House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was code.


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

Vote #38

Kyoto Protocol Implementation ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.


The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried. Consequently, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.


The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-277.

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

Vote #39

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.


The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion.

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.


John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really would invite those who are fleeing to return because this is a pretty exciting motion.

I do not think the member for Simcoe North will be accused of being overly assertive in the framing of his motion. I would not say he was being aggressive. I would say he was being quite tentative. In fact the motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of evaluating the future of the historic Trent-Severn Waterway,--

Presumably nothing would have prevented the government from doing so on its own if it had not been prompted to so by the member for Simcoe North. There is nothing here that we would wish to oppose, although we might want to add a few things to the list of suggestions which the member puts forward tentatively in terms of what the government should consider.

He does mention a number of factors that the government should look at considering its potential to become a premier recreational asset; a world-class destination for recreational boaters; a greater source of clean, renewable electric power; a facilitator of economic opportunity and renewal; and a model of environmental sustainability.

What seems to have been left out of the equation is an element which was central to the management plan that was put forward by the National Historic Sites of Canada tabled in the House on June 7, 2001. The missing element in the member's proposal refers to historical heritage.

In fact, if one considers the vision which was laid out by the historic site folks in 2001, there are four pillars to the vision. The first one is the protection of the cultural and natural heritage, followed by the management of water levels and navigation, and presentation of waterway heritage to the public. It also mentions things like heritage destination and the provision of excellent facility services and programs, and providing strength to the local economy.

It does so in a spirit which suggests that we need to have a greater cooperative effort of all stakeholders and clearly a defined leadership. There is also the importance of public private partnerships, the creation of new services, programs and businesses, and reinvestment by Parks Canada.

The thrust on community involvement is important. That is what the hon. member wishes to occur perhaps even more. There is an obligation for reports to be made on a periodic basis by Parks Canada on how this is working out. However, the one deficiency in the member's motion is the non-reference to heritage matters.

Yet, in the management plan, if one turns to page 97, there really is quite a lot of reference to that. I would hope that if the government were to follow the advice of the hon. member that these things would be taken into account.

The sorts of issues that are raised in the report are the history of the construction and operations of the Trent-Severn Waterway for example. The people who built it, the contribution of technology developed due to the waterway, and the architectural presence and evolution since 1833 of the waterway. Then it follows through on the historical evolution of the waterway since 1833, but it also returns to an earlier period.

It suggests that we need to take into account the aboriginal use of the waterway which goes back no less than 11,000 years. It was during all the major periods of Ontario native history. The Trent-Severn Waterway was central to communication. There was a dynamic and diverse nature of aboriginal cultures as they evolved and adapted to environmental circumstance, and they interacted, of course, and respected the rich natural resources of the area which contributed to the special development of the region.

This is something that we do not want to lose sight of in any consideration by the government of the waterway. This would include as well, and the hon. member's motion picks this up in his last point, the natural heritage component of this, the landscapes, the interaction between human beings and natural resources, and the importance of the wetlands in maintaining environmental quality. So we are dealing here with fish and wildlife populations, erosion control, flood regulation, and water quality.

As we look forward to supporting the motion, I would simply urge both the member and the government, as they move forward in taking into account this motion should it pass, that the heritage component be explicitly enunciated by the member and understood by the government.

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.


Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in this debate tonight on Motion No. 161 presented by the member for Simcoe North.

I want to read the motion so folks know what we are talking about. It reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of evaluating the future of the historic Trent-Severn Waterway, one of Parks Canada's National Historic Sites, and its potential to become: (a) a premier recreational asset; (b) a world-class destination for recreational boaters; (c) a greater source of clean, renewable electrical power; (d) a facilitator of economic opportunity and renewal in the communities along its 386 km length; and (e) a model of environmental sustainability.

I am pleased to support this motion. It may seem a little strange that someone from Burnaby—Douglas is taking a particular interest in the Trent-Severn Waterway, but I did grow up in Ontario, in Oshawa, and often, family outings were to go somewhere along the Trent canal, as we called it. So, it is not totally unusual.

I wanted to reference the debate that we had in the first hour where a concern was raised about a potential conflict of interest with the member who introduced this motion. I want to put on the record that I understand the Ethics Commissioner did rule that there was no conflict of interest for this member to place this motion. I am glad that issue has been resolved by the Ethics Commissioner.

The Trent-Severn Waterway is a significant waterway in southern Ontario with 386 kilometres from Trenton on Lake Ontario to Port Severn on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. There are 43 locks, two marine railways, and 33 miles of canal channels associated with the waterway.

One of the great features of the Trent-Severn Waterway is the 65-foot hydraulic lift lock in Peterborough, which was often the destination of our family outings. I can remember as a young child being fascinated at the operation of this hydraulic lift lock, which is one of the engineering marvels of the world and probably one of the highest hydraulic lift locks in the world. Many an hour was spent by my family watching the boats move up the canal at the lift lock in Peterborough. I also understand that there is another hydraulic lift lock, a little smaller, at Kirkfield, on the canal as well. It is a 45-foot one.

It is a pretty impressive engineering feat and an interesting location for a family outing, and certainly something that this motion calls on us to explore further about how we can exploit those possibilities. My family experience would certainly lead me to believe that is possible.

The Trent-Severn Waterway rises over 100 metres over its full distance, from where it begins in Lake Ontario to where it enters Lake Huron.

This waterway contains parts of old first nations trade routes, ancient trade routes, in southern Ontario that were used by the Huron and the Iroquois in days gone by.

It is also interesting to note, and something that I remember from my university Canadian history days, that this region was also the site of one of the earliest canals with lift locks at the Jesuit settlement at Sainte-Marie, near Midland. There was a lift lock built in that community to bring canoes from the river outside of the settlement to inside the walls of the community. That lift lock was contemporary with locks being built in Europe.

There was new technology, canal-building technology, lock technology, used in the early settlement of New France and in this region. I think it is fitting that the Trent-Severn Waterway, with its many locks, is a tribute to that history. That technology was contemporary in the region with what was happening in Europe at the time.

The modern Trent-Severn Waterway was first constructed in 1833, with a lock at Bobcaygeon. Over many years various parts of the waterway were built. There were often debates in the legislature of Ontario, and probably nationally as well, about the building of the Trent-Severn Waterway. It was not finally completed until 1920. The first vessel to complete the full navigation of the waterway was the Irene, a motor launch, which made that trip in 1920.

It is interesting to note that the first vessel to go all the way through the Trent-Severn Waterway was a recreational vessel. I think that heralds the modern use of the waterway and the fact that the motion calls on us to explore and promote further recreational uses.

The Trent-Severn Waterway has also been important in the hydroelectric power generation story for the province of Ontario. The Big Chute generating station is a significant part of generating hydro in Ontario and of the hydrogeneration history of Ontario. It was one of the first pieces of Ontario Hydro assembled by the Government of Ontario back in the early 20th century, and it continues to play a role in the generation of power for Ontario. That is also a significant feature of this motion.

There are possibilities for exploring the expansion of hydroelectric generation capacity on the Trent-Severn Waterway, without enlarging the footprint of the dams and the generation facilities already there. There is a possibility of adding to the capacity of electricity generation already there. That would be a good thing. Even Trent University has its own hydrogeneration station on the Otonabee River on the Trent-Severn Waterway, and I understand it generates about half of the power used by the university.

When the canal and the waterway was originally built, it was used for freight and passenger services, often for the export of sawn lumber. As freight capacity dwindled over the years, it was used primarily for recreational use. There is real potential in that today.

Canals like the Trent-Severn Waterway are great tourist destinations. We have seen this with the Erie Canal in New York State as well as with other canals in England, Scotland and other European countries. The tourist dollars they generate have been significant to the economies of the communities along those routes. A study was done on the future of the Trent-Severn Waterway. We can also look to those examples to see other possibilities for the Trent-Severn.

We have heard from a lot of folks who are concerned about this. Cottagers in the region and cottagers who have recreational properties along the Trent-Severn Waterway are concerned about water levels. Many have written to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has responsibility for Parks Canada on behalf of the NDP. They have also written to the member for Hamilton Mountain as well as other members of our caucus about this issue. Water levels need to be considered in any study that will be done. How does the Trent-Severn Waterway contribute to water level issues? How can it help maintain water levels in the area? This is clearly of importance to the people who vacation along the waterway and who have cottages on the rivers and lakes that connect into it. I would hope this could be part of the parameters of the study.

The Trent-Severn Waterway is an important historical feature of Ontario. It has been designated by Parks Canada as a national historic site. It would be a shame not to take advantage of its full recreational, economic, hydroelectric and environmental possibilities of the waterway. We can do this in a way that would be respectful of the environment, that would be sustainable and would respect the concerns of residents along the waterway.

I lend my support to the motion, and I thank the member for Simcoe North for putting in on the agenda of the House.

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.


Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in the debate this evening. As the Trent-Severn Waterway cuts across the middle of my riding, it is big issue for many people in my riding, both along the waterway and north of that.

I will not go into a description of the waterway as many of my colleagues have already done that very ably in the first hour of debate, as well this evening. The member for Don Valley West talked about some of the characteristics of the waterway, how large it is, how important it is and the importance of some of the heritage. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas has also touched on several of those issues. I did not know that he was originally from Ontario and had actually spent time along the Trent-Severn probably in my riding.

It also appears that if the Liberal Party and the NDP are supporting this motion that it will probably pass. I sincerely hope it does and I hope the government and the minister will proceed with it. I am optimistic in that regard.

I believe it is time to conduct a comprehensive review of the Trent-Severn Waterway. This system really has two parts. The first part is the waterway itself, the part everyone thinks about, which is the recreational canal that stretches from Georgian Bay at Port Severn through central Ontario down to Trenton and into Lake Ontario.

However, the second part of this waterway that is very important is what is referred to as the reservoir lakes. Most of these lakes are in Haliburton county, which is my home. Over the course of the summer, water is drawn down from those lakes to maintain a static or constant level in the waterway.

For those who actually live on the Trent-Severn Waterway itself, their water level does not change at all because the system draws water from Haliburton. As a resident of Haliburton, as a resident on the system and as a former realtor in that area who sold cottages to people, I am very aware of water level issues and how they affect recreational users in Haliburton county.

First, I support the need for this review and I look forward to it taking place. I would like to offer my advice to the minister and the government, if they go ahead with this, on how they ought to conduct or structure this review. I would argue that there are two principles that need to be put forward. The first is that we need to ensure environmental sustainability. There are a wide range of environmental issues that arise when we talk about the Trent-Severn.

I think it is important for people to realize that more than 100 years ago nature in central Ontario was altered when this canal system was created. The reality that exists today is not natural to what was there 200 years ago, but it is the new reality and we need to recognize that the water system of the Trent-Severn exists. It is there and it must continue to be operated and maintained. Abandoning it is not an option even in a theoretical sense. This waterway must stay in operation, must be maintained and we must deal with the environmental issues that arise, some of them as a direct consequence of the fact that the waterway is there.

The second principle that I would like to put forward, and this follows up on the point that the member for Don Valley West made, is that we must also protect heritage values. Some of those heritage values are natural and some are from our aboriginal history. I know there are places along the waterway where there are paintings on the rocks that date back hundreds or thousands of years, and that is very important. There is also heritage in terms of more recent history. In fact, many of the locks themselves are historic sites.

It is quite amazing that something built over 100 years ago still works. This is an operating system. My colleague mentioned the two hydraulic lift locks. The famous one is in Peterborough but the equally impressive and only a slightly smaller one, which most people do not know about, is in Kirkfield. Those are tourist attractions. Not only do tourists and their families visit these attractions, but engineers also visit them and marvel at how a system that just uses the weight of the water to push the hydraulic lift locks up and down works so well.

I would also like to set out three, what I would call, priorities for this study and I encourage the government to consider these carefully. The first would be public safety.

The system has 160 dams on it. Some of these dams do not look very impressive when one stops the car to look at them. They only become impressive when one realizes this. If the lake level has been raised by six feet, eight feet or ten feet and we multiply that by how many acres of water are behind it, we realize if the dam ever let go what the consequences would be downstream.

During the first hour of debate one of the members from the Bloc suggested that the member for Simcoe North, the sponsor, may have a conflict because his family operated a business on the system. I must declare that I may also have a conflict in this regard because live below one of these dams. I have stood in my backyard, looked at the river and have tried to decide that if the Drag Lake dam let go, would I lose my whole backyard. I think the house would be safe because it is on the side of a hill.

I believe public safety is the first priority. I believe each of those dams should be inspected for structural integrity.

I have no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with these dams. The staff do an excellent job. They visually inspect them on a regular basis. I also know there is modern technology akin to an X-ray that can look at these dams and determine whether they are structurally sound.

Infrastructure failure is never a story until it happens. Unfortunately this past weekend we had a tragic example of that in Montreal. All I can say is if one of these dams ever let go, the consequences would be far greater.

My second priority is to look at the interests of the communities and the property owners along the system. There are many towns and villages. There are literally thousands of property owners. Property in this area has become very expensive. People moving into the area, retiring in the area or buying cottages, when they are paying $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 and $600,000 for waterfront property, want water there. When something happens downstream and they draw the lakes down by six feet or eight feet and all of a sudden the beach disappears and the dock is high and dry, those people are not very happy.

It is really important to the communities and the property owners along the system, in particular those who live on the reservoir lakes and who have to deal with these dramatic changes in water level, that their interests are carefully considered and are put near the top of the priorities.

The third priority is visitors and other users. As has been mentioned, this is a common and popular tourist destination for people in the GTA and southern Ontario, whether they are boat owners and boating on the system or families going up to use public beaches or parks along where these locks exist. Visitors and the way they impact the tourism economy is very important. An example is the town of Bobcaygeon, which is on the Trent-Severn. It is a very popular site for tourists. They go there to eat lunch or shop. Bigley's shoe store there is famous. Every woman in Ontario knows where Bigley's shoe store is because most of them have visited it a time or two.

Last year, when there was an interruption in the operation of the locks, it had an immediate and detrimental impact on a lot of merchants and businesses along the system. How we develop and market this diamond in the rough, as I have heard it referred to, is important. We need to let people know it is there and encourage them to visit.

Other users is a broad category, and I probably do not have time to get into all this tonight. As has been mentioned already, hydroelectric power is something that is generated at many places along the system. There is much evidence that, with improved technology, we could probably generate more power from the same facilities. There is new technology, such as run-of-the-river, that can generate green power. However, it is important for people to realize that if we augment the power generating capacity and that draws more water, we are exacerbating the problems of the property owners have with lack of water in front of their properties.

We need to look at all these users and interests. I am very confident that through this process we can come up with a strategy to move forward to put the Trent-Severn Waterway on a sound footing, to launch it into the next 100 years. I am also confident that we can address all of these issues, come up with a plan that is workable, a work plan and an action plan for the staff at Parks Canada as they go about operating the Trent-Severn.

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.


Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 161. I am very pleased that the member for Simcoe North is putting forward this motion. It is important that the people of Simcoe North understand the important work their member is doing. I can certainly commend him to his constituents for doing some very good work on their behalf in the House. This motion is no exception.

The motion calls on the government, specifically the Minister of the Environment, to consider evaluating the future of an asset that is truly important to the people of Ontario and Canada: the Trent-Severn Waterway. This is a national historic site that belongs to all Canadians and is managed for them by their federal government, specifically the Parks Canada Agency.

I am a history major and I know that the Trent-Severn Waterway was originally conceived as a way to facilitate commercial navigation from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron. In fact, the House may be surprised and pleased to know that its first lock was built of wood in 1833, when early loggers were exploiting vast stands of white pine in the region.

While the waterway was first managed for commercial navigation, recreational uses became more and more prominent over the years. Today, residential, cottage, municipal and tourism growth along the waterway corridor has added a broad range of management needs and responsibilities that the early builders never contemplated.

Today the waterway is vitally important to the more than one million Canadians who live in its 18,600 square kilometre watershed. It is also a piece of living Canadian cultural, social and economic history. It stretches for 386 kilometres, linking the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario with Lake Simcoe, Georgian Bay and Lake Huron.

In addition to the economic importance of tourism, there are approximately 50 communities located along its course, everything from tiny hamlets, towns and villages to cities like Peterborough, Trenton, Orillia and Lindsay. As different as these varied communities are in size and nature, they have one thing in common. Without the rivers, lakes and man-made features that comprise the Trent-Severn Waterway, they would not exist. The sustainability of the waterway, therefore, is vital to the sustainability of these communities.

The word “sustainability” is very popular these days. It is almost a buzzword, so to speak, and it is not only used but misused. But with regard to the Trent-Severn, I think it is entirely accurate to talk about sustainability, both for the waterway itself and for the communities that rely upon it. Without a sustainable waterway, it would be impossible to have sustainable communities.

According to the Centre for Sustainable Community Development:

A sustainable community uses its resources to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate resources are available for future generations. It seeks a better quality of life for all its residents while maintaining nature's ability to function over time by minimizing waste, preventing pollution, promoting efficiency and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy... A sustainable community resembles a living system in which human, natural and economic elements are interdependent and draw strength from each other.

The motion before us today addresses the well-being and long term sustainability of the Trent-Severn Waterway directly. It states that the government should consider the future of the waterway in ways that are specific, yet interlinked. These would include its uses as a recreational asset, a world-class destination for pleasure boaters, a source of clean, renewable electric power, a facilitator of economic opportunity and renewal for the many communities along its great length, and, perhaps most important of all, a model for environmental sustainability.

It goes without saying that as a national historic site of Canada the Trent-Severn Waterway must be preserved for present and future generations of Canadians. Parks Canada is to be commended, I think, for the excellent job it is doing in this regard under its present mandate.

In addition to the waterway's role as a treasured asset of the Canadian people, however, it also functions as the very lifeblood of more than 50 communities. If it is not sustainable, neither are they, in the fullest sense. These communities depend on the waterway for their supplies of clean, fresh water, but also for much more.

The Trent-Severn provides clean, renewable hydroelectricity and is a source of economic opportunity. It provides wonderful recreational opportunities and I think it is important to know, too, that caring for the waterway is the bedrock of the region's social and community values. In short, the need to care for the waterway and that which needs to be done to ensure its long term health and viability provide a road map, pointing the way to the goal of having sustainable communities.

Unfortunately, the long term sustainability of the waterway is at risk due to the deterioration of its aging infrastructure and a regulatory and governance regime put in place long ago. This regime has not evolved to suit the present multi-faceted role of the waterway and the many differing federal, provincial and municipal responsibilities for it.

These responsibilities include the management of a complex water regime that ensures water for navigation, as well as allocating increasingly scarce water resources to many competing demands, and it include the provision of municipal and domestic water supplies. There are also requirements to protect water quality, preserve species at risk and natural resources, control damaging floods, and ensure the provision of renewable energy through hydroelectric generation.

Unfortunately, work done by Parks Canada indicates that in some ways the sustainability of the waterway and its communities is in question.

Approximately 1.5 million people from across Canada and around the world visit the waterway as tourists every year. Many thousands more come by boat. Over 100,000 people now own property along the shores of the waterway. It has experienced exponential residential, cottage, municipal and tourism growth along the waterway corridor and around the shores of dozens of lakes.

Potential threats to the long term sustainability of the waterway include the deterioration of its dams and locks, which need substantial investment to remain safe and functional. There are also issues that are even more difficult to get a handle on, including fertilizer runoff, phosphorous enrichment, pollution caused by excessive plant nutrients, overdevelopment, and habitat loss.

Trends in some parts of the waterway, such as Pigeon Lake, for example, indicate that phosphorous enrichment is on the rise, presenting long term problems. The trend in Pigeon Lake shows that water quality is decreasing.

Needless to say, the greater the human footprint, the less space left for wildlife habitat. Road density within the watershed is also increasing, fragmenting habitats and creating barriers to wildlife movement.

Fortunately, the Trent-Severn communities are well aware of these problems. Eighty per cent of the lakes within the system have set up associations and there are an additional 11 associations on the major connecting rivers. The Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations is one of the largest such groups doing excellent work. There is a wide array of stewardship interests doing encouraging activities focusing on environmental issues and the sustainability of the waterway.

There are so many reasons why the motion before us could represent an important breakthrough, and I think we have articulated a number of them. We need to build sustainable communities, not just along the Trent-Severn but across Canada. I think the motion before the House will provide a blueprint for how to begin to address some of the challenges to genuine sustainability that desperately need attention.

That is why I am encouraging my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of the motion. Afterward, with a successful result, we will encourage the minister to get on with a very important review.

Once again, I commend the member for Simcoe North for a valuable motion put before the House.

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.


Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the hon. members who have spoken in support of Motion No. M-161 this evening and in the first hour of debate.

I want to address one point, and it was mentioned earlier this evening by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, and that is the question that was raised in the first hour of debate concerning conflict of interest. Not long after this issue was raised at the time by the late member for Repentigny that there may be this question, I took up the member's suggestion which was also echoed by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and I did approach the Ethics Commissioner.

Three or four days later, I received a report from him which I tabled in this House on the 22nd of June. It essentially says, “In my opinion”--that being the commissioner--“your sponsoring of motion M-161 does not represent a conflict of interest as it falls within the category of a broad class of the public as defined in section 3(3)(b) of the code, and that of assisting constituents as per section 5 of the code”. I just wanted to make that point.

I also informed the member for Repentigny and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh of this development, as per their suggestion. The member for Repentigny was particularly graceful. A week before his tragic death in an automobile accident, he contacted me in my office and was very graceful and eloquent in saying that he appreciated that I had gotten back to him. It was a conversation with the member that I will always remember.

Motion No. M-161, as members have attested to tonight, has a tremendous ability to provide not only a statement about economic sustainability but about the interests of renewable power, the idea that the Trent-Severn Waterway is in fact a huge water resource management infrastructure that is actually owned and operated by the federal government. It has tremendous reach in our communities right across Ontario.

I should point out to the member for Don Valley West who raised the issue tonight with respect to the historical value that he is absolutely right. From the very beginning, when we look at the Trent-Severn Waterway, we understand that not only does it have this tremendous potential in terms of economic renewal and of being a model for sustainability, a model that hopefully can be used in other park applications right across Canada, but the very essence of this canal is that it is historic.

If we look at the other examples of historic canals in Scotland and in New York State, the fact that they represent a piece of history is the commonality that brings them together and make them such a focal point and a recreational asset for all users and all Canadians.

There is no doubt, as I alluded to before, that this is a massive water resource management project. It is probably the key and primary role that the Trent-Severn Waterway fulfills. It is widely known as a recreational boating haven, but ultimately it is 18,000 square kilometres of waterway. As has been indicated this evening, there is terrific importance in making sure that the water levels and the water resource, the wetlands and the protection of shoreline habitats right across the system are provided for in the course of this.

I would like to wrap up by reiterating my thanks to all of the hon. members from all sides of the House who have spoken in favour of this motion.

It is a tremendous honour to me to stand in this place and talk about the Trent-Severn Waterway system. The pioneers in my family, who came from England in 1874 and who were around when this system was being put together, would be so honoured to know that here we are, 150 years since the system first began and we are talking about it again in the House of Commons and moving this tremendous waterway to the next phase.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all hon. members to consider supporting this motion. In turn, I hope that the government and the minister will take this advice to heart and move this forward as quickly as she and the government can.

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.


The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Some hon. members



Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.


The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Some hon. members


Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.


The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.

Some hon. members


Trent-Severn WaterwayPrivate Members' Business

7:10 p.m.


The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 18, 2006, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 7:14 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:14 p.m.)