Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this at committee, and it is a sense that I have. I would like to hear more debate about it, but I fear the bill includes something that removes a protection that our freshwater might have. The fact that we have included the word “pipeline” and tried to say that a pipeline is a transboundary river may be problematic down the road. I do not know. However, a pipeline is not water in its natural state, and any bill that bans transboundary export via pipeline may be a trade bill.

The post Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 (Bill C-45) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The defeat of Bill C-267 is a step backwards in protecting freshwater sources in Canada. We sorely need a ban on bulk water exports that is binding on provinces,” says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson for the Council of Canadians. “Bill C-267’s recognition of water as a common heritage is crucial in protecting water in the public interest. While any legislation banning bulk water exports must include diversions of 50,000 or less as well as manufactured products such as bottled water, Bill C-267 was a critical step forward in a concerted effort to ban water exports across provinces.”

“Canada’s freshwater is frighteningly vulnerable.  As it stands, water in natural water bodies is not a good in trade. The minute we allow a single shipment of water in bulk from one drainage basin to another, particularly from Canada for sale in the US, we would then have turned a tap on that would be simply impossible under the terms of NAFTA to turn off,” warned Green Leader Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The House is currently considering a bill similar to C-267. Bill C-383, the Transboundary Waters Protection Act. 

“This bill is good, but only covers export of boundary and transboundary water.  I am hoping we can amend it to include a ban on inter-basin transfer. Without such a ban, Bill C-383 will only protect 10 percent of Canada’s water,” said May.

In dealing only with boundary and transboundary water, Bill C-383 is ignoring 90% of Canada’s water resources. “As custodians of 9% of the planet’s renewable water resources, we have a moral obligation to preserve them for our generation and future generations,” said May. “It is critical that Canada protects our water sources by prohibiting the transfer of water in bulk, prohibiting its sale, prohibiting water in its natural state from ever being seen as a good in commerce.”

The post Will Canada lose its water? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

In the November, 2008, Speech from the Throne, under the inspiring title of Protecting Canada`s Future, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised Canadians: “To ensure protection of our vital resources, our Government will bring in legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins.”

Last night, he broke that promise.

“Since coming to power, this government has reversed its stated policies on such things as income trusts, pension protection, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and, of course, the commitment to never allow bitumen to be refined in a place with lower standards than Canada.

“It is becoming known for its Bulk Policy Reversals,” May stated.

As Harper evidently is or was aware, Canada’s freshwater is vulnerable to bulk sales under NAFTA provisions.  Once it is deemed a “commodity,” the flood gates will be opened to export.

May was a joint seconder of Bill C-267, a major resource-protection initiative.  It was sponsored by Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis).

A second private member`s bill relating to water export is also before the House – C-383, moved by Larry Miller (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound) and joint seconded by May.

“This bill is good, but only covers the export of boundary and transboundary water,” noted May.  “I am hoping we can mount a public campaign to amend it in order to incorporate the ban on inter-basin transfer from the now defeated C-267.

“Without such a ban, Bill C-383 will only protect 10 percent of Canada’s water.”

The post Conservatives Break Promise on Bulk Water appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Canada is continually at risk of capitulating to pressure to export our freshwater south of the border.  Trade agreements, including NAFTA, have left us susceptible to a loss of control over our water. The current Federal Water Policy that emphatically opposes large-scale exports (bulk exports) of our freshwater must be maintained,” said May. “That is why I urge Members of Parliament to support Bill 267, the Private Members Bill from Francis Scarpellegia, to ban inter-basin transfers.”

Bill C-267 calls for a pan-Canadian prohibition against inter-basin transfers, banning water removals across natural basin boundaries and protecting Canada against the possibility of a NAFTA challenge.  In the 2008 Speech from the Throne, the Harper government promised to introduce similar legislation that would prohibit inter-basin transfers within Canada but they have since reneged on that promise and refuse to support Mr. Scarpellegia’s bill.

To protect our freshwater ecosystems and their ecological services (e.g. as habitats for fish and freshwater species, as domestic water supplies for energy-generation and recreation, as sources of water for irrigation and other economic uses), the federal government has to use its powers, including the Fisheries Act, and its role in inter-jurisdictional water sharing. This is especially important when considering the changes in quality and quantity of Canada’s freshwater that will occur due to climate change. The Great Lakes’ levels will fall, resulting in higher concentrations of toxic chemicals and other pollutants; B.C. rivers will become over-heated, preventing salmon spawning; and farmers will face increasing drought. The Athabasca River is already experiencing significant declines in flow and water quality due to climatic impacts and tar sand developments.

“Watershed protection should be a priority of the federal government,” said May. “We must guard against efforts to weaken environmental legislation as sustainable management of our rivers is crucial.”

The post Canada’s Rivers Require Protection appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[P9mNXTLsATE]

As custodians of 9% of the planet’s renewable water resources, we have a moral obligation to preserve them for our generation and future generations. Thank God this is an issue on which there is consensus. For example, in the throne speech of November 19, 2008, the government said: “To ensure protection of our vital resources, our Government will bring in legislation to ban all bulk water transfers or exports from Canadian freshwater basins.”

We had that commitment before. I spoke of the Speech from the Throne in 2008.

When I worked many years ago, as part of the previous government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, that was the last time Canada took a comprehensive look at our water resources. The federal water policy, which remains the only federal water policy passed to this date, was passed in 1987. The Government of Canada committed to a federal water policy, which included that we would ban bulk water exports. Yet we stand here, more than 20 years later, without that prohibition.

I am very grateful to my friend for the introduction of Bill C-267, which ascribes in every respect to the best possible approach to how to ban the transfer of bulk water from one basin to another. I am aware, and I thank my friend, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, for a similar bill, Bill C-383. I would wish we had the ability to blend the two. However, there is no question that Bill C-267 responds to the issue in a way in which it must be responded.

The bill respecting the preservation of Canada’s water resources before us this evening deals with the issue in terms of the inter-basin transfer of water. There are five major drainage basins for all of the water of Canada. If we think about it, it is very logical and intuitive. All our water drains toward larger areas. The five major drainage basins are the Arctic Ocean, Hudson Bay, the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and even the Gulf of Mexico from which our Great Lakes drain toward the south. These are the five major drainage basins and it is to these drainage basins that Bill C-267 speaks by prohibiting the inter-basin transfer of water, prohibiting the massive transfer of water in bulk.

This is critical because Bill C-383 is quite similar to a previous government legislation, Bill C-26. It dealt only with boundary and transboundary water. It is important for us to remember that when we are looking at boundary and transboundary water, we are looking at 10% of Canada’s water resources. In other words, 90% of Canada’s water resources are found in basins that could not be defined as boundary or transboundary water. As such, the acts we will be looking at later in this session, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvement Act, are certainly laudable, but fall far short of what we need, which is why if it were possible to include the provisions of both bills together, we would have stronger legislation.

I do not have quite the same concern as the hon. member for Nickel Belt about the fact that it is left to regulations to describe a drainage basin. There is no question, however, since there really are five drainage basins for Canada and they are well known and are a matter of scientific fact, that it certainly would be wise to include them when the bill goes to committee and comes to amendment. That would leave no wiggle room for some sort of political fix that would deny the hydrogeology of Canada’s land mass to try to say that there was something other than five major drainage basins. It is a scientific fact that is what there is.

We have always had the threat when we look at the transfer of basin water from one to the other. The most grandiose of these schemes was put forward repeatedly in the early 1980s. The grand canal scheme was the idea that we would move water from one basin, the Hudson Bay drainage basin, and put it into pipelines to ship down to the U.S. That grand canal scheme would not be at all affected by private member’s Bill C-383, which deals with boundary and transboundary water. However, it would be completely caught by Bill C-267, which speaks to the key issue, and that is the removal of water in bulk.

Under the interpretation and definition section of the bill, it states, “removal of water in bulk” means the removal of water, whether it has been treated or not, from the major drainage basin in which the water is located by any means of diversion that includes a pipeline, canal, tunnel, aqueduct or channel”, which is a perfect way of ensuring the grand canal scheme never happens, “or by any other means of diversion by which more than 50,000 litres of water per day is removed from major drainage basin”.

This speaks to ecological realities. It is not a political statement of a boundary. It speaks to the key issue, which is how do we ensure that we do not commit a serious and egregious error in which Canada’s water is moved from one basin to another. We think we are a water-rich nation, but the reality is we only have 9% of the world’s renewable water, the U.S. has 6%. We are roughly in the same territory. For all the water we have, what we have is precious and we have to protect it.

The other reason for this legislation does not come from an ecological threat. It comes from the reality of NAFTA. We have a situation where under the North American Free Trade Agreement, should we allow a single transaction of the shipment of water in bulk from one drainage basin to the other, particularly from one drainage basin in Canada for sale in the United States, we would then have turned a tap on and would be simply impossible under the terms of NAFTA to turn off.

The reason one could say that water is not covered under NAFTA is that water in its natural state in natural water bodies and water courses is not a good in trade. The minute we make that a good in trade, then the taps are open everywhere.

It is critical that Canada protects our water sources by prohibiting the transfer of water in bulk, prohibiting its sale, prohibiting water in its natural state from ever being seen as a good in commerce.

One last reason why the legislation is essential is we may feel awash in water, but the impact of the climate crisis, as the previous member has mentioned, will have its primary initial impact on reducing our access to water, its quality and its quantity. That is why I am so very proud to stand as the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands and as the leader of the Green Party of Canada to speak, to plead that the House lives up to the commitments that were made in 1987 in the federal water policy and to the commitment of the current Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne of 2008 to ban bulk water exports.

We need to take precautionary measures now. I plead with all members of the House to ensure that Bill C-267 lives up to the promises of generations to protect our fresh water in our country.

The post Canada Water Preservation Act (Bill C-267) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The most recent statement on the matter was made in the Speech from the Throne in 2008 when the current government, in its minority form, pledged to put forward legislation to ban bulk water exports.

Does the hon. member expect the support of the government in ensuring that this important legislation gets passed? As he noted, under NAFTA, if we let any water get exported to the United States, we can never turn that tap off again.

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the 1987 water policy that was put forth by the Conservative government of the day clearly stated that Canada should bring in legislation to prevent bulk water exports. The government then, in its throne speech in November 2008, said it would do so, that it would prohibit exports by prohibiting interbasin transfers. It did not follow through on its own throne speech promise because it introduced watered-down legislation that did not ban interbasin transfers, as it had promised in the throne speech.

I would very much like the members on the other side to see the wisdom of this legislation, to see that it is consistent with their own statements, and support the legislation. However, I am not that optimistic.

The post Canada Water Preservation Act (B) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Seconded by Elizabeth May November 14, 2011.

Click here for the entire document

Interventions in the House of Commons: November 23, 2011

The post Bill C-267 – An Act respecting the preservation of Canada’s water resources appeared first on Elizabeth May.