Joe Comartin

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, April 30th, 2001]

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

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, April 30th, 2001]

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

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

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

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that information needs to be shared with other members of the House. When I watched some of the early debate on this bill, I was taken a bit by surprise in that the debate by the government was led off by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, followed by the Minister of the Environment. I was taken aback because in my review of the proposed bill the debate should have been led off by the Minister for International Trade, because the bill is not about the preservation of our water system in Canada and the protection of the export of our freshwater resources but just the opposite.

It is supposed to be about protecting the ecosystem that our freshwater feeds into. It should be about protecting our freshwater from the travails we will have with it as climate warming moves ahead. It certainly should be about having available to all Canadians a safe freshwater system. That is not what it is about.

I would like to go back in history for a minute or two and draw to the attention of the House the resolution that was passed on February 9, 1999. That was a resolution introduced to the House by the NDP member for Winnipeg—Transcona. It was a motion that received support from all members of the House, including members of the Liberal government, and ultimately it passed unanimously. I will read the motion to the House. It read as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater shipments and interbasin transfers and should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers and should not be a party to any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater against our will in order to assert Canada's sovereign right to protect, preserve and conserve our freshwater resources for future generations.

That resolution passed unanimously. I would like to make an additional note about that motion because an important part of it was an amendment which included the phrase I have already read:

—and should not be a party to any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater against our will—

That motion recognized, first of all, the need to pass legislation that would ensure bulk water could not be exported from any source in Canada. Second, it specifically and explicitly recognized that water needed to be exempted from any future trade deals because there is of course a serious issue under the existing trade deals as to whether we have that protection.

It is interesting to note that no one spoke against the motion. No one voted against it, as I already indicated. It passed unanimously. No one stood up and said he or she believed we were wrong and that we should export water. No one said that. No one said our freshwater supply should be included in the next trade deal. None of that was said at that time. Everyone was unanimously of the opinion that we needed to take action on the issue. I think it was obvious to every member of the House at that time that action would be forthcoming from the government and that our freshwater would be protected.

Here we are a little over two years later. What is the situation we are confronted with today? We are debating a bill that any objective observer would say does not realistically address the issue of exporting bulk water. It just does not do it. In fact, it opens the door to the export of water by providing for the licensing in certain circumstances, the licensing that would eventually lead to the export of bulk water.

We are also faced two years down the road, under the FTAA, with another trade deal. Of course we still have not seen the text of the deal. We do not really know what it contains and the government has been less than clear as to what its position is on the trade deal. We do know that the government has refused to make an absolute or unequivocal commitment that the FTAA will prohibit the export of bulk water. It has been adamant about refusing to make that commitment.

I found it interesting last week when the Minister of Foreign Affairs was speaking on the bill. I would like to quote him. He said:

All Canadians recognize that water is a natural resource unlike any other.

We have heard that from other members of the government. It makes sense and we all agree with that. I think all Canadians agree with that. The problem I have when I look at the bill is that the government is in fact not committed to that principle. It in fact does not recognize that water is a natural resource unto itself, unlike any other.

In his remarks, the Minister of Foreign Affairs went on to say this:

Canadians look to all levels of government to take action now to protect Canada's water. We must ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a Canada in which our freshwater resources are secure.

Again I ask: does he really understand what he is saying? Why will the government not give us that commitment, which was certainly contained in the motion passed over two years ago that was brought forward by my colleague from the NDP? It did not at that time place an immediate moratorium on the export of bulk freshwater and the legislation that has now been introduced in the form of Bill C-6 does not in fact prohibit bulk freshwater exports.

Let me draw the House's attention to proposed section 11 of the bill on licensing. To be fair, there is a separate provision which talks about prohibiting the export of water, never using the term of course. The government knows that if it uses that term it may invoke the trade deals. Again that is something it will not admit in public.

The first part of proposed section 11 states “except in accordance with a licence”. A licence in fact would permit this. The proposed section continues, and this is the important part “no person shall use obstruct or divert boundary waters”.

In reverse that says, and I guess I am wearing my lawyer's hat for a minute, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is responsible for this, and that it is interesting too that it is not the Minister of the Environment, could issue a licence that would allow “for the use, either temporarily or permanently” of boundary waters. It is permitted.

The history up to this point of this legislation and the treaty it flows into with the United States, is that nobody has done this. Canada and the United States have not done it. What we hear is the implicit understanding that we will not do it.

Given the more recent history in the last decade with the free trade agreement, NAFTA and now the proposed FTAA, it is obvious that we are very concerned that the water would be treated as a commodity and would be exposed under chapter 11 of the NAFTA.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that if we pass the bill, it becomes law and is incorporated into the treaty then all problems would be solved. Anybody reading the proposed section 11 would say that that is not what the bill does. It does just the opposite. It allows some subsequent minister of foreign affairs to licence the export of bulk water.

The other point about the bill is that it is primarily designed to deal with the water in the Great Lakes Basin and the St. Lawrence. It deals with boundary waters across the whole of the country. What it clearly does not do though is prohibit the export of water. It does not deal with the proposal we heard floated from the province of Newfoundland and the export of bulk freshwater from Gisborne Lake. That proposal has not been dealt with at all.

We fall back as we so often do and say that that is the provincial responsibility. That is not good enough for Canadians. If we have what is called a Monroe government, which is prepared to expose the rest of Canada to chapter 11 under NAFTA by going along with the bulk export water scheme, we as a Canadian government have to tell it that it cannot do that, that water is a natural resource which is also a national resource. We have a responsibility to protect all Canadians.

If Gisborne Lake or some other type of hare-brained scheme like that was to go ahead, there would be no protection for the export of bulk water any place in Canada, none whatsoever.

We have a number of legal opinions in the country that accept the proposition I just made as the reality under the NAFTA. If Gisborne Lake or some other scheme like that goes ahead, water becomes a commodity in the whole of the country. We then lose our ability to protect that freshwater resource.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs in his address to the House last week made this comment:

To pretend that one government can solve the issue with a wave of a legislative wand, or that the issue may be simply reduced to one aspect, such as `water export', in the words of some critics, is unrealistic, ineffective and undermines the goal we have.

That is the government's attitude. Obviously what it is trying to do is pass the buck and say that it is not its fault, that it is what the provinces did or did not do and that it did nothing about it.

Reality is that two years ago the government should have implemented a moratorium on the export of bulk water. It should have introduced meaningful legislation to the House that would have prohibited absolutely and unequivocally the bulk export of freshwater right across the country. It would have made a clear and unequivocal commitment that the FTAA would not include any provision that would expose our water to a claim under that treaty, if we ever did do it.

The government could have taken a leadership role but it did not. It needed to follow both the wording and the spirit of the motion that was passed two years ago in the House. What did we hear from the Minister of Foreign Affairs? He said that kind of export ban would undermine the goals we had. One has to question what the government goals are with regard to freshwater and the bulk export of it?

It was interesting to note in the minister's closing comments last week on Bill C-6 when he said that the bill was “consistent with Canada's international trade obligations”. That is so meaningful. Like just about everything else the government does, it is driven by those obligations, not driven by what is in the best interests of the country or its citizens but by these trade deals that the government has entered into.

Would it not have made more sense to have had the Minister for International Trade front this bill because that is really what it is about?

The Minister of the Environment when he spoke to the bill made this comment “the safest and most effective way of protecting Canada's water resources is through an environmental approach, through an approach based on trade”. I agree with that statement. That is the way the government should be conducting its business but it is not in fact the reality.

We still do not have the commitment that the FTAA will not compel us to bulk export. If water is not on the table under the FTAA, then we should be given a commitment. The government is not prepared to give a commitment.

The Minister of the Environment went on to quote from the international joint commission's final report on the issue of water in the Great Lakes Basin, specifically and more generally in transboundary water, which said “that international trade law does not prevent Canada and the United States from taking measures to protect their water resources”.

The Minister of the Environment is conceding that we in fact cannot pass legislation that protects our water resources. Again the question is obvious. Why do we not do that? Simple legislation is required to ban the export of bulk fresh water.

I would like to finish off by talking about the legal position we are in vis-à-vis the trade deals. I will quote from a legal opinion that was commissioned by the Council of Canadians in 1999 referring to the trade conflicts involving export controls on water.

The opinion stated:

—the potential for such conflicts should not delay action by the federal government to ban water exports. Indeed for the reasons noted, delay in doing so is likely to further limit Canada's options.

That was two years ago and we still do not have it.

I was going to quote again from the concern expressed in that legal opinion about the things that have happened under NAFTA and some of the WTO cases, but I see I am almost out of time.

We had promises from the government in the cultural area and in research and development programs that were not covered under NAFTA. In fact we found to our chagrin just the opposite. That is the position we are in today.

The bill is not going to resolve that problem. It does not go far enough. It does not deal with it adequately. It allows for licensing and does not deal with the export of water elsewhere in Canada.

Our position on this legislation will be to oppose it and to continue to press the government for more realistic and adequate legislation that will protect the interests of Canada.

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the comments from some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, I intend to speak to this issue as long as I am entitled to.

[Steel Industry, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. As a result of the government's failure to take action to protect Canada's steel industry from the impact of illegal dumping, thousands of jobs at Algoma Steel in Ontario and other Canadian steel producers are at risk. Last year's steel imports increased by 60% and formed 45% of the Canadian market. These imports are threatening the future viability of the whole industry.

In February the government promised to take some action. Will the government today take immediate action in the interest of the Canadian steel industry and the working families that depend on it and implement retroactive penalties to stop the dumping?

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am happy we are having this debate tonight. These are the most provocative responses that we have had this evening so I will take some credit for that.

I am not prepared to agree with the comments we heard from the Alliance with regard to corporate decision making. If they were real, would we ever have developed nuclear industry at all? Do we always go to the bottom line and explore the cheapest option? Once we have made the kind of commitments the oil industry has made, we are locked in to a certain degree. I recognize that the oil industry is beginning to do research and some development in wind power and solar power. I recognize that but it has not gone far enough.

I wish to go back to the initial point I made earlier this evening and that is what we see in terms of what the Prime Minister has been saying over the last four days. Have we just given up on everything else? All our eggs have been thrown in the basket of developing the U.S. market and we appear to be ignoring these other areas.

Another point I would make with regard to the comments of my friend in the Alliance is that development of the tar sands completely ignores the environmental consequences of developing that source of fuel.

I have one last comment regarding Germany. It has recognized the mess that it has made of things by depending so heavily on nuclear energy and is beginning to try to move away from it. I do not wear blinkers. I fully understand that the bottom line still is that Germany is doing much more in wind power than Canada is.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, that is just too simplistic, it really is. I was actually going to save this line for the Minister of Natural Resources.

I am really tired of hearing about the $1 billion that we are spending on it. The reality is we have hardly done a thing. If we look at the work that Germany and Denmark have done on wind power, we have done nothing by comparison. Germany has created 35,000 jobs in wind power alone. Denmark is doing almost 10% of its energy in wind power alone. They are comparable countries to us in terms of their technological development. We should be doing that. I guess it is almost an insult. To suggest that we will be able to do this rapidly, I am not stupid. I understand that we cannot do it rapidly, but we are not doing it fast enough. I can look at other countries around the world and say that these countries are doing it. Why are we not?

Why do we not say that we will develop the wind power that can be used in the northern climes and at some point we would be able to export that technology to Russia and northern Europe? Why can we not do that? Why can we not be spending money on that? It is just too short-sighted.

We say that the market is always going to be there for that energy source. It is not always going to be there. If we keep track of the consumption of fuel in cars, in less than a decade we can cut consumption of fuel in cars by 50%. What is going to happen to the market at that point?

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

And from the right as well. I intend to address most of my comments to the issue of fossil fuels. I would like to discuss a number of issues related to natural resources but there is not enough time.

I posit to the members here and to yourself, Mr. Chairman, that the whole issue of fossil fuels requires very close attention. I think I speak on behalf of all our caucus in expressing grave concern with regard to comments the Prime Minister has made to the media in the last few days and again today in the House.

We are concerned about what appears to be a willingness on the part of the government, with very little forethought or planning, to deliver our fossil fuels wholesale to the U.S. market. That gives us great concern because it does not seem to take into account the environmental issues that are related to that type of development. It does not take into account the issue of the air pollution problems which will come from that. Quite frankly we think it does not address the issue of the cost of developing some of those resources in the long term.

As the parliamentary secretary has already said this evening, we have the tar sands. We can bring gas in from the territories. Those are very expensive processes. If we did not have some of the tax breaks that have been accorded to the tar sands, those tar sands would not be economically viable at this point. I know I will get some disagreement on this but they are certainly much more expensive than the alternative of renewable resources, like windmills in particular. Even solar energy is getting very close to being as expensive as the development of those tar sands.

The other problem with the development of the tar sands is the type of air pollutant that will result from that. I know I have thrown this figure out once before in the House, but I will do it again. The Suzuki Foundation made very clear in the research that it has done that just one tar sand plant would be equal to putting 1.3 million automobiles on our roads, and all the pollutants and toxins of course that result from that type of expansion in the use of vehicles.

The reality is we cannot keep going this way. We are faced as a society with international agreements. In spite of the fact that the Bush administration has now taken the position that it will reject Kyoto, it will probably only be there for four years. Then what will we do if we have developed the tar sands at that point? We will be faced with a new administration, probably a wiser administration as far as the environment is concerned, saying to us that it is sorry but it will be going the route of conservation of technological changes which will reduce the need for that much fossil fuels. Then we will have just blown all that money.

We will be faced with that same administration, which will be more environmentally concerned, saying to us that yes, we have to meet Kyoto and that its state governments will not take our pollutants any more. I speak very personally about this given the jurisdiction from which I come.

My riding, where we get a lot of the pollutants from the Americans who are in the process of starting to clean that up, has the attorneys general of both New York State and Connecticut saying to Ontario that it has to clean up. We have all those coal fired plants. They are not going to want to take Ontario's pollutants any more. We will be faced with an administration which will be saying those things to the government and country in four years. The Bush administration may not but the next one will. If it is not in four years, then it will be in eight years. We have to plan for that.

In coming back to the cost issue, just yesterday Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie went down. One of the reasons was the high cost of fuel to run that plant. It was a highly efficient plant according to the statistics. It was the 12th most efficient steel plant in all of North America. One of the reasons it went down was because of the fuel cost.

We just cannot keep going down that road. We have seen the Prime Minister taking positions in the last four days which are dramatic shifts, as I see and our party see it, away from where we thought we were going, which was moving more toward conservation. We just cannot keep following them.

Let me make a couple of other points, some of which came out of the information at the summit of the people in Quebec City over the weekend.

David Suzuki was there and pointed out that from his foundation's research because of the trade deals we have a huge demand that is going to increase for bunker fuel. Over the next 10 to 12 years that is going to increase by 300%. That is just about the worst fuel we could be burning. That will be dumped into the atmosphere and the rest of the world will not accept it any more. We are hearing it very clearly at this point from the European Union.

The end result of this is going to be that some time in the next four to eight years, whether it be this political party running the government or another one, we will be faced with all sorts of communities that, having some development work done in natural resources around fossil fuels, will be looking at losing their markets.

If we look at rural development, what is going to happen? Will we be faced with a situation such as Elliot Lake where after the nuclear industry began to cut back we lost that mine? That was a success story. How many more of those can we do? Very few. We will to be faced with having to deal with those communities. If we do not do this planning and prepare for some of the alternative fuels, wholesale communities will be faced with extinction. There will become ghost towns.

From the New Democratic Party's position we are suggesting that we have to prepare for that. We have to look very closely at what we are doing. Our question is what will be done in terms of the development of those types of tar sands or bringing fuel in from the territories, if in fact the market is not there?

Bush stood up and made great statements. He said that if we had the fuel he would take it. I do not think he has the support of his congress in that and he is not going to have it in four years. I would like to know from the government side what it will do at that point if those errors have been made in developing them.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I intend to share my time with my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, hopefully with minimal interruptions from my friend to the right.

[Natural Resources, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after making a commitment on the weekend to give the Americans unconditional access to as much oil and gas as they want, the Prime Minister is now saying that Canada will meet its needs first before meeting U.S. energy demands.

Is the Prime Minister unaware that the trade agreements he has already negotiated would prohibit us from ensuring that Canadian energy needs are met first? Why do we get this doublespeak from the Prime Minister?