Email from Francis Scarpaleggia (Liberal MP and water critic)

Dear Mr. Morgan,

Thank you for your questions about the Liberal Caucus' position on the human right to water.  I very much appreciate your writing to me on this vital issue.

Water is one of the Liberal Caucus’ key policy priorities.  In 2005, I founded the National Liberal Water Caucus as a vehicle for Liberal M.P.s and Senators to give policy focus to water.  (Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians has in fact been a guest speaker at the caucus where she addressed the issue of the human right to water.)  Moreover, in 2007, through a motion tabled in the House of Commons, I called on the Conservative government to create a national water strategy, something the government has failed to do.  Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, however, has said that a Liberal government will create and implement a national water strategy.

Water is among the most multi-faceted of public policy issues.  This is because water is ubiquitous and cross-jurisdictional.  Water touches every aspect of life and society, including the economy, and all levels of government are involved in protecting and managing this most precious of resources.

Among the most complex of all water issues is the recognition, and codification in international law, of the human right to water.  We are today at the beginning of the road toward meaningful recognition of the right to water.  Maude Barlow should be commended for her tenacious and unwavering leadership in advancing this cause.

Water is clearly a fundamental human right.  This is moral fact.  No human being can live long without potable water.  Contaminated drinking water kills over 2 million people annually around the world, the majority of them children.  The lack of water for sanitation also undermines human health throughout developing countries.  It is our duty to ensure that our fellow human beings, wherever they may live, have affordable access to the water they need.

The non-binding resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in July 2010 is a crucial step toward the goal of establishing a human right to water that can, hopefully, result in all people around the world having access to the water they require for survival and dignified living.  Canada voting for the resolution would not have amounted to more than a symbolic gesture at this point in the journey, but it would have sent a clear signal to Canadians, and the world, that Canada wants to be a leader in making universal access to water for human consumption and sanitation a reality; that helping developing countries access water for their people is a Canadian foreign policy priority.

Although it is not possible to know what really motivated Canada’s abstention at the U.N., one reason being officially offered is that we did not wish to short-circuit the process launched by the U.N. Human Rights Council’s (HRC) when it named an independent expert for safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albaquerque.  Ms. de Albaquerque’s mandate is to ascertain the situation in various parts of the world with respect to current access to water and determine the need for, and eventual shape of, a distinct legally-binding international human right to water.

The Liberal Caucus believes the U.N. resolution complements rather than detracts from the work of the HRC independent expert.  In fact, the U.N. resolution itself references the HRC process, and many of the countries that voted for the right-to-water resolution openly subscribe to the HRC process.  For example, France, Costa Rica, Egypt, Singapore, and the Russian Federation all stated their belief that the adoption of the resolution gives further impetus to the HRC process.

Indeed, the HRC process is moving ahead.  On September 30 the Council adopted a resolution reaffirming that current international human rights law instruments include access to safe drinking water and affirms “the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living and inextricably related to  the right to…life and human dignity.”  Moreover, a press release from Ms. de Albaquerque’s office on that occasion stated that, “for the U.N., the right to water and sanitation is contained in existing human rights treaties and is therefore legally binding”—clearly putting to rest arguments that the General Assembly resolution would detract from the work of the HRC.

That said, whether or not the right to water will be recognised by all ccountries as legally binding is uncertain.  Research from the Library of Parliament indicates that “according to the General Asssembly resolution that created it, the HRC is permitted to make “recommendations” to the General Assembly regarding the promotion and protection of human rights, but it does not state that the Council has the powers to impose binding obligations on U.N. member states.

Regardless, the Liberal Caucus believes the federal government should launch consultations with the provinces, legal and academic experts, and Canadians at large to develop a roadmap for achieving a legally-binding international human right to water—one that is not merely symbolic but that can achieve practical results.

The second reason given for the government’s abstention is that the resolution did not define the scope of the right to water.  While this is certainly an aspect that needs to be clearly outlined, its current absence did not hinder other countries from agreeing to the principles outline in the General Assembly resolution.  .  For example, Colombia and Guatemala both emphasised that in their interpretation, the resolution did not imply any obligations at the international level.  Of particular relevance to Canada’s situation was the statement by Egypt that “acknowledg[ed] the need, highlighted by many delegations, to set aside controversial questions of international water sources, of international watercourse law, and transboundary water,” and echoed the need for the HRC process to delineate the scope, content, and international commitment of a human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.

What is more, the U.N. functions on the principle that sovereign rights of states must be upheld, except in extreme cases, and as such, all countries, including Canada, have  the final say in how the country can best support the implementation of a resolution within its boundaries.

The Liberal Caucus holds steadfast to Canada’s water sovereignty; more so in the face of growing calls from conservative-minded bodies like the right-wing Montreal Economic Institute for Canada to export our freshwater.  This is precisely why I tabled legislation, with input from the Program on Water Issues at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre, to close the door to bulk-water exports.

This bill follows on earlier steps by the Chrétien government to ban the export of water from the Great Lakes, freshwater bodies under joint federal-provincial jurisdiction.  Although most provinces currently do have prohibitions against the export of water in bulk from their jurisdictions, these prohibitions can be lifted at any time as the political and economic context in those jurisdictions evolve.  (In Quebec, for example, the association of medical specialists supports bulk-water exports as a means to finance healthcare).   Federal “backstop” legislation is thus needed to ensure that provincial bans on bulk-water exports remain permanent and effective.

While it is unlikely that recognizing the human right to water in international law would compromise Canada’s ability to protect its water from the threat of export, it is a fact that proponents of water-export schemes have—speciously—invoked our moral duty to help those in need in other countries as justification for their proposals.  We in the Liberal Caucus believe this is another reason why we must have a full public debate in Canada on the human right to water.  A by-product of that debate would be to divorce the two issues in the public mind, so that the human right to water can never be credibly used as a pretext for generating support for bulk-water exports.

In conclusion, the Conservative government’s coy abstention before an international audience on an issue—water—so deeply tied to our national identity raises obvious suspicion.  It prompts Canadians to ask whether their government sees water as a public good—an inalienable life-giving resource—or rather as a commodity whose value and distribution is determined by the marketplace.

Thank you again for writing to me on the human right to water.  It is my hope that the foregoing has been useful in communicating the Liberal Party's commitment to water issues in general and, more specifically, to water for all.

Sincerely,

Francis Scarpaleggia

Member of Parliament for/Député de Lac-Saint-Louis

801 Édifice de la Justice Building

House of Commons/Chambre des communes

Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6

Tel./tél. : (613) 995-8281

Fax/téléc. : (613) 995-0528

Email/courriel : scarpf@parl.gc.ca<mailto:scarpf@parl.gc.ca>

Website/site Web : www.scarpaleggia.ca<http://www.scarpaleggia.ca/>

Comments

[Marc]

Whoa, this is a heavy response. Was this his first reply to your email, or was there more dialogue beforehand?

[Dave Morgan]

There was a bit of dialogue beforehand, but I wasn't expecting something quite as indepth. This largely coincides with the argument I'm making, so I've offered my help for any future research. Still waiting for a reply.

[Scott Goosenberg]

Jackpot! This guy is a veritable fount of information and support. Hopefully more MPs are willing to engage in this kind of dialogue with our class.