Water ­ The Fate of the World is in Canada's Hands.

An Open Letter by Andy James. Originally sent to the Prime Minister, who at that time, was Jean Chretien. Manley replied. One of the most important and pressing issues facing us globally is the impending global water shortage which is predicted to reach crisis proportions in as little as 20 years.

Canada, which has more fresh water than any other nation in the world, can play a pivotal role not only in how it shares its water with other countries, but more importantly through its relationship with the USA, which is not only its neighbour, but the leader of the global economy.

The USA has almost as much water as Canada, but through its consume-and- build-at-all-costs attitude, especially under George W. Bush, is already encountering widespread shortages. It is applying increasing pressure on Canada, at the federal level through NAFTA and through individual provinces and native bands, to initiate the bulk importation of water, which once started, threatens to be like a burst dam.

It is absolutely imperative for Canada to hold on to its water for the following reasons: 1. If the USA gets the water it wants, it will not be encouraged to change its environmental and economic policies, which advocate unrestrained consumption and economic activity. It is interesting that the USA has unilaterally (the only country in the world) withdrawn from the Kyoto agreement, which was meant to mitigate global warming, one of the major factors in the water crisis.

2. Another way of looking at the above is that the USA would be using NAFTA to force Canada to support American domestic policies at the expense of its own, in spite of the fact that the water is Canadian. If the situation were reversed, can anyone even remotely conceive of the USA handing over its water?

3. Canada should borrow a page from the George W. Bush playbook (unilateral withdrawals from the Kyoto and Missile agreements), and threaten withdrawal from NAFTA on the grounds that it is outdated and no longer serves our interests and perhaps renegotiate from a position of strength ­ with the US or other partners that appreciate the preciousness of water.

4. If the unlikely occurs and the USA moves in and takes Canadian water by force then it will have shown its true colours despite its constant boasts of democracy, free markets and fairness. This is not that outrageous since it would give the USA a monopoly on water ­ much more precious than oil now seems to us. However, the rest of the world may not be content to peacefully acquiesce to US water blackmail.

5. We are destroying the planet and need an urgent change in attitude. Species of flora and fauna are disappearing at a rate not seen in 65 million years (since the dinosaurs); global temperatures are climbing at the fastest rate in 100 million years! Water is the one issue that can bring about the necessary change since we cannot go long without it.

October 31, 2001

Dear Andy James:

The Prime Minister has forwarded to me your e-mail of August 12, 2001, concerning the bulk removal of water from Canada. I also note your comments on the decision by the Government of the United States to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. I regret the delay in replying to you.

You and many other Canadians have written expressing a broad level of concern regarding bulk water removal and the future security of Canada's freshwater resources. I would like to respond in detail on this important question.

The Government of Canada shares the concerns you have expressed and is taking action. Over two years ago Canada announced a three-part strategy to prohibit bulk water removal out of all major Canadian water basins. We have made significant progress since then.

Firstly, Canada committed to act within its jurisdiction to prohibit bulk water removal. On February 5, 2001, I was pleased to reintroduce in the House of Commons amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act (Bill C-6). The main element of Bill C-6 is a prohibition on the bulk removal of boundary waters out of their water basins. Under these amendments, the Great Lakes and other boundary waters will have protection from bulk removals under federal law. This is significant because the Great Lakes are of sufficient size to attract developers of bulk removal projects, including for the purposes of export, or diversion schemes. I am also pleased to report that Bill C-6 was passed in the House of Commons on October 2, 2001. The Bill has been referred to the Senate for consideration.

Secondly, Canada and the United States agreed on a reference to the International Joint Commission (IJC) to final report (Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes, February 2000), concluded that the Great Lakes require protection, especially in light of the uncertainties, pressures and cumulative impacts from removals, consumption, population and economic growth, and climate change. The report directed recommendations to all levels of government in Canada and the U.S. to protect the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin. Bill C-6 is consistent with and supportive of the IJC's conclusions and recommendations.

Finally, water management in Canada is a shared responsibility. Each level of government has a responsibility and each must take action. The Minister of the Environment, the Honourable David Anderson, sought endorsement by the provinces and territories of a Canada-wide accord prohibiting bulk water removals out of all of Canada's major watersheds. As a result of this initiative, all provinces have put into place or are developing legislation or regulations which accomplish this goal.

I would also like to address the trade dimension of this issue. Canadian governments have full sovereignty over the management of water in its natural state, and in exercising this sovereignty are not constrained by trade agreements, including the NAFTA.

Canada's strategy of prohibiting the bulk removal of water from all major drainage basins in Canada is the best means to protect the integrity of Canada's water resources. Water is regulated and protected in its water basin, before the issue of exporting arises and before it has become a commercial good or a saleable commodity. This is a comprehensive and environmentally sound approach, and respects constitutional responsibilities. Furthermore, this approach is consistent with Canada's international trade obligations, including the NAFTA.

Canada's views in this regard have been supported by a wide range of expert opinion. The IJC, which is an independent binational commission, came to similar conclusions in its final report cited above, after exhaustive public hearings and submissions that included governmental and independent experts representing every point of view. The principle that governments have full sovereignty over the management of water in its natural state was also reconfirmed by the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, in a formal, written submission to the IJC, where he indicated that under customary international law, non-navigational rights to a watercourse-including the right to control or limit extraction-belong solely to the country or countries where the watercourse lies.

An export ban or some other trade measure may appear as a quick and simple solution. However, it is the wrong approach. It would make our water resources more vulnerable, not less, and make it harder rather than
easier to protect. An export ban would only regulate the cross-border movement of water once it has become a good and would therefore be subject to international trade agreements. An export ban would not focus on the environmental dimension, has possible constitutional limitations and may be vulnerable to a trade challenge.

Turning to the Kyoto Protocol, the decision by the United States to back away from the Kyoto Protocol is disappointing and marks a setback for the international community. The U.S. is responsible for 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore it has a tremendous responsibility to be part of the international climate-change mitigation effort. The international community is strongly urging the U.S. to live up to its responsibility.

The United States is reviewing its policy on climate change, and Canada encourages the completion of this review as quickly as possible. We would like to continue to work closely with the U.S. in negotiating international rules on climate change and also to cooperate with the U.S. on finding solutions to global climate change. The United States and Canadian governments are currently allocating significant resources to foster energy efficiency, clean technologies, the capture and storage of carbon dioxide, and renewable energy. We are encouraged that the U.S. continues to see global climate change as a serious problem and is taking actions to address the issue.

As you may already know, Deputy Prime Minister Herb Gray led the Canadian delegation to the resumed Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP6 bis) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bonn, Germany, from July 19 to 27, 2001. The successful conclusion of the international climate change negotiations has been the focus of our efforts since the inception of the UNFCCC in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. We are therefore extremely pleased that approximately 180 countries reached agreement in Bonn on key political issues regarding the implementation rules for the Kyoto Protocol. The negotiations were difficult and complex, and Canada can be proud of the instrumental role we played in helping to forge the deal. This agreement opens the way for Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, following full consultations with the provinces, the territories, stakeholders and other Canadians.

Canada is already moving ahead with actions at home to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As a country where the effects of climate change are already being felt, particularly in the Canadian North, we cannot afford to wait. The Government of Canada Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change, supports, among many other initiatives, renewable energies, technologies for reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency in a broad range
of sectors, and research and public education programs. These initiatives, supported by an investment of over $1.1 billion, will reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, contribute to cleaner air and stimulate innovation in the Canadian economy. I invite you to visit the Government of Canada's climate change Web site at www.climatechange.gc.ca for further details on Canada's actions to address climate change.

Internationally, we continue to promote flexible and accessible market mechanisms within the Kyoto Protocol that will foster the introduction of new technologies and creative approaches to emissions reductions in all countries. The federal government has established a Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation Office to enhance Canada's capacity to take advantage of the opportunities offered by these mechanisms. For further information, you may wish to browse our Web site at www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cdm-ji/.

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns.

Yours very truly,

John Manley