Anita Neville

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this issue. When we take a look around the House, we see that it is not totally but predominantly members of the House from all parties from Manitoba who are speaking to it. We are speaking to it because this issue is of grave concern not only to ourselves but to all Manitobans.

I would like to speak to some of the myths and misconceptions about the proposed project and as it relates to the IJC. There have been a number of statements made both in and outside the House that need to be clarified. My colleague from Elmwood--Transcona has certainly addressed it as has my colleague from Winnipeg South.

However, I am going to reiterate some of the comments because it is important that the record be put on the table so that Canadians know what has and has not happened.

First, we heard that Canada refused a U.S. request in 2002 for an IJC reference on Devils Lake. Again, my colleague from Elmwood--Transcona has spoken to it indicating that somehow our concerns over the U.S. proposal meant a rejection by Canada of a reference to the IJC. The devil truly is in the details on this file.

It is easy to stand up and point to letters and claim that Canada turned down a reference. It is easy to do when we are listening to only one story, and when we are more interested in scoring points perhaps than working constructively to solve the problem. I too am pleased to see a consensus emerging tonight that would work toward a joint initiative by the House.

However, it is important to note that Canada did not refuse a U.S. request for a reference in 2002. The request in 2002 was indeed for a different outlet, one that was to be constructed, as we have heard by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and one that was going to have some environmental safeguards that are not currently present in the outlet that the state of North Dakota is constructing.

In 2002 the U.S. request was premature. A U.S. environmental assessment had not been completed. The proposal to build an outlet to address flooding in Devils Lake was not determined in fact until October 2003. Canada did not refuse the reference requested in 2002, but simply said that as per the joint commission tradition, the United States domestic approval process should be completed first.

I want to remind all members that in April 2004, 15 months ago, Canada asked the United States to agree to a joint Canada-U.S. International Joint Commission reference for the state funded Devils Lake outlet.

The talk of a 2002 reference is in fact a red herring. In April 2004 Canada proposed to the United States a specific reference on the state funded project. Had the United States agreed to the reference in 2004, the study would have been completed, and Canada and the U.S. would be making an informed decision today based on recommendations from the International Joint Commission.

We have heard from different areas that the IJC takes too long to make its recommendations, that a reference on Devils Lake could not be completed in less than eight and a half years. That is nonsense. As my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre has indicated, it is simply not true.

The International Joint Commission has now for nearly 100 years provided governments with reports and recommendations based on independent sound science.

The commission has proven time and again that it is able to carry out references on a complex environmental issue in a timely manner. As we heard, in the 1997 reference on the protection of the Red River, the commission delivered its interim report on flooding in the Red River basin within six months of having received the reference.

The 1999 reference to examine water uses and diversion in the Great Lakes which was a comprehensive study that involved both federal governments, eight state governments and two provincial governments, was completed by the commission in one year after it was given its reference. The IJC is able to carry out references in a timely manner, and is anxious and willing to do so in this instance.

We have also heard that Devils Lake has overflowed in the past and, as we all know, we have great compassion for those who live in a flooded community for a community in our own country is facing that tragedy at the moment. But again, the facts tell a different story.

Devils Lake is a closed basin. It has no natural outlet and has been isolated from the Hudson Bay drainage basin for over 1,000 years. We have heard from some that North Dakota has undertaken hundreds of studies on Devils Lake and that it has examined all the potential environmental impacts of the outlet.

Again, the reality is somewhat different. There was no environmental assessment done on the state outlet project. The North Dakota department of health issued a permit under the U.S. clean water act based on insufficient water quality baseline data that did not include monitoring of the environmental impacts or requirements for monitoring foreign biota.

These conflicting assertions underscore the importance of why we must work with the United States to reach a solution that is acceptable to Canada. It is in the interests of both our countries that we come to an amicably negotiated resolution of this issue.

Canada is committed to pursuing a solution that protects our environment and respects the Boundary Waters Treaty, a solution which would call upon both governments to cooperate in preventing transboundary pollution. This is an important issue because in the future we may have issues that affect the United States so it is important that we honour and respect the International Boundaries Commission.

Our goal is to find a solution that would protect Canada's environment. Our goal is to find a solution that would protect the Lake Winnipeg water basin, which is so critical to the economic and social well-being of Manitobans.

I urge my colleagues to come together in a resolution from this House that we can take forward. It is time that we worked together. The hour is late. We must come to a common position, if not a solution, from this House.

[Alberta Flood, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the province of Alberta has experienced significant rainfall resulting in severe flooding and the evacuation of many residents. While the situation has stabilized, numerous highways remain closed and there are several communities still under a local state of emergency.

Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness please inform the House what arrangements the federal government has in place in order to help in the recovery effort?

[Natural Resources, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are impressed by the leadership that the Prime Minister is showing to avoid the water diversion from Devils Lake to the Red River and the Lake Winnipeg watershed without a proper environmental assessment.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Could he tell the House what support he has received from outside the border on this issue?

[Canadian Women's Health Network, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Madeline Boscoe, executive director of the Canadian Women's Health Network located in Winnipeg and one of Canada's foremost leaders in the field of health promotion for women and girls.

Whether it is as a health care provider or a project manager, an intervenor at the Supreme Court, an author and editor or a participant in various national and international conferences, Ms. Boscoe is one of Canada's chief proponents for healthy women and notably, for women who are in low income and marginalized positions.

Last week the University of Ottawa paid tribute to Ms. Boscoe, bestowing upon her the degree of “doctor of the university”. I believe the Chancellor most eloquently summed up what Madeline Boscoe is all about when he decreed:

I think I speak for many Canadians--women and men--when I say thank goodness that Madeline Boscoe is out there, talking about these issues, and making such an important difference in the world.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Boscoe and thanking her for her tireless efforts.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

The committee is calling on the Department of Justice and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to table legislation based on the comprehensive recommendations of the pay equity task force no later than October and that the legislation be referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee has requested a comprehensive government response.

[Public Health Agency, June 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Public Health.

In light of the marburg virus outbreak in Angola, could the minister explain what assistance the Public Health Agency located in Winnipeg is providing in the fight against this deadly disease?

[Senator Isobel Finnerty, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Isobel Finnerty, one of our colleagues in the other place, on the occasion of her retirement from politics.

Appointed to the Senate in 1999, Senator Finnerty has brought commitment, energy, enthusiasm and dedication to public service at the local level in the provincial and federal arenas.

A long time advocate of and a trail blazer for political organization and getting more women involved in the political process, Senator Finnerty has been nationally and internationally recognized for her successes in this field, culminating in 1994 with her invitation to Benin, Africa as an international trainer.

Senator Finnerty's flair for volunteerism was instilled in her at a young age. From the age of 19 until the age of 39 she served as the only woman on the board of the Timmins Parks and Recreation Commission. Since then she has been a tireless volunteer for such organizations as the Stratford YMCA, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Burlington Arts Centre.

I ask all my colleagues to join with me in saluting her.

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, May 31 was a historic day for relations between the Government of Canada and Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis.

Cabinet ministers and the leaders of five national organizations participated in a policy retreat which marked a new way of doing business, a new partnership based on respect and coexistence.

The signing of a joint accord with each of these organizations underlines the commitment of all parties to move forward together on policy priorities that have been jointly set from the ground up.

I believe this partnership is an achievement that is in the interest of all Canadians. It helps ensure an inclusive approach where real progress can be made in closing the socio-economic gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

The policy retreat has resulted in strengthened relations and has put us well on our way to achieving concrete results.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, at this late hour I am pleased to speak to this important series of estimates of a department that has significant responsibilities in the government.

It has been said that the true measure of a civilization rests upon how it cares for its vulnerable members and, by any measure, Canadians care deeply about the welfare of our fellow citizens. We understand that if we want to build strong communities, a healthy population, a dynamic economy and a more equitable society, we have to ensure Canadians have the tools and financial resources they need to achieve their full potential. We know that in supporting the disadvantaged and reducing poverty we strengthen society as a whole.

It would be hard to find a community within each of our jurisdictions that has not been touched by poverty. Poverty affects Canadians of all ages and from all parts of this country. Federal investments in people have improved and are improving standards of living. As a government, we continue to find new ways to support community driven efforts to address poverty.

For children, not being raised in poverty can mean better health, better educational opportunities, secure shelter and an overall better start to a life in which their potential at any next stage of their life can be more fully realized.

For seniors, an adequate income can contribute to a life not much different than that lived before they were seniors, a life of purpose and engagement, of contribution to family and community, and most important, one of dignity.

For people with disabilities, for aboriginal Canadians and for other vulnerable groups, escaping poverty can mean a fuller and more complete life lived.

As a result of the complex and often dynamic nature of poverty, we know that no one policy or program can respond to all the different circumstances of individuals, families and communities. We know, for example, that having a job does not necessarily mean a route out of poverty for indeed there is a significant population of working poor in Canada.

Addressing poverty requires that the federal government work with our partners, other governments, the business and voluntary sectors, communities and citizens through an integrated set of policies. This is the approach taken by the Government of Canada.

It rests on three main policy pillars: first, providing income support to families in need; second, supporting the labour market integration of working age individuals; and third, delivering benefits and services to address particular circumstances faced by some individuals, their families and their communities. Let me give the House a few examples.

A key element of our approach in tackling poverty among children is the national child benefit. A collaborative initiative between federal, provincial and territorial governments, the national child benefit, an important platform, provides income supports, programs and services for low income families with children regardless of whether the parents are in the workforce or on social assistance.

By 2007-08, the child benefits paid by the Government of Canada are projected to reach $10 billion a year. As a result, a low income family with two children will receive an annual maximum of $6,259 in child benefits.

For their part, provinces, territories and first nations reinvest a further $764.2 million in complementary benefits and services for low income families with children. These include child benefits and earned income supplements, child day care initiatives, early childhood services and children at risk services, youth initiatives and supplementary health benefits.

In April 2005, federal, provincial and territorial governments released their fifth progress report under the national child benefit showing that government investments for low income families continue to increase.

Further, the soon to be released joint evaluation of the national child benefit reinforces that it is making progress on all three of its goals: first, reducing the incidence and depth of poverty; second, promoting parents' labour force attachment by ensuring that families are better off as a result of working; and third, reducing administrative overlap.

In addition to income support, the government recognizes that other services are needed to support children from low income families. We know that good quality, affordable child care, which has certainly been the discussion of the evening, not only promotes healthy child development but is also a key factor and an important factor in a parent's ability to work.

To increase the quality of and access to child care for Canadian families, in budget 2005 the government committed $5 billion over five years to start building a system of early learning and child care in every province and territory. To date, signed agreements in principle with five provinces have been developed, the first one, I am proud to say, in the province of Manitoba.

Through the Understanding the Early Years initiative, the government supports work that helps communities understand how their young children are faring and how the provision of local services can help or hinder a child's progress. With UEY, funds are provided to support community learning and mobilization to help make children ready to learn when they enter the formal school system.

Moving from young people to the less young, Canada has a tradition of reducing poverty rates among seniors. A generation ago we introduced public pensions and old age security for our then most vulnerable citizens. Through the Canada pension plan, old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, approximately $50 billion annually is paid out in direct income support to senior Canadians.

To further improve the situation of low income seniors who remain vulnerable, the 2005 budget announced increases to the guaranteed income supplement for low income seniors which will raise the GIS payments by $2.7 billion over five years.

In the last 25 years, the Government of Canada has also taken significant steps, particularly in the area of employment income and taxation, to help persons with disabilities overcome low income and other barriers to inclusion. One important example is the multilateral framework for labour market agreements for persons with disability through which the government invests $223 million annually in provincial and territorial programs to help those who are disabled. Another is the child disability benefit which helps low and modest income families with the additional costs they incur in raising a child with a disability.

Important for the city of Winnipeg, which where I am from, budget 2004 announced the doubling of funding for the urban aboriginal strategy to $50 million so that more communities can provide programs that address the challenges and priorities of aboriginal people living off the reserve, and to provide coherence and congruency so that departments speak to each other and jurisdictions cooperate.

Through the aboriginal human resource development agreements, which is another important initiative for my city, the Government of Canada provides funding of $1.6 billion over five years to enable aboriginal organizations to design and deliver employment programs and services.

Budget 2005 also announced $398 million over five years to help newcomers better integrate into Canada.

The government also delivers benefits and services to address the challenges faced by individuals and their families at the greatest risk of exclusion. The Government of Canada has committed $1.1 billion for the affordable housing initiative which works in partnership with provinces and territories. As well, the government has committed more than $500 million for housing renovation programs to help low income housing residents with critical repair needs.

The national homelessness initiative has received over $1 billion in funding to support community driven solutions to help alleviate homelessness.

In addition, community based efforts, such as those focused on Canada's social economy, are playing an important part.

Finally, we know that the key to any solution to poverty is an economy that creates jobs supported by a skilled workforce. Therefore as a government we are continuing to foster a climate of economic help that extends to all citizens.

How effective has this approach been? There can be no debate that measurable progress has indeed been made. Take the example of our seniors. In 1980, 21.3% of Canadian seniors were below Statistics Canada's after tax low income cut-off. By 2003 the number had fallen to 6.8%.

Experts have confirmed that this substantial drop can be largely attributed to the maturation of our public retirement income system.

Low income rates for Canada's children have also fallen from 18.6% in 1996 to 12.4% in 2003. The national child benefit has played a significant role in this trend. Rising federal investment levels mean the national child benefit will continue to help prevent and reduce child poverty. The $5 billion over five years committed by the Government of Canada for early learning and child care should also provide a substantial benefit in the development of our children.

Much has and is being done. However, in spite of all this, there is no question that much more remains to be done. Not all Canadians have benefited to the same extent and significant poverty related challenges remain.

Given the importance of this issue in supporting the social and economic inclusion of Canadians, I would like the Minister of Social Development Canada to give us his views on how the Government of Canada should move forward to further address the challenges faced by low income Canadians.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Lake Winnipeg watershed provides drinking water for thousands and its health is key to Manitoba's future and prosperity. The environment minister already told the House that the government was increasing water quality monitoring on the Red River station. It is now being tested every 11 minutes.

Can the minister advise the House what the government is doing to further assist Manitobans in addressing the Lake Winnipeg water issue?