You've just clarified the question that I was asking you, Mr. Miller.
I believe the federal government is interested in water. It's interested in fish. It's interested in migratory birds. That's what it is interested in when you're having a federal environmental assessment, Mr. Chairman.
I also believe that the taking of massive amounts of water out of the ground—and I'm talking about my favourite issue, this quarry, and they will be doing this—is taking out bulk water. Now, I have no idea how they're going to get rid of it. It's speculation. I don't want you to think I'm saying they're going to put it on trains. They may not. But they're certainly going to take it out. All of that water normally goes into these rivers that go through your riding and into my riding into Georgian Bay, and ends up in the Great Lakes. Therefore, I think it's relevant to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
I believe your bill does cover the removal of bulk water from the ground, whether it's storage or whether it's transporting it on trains. I don't know, maybe I agree with Mr. Julian, maybe I don't. All I know is that's a rumour that's flying around, that they're going to put this water on trains and ship it. I have no idea how they're going to do it. They may not even do it. But I think there are two possibilities: one is to store it and one is to put it on a train, on a boat, and take it out. And that's bulk water.
Therefore, I believe, for all the reasons I've given, this bill affects this quarry, which in turn affects the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.