Debates of May 8th, 2001

Supply

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of a national strategy. There is one. That strategy is found in the very elements I described today, namely working together with provincial and territorial governments, helping to finance from all levels of government the construction of appropriate facilities, and a continuous review of the guidelines. The member speaks about national standards. I suggest that those guidelines are national standards.

The member goes a step further and says to legislate them, have them in a federal statute. I assume she would say that if the statute is not complied with, the offender would face a criminal sanction. I assume she is referring to the criminal law power.

The member has failed to demonstrate whether the provinces are supportive of that approach or whether it would help. She makes a leap of logic by asserting in the House that which she does not know, namely that the problems in Battleford arose because we did not have federal legislation. A commission of inquiry has just been announced. It will look into the question of causality. I would be very much surprised if the problem were caused because of the lack of federal legislation. I suggest that we shall find it was something far more local and practical than that.

It is one thing to have federal legislation and another thing to follow through, to have the facilities in place, operate them, and maintain them to ensure that we produce the result we want. Everyone in the system has to do their part for it to work well.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to applaud the Minister of Health for his support of the motion. The tenor of the debate was to try to have language that could be accepted by all members of the House regardless of partisan line. I understand the government's concern with respect to federal-provincial jurisdiction. That was how we shaped the question in our election platform last November.

The Liberal Party of Canada has always been a little trepidatious around this issue since the national energy program, which we all remember.

Now that the wording says “to begin the process of developing national standards on drinking water immediately”, what is the first step the Minister of Health plans to initiate?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken the first step. I spoke with the health ministers from Alberta and Nova Scotia this morning. I will continue those discussions and explore the possibility of the approach the member described.

I would like to make something clear. I happen to be, by my political philosophy, very much in favour of the Government of Canada being an active government and fully asserting its constitutional authority in this federation. The country will not hold together or succeed unless it has a strong Government of Canada that does its full part.

However, I am not sure, in this particular field, that equates with federal legislation mandating standards with penal consequences if they are not obeyed. I do not know of a province in the country that does not accept and tries to put in place the guidelines that we have all agreed upon. I do not know of a municipality in the country that does not do its best. The answer is not as simple as that, and that is my point today.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, in response to a question I asked, a member opposite revealed a desire to understand more about the nature of a loan agreement between Industry Canada and a company in my province. I have obtained some documents and, with the consent of the House, would like to table them for the member and other members of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are having an interesting debate this afternoon. In addition to the minister, I suspect there will be substantial support on this side of the House for the motion. I certainly intend to support the principle of the motion.

However, some things need to be put on the record as a result of this kind of reaction where perhaps the NDP will use fearmongering by asking if we are going to wait until more people die. We also have a reversal by the official opposition, an opposition that was opposed to government interference and involvement in provincial jurisdictions and which is now changing its mind as a result of its constituency undergoing some pressure in the area of clean water.

We are seeing some rather substantial flip-flops in positions in party policy. Given the difficulty that the opposition is going through on that side of the House, I am surprised it can even spell the word policy these days.

What we are seeing here is a move that I would call constitutional reform by attrition. I will explain what I mean by that. Provincial governments across the land, most notably in Ontario, have been bailing out of areas that have for a long time been considered to be areas of provincial jurisdiction and responsibility. I will cite the example of Ontario. Premier Harris has succeeded in turning the entire relationship between governments upside down.

I served for almost 10 years as a municipal councillor. In those days, 1978 to 1987 and a bit, municipalities always went after the provinces to support them in certain areas, such as the provision of funds and transfer payments, because the municipalities were creatures of the province.

What the government of Ontario has done now is it has passed a law entitled the fewer municipal politicians act. All of a sudden it has managed to make municipal politicians look like the bad guys. Through amalgamations it has reduced the number of municipalities in Ontario from approximately 850 to 450. On the surface that seems like a good thing.

If we were to talk to people on the street I think they would say that if the overhead of carrying government bureaucracy was reduced and consolidated, that would be a good thing. In the city of Toronto, for example, if we were to amalgamate six fire departments into one I think the people would say that also sounds good. However the results can be summed up in the words cause and effect. For every action there is a reaction.

Provinces have been saying that they are not in the business of providing social housing. It should fall to the municipalities and they downloaded it.

All we have to do to experience firsthand the impact on infrastructure is to drive along Highway 401 in the greater Toronto area. People would think they would lose their vehicles at any moment. The roads are deteriorating on a daily basis. Why? It is because the provincial government has decided to get out of that area. It has passed the entire cost of the public GO Transit in the southwestern sector of Ontario on to the municipal sector. How does that relate here?

I do not hear my friends from the Tory Party, who moved the motion, talking about the provincial Conservative government. Many people think they are more a reform style government. Did a cause and effect occur when the provincial Conservative government slashed the environment ministry, when staff was dramatically reduced in Ontario, when municipalities were told that it was now their responsibility to send their water out to private laboratories, in many cases 100 kilometres or 200 kilometres away, and wait for some technician in the facility to test the water and get back to them on whether or not there was an E. coli problem or any other kind of problem?

Somehow the Ontario provincial government seems to have washed its hands of responsibility. Walkerton happened in my personal opinion as a direct result of the provincial Conservative government deciding that less government was better, that a smaller ministry of the environment would be more efficient, that fewer staff to inspect would be beneficial. It could then send out $200 tax rebate cheques to everybody in the province saying “Look at me, am I not wonderful?”

It is cause and effect. There is no question there was some personal culpability in the reports that came out, but one was dealing with people who were not trained properly on the job. Why were they not trained? It was because it was left up to a small rural municipality that did not have the sophistication or technology to deal with it and as a result people died. Now we see it spreading.

I personally believe it is a problem. One of the reasons I support the hon. member's motion is that it could be the tip of the iceberg. I agree that the federal government has to get involved. It must put in standards and ensure that provincial governments are not simply passing on tax cuts in the name of some form of fiscal responsibility while they put the safety of their residents in jeopardy.

This is an example of utmost irresponsibility. Members know full well that the ministry of the environment at the provincial level works with local municipalities to provide safe water. It has not been a responsibility of the federal government because we have had trust and faith under the terms of the constitution. Under the terms of our relationship we would never question something as basic and simple as clean water being put at jeopardy because of a political right wing agenda that simply wanted to find ways to get re-elected.

In reality that is a trend that has occurred. It may be somewhat different in North Battleford, but the result is a sense that someone else will take care of it, a malaise, a sense of complacency. It is most unfortunate.

We have heard members opposite say that the government should stop doing this or the government should stop doing that. As a result of cause and effect people are now saying that there is actually a role for government.

What is the number one responsibility of any government? I submit it is to provide good health, safety and quality of life. Everything else falls from that.

The jurisdictional battles will occur. The provinces want to do this and that. Who should regulate this or who should regulate that? The bottom line is that if collectively as governments we are unable to provide something as basic and fundamental as safe, clean water and safe sewage disposal in Canada in 2001, then shame on all of us at every level of government.

We must do it. Our government is committed to it. If it means entering into new agreements, whether it is through the infrastructure programs we have talked about or a new kind of national standard, that is what we will do. The government believes it is our responsibility to provide health, safety and a good quality of life for all Canadians.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the intention to support the Progressive Conservative motion. From the human health perspective it is time we had national drinking water standards so that we know the quality of the water we consume is of the same quality, whether in Saint-Jean, Quebec, St. John's, Newfoundland, or Fort St. John, British Columbia.

A key word in the motion is the word immediately. Canadians demand action and leadership from the government. It is quicker for us to actually provide legislation for a poet laureate than to provide standards for drinking water. How fast does the health minister have to move to his satisfaction to address this very critical issue?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to play games, but I am looking for the word immediately. Maybe the member has a different copy of the motion than I have. Regardless, the point is what the motion calls for is that we should act with the provinces and territories to establish—

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Immediately is in there.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

It does not say immediately. It states:

—to establish enforceable national drinking water standards—

When I see members of the Tory caucus and members of the Canadian Alliance caucus parading around on the nightly news in a joint fundraiser, trying to somehow come together to resolve their problems, what concerns me is the party that put this motion before the House is being sucked into the vortex of the extreme right wing of the Canadian Alliance. The Canadian Alliance was opposed to it. It was opposed to a committee. I suspect it will continue to be opposed to it in some form of trickery that it may use.

We think it should occur but it must occur with quality negotiations with our territories and our provinces. This member knows it. Any time the government tried to be heavy handed in dealing with the provinces, there were screams and howls of outrage from the opposition benches.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested to know from the member why two government bills going back to 1993 were allowed to die on the order paper. Specifically I mention Bill C-76 first read on December 11, 1996, and Bill C-14 first read on October 30, 1997.

Why were those bills allowed to die, given the fact that the government does and did have a majority?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we could all ask each other questions like that. Why did members opposite not put a similar motion when Walkerton occurred? Were the deaths in Ontario somehow not of as great concern to members opposite?

Certainly there has been a responsibility with the provincial and the municipal governments to resolve these problems. We have had charges of interference. We have been told to stay out of the jurisdictions that belong to the provincial governments by members opposite, although not necessarily the NDP. The NDP would have us go after everything we could. We would have national standards for everything we could possibly conceive and probably eliminate provincial jurisdiction.

The other side of the extreme is these people say that the government should cut back, should slash, should burn, should reduce, should do nothing to provide good quality health, safety and quality of life for Canadians. We will not allow that to happen. We will make sure we provide those items.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after such a passionate flight of oratory, which seems right out of left field, I hope we will be able to come back to a much calmer, serene and enlightening debate.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, recognize at the outset that water quality in our communities is a very important issue. Recent events in Saskatchewan and also the problems we saw in Ontario a few months ago make the elected representatives of the people of Canada aware of the importance of providing their fellow citizens with a safe and clean water supply.

However, I do not like the way the Conservatives are trying to politicize this issue, and I will explain why. Only yesterday, the Conservatives were asking members on this side of the House, mainly members of the Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois, to join them in proposing a new form of decentralized federalism that would respect the jurisdictions of the provinces and the specificity of some of them. Today, on the day after their plea, they bring forward in this House a motion calling explicitly for Canada-wide national standards in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Let me give my Conservative friends a warning “You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot claim to be promoting a decentralized Canada and then want to implement Canada-wide standards in areas that do not come under federal jurisdiction”.

Quebecers will not be fooled. One cannot serve them this kind of double talk without having to live with the consequences at some point down the road. That was my introduction.

We have some problems with the motion in its current form. First, there is the fact that water is a provincial jurisdiction. The first problem is a matter of principle: water is not the responsibility of the federal government.

Moreover, our position is influenced by certain elements that have to do with current circumstances. For example, in the inaugural speech, the premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, announced the imminent implementation of a national, meaning Quebec-wide, water management policy. It is a very laudable initiative, particularly since we know that Quebec is already known as the best province, in terms of the quality of its drinking water.

On June 19, 2000, the government of Quebec announced new draft regulations on the quality of drinking water. The draft regulations are being finalized and have been submitted to the Quebec cabinet. The final version should be released soon.

First, these new regulations would change quality standards according to Canadian recommendations as well as drinking water quality standards currently in place in the United States, which would result in proposed standards that would go beyond the Canadian recommendations.

Second, they would increase substantially the number of systems subject to mandatory controls.

Third, they would establish the minimum frequency for bacterial analysis.

Fourth, they would provide for a periodic review of the standards. Last, they would require operator qualification, which would be renewable every five years and which would take experience into account.

With these new standards, and we are not the only ones saying this, even the Sierra legal defence fund rated Quebec first among the provinces, in terms of having the strictest drinking water standards in Canada. So, we have no need for more standards, at least in Quebec.

However there is a problem. Liberals have come up with an amendment to the motion that says “respecting their jurisdictions” or something like that. The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot have, on the one hand, national standards enshrined in legislation and, on the other hand, respect for provincial areas of jurisdiction, because it is, in fact, an area of provincial jurisdiction. It is a bit like appreciating open doors as long as they are closed. It is nonsense. Because of the Liberal amendment, there is a deep, inherent contradiction in this motion, which no longer makes any sense.

It is also interesting to see the federal government getting involved in this area, since the cuts it made in transfer payments to the provinces, among other things, have caused several problems. The provinces are stretched to the limit; they have just enough money to keep their heads above water, but then the municipalities have had to take the brunt of it. Although they were getting a lot of money from Quebec, they were hard hit by the federal cuts. The federal government has some gall to interfere when it is partly responsible for some of the problems a number of communities are having.

We also have to ask ourselves how a federal system would help improve things? For most people, the federal government is far away. The federal government's habit of interfering in matters that are far removed from it reduces it's efficiency, because those who are accountable for such things are much more remote in the federal government than they would be at the community or provincial level.

There is also the fact that, because things are not going too well in certain provinces, they use that to justify duplicating something that works well in other provinces. We are still talking about duplication and, as far as I am concerned, that is also a problem.

I will move an amendment to the amendment that the House would support I believe. The Bloc Quebecois could vote in favour of the motion thus amended.

I move :

That the amendment be amended by adding between the words “jurisdiction” and “to ensure” the following: “, while allowing for full opting-out by any province,”

If this amendment to the amendment were agreed to, the Bloc Quebecois would support the motion. We could be unanimous in the House in saying that provinces willing to abide by Canada-wide standards could do so. Also, those who would not want to, who want to protect their turf, their jurisdiction, would be free to do it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to introduce another amendment in this regard, I think you would have to seek unanimous consent to put the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

In this case it is a subamendment and not another amendment. Therefore, it is permissible under the rules and procedures.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments that I would like make.

I have a lot of respect for the hon. member and in the approach he has taken in the House. He also knows that the tradition of the Progressive Conservative Party is to be very respectful of jurisdictional concerns between the federal government and the provinces. We would support an opting out provision, if a province had a piece of legislation that was equal or higher.

I would like to speak to the history of this issue. In 1990 the then minister of the environment had concerns about three legislative gaps that were not in existence in Canada. They were our capacity to protect species at risk, the need to renew our pesticide legislation and the need to have a safe drinking water act. The then minister was the hon. Lucien Bouchard. Mr. Bouchard was right then, and that piece of legislation is right now in this regard.

This is a shared jurisdiction. However does the member understand that the jurisdictional component, as it applies to the federal government, is the Department of Health when we legislate toxicity with pesticides, chemicals or exposure therein?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member from the Conservative Party, for his question. He is someone with whom I get along well and agree to disagree.

In answer to his preamble, I will say this. He stated that throughout history the Conservatives have always been very respectful of jurisdictional boundaries. First, it is my opinion that the motion says the reverse. Second, during the first election campaign I ran in, in 1997, the Conservative platform under the leadership of Jean Charest explicitly mentioned national standards for education, which is very clearly an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Furthermore, with all due respect, I must disagree with the member when he says that this is a shared jurisdiction. Water as such is local in nature. Under section 92 of the Constitution, I want to pull out, but in the meantime we might as well abide by it, everything listed there is a provincial responsibility.

The member's premise is completely wrong. This is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Again I question the need for the federal government to stick its nose into this.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech on this important issue. I remind the House that not only does the Quebec government believe it would be wrong to set national standards on drinking water, but also this is what was reported yesterday regarding Sylvain Laramée of the Réseau environnement du Québec, and I quote:

Earlier in the day, the head of the Réseau environnement, Sylvain Laramée, said publicly that he wished that Ottawa would not intervene for reasons that were not partisan, but technical, adding that Quebec and the provinces in general were better equipped to deal with drinking water problems in co-operation with the municipal governments, taking into account the geographical context.

I believe we are on the verge of reaching a consensus in Quebec on this issue. Is it not true that what our Conservative colleague is saying shows how little is known about the way things are in Quebec in this particular area?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie that the Conservative member's motion shows a misunderstanding of Quebec's specificity, but that is not all. It also shows a lack of common sense.

We must ensure that those responsible for something are as close as possible to the people they serve. The closer, the better. In Europe, this principle is called subsidiarity.

Here, we should ensure that those responsible for a program are as close as possible to the people so that, if people have something to say, they have access to that person and are able to hold him or her accountable.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I rise in the House today, it is first and foremost to support the amendment to the amendment moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, whom I want to congratulate and thank for his excellent work.

The amendment to the amendment moved by my colleague totally changes the motion of our Conservative colleagues. I truly believe that, once again, the federal government is trying to gain public support in an area that is not its responsibility. However that is nothing new from the federal government since it does that in several areas, such as parental leave and education, to name just two.

Is there, under the Canadian constitution, an area that is more clearly under provincial jurisdiction than education? Yet, the federal government insists on interfering in that area.

When I hear this government say that it wants to establish national standards, I find it absolutely scandalous. I have here a Transport Canada document, an inventory of contaminated sites. It says that a single department has contaminated 41 sites in Quebec.

So if we take one department of the Government of Canada and we multiply that by 10 provinces, it means that about 400 sites would have been contaminated by that department throughout the country, unless it only contaminated sites in Quebec because it likes us so much.

In my riding alone, there are about five sites that are totally contaminated and for three years now the Bloc Quebecois and the member for Manicouagan have been urging the federal government to assume its responsibilities, that is to apply the polluter pays rule.

How can we trust a government that continues to pollute, that does not assume its responsibilities and that is trying to preach to the provinces by saying: “We will set national standards”? Before lecturing anyone, I think the federal government should assume its responsibilities.

This is why the amendment to the amendment put forward by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is very important. I am confident that all the members in this House will support this amendment to the amendment, which will make it possible for us to vote in favour of the motion.

I would say that the motion before the House is a legitimate one because what could be more legitimate than to want to provide the public with drinking water. As usual, the government has decided to infringe upon areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The federal government is trying to demonstrate to Canadians that the provinces cannot handle it without its help, when we know that it was the federal government that created this problem in the first place by cutting, as it did, transfer payments to provinces and funding that would have helped provinces to provide these services to the public.

Now the federal government is getting ready to spend money in provincial areas of jurisdiction because, as we say in Quebec, it has the cash to do it. It cut the funding to the provinces in order to better control them afterwards.

Well, Quebec has news for the federal government. Water management is an area of provincial jurisdiction and the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to any federal involvement in this area.

Some may say that the Bloc sounds like a broken record, but this is the root cause of the problem we have in this country. The federal government is always trying to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

As far as the issue at hand is concerned, it is clear, since we are talking about water, we could say as clear as spring water, that water quality and availability come under provincial jurisdiction.

Why would the federal government want to get involved? The problems in provinces like Ontario and Saskatchewan do not justify duplicating a system that is working just fine. We have seen the standards established by Quebec and Ontario, and, as my colleague indicated this afternoon, Quebec ranked first.

Quebec emphasizes prevention more. The standards on byproducts of water disinfection are stricter in Quebec than in any other province. Parasite removal requirements are also more stringent. With the standards in the new draft regulations about to be passed by the Quebec government, its water quality standards will be the highest in any province. Why would the federal government want to interfere in a situation that is so clear?

The Bloc Quebecois objects categorically to federal involvement and maintains that the only thing the federal government should do in that area is to correct the problems of its own making, when it has contaminated the water table and thus deprived people of safe drinking water.

This, as members will have guessed, is part of the numerous representations I have made, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, to have the government solve the problem of the beaches area in Sept-Îles. Time and again, we have heard the government say “We did everything that had to be done to correct the situation”. Today, we are once again asking for a real solution.

On June 19, 2000, the Quebec department of the environment announced new draft regulations on the quality of drinking water. These regulations are being reviewed by the provincial cabinet and, as I mentioned earlier, are about to be adopted. Instead of trying to copy what was done in Quebec, the federal government must do all it can to correct the situations for which it is responsible.

Since Quebec ranks first, emphasizes prevention more and has stricter standards for water disinfection byproducts, as I said, the Bloc Quebecois supports the initiatives of the Quebec government and objects to the federal government interfering in this area in such an unacceptable fashion.

It has to correct the situations it itself caused. I mentioned these at the beginning of my speech. They include the pollution of the beaches at Sept-Îles and even at Havre-Saint-Pierre, in my riding, where the airport site was affected.

If the federal government wants to look after drinking water the way it is looking after decontaminating the beaches water, that will be just great. We have been asking the federal government to decontaminate the beaches for three years. There are other sites we are demanding they decontaminate as well. Now it tell us it is going to adopt national standards. Just because certain provinces have problems does not mean that the federal government has to charge in where it has no business. Once again, it is interfering and duplicating provincial responsibilities.

Since my time is running out, I hope that, once again, members of the House will support the amendment to the amendment of the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier and that we will all finally be able to vote in favour of a motion which will improve the public's drinking water.

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the member for Manicouagan say that he supports the amendment to the amendment proposed by his party because it totally changes the motion before us.

There is a problem there because, in principle, an amendment to an amendment should only change the amendment and not the entire motion. However let us not dwell on that. He said it changed everything. Well, I think he said something that calls for comment at this time.

The basic proposal before us, not everybody has been following the debate since this morning, is that the federal government should join with the provinces in establishing national standards. We brought forward an amendment, which was agreed upon with the Progressive Conservative Party, to ensure that provincial jurisdictions are respected.

So far, so good. All the parties who spoke seemed to support the idea of working together to establish national standards if provincial jurisdictions were to be respected. Then an amendment on the amendment was put forward, saying that any province that so desired could opt out.

A province that so desires, that could be a province that has not met the standards or it could be one that has met or exceeded federal standards could opt out. This means that members of the Bloc Quebecois are simply saying no to national standards because they want to allow any province that so desires to not to endorse such standards.

My question to the member for Manicouagan is this: Does he realize that the wording of his amendment to an amendment leaves the door wide open for a province that would not have met the federal standards to opt out?

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I said that this changes everything, I just wanted to say that this unequivocally clarifies the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague for Anjou—Rivière-de-Prairies.

The Liberal government and the members opposite, who claim to be people concerned with clarity in issues related to acts and regulations, find some clarity in the amendment to the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. It is clear that we know where we are going.

As for the question asked by my hon. colleague, the answer is no. I think we have to trust provincial governments. As for the Quebec government, I fully trust it. Besides, if my hon. colleague has read the regulations on the environment and drinking water that will soon be adopted in Quebec, he will see that the federal government has nothing to teach the Quebec government in this regard.