Mr. Speaker, before I get into the body of my speech, I would like to respond to some points that were made by the hon. member for Abbotsford.
First, he mentioned that I had been in government for 13 years. That is not factual. I was elected in 2004, a few months prior to him being elected.
Second, he mentioned that the motion followed on the heels of the government's announcement that it would create a national water strategy, an announcement that the government appended at the last minute to the last budget. I remind the member that I tabled my motion back in the fall, many months before the government, as an afterthought, appended a paragraph or two on a national water strategy to the budget.
This kind of issue requires a proactive approach. The way things are structured at the moment, with 20 agencies and departments in the federal government involved in some way, shape or form in the water issue, I do not believe there is sufficient focus on this issue, which is why the amendment that we will be vote on calls for the government to appoint a secretary of state for water, who obviously would report to the Minister of the Environment.
The environment is an extremely complex and broad issue. It is a lot for one person, as we have seen, and the issue requires some focus to build the bridges among the departments involved.
I will give an example of one issue that involves two powerful ministers, who seem to have a split attention toward a particular water issue, and that is the issue of Devils Lake. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is involved as is the Minister of the Environment.
Pursuant to the events that occurred this week in North Dakota, we have seen that the government has not been proactive on the issue. The Minister of Foreign Affairs obviously has huge responsibilities. He is travelling to different parts of the world as is the Minister of the Environment, so this issue seems to fall through the cracks.
I will ask a question, but obviously there will not be a response because it is more of a rhetorical question. Why did we not foresee the opening of the Devils Lake outlet this past Monday? The hon. member for Abbotsford spoke of the great scientists and scientific resources the Department of the Environment and the Department of Natural Resources had. How come they did not understand the water levels in Devils Lake were rising enough that the government of North Dakota would be tempted to open the outlet? Why did they not see this coming?
Not only do we have the scientific resources, but we have a U.S. desk in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Its job is to follow what is going on in the United States. Where was it on this file? Why did it not alert the minister to the possibility that the outlet would be opened?
On May 30, the minister seemed to say that he had sufficient information from Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs to assure us, in his usual way, that everything was under control. It was not under control. Now we have a filter that is so inadequate at the outlet for Devils Lake that fish are jumping through it. I saw pictures of the filter at the environment committee on Tuesday. The water coming out of that filter, even from a layman's perspective, looks quite putrid.
We need a minister to give some focus to this issue and to champion the water issue. I commend the government for reacting a few months late to my motion, when it was tabled and put on the order paper, but there has to be more done on this issue. I hope the government will support the amendment and the motion.