Foreign Affairs committee  Unfortunately, I think the short answer is no, for two reasons. One reason is that so much of our transboundary water relationship is governed by the International Boundary Waters Treaty, which is unique. It is unique to Canada and the United States. It reflects a long history of

Foreign Affairs committee  I know something about it.

Foreign Affairs committee  With respect to your first point about it essentially codifying what's in the International Boundary Waters Treaty and therefore not being advanced, that's true with respect to the amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty. It's largely housekeeping. I think it's use

Foreign Affairs committee  It's a good point. One can make the same argument with respect to canals. A canal is also an international river. Of course an international river is any movement of water across a boundary, the way it's defined in the International River Improvements Act. The International Bound

Foreign Affairs committee  I wouldn't call myself an expert.

Foreign Affairs committee  You put yourself at risk, certainly.

Foreign Affairs committee  Sure, absolutely. As you may remember, one of the issues surrounding NAFTA was whether or not there should be an explicit provision excepting bulk water removal. What was done with NAFTA was interesting. There was a fix, if you will. They didn't change NAFTA, but they—meaning the

Foreign Affairs committee  Maybe that's not as loaded as you might think. If you look at the model act and the legislation before us today, the amendment to the International River Improvements Act rests on national concern. It rests on the same constitutional basis that the model act does, so there's no d

Foreign Affairs committee  I'm from Alberta.

Foreign Affairs committee  I think you are talking there, sir, about the amendments for the boundary waters legislation.

Foreign Affairs committee  There wouldn't be any boundary waters on the coast that would be relevant.

Foreign Affairs committee  The only conceivable one would be the St. Croix River. I grew up at the mouth of the St. Croix, and there's no way you could get a tanker up to the point where the waters are non-saline. That's why they're not covered. The waters you're talking about are not boundary waters and

Foreign Affairs committee  It may well be covered by provincial legislation. Whether or not it's a federal matter depends on the federal government's own choice. It would certainly involve international trade, which is certainly within the federal purview. Now, the federal government may choose to defer th

Foreign Affairs committee  Boundary and non-transboundary waters are what you're dealing with, yes.

Foreign Affairs committee  This bill certainly would allow tanker exports. It doesn't say anything about it.