important source of underground water in the U.S. is the Ogallala aquifer. Six states from Nebraska to Texas are completely reliant on this aquifer, yet it is currently being drained at a rate 50 times faster than it is naturally refilling. To paint an even bleaker picture, we must consider the fact that U.S. land west of the Rockies to the Pacific coast is arid and agriculture in these areas depends almost exclusively on irrigation. A significant portion of North America's fresh produce is grown in this region.

Clearly the American water crisis is serious and under increasing domestic pressure. With our abundance of water we are the closest and most logical source of water for our American neighbours. The Americans do and have looked to us for water.

There have been at least 13 proposals for large scale diversions of water to the U.S. from the Great Lakes. In B.C. there are 19 Canadian companies that hold surface water licences to bottle four million litres of water every day for the American market. More than 30 companies have planned to export fresh Canadian coastal water by supertanker.

One B.C. company was on the verge of negotiating a deal to ship 12.4 billion litres of water to Santa Barbara, California, in 1990 at an estimated price of $34 million U.S. However the deal was never finalized because of local contentious issues.

Last month Alberta announced its proposed water conservation and management act which would make Alberta the first province in Canada where water rights could be bought and sold. This has been viewed by many as opening the door for eventual exports of water to the U.S.

This motion is not about whether we should or should not export water to the United States. However it is about our ability to make decisions without losing sovereignty or control over our water, ice and snow.

There are many arguments for or against water exports on political, economic and environmental grounds. This motion is about Canada's ability to maintain the right to choose how or if we wish to market our water and Canada's right to maintain its sovereignty over water in any given circumstance.

We must retain our ability to choose what we want to do with our water, whether we want to sell it and, if so, we must retain the ability to choose whether we wish to continue such activities, particularly in times of shortage of our own domestic water supply.

Economically it may make sense to market water to the Americans or elsewhere some time down the road. However, before these exports take place there must be an agreement with the Americans that allows Canadians to proceed with water exports without the threat of loss of control over that resource.

As it now stands Canada is vulnerable in the event of any water exports or diversions. Despite our abundance of water it would not be to our advantage to begin or enter into any major water exports because our ability to control the use and planning of that resource is undermined by the North American Free Trade Agreement.

There has been a great deal of confusion regarding NAFTA and water, particularly during the last election when the agreement had not yet been signed. There are still many problems with NAFTA and water rights and these concerns must be addressed.

The main area of concern is that water is not one of the items specifically exempted under the terms of NAFTA. Article 309 prohibits controls by Canada covering the sale or export of any good destined for either the United States or Mexico. Water in Canadian rivers and lakes is not mentioned in the export prohibition that NAFTA directly sanctions, which means that water will be freely exportable. Under NAFTA we cannot place restrictions on our ability to sell water.

In addition, water is also subject to the same rules as tradable goods under NAFTA and includes the right of national treatment. This means Canada cannot give Canadians better access to Canadian water than it gives to the Americans or the Mexicans. The concern is that under NAFTA once water is diverted to the U.S. it cannot be stopped even in times of our own domestic shortage. Once we begin to sell our water to the Americans our control over that resource is lost.

Article 2101 of NAFTA requires that any trade restrictive measure taken relating to the conservation of any exhaustible natural resource, including water, be made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption. In other words, any trade restrictive measures on water must be applied on a national basis. If we are to cut back on our water supplies to the Americans, we must take the same cuts ourselves no matter what kind of domestic shortage we have at home.

Under the present deal we cannot give ourselves any better treatment regarding water than we do to our NAFTA partners.

Whatever we charge ourselves for water must be in line with the price we charge other NAFTA partners.

These restrictions place a heavy burden on Canada. Under the present agreement it would be extremely unwise for Canadians to enter into any large scale water exports with the Americans. Personally I find it incredible that Canada actually agreed to such restrictive terms in the first place.

Whether or not water was included in NAFTA negotiations is unclear. Previous and current governments have argued and continue to argue that we have not sold our rights to water in the NAFTA. The argument or justification for the deal is that Canada is not obliged to sell water to the U.S. under NAFTA. This is just political banter because once we begin to sell we cannot turn the tap off. Our sovereignty over water has clearly been sold out in the present NAFTA.

No matter how we look at it, the truth is that we no longer have the control to do as we choose with our water. It is a Pandora's box, for once it is opened sovereignty is lost. The deal has placed Canadians in a precarious position that must be addressed before control of this resource is clearly lost.

Government legislation such as Bill C-156 sought to ban large scale exports in 1988. However it died on the Order Paper before being implemented.

The Prime Minister's pledge to prevent any large scale water exports from taking place as long as he is Prime Minister made in early November 1993 is meaningless without corresponding backup legislation and a NAFTA subagreement. I challenge the Prime Minister to back up his resolve to control Canadian water with strong legislation ensuring sovereignty and control over this precious resource, followed up with NAFTA negotiations to ensure the same.

An additional point I wish to make is that these laws and any future restrictions are completely redundant because NAFTA states that no party may restrict the export of any good destined for the territory of another party. Any domestic water policies could also be shot down by a trade dispute panel as unacceptable interference in the free market.

Clearly the only possible solution, if Canada is to maintain sovereignty over water, is to negotiate a side agreement to NAFTA that specifically exempts water from the terms of the agreement.

Negotiations of the agreement regarding water were promised by the Liberal government before the agreement was signed. Are we about to see the Liberals fail to deliver on yet another promise? I surely hope not.

Immediately after the last election, early in November of 1993, the Prime Minister publicly stated: "It is time to talk about Canada's desire to renegotiate aspects of the deal". The Prime Minister promised that he would not sign any international or bilateral trade agreement that would oblige Canada to export water.

Shortly after the election the Prime Minister guaranteed to Canadians that "water remains under the control of the Canadian government". He guaranteed that this was a fact and promised to "make sure it is like that".

The Prime Minister went on to say that he had a message for President Bill Clinton: "Do not even dream that NAFTA gives the United States unlimited access to Canadian water. That is because water and the North American Free Trade Agreement do not mix". These are simply empty promises as the Prime Minister has so far failed to follow through.

Canadians are still waiting for the government to live up to its commitment. If water and NAFTA do not mix, why did the Prime Minister sign the deal? And why has he made no effort to negotiate these other aspects? The only justification the Prime Minister and his trade minister had for signing the deal was that nothing in NAFTA forces Canadians to sell a good that we do not wish to sell.

It is true that NAFTA does not force us to sell our water. However, NAFTA forces us to continue sales once we have begun, and places severe restrictions on our ability to regulate and control the marketing of our own resource. It is not enough to have the power to make the decision to sell water. Canadians must have the power to shut off the tap when it is felt necessary.

Once a decision is made to export water, future exports should not be mandatory. It is simply not good enough for this government to merely pledge to prevent the export of bulk water to the U.S. as was done immediately after the NAFTA agreement was signed in November 1993.

Canada caved in on an opportunity to provide special protection for water in the original free trade pact with the U.S. and should have taken the opportunity to make the necessary amendments before signing the deal. It is still not too late to act.

I would like to point out that earlier this month Mexico received a $20 billion aid package from the Americans to help stabilize the Mexican peso, on the condition that credit lines be guaranteed with Mexican oil export revenues. What does this have to do with water, you ask.

Canada is in a similar situation to Mexico with the current load Canada and Canadians are presently carrying. There are predictions that Canada may require a bailout from the Americans, and similar to American conditions on Mexican oil exports, loans will undoubtedly put conditions on Canadian resources, such as water.

In conclusion, we desperately require a clear written understanding that Canada has sole control over its water resources. Canada must protect its sovereignty over water and negotiate a side agreement to exclude water from NAFTA. This issue is far too important to ignore.