House of Commons Hansard #120 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ndp.

Topics

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

When shall the bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House.

Points of OrderGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. opposition House leader concerning the notice period for Government Business No. 17. I would like to thank the hon. opposition House leader for raising this matter.

The hon. opposition House leader argued that Government Business No. 17 could not be taken up until, at the earliest, 12:25 a.m. on Thursday, June 23, because the text of the notice had been embargoed until the notice paper became available at 12:25 a.m. this morning, June 21. Only then, he maintained, would the 48 hours' notice required by Standing Order 54 have been met.

However, as Marleau and Montpetit states at page 470:

In practice, the 48 hours' notice requirement is not exactly 48 consecutive hours, but refers instead to the publication of the notice once in the notice paper and its transfer the next day to the order paper.

This practice has been confirmed by a ruling by Speaker Lamoureux on October 6, 1970, which can be found on page 1410 of the journals.

As hon. members are aware, Standing Order 54 states that 48 hours' notice shall be given for any substantive motion, and on Mondays, notices must be laid on the table or filed with the clerk before 6 p.m. for inclusion on the next day's notice paper. This is to provide members and the House with some prior warning, so that they are not called upon to consider a matter unexpectedly.

The time-honoured practice followed by staff in the Journals branch in respect of embargoed items placed on notice is that those items are made available upon publication of the notice paper, invariably after the House adjourns.

In recent times this has meant that items are available a relatively short time after the adjournment hour, often less than an hour after the adjournment. I should point out that in the days before technology allowed electronic publishing, it was not uncommon for interested parties to have to wait until the next morning to read the text of items placed on notice on any given evening.

This practice has served the interests of all parties in the House fairly. In other words, each party has benefited from it at one time or another.

That being said, very often members furnish copies of the items they are placing on notice to other members as a matter of courtesy, and that is certainly a practice to be encouraged.

With regard to Government Business No. 17, notice was given prior to 6 p.m. yesterday and the motion was placed on today's notice paper, pursuant to Standing Order 54. It will be transferred to the appropriate section in tomorrow's order paper, thus fulfilling the notice requirement according to our practice.

The Chair has concluded that no breach of the rules or practices of this House has occurred. Accordingly, it will be open to the government House leader to move Government Business No. 17 at the appropriate time tomorrow if he so chooses.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8 p.m.

The Speaker

The House will now proceed to an adjournment motion to discuss an important and determined matter which is of an urgent nature, that is, the Devils Lake project.

Pursuant to Standing Order 52, the hon. member for Kildonan--St. Paul has obtained leave to move her motion.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake seconded the motion that this discussion be set forward tonight because the issue is of utmost concern to the people Manitoba.

I have to say at the outset that there is a great history with this Devils Lake diversion problem. The Devils Lake diversion is about to open. It was scheduled to open on July 1, but because of bad weather it will be postponed. We are grateful for a little time to keep pushing the matter. This is of great concern to Manitobans because of the potential contamination of the waterways in our province.

The member for Selkirk--Interlake has taken a real leadership role on this issue. The water systems affect his riding and my riding to quite an extent. Over and above that, as members of Parliament from Manitoba, it is our responsibility to stand up for the kind of protection of the waterways that is so drastically needed right now. There has been a myriad of problems around this issue.

Members on the other side of the House actually said that the stalling of the opening of the Devils Lake diversion was due to their negotiation with the United States. I found that quite appalling because that just is not true. The fact of the matter is that the governor of North Dakota has said quite categorically that the reason this diversion was not opened was simply because of bad weather.

Throughout our time here, we have done a lot to try to make this diversion not happen. The present government has fumbled and mumbled on this very serious issue. It has neglected the needs of Manitobans.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I will be sharing my time with the member for Selkirk--Interlake. I am very pleased to do that because of the leadership role he has played in this very important issue for our province.

I tabled in the House today a letter dated May 21, 2002 which was written to Marc Grossman, the under secretary for political affairs at the Department of State in Washington, D.C. by the former ambassador, Michael Kergin. This letter quite clearly indicates there was a reference to the International Joint Commission and an offer was made for Canada to participate in that joint commission. It states:

I am writing in response to your letter of May 20 and other recent correspondence received from the Department of State inviting the Government of Canada to join the Government of the United States in making a reference to the International Joint Commission (IJC) on the compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) of the proposed Devils Lake outlet project.

We note in the letter from the Director of Canadian Affairs, Ms. Nancy Mason, dated 17 April 2002, that a Devils Lake outlet has not been recommended as the preferred option in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draft Integrated Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), published on 26 February 2002.

Quite clearly red flags have gone up all over the place. Red flags have gone up about the potential danger and the lack of scientific data that is available and the lack of the environmental impact that was needed to ensure that our waters are kept safe in Manitoba. This lack of scientific procedure for our waters in Manitoba is going to be a great cost to the people of Manitoba.

The waterways feed a lot of industry and commerce and also mean enjoyment and recreation in our province. They support the fishery, tourism and a lot of things. People live along the river. There are a lot of things about the waterways that we hold very dear. We want to preserve them in the province of Manitoba.

Lake Winnipeg is under great duress. Some days there are warnings not to swim in the water. There are concerns about foreign species and bacteria. There is an initiative in Manitoba that centres on the waters in Lake Winnipeg.

It is very easy to put out a press release and use a lot of hyperbole about how the waterways are taken care of. Members opposite have done a good job of that. Unfortunately, they have not done a good job of preventing the diversion from being opened.

It has to do with foreign relations and the lack of interaction that the present government has with our neighbours to the south. There is a lack of goodwill. The proper scientific study has not been done. Many variables have come into play that have put our waterways in great danger.

We have tried very, very hard in the House this past while. The issue started over eight years ago. The present government has been in government for over a decade. This issue is not something that just sneaked up and tapped the government on the shoulder. This was a grave concern a long time ago.

In February 2003 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released information that an alternate method of reducing flooding would be preferred to the Devils Lake outlet project and made some recommendations. A lot of red flags go up in our nation when there are issues as big as waterways. The Devils Lake diversion will affect Lake Winnipeg, the Red River and waters right up to the Hudson basin. It will have a huge impact.

We are having this emergency debate to waken the members opposite. Tonight we expect them to say with great hyperbole that they have great relations with the U.S. They will say that they are doing lots of things and that everything we have said is inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is that the diversion should not be opened. It should not be there. We are concerned about the lack of ability of the members opposite to do anything about this. The red flags are all up. To stand in the House of Commons and actually say in front of Canadians that the diversion was delayed because of their talks is an embarrassment to Manitobans and an embarrassment to all Canadians.

The fact is there has been bad weather. The weather is clearing up. In a couple of weeks' time the diversion will be opened and will dump all sorts of things into the Manitoba waterways.

Tonight we want to stand here and have this discussion. We want Manitobans and all Canadians to know that we are fighting for the well-being of our waterways all throughout Manitoba.

I have to commend the Manitoba caucus. I have to commend the member for Selkirk—Interlake and the member for Provencher, who has spent a great deal of time on this issue, as well as Senator Johnson and Senator Stratton. People in Manitoba are standing up on this issue. Tonight we hope to push the present government into doing something about it.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While my hon. colleague was speaking, the President of the Treasury Board was calling her a liar. I would ask him to withdraw those comments.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

During the debate there was some heckling. I did not catch any particular words. If that was the case and there was language like that used, perhaps the hon. member would withdraw it.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, that language seems to be the standard in the House coming from that side. However, what I said was I was tired of the lies. I did not call the individual a liar. It was the statements that were being made which are patently false. I think that is the standard the Speaker set.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is hard to distinguish between saying someone is a liar and saying they are telling lies. It is basically the same thing. I would ask the hon. minister if he would withdraw the word “lies” in order to get on with the debate.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Reg Alcock Liberal Winnipeg South, MB

Mr. Speaker, we have raised this point over and over in the House. The Speaker has ruled that as long as these sorts of allegations are not directed at an individual, they are allowed. However, if it would facilitate the debate, I will withdraw any reference to the individual.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I thank the minister for that.

Questions and comments.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, are there questions and comments?

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There are five minutes for questions and comments.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

An hon. member

We were told there were not.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I believe there are questions and comments following the speeches, unless there was a special order passed saying otherwise. There are, as usual, five minutes for questions and comments.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, pardon the pun but we are being inundated with water problems in Canada these days. There is flooding in Alberta and now of course this issue that affects--

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker has made a ruling. I do not mean in any way to be difficult to the member who is speaking now. but it would appear to me, according to the Standing Orders of the House, that in fact under Standing Order 52 there is not an opportunity for questions and comments. I believe that was the prior agreement, but I defer to your second review of this matter.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There may be some confusion on the difference between a take note debate and an emergency debate. Standing Order 43(1)(b) states:

Following any speech by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a Minister moving a government order, or the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, and following any twenty-minute speech, a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.

Regarding an emergency debate, Standing Order 52(13) states:

No Member shall speak longer than twenty minutes during debate on any such motion,--

--referring to emergency debates--

--provided that a Member may indicate to the Speaker that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another Member.

Therefore, members can divide their time and I believe there can be questions and comments, unlike a take note debate. We can proceed that way.

We will resume questions and comments with the hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, what I was leading up to is that we have all of these water issues in this country now and they are very important. It involves the necessary supply of water in one case, and in some instances when it comes to flooding, a rather distinct oversupply.

I would like to ask the hon. member to give us a very quick and brief summary of this diversion and what it means in terms of water supply and water management to the province.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, this is about keeping our waterways in Manitoba clean. There has not been enough science on the issue. There has not been an environmental impact study on the Devils Lake diversion. There are solutions to the problem but the problem is that time is running out.

Suggestions have been made that a screen be put in at a cost and that our waters be protected as they come from the U.S. The problem right now is that the Red River is very high and the water levels in Manitoba are very high. When the Devils Lake diversion is opened, it causes the water to come down without knowing what is actually in that water.

We have a bad situation going on in Lake Winnipeg right now. I could go through all the details but I do not have time to do that. However there are very specific bacteria, nitrates and all kinds of things that are compromising the quality of the water in Lake Winnipeg.

Lake Winnipeg is the 10th largest freshwater body in the world and it supplies water to many people in the province of Manitoba. We have raised this issue in the House many times with the government. The flags went up eight years ago about the concerns.

Now that we are right on the brink of the Devils Lake opening, we want to work in a collaborative way with out neighbours to the south to problem solve and ensure that our water quality in the province of Manitoba is kept pure.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:15 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, there was a point of confusion that made me concerned with one of the proposals. She mentioned that there was a myriad of proposals that she could put forward. One of the specific ones I heard from her party was with respect to the filtration system, which has also been put into question as to whether that would actually be effective as a solution to the diversion.

Even so, I believe her party said that the Canadian government should be paying for this. The precedence for this type of suggestion, when dealing with our American neighbours over something like water quality issues, it would seem to me, at best, circumspect and, at worst, terrible for the nation of Canada. To make a suggestion that we should pay to filter their dirty water before it arrives across the Canadian border seems to me to be erroneous and the wrong direction to go in.

Throughout this discussion the important things to keep in mind are the very explicit facts of this case. When was it that the Americans actually had a project that we could review and refer to the IJC? The date of that is extremely important. I was wondering if she could comment on that part of the process and then on the suggestion that Canada should be paying for the filtration system that may or may not work.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:15 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one inaccuracy. I said that there was a suggestion, which came from North Dakota quite recently, that a filter could be put in. No mention was made of whether or not the Canadian government should or would pay for the filter. I also said that not enough science was going on to ascertain what to do to ensure that our waters in Manitoba are protected.

I threw out the kind of proposals that came forward from down south and I am saying that we should look at all options. The present government is the government in power and it should be dealing with this. It has had over a decade to do that and the responsibility is squarely on the Liberals' shoulders. Some members from Manitoba have also stated their concern.

Unfortunately, the Province of Manitoba actually put a court case forward about this project. When we are talking about this today, we are talking about the fact that an environmental impact study has to be done. It has not been done. We do not know enough about what is happening in our water systems. We have some data that shows quite clearly that our water system could be compromised.