Mr. Speaker, as we have discussed here, Motion No. 104 calls for actions to protect the Ottawa watershed. I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this. There have been a good number of members over time who have raised this. It is time for action. There is just a difference in perspective on who should be taking the action.
As the member has mentioned, the Ottawa River is also known as Kitchissippi, meaning the great river by the Algonquin. It may be worth noting that the current Canada Water Act does not include engagement of first nations people, so those are some of the things I will mention later that could be pursued by the committee. It rises from its source in Lake Capimitchigama in the Laurentian mountains of central Quebec and flows west to Lake Timiskaming, and there its route has been used to define the interprovincial border with Ontario, so it is clearly transboundary.
From Lake Timiskaming, the river flows southeast to Ottawa and Gatineau, where it tumbles over the Chaudière Falls and further takes in the Rideau and Gatineau rivers. It drains into the Lac des Deux Montagnes in the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. I would like to share that when I first moved here eight years ago, I was living in the market, and I regularly came to the Hill by walking along the beautiful trail along the river, so I fully appreciate the need to take action to protect that natural landscape.
I have also been told that the drainage area of the Ottawa River includes many significant wetlands. It has been designated a heritage river and is listed, unlike a lot of rivers, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Many rivers were removed by the Conservatives.
Another thing to be pointed out is the long history of paying attention to pollution of this river. The member mentioned a number of sources: pulp and paper pollution; Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Lab, Chalk River; municipal sewage, the third being the one that has really been dealt with. Today, apparently the main pollutant in the Ottawa River is from plastic micro beads and micro fibres, and I am glad that one of my former colleagues actually brought forward measures to address that.
One of the things that is worth sharing is that a very famous writer, Oscar Wilde, visiting the city in May 1882, was outraged at the state of the river and the level of sawdust. He said, “This is an outrage. No one has the right to pollute the air and water, which are the common inheritance of all. We should leave them to our children as we have received them.”
Of course, he was controversial, and that was one of the good reasons for him being controversial.
This is the latest call. I know that the member for Ottawa South has raised this matter a number of times in the media and perhaps in the House, and called for federal-level intervention to get things moving between the two provincial jurisdictions and civil society.
It is an intervention long called for by many, including my friend and former MP, Paul Dewar. Inspired by the dedication of local citizens, including the Ottawa Riverkeeper and Waterlution, another group that has been very involved, Paul made repeated calls for federal action to protect the Ottawa River, including tabling an action plan and motion calling for regulations to protect and preserve the integrity of the river; environmental regulations; enforcement of the Federal Fisheries Act, which of course has been downgraded by the last government; calling for increased funding to municipalities to improve water treatment, and I understand some action has been taken on that; and calling for public disclosure of compliance records, regular monitoring of ecological indicators, and a watershed management plan.
Due to the constant efforts of local citizens, some action has been taken to garner the efforts in both Quebec and Ontario and the federal authorities to at least provide some level of commitment to take action. Unfortunately, we have not had action. There has been a signing on to an agreement that there needs to be an integrated watershed plan, but no action.
In May 2015, the number of parties, including representatives of the provinces and the federal government, signed on to the Gatineau Declaration Toward an Integrated Approach to Sustainable Water Management Within the Ottawa River Watershed. Regrettably, river advocates tell me that there has then been little concrete action taken, including by the empowered federal authorities to actually finalize the watershed plan and put in place the necessary enforceable measures to protect the watershed. This is despite the existing powers already under federal law, under the federal Fisheries Act and under the Canada Water Act. This is fully possible.
In the past, the federal government has moved to work with the provinces, for example, in the Mackenzie River Basin and, as was mentioned, in the Fraser. There has been a record of taking action together.
I am concerned about others in transborder areas, including the Mackenzie River Basin and the North Saskatchewan River, that similarly the federal government is dropping the ball on taking action to bring together all the parties on transboundary rivers.
Over a period of many decades, successive federal governments, Liberal and Conservative, have relinquished responsibility for the protection of transboundary or transborder rivers or rivers considered of national significance: the demise of the inland waters directorate; the failure to enforce the federal Fisheries Act; the delisting of navigable rivers; the failure to intervene in project reviews to assert duties over protection of transborder rivers and lakes.
While the motion by the member is laudatory in calling for action to move forward for a watershed plan for the Ottawa River, I wish to share concerns that I have heard from others. As my colleague from the Conservative Party pointed out, the suggested forum, the parliamentary committee on environment and climate change, may not be the best-suited entity to undertake the actions that the member is calling for to actually establish a watershed council, which should be up to the various government entities, which should be up to civil society, which should be up to scientific experts. Certainly the committee, and I know this because I sit on the committee, lacks the resources and the technical and scientific expertise to undertake a number of the measures that the member for Ottawa South is calling for.
In my view, and in the view of those I have conferred with, the preferable locus for action is the government itself, including the environment department, the fisheries department, and possibly the heritage department, and their officials.
For that reason, I wish to present an amendment to the member's motion to enable a broader review and analysis of how well the federal government is delivering on its mandate to protect transboundary waters, more generally, and consideration of measures to ensure more effective and timely action over all of these watersheds.
The parliamentary committee could serve as a useful forum to examine the current legislated mandate, current policies, current instruments available to the federal government, and record of actions taken, including examining case examples of a number of transboundary rivers.
I wish, here, to submit the following amendment.
I move that motion M-104 be amended by deleting all of the words between “regards to” and “and that the Committee” and inserting the following: “(i) reviewing federal jurisdiction, legislation, policies and agreements related to watershed management and protection with an emphasis on transboundary waters and watersheds on federal lands (ii) examining federal actions for selected transboundary watersheds such as the Ottawa River, Mackenzie River Basin and the North Saskatchewan River as case studies to be determined by the Committee, (iii) identifying mechanisms for clarified and enhanced federal interventions to protect Canadian waters;”
