Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the bill introduced by my colleague from the NDP, an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.
The purpose of this bill, introduced by the member for Kamloops, is clear from the title: to prohibit the export of our water by interbasin transfers.
Many questions come to mind that are not answered in this bill. These questions occurred to me after I read an article by Louis-Gilles Francoeur, published yesterday in Le Devoir . Its title is rather instructive. It is a question: ``Scientists' recommendation: fresh water under federal control?''
The journalist was referring to the report by the Canadian Water Ressources Association and to the Canadian Global Change Program, which recommends that the federal government get involved in managing fresh water resources, especially by taking over control of the main hydrographic basins such as the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes.
This report, published in August under the auspices of the Royal Society of Canada, suggests that the federal government review its 1970 Canada Water Act in terms of the new outlook and the new circumstances in this area.
The bill presented by the member for Kamloops is similar, since it suggests that the federal government get involved in the export of its water resources.
I will now go back to the report, which Mr. Francoeur quotes extensively in his article. It says: "The way the situation is evolving, management of fresh water, a provincial resource-again, a strictly provincial resource- could become a constitutional issue, like many other environmental management issues, for that matter. Water resource management is a strategic issue, particularly in Quebec, considering the importance of hydro power".
In light of this quote, one can clearly see that fresh water and the management of this resource is under the provinces' jurisdiction. I do not know if the member for Kamloops consulted the authorities in his province, British Columbia, before introducing his bill. I am sure his province would not agree to lose this jurisdiction. In fact, if his province, or any other, decided to export water by interbasin transfers, could they not do it since it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction?
I cannot see how the federal government would once again intrude on matters of provincial jurisdiction. We know that it is a habit dear to the Liberals, especially with regard to the environment, but for a New Democrat to get into the fray, asking the federal government to put its big fat paws into his own province's business, is beyond me. I cannot see what the member is trying to do with his bill. To protect water? To conserve water? These are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Does the member not trust his provincial government in this respect?
As a matter of fact, his province, the member will correct me if I am wrong, made its position very clear with Bill C-9, The Water Protection Act, tabled by the minister Moe Sihota. I would like the member for Kamloops to tell us more about this piece of legislation. Right from the start, minister Sihota stated his intentions on this matter.
In a press release issued on April 27, 1995, Mr. Sihota said, and I quote:
The key is for the province to have control over that development, not the federal through NAFTA or the United States.
I believe it is quite clear. Minister Sihota wants to deal with water himself because it comes under his jurisdiction, "not the federal", as he said so well in his press release .If the Environment minister of his own province says that he wants control over this matter and is telling the federal government not to interfere, why does the hon. member for Kamloops seek to impose a new act on his province and on the others? Would it not be better to leave the question of water management to the provinces, like British Columbia, that have jurisdiction over it?
Unfortunately, I have not looked at this issue with regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement. We should certainly look at this question of water exports, or trade in water, in connection with this agreement.
I sense that, once again, this will be served to us with an ecosystem sauce, that is to say, we will be told that we should consider the large living systems as a whole, because they justify the interference of Ottawa with provincial jurisdictions. The report referred to before is asking Ottawa to develop a strategy for interwoven basins. Under this strategy, Ottawa would look after large basins like the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, while provinces and municipalities would manage small basins in accordance with federal policies.
I will read to you two paragraphs from Francoeur's article which show clearly the interfering intent of the federal government. He says: "Ottawa proposes to reduce the role of the provinces, which own water resources, by drowning their constitutional responsibilities in a sea of intervenors. For example, the report suggests that we create a consortium with representatives of the public sector (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments), the First Nations, the universities, the colleges and private sector
businesses, who would tackle various problems related to water on a national and international level. The scientific societies' report also suggests that we extend federal jurisdiction to estuaries like the St. Lawrence estuary and to coastal zones, which are provincial properties, in the context of a global approach focused on ecosystems and nested drainage basins."
This report puts forward the same arguments as the federal government uses to justify interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Ecosystems, the nation, globalization, the ingredients are always the same and they bring the federal government to push provinces around. Contrary to Obelix who was the only one to fall into the kettle of magic potion, the federalists have all been cooked in the same pot. The hon. member for Kamloops is no exception because his bill reflects perfectly the centralizing views promoted by the federal government in environmental matters.
Finally, the report goes on to say that Environment Canada should enhance the protection of fresh water ecosystems by assuming jurisdiction over fresh water fishing. Yet, since 1922-