House of Commons Hansard #171 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was water.

Topics

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has 10 seconds to respond.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:50 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I guess my answer is no, I do not have the expertise.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

8:50 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate on the important matter of the diversion of the Devils Lake waters into Canadian waters. Specifically, the Devils Lake waters will flow through a 22 kilometre canal into the Sheyenne River, a tributary of the Red River that in turn flows into Lake Winnipeg.

I am pleased to address this issue as a Quebecker. Why? Because this important issue that we are debating today and this precedent that is being established today, may have considerable impact, not only for western Canada but also for Quebec, given that this current conflict could alter how we manage our boundary waters in Canada. In principle, this issue was resolved by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which guaranteed that no action was to be taken without verifying whether or not these actions—with regard to the diversion of boundary waters—had an environmental impact on existing ecosystems.

Devils Lake is in North Dakota and has seen a considerable increase in its levels in recent years. From one year to the next, the citizens who live in the areas bordering the lake have noted higher water levels. In recent years, the inhabitants of waterfront lands on Devils Lake have seen water levels rise, and this has forced a number of families to move. A solution was thus proposed in the United States, namely to create a 22-kilometre outlet, a $28 million project designed to divert the water from Devils Lake to the Cheyenne River, a tributary of the Red River, which is largely dependent on Lake Winnipeg. This $28 million project would connect, by means of the outlet, the waters of Devils Lake and Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba.

At the time, we had a schedule. It should be recalled that this is not a new file. In July 2005, the state of Dakota had indicated its intention to open this big outlet in order to lower the Devils Lake water levels for the safety of citizens living close to this lake, which is actually quite big. There was major opposition from Canada to the plan. The federal government had received the support of numerous provinces on this file. They included Ontario and Quebec, which unhesitatingly decided to support the Government of Canada in its opposition to the opening of this outlet, quite simply because the environmental and economic impacts would have been considerable for Manitoba. Consequently, the Government of Quebec and the Government of Ontario did not hesitate to support the federal government—a government which at the time was Liberal—in the face of the wishes of the government of Dakota and the state's governor to open this outlet.

Finally, the outlet was re-opened a few weeks ago, at the cost of environmental protection and economic benefits. Why? When we know about the composition of Devils Lake in North Dakota, we very quickly understand that we must oppose such a project if no mitigation measures are clearly put in place to avoid a number of phenomena.

What are these mitigation measures that we must put in place? Of course there is the installation of a rock filter and a gravel filter. Why put such filters in place? Quite simply because we have reason to believe that the Devils Lake ecosystem, in Dakota, may give rise to a strong contamination of Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba.

First, Devils Lake is highly polluted. Second, the saline level of Devils Lake is four times the current level of the Red River. Third, Devils Lake contains invasive species. In recent years, we have gathered information about these invasive species and the damage they could do to our ecosystems. I invite you to read a report by Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development about the threat posed by these species, which are microscopic in some cases but can still have a negative impact on our lake ecosystems.

What is happening in Devils Lake and could happen in Lake Winnipeg is exactly what could happen to ecosystems of the St. Lawrence with a massive influx of saline from the ocean. Salinity would increase. Opening this outlet is like letting large ships from sea areas come into fresh water and release invasive species with their ballast water.

The risks to Lake Winnipeg are exactly the same as the risks to the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system: greater salinization and more invasive species. This will also have a huge impact on ecosystems. It is completely unacceptable.

It is especially unacceptable because, in 2003, the Government of Manitoba implemented an action plan to restore drinking water quality to 1970 levels. All Manitoba's efforts over the last four years to improve water quality would be in vain because the government of North Dakota has decided to turn out the tap at this outlet. That is unacceptable.

This week, the Minister of Water Stewardship of Manitoba appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. She came to talk about how the Government of Manitoba has put in place an action plan to restore the Lake Winnipeg ecosystem, which is contaminated.

This minister came to convince us, for example, that we should no longer allow phosphorus and phosphates to be used in dishwashing liquids because they could compromise Lake Winnipeg’s ecosystem.

In view of the decision made by the Government of Manitoba to introduce a rigorous plan to improve the quality of the water in Lake Winnipeg, it is hard to see how we parliamentarians could fail to react strongly to the decision to open the outlet and allow water from Devils Lake to drain into Lake Winnipeg.

There was also a report a few years ago detailing the importance of reducing the level of nitrates in Lake Winnipeg by at least 10%. Now the government on the other side of the border is making decisions without regard for the agreement signed in August 2005 between Canada and the United States to institute mitigation measures that would limit nitrates.

The Americans promised to install a stone and gravel filter to limit contamination. It was a $15 million filter that could easily have been quickly installed. Unfortunately, though, the government did something else. By 2004, the previous government had clearly indicated that it wanted this project submitted for study by the International Joint Commission. That is what should have happened.

The 1909 treaty is very clear: when a proposed project could have an environmental impact on a bordering country, there has to be an assessment. It is obvious, however, that the people on the other side of the border are not going to do this assessment, despite the decision handed down a few years ago by the supreme court of Dakota saying that this project might contaminate Canadian waters.

Nevertheless, this ruling by the Dakota supreme court did not specify anything and did not call on the government of Dakota to call off the project. Today, we are having a very hard time understanding why the U.S. authorities have refused to apply the agreement signed in good faith in August 2005, government to government, in which Dakota promised to implement mitigation measures, and promised to install the filter to reduce the risks of contaminating the Sheyenne River, the Red River and finally, Lake Winnipeg.

We are having a very hard time understanding why our government is not now taking a clear stand to defend our ecosystems and the ecosystem of Lake Winnipeg.

If relations between George Bush and the Prime Minister are so important, if discussions are going so smoothly between the two governments, then why has the Prime Minister not managed to convince his U.S. counterparts to stop this project?

This project will not just have an environmental impact. That is not what we are talking about. In the Lake Winnipeg area, annual economic spinoffs to the tune of $20 million come from fishing activities and the fishing industry. Not only is there a possibility of compromising our ecosystem, but we might also be compromising an industry that brings in $20 million a year to the surrounding communities. This is unacceptable.

We believe that the Prime Minister has to be a little tougher. He does not need to reserve being tough for negotiating on the world stage, at the G-8, in order to lower the requirements for fighting climate change. He also needs to be tough when it comes to protecting the waters of Lake Winnipeg. If we open the doors today to this $28 million project, it is not just Lake Winnipeg that will be compromised. The need for water in the south is growing every day.

Every day, our neighbours to the south want to take advantage of Canada's water resources. If this diversion plan goes through today, then what will it be for the Great Lakes tomorrow?

Will they try to use our water resources from our St. Lawrence-Great Lakes waterways for the benefit of American interests?

If the International Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 has a legal effect, if the International Joint Commission has any meaning, now would be the time for it to speak up. It is not true that the International Joint Commission is merely a window for future negotiations or treaties that do not apply. This is, I think, the first important case in which the International Joint Commission could be called to make a decision.

North Dakota, however, refuses to allow this project to be submitted to the International Joint Commission. Manitoba and Canada have been putting pressure on this project since 1999. Canada has wanted to stop this project since 1999. In 2001, North Dakota began a wide invitation to tender to complete this project. In 2004, as I already mentioned, Canada began to ask that the project be referred to the International Joint Commission, despite the firm “no” clearly expressed by the state of North Dakota. In May 2005, the Prime Minister of Canada stood up and told George Bush that there was no way this project would be completed. As we all know, the project was completed in June 2006.

No matter what political party we belong to, we must all stand together to try to stop this project. This project would set a dangerous precedent, a precedent that would affect not only western Canada, but could also affect Ontario due to the hydrological resources of the Great Lakes. This could even have repercussions for Quebec in a few years. I strongly oppose this project.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:10 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the member who just spoke. He spoke about setting precedents and in our relationship with the U.S. it seems there are already precedents set. We have seen it particularly in northern Ontario. It seems to be always when it concerns our natural resources as in the softwood lumber agreement that was signed by the government which is continuing to come back to affect us in a negative way.

In this instance, agreements have been attempted to be worked out. Discussions have happened, but ultimately the U.S. decides that in its best interests it is going to act and affect negatively Canadian jurisdiction.

I am wondering if maybe we are not already too far down that road and given that we are, is there anything the member would suggest we could do, other than simply saying “no” and getting into that kind of debate with the U.S? We seem to always lose with the previous Liberal government and now with the present Conservative government. Are there any other things that we could be doing?

I suggested earlier that we might look at talking to the Americans about maybe using this water in other areas of their country where they are experiencing great shortages and drought, to move it and be creative in how they move it. I am told they are going to spend a lot of money, for example, in the Arizona area, taking the salt out of seawater. In order to get freshwater into that area, they are using up tonnes of water flowing from the icecaps in the Rockies to feed other areas of the U.S. Here is water that they have too much of and we do not want because it is causing us problems. Is there not some way that we could talk to them and convince them to use this water differently?

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:15 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has touched on the fundamental point and what is most likely to stir up debate over the next few years in Canada-U.S. relations.

What we call “blue gold”, and its management are likely sources of conflict. It can often be seen throughout the world. That is the reality. Some American states have a dire need for water resources, and the management of these resources is essential.

I think that what we need to promote now is the Boundary Waters Treaty, signed on June 11, 1909. What does this treaty, signed by Canada and the United States, say? It says that by signing this treaty, the United States and Canada commit to no contamination of boundary waters or cross-border waters which would be harmful to the health of those on the other side of the border. That is what the treaty says.

Perhaps I am not familiar enough with this issue and with the Devils Lake project, but it seems as though this project is a direct contravention of the 1909 treaty, signed in good faith by Canada and the United States. Our duty, as parliamentarians, is to ensure that this treaty is fully respected.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:15 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to sincerely thank my hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his very important speech and his support for Manitoba. It is very important to have the support of all members from all political parties represented here in this House.

He clearly identified the urgent situation currently facing the province of Manitoba. He spoke very well on the crisis concerning the continuation of Canadian waterways through Devils Lake in North Dakota. He talked about what must be done.

We must call on the Prime Minister of Canada to speak with President Bush as soon as possible in order to determine the steps involved in protecting Manitoba's water and Canada's water.

What specific initiatives can the government take to stop this terrible thing? What can the Minister of the Environment do to stop the movement of water from North Dakota to Manitoba?

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. We can see from what happened in the past that all is not lost and that there is hope.

Let us take a look at what Canada has done in the past and what that enabled us to accomplish. As I said in my speech in May 2005, the Prime Minister of Canada at the time, Mr. Martin, decided to speak directly to his counterpart, George Bush, to tell him that this project was totally unacceptable. A month later, in June 2005, North Dakota decided to delay the project, most likely at the instigation of the Bush government. In August 2005, Canada and the United States signed an agreement that set out mitigation measures and provided for the famous filter to mitigate the damage.

I am saying this to prove that it is possible, within three or four months, to talk to the American president—that is the Prime Minister's responsibility—and tell him that we do not agree to the project. This could, we hope, result in the project being delayed and mitigation measures being brought in. There is hope.

Canada must show its leadership to the American government with respect to the environmental impact of a project like this one, and to the economic impact it could have on the fishing industry, which represents $20 million annually.

Canadian leadership must be strong. This is the best way to ensure that those south of the border will listen to reason.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:20 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for his remarks.

Earlier I spoke of the cost of this project to the Americans, the citizens of North Dakota, thus far. They have already invested $350 million in flood control. They have also paid $450 million for damages caused by the increase in water levels. If my information is correct, with the new technology, the filter could cost as little as $7 million.

In his remarks, my colleague spoke of leadership. This project will cost $7 million, not $100 million. Leadership is important but this is not an impossible project to execute. Does my colleague have any comments in this regard?

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has 30 seconds to answer the question.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is important to conduct a real cost-benefit analysis. We realize that the mitigation measures will have an economic impact. My colleague mentioned a filter, and a $7 million cost estimate. As I understand it, it would cost somewhere between $7 million and $15 million. However, it is clear that mitigation measures are better than doing nothing at all. Right now in Canada, communities make a living from our resources. I repeat—

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I apologize for having to interrupt the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:25 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

I am pleased to rise tonight to put a few comments on the record concerning Lake Winnipeg. My daughter and her husband live very close to Lake Winnipeg and I hear weekly about the challenges that are there for the residents living on our beloved Lake Winnipeg.

It is not the first time I have risen to speak about Devils Lake. Almost two years ago, as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned, on June 21, 2005, I myself called for an emergency debate on this matter. I would like to commend the member for Winnipeg North for calling this debate. Devils Lake is an issue that warrants the immediate attention of this House and it is good to see the initiation of this debate so we can address this right in the House of Parliament.

One of the most compelling and crucial aspects of the diversion of water from Devils Lake into Manitoba is the looming threat of the pollution of our rivers and lakes, and we have heard that throughout the evening tonight. During the 1990s, high levels of precipitation caused Devils Lake to swallow large amounts of land that surround it. The lake has since risen more than seven metres, submerging 28,000 hectares of farmland and causing 300 households to abandon their land. The solution for this was to build an emergency outlet that would channel water into the Sheyenne River, which would then combine with the Red River to eventually empty into Lake Winnipeg.

I am very familiar with the Red River as it flows through my constituency of Kildonan—Paul. Manitobans and Winnipegers know that Lake Winnipeg and the Red River are two bodies of water in our province that are very significant bodies of water and e bodies of water that are under duress. Lake Winnipeg, as the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake mentioned a few minutes earlier, has many problems with the algal blooms and with nitrates.

My daughter often tells me that no one can go swimming in the lake simply because of the water alerts. No one even wants their dogs lapping the water from the lake because of the pollutants.

We know that a non-binding agreement in 2005 between Ottawa and Washington allowed for the flow of water from the emergency outlet by North Dakota as long as an advanced rock filter be built. Sometimes that is forgotten. This filter was to protect the Red River and Lake Winnipeg from the alien fish and plant species, as well as the pollutants. This important filter has not yet been built by the U.S. government. Currently, the only filter in place is a simple $50,000 rock and gravel filter that in August 2005 actually broke during the initial testing. This is a grave concern.

Another alarming development is the change to North Dakota's health department sulphate limits, which increased the allowable limits for sulphate levels in the water. Previously, the level of sulphate in the water being channeled through the emergency outlet was 300 milligrams per litre. The permit was revised last August and the state health department will now allow the Devils Lake emergency outlet to operate when up to 450 milligrams of sulphate are present in the Sheyenne River.

Canadians take pride in our environment. We have the most beautiful country in the world and we would like to preserve it for generations to come. If North Dakota continues to allow the water from Devils Lake to flow into the Sheyenne River, the Red River and finally into Lake Winnipeg, the environmental results will be alarming.

Lake Winnipeg, which our government has devoted $7 million to clean up, will continue to be polluted. This is a very important point because now both our government and the provincial government have taken special care to ensure that Lake Winnipeg, which is under duress as we speak, cannot afford to have pollutants added to its waters. The commercial fishing industry is also in jeopardy as pollution and new species could threaten current fish populations.

Apart from minimal operations in August 2005, during initial testing the Devils Lake outlet did not release any water at all in 2006. It comes as a deep disappointment today that North Dakota opted to operate it starting on Monday afternoon of this week. As we understand the situation, the outlet has run intermittently this week and has released minimal amounts of water into the Sheyenne River. Nevertheless, our government is very concerned by this recent development and particularly the members from Manitoba.

We understand that residents in the Devils Lake basin faced rising flood waters in the period leading to May 2006 when the Devils Lake level peaked. Our government is sympathetic to concerns about flooding and certainly Winnipegers are sympathetic.

Indeed, North Dakota's neighbours in Manitoba know what it means to live with the persistent threat of Red River floods. Nonetheless, North Dakota's decision to operate the outlet places Canada at an unknown and unwarranted degree of risk. The choice to discharge water from the outlet comes at a time when the level of Devils Lake is substantially below that of a year ago.

In this respect, I believe that North Dakota's decision is not only very disappointing, but very unnecessary.

I would like to review some recent history regarding Devils Lake for members of the House but I think most of it has been covered tonight so I will cover the salient points that have not been covered.

In May 2006, Devils Lake levels peaked at a little more than 1,449 feet among mean sea level, just short of 1,500 feet. Throughout 2006 not a drop of water was released from the outlet. After reaching its peak in May last year, lake levels then fell dramatically due mainly to evaporation. By earlier this spring, the level of Devils Lake had dropped by more than two feet below the 2006 high water mark.

While the lake level has risen in recent weeks, as it does every year around this time due to seasonal rainfall, it remains well below the 2006 maximum.

This week, with the lake level well down from a year ago by more than a foot, North Dakota, without warning to the Governments of Canada or the United States, decided to run the outlet. The lake level simply does not warrant placing Canadian waters a risk.

A second point to understand about the system is the important constraint placed on the outlet by the water quality of the Sheyenne River. The Sheyenne River is the receiving water for discharges from the outlet. Devils Lake water contains a high level of sulphates and a high concentration of dissolved solids.

In order for the outlet to operate, flows in the Sheyenne River must be sufficient to dilute the salty water from Devils Lake. There is maximum concentration of sulphates, a type of dissolved solid, that is allowed in the Sheyenne River under the operating permit for the outlet.

In addition to the lower water levels in 2006, North Dakota could not operate the outlet due to high sulphate levels that exceeded the level allowed under its permit. North Dakota then decided to unilaterally change the permit, which is currently being challenged in court.

This week, due to seasonal rainfall, the flow in the Sheyenne River was sufficient to provide dilution to allow for discharges from Devils Lake this week. However, there was insufficient dilution to allow for anything like a significant release of Devils Lake water.

Indeed, even under optimal circumstances, the Devils Lake outlet would have a minimal impact on reducing lake levels. This week, even with good flow in the river, the discharge of Devils Lake water into the Sheyenne River had a trivial impact on reducing lake levels.

To be clear, the decision to operate the outlet was unnecessary. It exposes Canadian waters to an unknown degree of risk from invasive species transfer.

I am proud of the steps our government is taking to quickly deal with this issue. Our environment minister and the regional minister for Manitoba met with the Manitoba provincial water stewardship minister on Tuesday to discuss this issue. The environment minister agreed to voice Manitoba's concerns within 24 hours to have the August 2005 agreement respected, as well as request that the U.S. government have the Environmental Protection Agency review the standards governing the operations of the Devils Lake emergency outlet.

I am grateful to the member for Winnipeg North for bringing this issue to the House tonight.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:35 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I hope the hon. member can answer. She mentioned that the permit is being challenged in court now. I know it was challenged in court by the Government of Manitoba and my understanding was that the government lost that challenge to the new permitting licence. I was wondering if the member could confirm one way or the other where that stands.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is a challenge right now. I can look into the details for the hon. member and get back to him on that issue.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has been very passionate about this issue for a long time. Since she was elected, one of her top priorities has been the health of Lake Winnipeg. Her concern over Devils Lake is something that she has been expressing in caucus. She has been there helping me out in my crusade to improve the health of Lake Winnipeg and find government dollars to get the job done to actually address all the concerns facing Lake Winnipeg.

How should we deal with the current situation we have with North Dakota? We have had great cooperation from the U.S. government. The U.S. State Department has worked very well with us. How does the member think we need to continue on with our diplomacy with the United States government and with Governor Hoeven in North Dakota?

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:35 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing tonight in the House of Commons is exactly what should be done, which is that all parties are working together to problem solve. We are standing as one voice to ensure that the parties involved in the U.S. understand that the outlet needs to be closed.

The problem is that the scientific data is not as extensive as we would like it to be. There needs to be more scientific study. Right now, with the opening of the outlet, the IJC has been engaged to oversee biological analysis on Devils Lake, the Sheyenne River, the Red River and Lake Winnipeg. This does interrupt it to a degree.

What we are doing tonight, working together to problem solve, is exactly what needs to be done.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:35 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my hon. colleague and one of the things she said was that the government was sympathetic and that mostly Manitoba members of the Conservative Party were sympathetic.

Obviously she was not able to use her influence to prevent this from happening in the first place.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Give me a break. You are pathetic. You are so partisan.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:40 p.m.

Liberal

Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, would you please?

The Bloc Québécois member just said a few minutes ago that the cost of doing nothing was atrocious. It could be hundreds of millions of dollars and that is an absolute fact. The cost of the solution could be between $7 million and $15 million.

Is my colleague planning on using her considerable influence to influence the minister who does absolutely nothing—

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the member opposite turns this into a political debate. Members opposite had 13 years to do something about this issue and they never did one solitary thing about it until the dying days of government.

Our government has put in $7 million for the Lake Winnipeg basin. We have a national—

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. There is less than an hour left in the debate and I would like to be able to hear the rest of it. I would ask all hon. members to hold off on any extra commentary until it is their turn to speak or in questions and comments. The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul has 20 seconds left.

Devils Lake Diversion ProjectEmergency Debate

9:40 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, we have a national water strategy in place and dollars going toward the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg. I think we should centre on the problem-solving of this issue, not political debate on this issue tonight.