House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was heard.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Winnipeg South Centre (Manitoba)

Lost her last election, in 2011, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Devils Lake Diversion Project June 14th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, many in the House will have heard me speak several times in the past of what many of us in Manitoba call our “beloved Lake Winnipeg”, of the fact that it is, and has been for generations, a source of livelihood, recreation and of economic development for thousands of Manitobans. Like many, I grew up on the shores of Lake Winnipeg, as have my children. It is the 10th largest freshwater lake in the world. It supports a commercial fishery of an annual landed value of over $20 million. Now it is said to be a lake that is in ecological peril.

It is with this in mind and with concerns of the whole watershed that I, too, am speaking tonight to the potential danger to Manitoban communities and to the way of life of many residents of our province by what has happened with the opening of the Devils Lake outlet.

Today we are faced with the unilateral action of the government of North Dakota that took place on June 11. It is without doubt that it is both the responsibility and obligation of both national governments, Canada and U.S. and that of the provincial and state governments to recognize the overarching weakening of environmental standards and the dangers posed to Lake Winnipeg, to the entire Lake Winnipeg-Red River watershed and to respond appropriately.

As we have heard, the opening of the Devils Lake outlet allows water from the lake to flow water into the Sheyenne River, flow east to the Red River and into Lake Winnipeg. The Government of Manitoba and the previous Liberal government expressed opposition to this outlet because of the irreversible impact on the Manitoba ecosystem.

The province of Manitoba, along with a multitude of environmentalists, argue that Devils Lake contains organisms that are foreign and will pollute Manitoba water, negatively impacting the province's fishing and tourism industry. We all know and have heard it cited here tonight that the international boundaries treaty of 1909, almost 100 years old, prevents the flow of polluted water across the border.

There are two issues that are very paramount here.

First, there is the increased chemical concentration in the waters. We have learned recently that the level of sulphates now flowing has been up by over 50%. The North Dakota Department of Health weakened the sulphate standards in the outlet's original operating permit, and did it without the knowledge or consultation with Canada. The Government of Manitoba was unsuccessful in a legal challenge in the United States District Court on that matter and now, along with several environmental groups, are moving the issue forward to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Second, the biota, the living stuff in Devils Lake, puts at risk the fisheries of Lake Winnipeg and potentially all of western Canada. Seven species, three fish parasites and four kinds of algae have been identified in the Missouri water system, which are foreign to the whole Red River water system. We know now that an eighth species, rainbow smelt, has now entered the Lake Winnipeg system. While the pickerel may be getting fatter, we now anticipate that this will be a short term gain for long term pain.

As an aside, I want to advise the House that some time ago I introduced Bill C-387, and I hope we eventually get to it, respecting the National Ecosystem Council as a means of seeing the health of Lake Winnipeg's watershed and others in Canada restored.

I will address another issue as it relates to the impact of the opening of Devils Lake outlet, and my colleague has alluded to it, and that is the rights of first nations people. We know and we have heard many times in the House that first nations people face many water challenges in their own communities. We have also heard that the Red River is a direct source of potable water to over 40,000 people and that over 9,000 aboriginal people depend on Lake Winnipeg for its fisheries.

Recognizing the dangers of the biota and pollutants flowing into the system, National Chief Phil Fontaine, in a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, sent in May 2005, said:

The proposed operation of the Devils Lake Outlet is a source of grave concern to First Nations in Canada.

It goes on to say:

First Nations in Canada have rights that are recognized by the Constitution of Canada, the supreme law of this country, to use rivers and waters for human consumption, sanitation, fishing, navigation and other means necessary to continue our traditional way of life in modern times.

He goes on to say:

Customary international law requires that rivers be used in a manner that is equitable to all concerned, including indigenous peoples. That body of law also requires that states refrain from inflicting environmental harm on others.

Later he says:

As a representative government of First Nations, we look to the United States to respect the ideals contained in its international agreements, and to demonstrate in its international, as well as domestic policies, a genuine respect for the rights and interests of indigenous persons.

The provincial government, supported by the previous Liberal government, expressed concerns to federal and state governments. Under the Canada-U.S. boundary waters treaty, consultations were held and a way forward was prescribed in August 2005 and a joint press release issued. I was going to read from it, but in the interest of time I will not go there.

The agreement was reached on evaluation of water standards and permit levels. Also, mitigation measures were agreed to. North Dakota would establish a rock and gravel filter before the opening of the outlet and the federal government committed to do the design and construction of an advanced filtration system, high tech and probably high cost, but not in the long run. It was a newly redesigned system that is not in place now.

What is happening? My colleague referenced the response from the Minister of the Environment on May 3 when he was asked a question in the House. He laughed and brushed it aside. Today his answers to the question, posed by my colleague, were evasive at best. Are they pressing? I have heard from my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, and I accept his word, but I really want to know whether the government is pressing for the results of the monitoring program carried out by the Red River board under the IJC.

We know the results are complete. They were presented at a meeting in March in Washington. They have not been made public. My question is, why not? Governments are waiting, environmentalists are waiting, the people of Manitoba are waiting.

I have a communication from Friends of the Earth. It wrote to the Prime Minister, President Bush, the Premier of Manitoba and the governors of North Dakota and Minnesota calling on them to account for their commitments, particularly to make public the first year of IJC testing results and to report on the installation of the filtering system. What it goes on to say is interesting. It says:

You are acting like the Pirates of Devils Lake since you are operating the outlet in defiance of your own safeguard agreement.

Is the government raising concerns about the sulphate level? Is the legal action of the province of Manitoba being supported? An appeal was heard in March. Another appeal was filed this month. In September 2006 the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce he was committed to a solution.

Today in the media I heard the minister for water conservation in Manitoba say that it would take 22 weeks of water running through this outlet for Devils Lake to be reduced by half an inch. We cannot wait 22 weeks.

Have funds been offered to construct the filter?

It is incumbent upon governments to base their decisions on scientific investigation. I believe the federal government should be urging that the operation of the outlet be suspended until standards testing of the water quality and the biota are conducted in both countries.

The government must stop laughing and take the matter seriously. Both the economic prosperity and the quality of life of many Manitobans depend on it.

Aboriginal Affairs June 14th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, that is another reinvention of reality. National and local aboriginal organizations have asked Canadians for solidarity with them.

According to a letter to the president of the UN General Assembly, the government is standing side by side with countries such as Russia, Colombia and Suriname that are known for their flagrant human rights violations against indigenous people in their opposition to the declaration.

How can aboriginal Canadians trust that the government wants human rights for aboriginal people here at home when the government is undermining their efforts globally?

Aboriginal Affairs June 14th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, Conservative government policy, contrary to that of the previous Liberal government, is to actively lobby other countries to block the passage of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. This is despite the fact that officials within the departments of foreign affairs, defence and Indian affairs have urged the government to support the declaration.

How can the government justify its solidarity with American and Australian foreign policy rather than with the first nations aboriginal people of this country?

Committees of the House June 14th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Status of Women entitled, “Improving the Economic Security of Women: Time to Act”

Housing June 12th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the homes at the decommissioned Kapyong Barracks site in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre have been vacant for several years.

The government is maintaining these homes at a cost of a quarter of a million dollars annually and at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers, while it could help address the rental housing shortage in Winnipeg.

During committee of the whole on May 17, I asked the Minister of National Defence about the transfer of lands, buildings and houses on the Kapyong Barracks and the minister thought that it had already been transferred. However, that is not so.

I have written to the minister's office four times on this matter since March 3, 2006 and so far there has been no action. Three times I have requested a 10 minute meeting with the minister and so far there has been no action.

Manitoba's senior minister, the President of the Treasury Board, now says that Kapyong is not his problem. The Minister of National Defence seems to think that it is not his problem.

This is a problem for the residents of Winnipeg. Again I ask members opposite, who is minding Manitoba?

Human Rights June 8th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, meaningless words when the member speaks of human rights and ignores the best advice from all government departments.

Despite the international nature of the declaration, we now know that for some reason the Minister of Indian Affairs has displaced the foreign affairs minister in the lead role.

Why does the Minister of Indian Affairs insist on substituting his own political bias instead of following the advice from the officials in the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence?

Human Rights June 8th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, indigenous people around the world are the most disadvantaged in society. The Departments of Foreign Affairs, of Indian Affairs, of National Defence, all three opposition parties, along with Kofi Annan and Louise Arbour publicly support the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

Contrary to all advice, the Conservative government, in a betrayal of this country's position, has been one of most aggressive opponents of the declaration.

How can the government say that it is a protector of human rights when it opposed the rights of indigenous people around the world?

Child Care June 8th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the status of women committee has recently completed a study on the economic security of women. Women from across the country repeatedly spoke about the need for quality child care so that they could go to school or go to work and know that their children were safe and cared for.

In Winnipeg South Centre there are more children on wait lists than enrolled in child care centres. Eighty per cent of the centres have lengthy wait lists.

The Conservatives' 2006 platform said that the Conservatives believe in freedom of choice in child care. Where is the choice?

In 2005 the Liberal government offered a national plan and signed the first early learning and child care agreement with Manitoba worth $176 million over five years. Now they get $9 million. Instead, the government shamelessly cancelled the agreement.

Wait lists and a small taxable allowance are not choice in child care. Families in Canada deserve better from the government.

June 7th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I have had conversations about Lake Winnipeg. I would point out to him that it was an investment and a commitment made by the previous government concerning Lake Winnipeg in his riding which we supported.

I recognize that moneys are being committed to Lake Winnipeg, but again, it is part of a spattered approach. It is not a comprehensive strategy. It is part of a little bit here and a little bit there.

Let us see a comprehensive plan. Let us see a multi-year commitment for the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg. Let us see a multi-year commitment to research and development, and a cleanup of the whole watershed. That is what is required. We need a long term investment and it is important for Manitoba.

June 7th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard from the parliamentary secretary, for whom I have tremendous regard, is further indication of what I call this paint gun approach. It is a little bit here, a little bit there, and a splattering here. There is no coherent strategy. There is no coherent approach in this budget. It is, “Give a little here and maybe they will vote for us, give a little there and perhaps that group will vote for us”. It really is deceptive.

In terms of the aboriginal items that she cites, I would remind her that the $300 million was identified for housing in the previous budget and reannounced in this budget. I would remind her as well that the aboriginal procurement policy was cancelled. It has had a profound impact on aboriginal businesses across the country, many of whom have had to go out of business because of the cancellation of this project.

I would remind her of the cancellation of the aboriginal language funding, which also is having a profound impact on aboriginal people across the country, and in some cases not allowing them to celebrate aboriginal awareness day on June 21. There are significant implications in this budget. I find it very difficult to support what I call a spattered approach.