Francis Scarpaleggia

[Natural Resources, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, North Dakota opened the tap at Devils Lake and water from the lake, which is too polluted even for irrigation, began flowing toward Lake Winnipeg. On May 30, the environment minister had said in the House that everything was under control.

Given the scientific resources available at Environment Canada and given the experts at the U.S. desk at the Department of Foreign Affairs, whose job it is to be on top of what is going on south of the border, the government must have known well in advance that the tap would be opened.

When did the government know the gates would be opened and why did it not raise the issue publicly prior to the event?

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I have noticed that up to this point, most of the speakers have been from Manitoba or from the west. I feel somewhat like a visiting relative on this issue.

I am very interested in the whole issue of the government's approach to water policy. This interest flows from my membership on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the work I have done with the national Liberal water caucus.

As I have said before in this House, we cannot say that a government has a complete environmental policy unless it also has a strategic and comprehensive approach to the issue of how to protect and manage our water resources.

Tonight's emergency debate is welcomed. It is important for a number of reasons in my view.

By debating this issue and giving it some attention and hopefully some headlines, we are offering our moral support to Manitobans, Obviously, this issue impacts on them directly. It is important to support our fellow Canadians in this complex struggle they are engaged in with regard to the state of North Dakota and of course against, in some way, the federal government of the Untied States.

North Dakota has acted unilaterally and in so doing, is harming the biological integrity of the Red River and Lake Winnipeg. The U.S. federal government's involvement is almost involvement by not being involved. The EPA has delegated to North Dakota the authority for setting the quality standards for the water involved. The Bush administration has not been overly aggressive in lobbying the state of North Dakota to cooperate in this matter for two reasons, specifically: one, it has a philosophy of not wanting to interfere with state rights; and, two, Governor Hoeven is a powerful Republican governor in the Republican family which is currently in the White House.

I know that this problem was not created by the government. It has been a long-festering problem. If I could ask one question right now of the foreign affairs minister or the environment minister, it would be why we did not see the reopening of the outlet coming. It happened on Monday, June 11. It seems to me that if we had been monitoring the situation, we might have seen the probability that the outlet would be opened and perhaps we could have raised the issue before action was taken by the government of North Dakota.

The problem with the water from Devils Lake entering into Lake Winnipeg stems from the fact, among other things, that Devils Lake has high concentrations of mercury, phosphates, arsenic and salt, making it too contaminated for local irrigation. I think that answers the question of my hon. friend across the way who asked, given that there are water shortages in the United States, why water from Devils Lake is not diverted to other areas of the United States. I am not a scientific expert, but my hunch would be that the water is too contaminated.

One of the reasons the water is so contaminated is that Devils Lake is somewhat isolated from other water flows in its vicinity. It really has no outlets and no inlets. The water has been sitting there fed by precipitation and so on and so forth for about 1,000 years.

Estimates indicate that if nothing is done to resolve this situation, 40,000 pounds of phosphorous will reach Lake Winnipeg each year resulting in a five inch algae layer on approximately 10 miles of beach.

The second reason to have this debate is it is important to keep the federal government focused on this issue. The government is dealing with many environmental issues, of course climate change being one of them. There have been indications that perhaps the government is not taking this issue that seriously. It is very important to keep the government focused on the Devils Lake issue.

One thing the government should do in order to give attention to this issue but also to the whole range of water issues that are very complex, that touch on many jurisdictions and that involve at least 20 departments and agencies across the federal government, is to create a secretary of state for water policy. This would give focus to the issue of water and would be a champion on the issue of water. It would take a greater lead in protecting Canada from the outflow from Devils Lake. The government could take that important step.

The third reason to have this debate is it is very important to raise awareness both inside and outside this House that North Dakota's unilateral action on this issue has put into jeopardy perhaps the long term viability of the boundary waters treaty. Article IV of the 1909 boundary waters treaty states that cross-border water flows “shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other”. In a sense, the current situation is in clear violation of the treaty and it is leading many people to ask whether the treaty is at all effective.

It is important to have a debate around this issue and impress upon Canadian citizens and our American friends who are listening to this debate that this is an important issue and that the actions of North Dakota are putting in jeopardy perhaps the long term viability of the boundary waters treaty.

The fourth reason we need to have this debate is that Devils Lake is one flashpoint in the issue of cross-border water resource management but there are others below the surface. We will have to be ready in future to deal with those other flashpoints as they ignite, and they will. I think there are over 40 tributaries or rivers that cross in and out of the United States and Canada. It is only a matter of time before problems arise similar to the Devils Lake problem.

The question becomes, what should the federal government do? We have heard a lot about talk, diplomacy, scientific studies, analysis and work going on at the EPA in an effort to develop a better permanent filter. We need some innovative leadership on this issue. Strong aggressive lobbying is needed both on Capitol Hill and in the states that go along the Canada-U.S. border.

We have to tell our American friends what is going on. We know that they have a sense of fair play and the more people south of the border we sensitize to this issue, the more pressure they will put on their own politicians to protect North American water resources.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 14th, 2007]

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 Project, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for initiating this debate tonight because it is an important issue. She is absolutely right when she says that we must keep the attention of the government and of Canadians focused on this issue. It is not merely, in my opinion, a small border conflict or an isolated conflict. I think it portends very badly for the boundary waters treaty because obviously North Dakota is acting unilaterally, which brings me to my point.

We all think that Parliament should take a stand. I think we all agree that this should not be happening. However, I would like to know from the member, quite sincerely and for my own edification, how we deal with this issue beyond words and passing resolutions and motions.

For example, there is no binding agreement between Canada and the United States on this issue. The agreement that was signed in August 2005 was not a binding agreement. I will quote Mr. William Crosbie, who appeared before the environment committed on October 27, 2005. At the time he was the director general, North American Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He said:

What was announced in August were essentially the key elements of an agreement. We have yet to negotiate the language around those key elements....

Therefore, we do not have a real binding agreement.

One of the reasons that North Dakota was able to open the outlet is that the U.S. EPA, a federal government institution in the United States, changed the threshold of the pollution standards from, and I am afraid I do not know the exact terminology, 300 to 450 milligrams per litre of sulphate which allowed North Dakota to open the outlet. We have the U.S. EPA changing standards, which I do not think it should be doing because it did not do so on a rational basis, and we do not have a binding agreement.

What is the member proposing that we do? We know that Mr. Doer in Manitoba is retaliating in some sense because he is building a dyke that was intended to help the people of North Dakota by diverting some flooding waters. No doubt she agrees that the premier should take aggressive action on that, but what else should be done beyond that?

[Canada Transportation Act, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I was in the House when the parliamentary secretary addressed this issue because it affects my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis. Before I touch on that, I noticed that the parliamentary secretary gave his government a pat on the shoulder for bringing forward this legislation. I would point out that this legislation had already been introduced by the former Liberal government before it was defeated.

My question is with regard to information, and I ask this quite sincerely of the parliamentary secretary. If he cannot answer it tonight, I would like it very much if his department could give me the answer in writing.

There are two railway bridges side by side in my constituency from the town of Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue to the island of Île-Perrot. One is a CP rail bridge and the other is a CN rail bridge. I would not say the CP rail bridge is quiet, but it is reasonable. The CN rail bridge makes a horrendous noise whenever a train crosses. That bridge is located right next to the Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue boardwalk which goes along the canal.

Under this new legislation, would it be possible for citizens in my riding to launch a complaint and to eventually get CN to replace that old bridge with something that makes less noise?

[Festivals and Special Events, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the last budget was tabled, the Minister of Canadian Heritage created high expectations for festivals. Now that the festival season is getting under way, the money is not available as the minister has been unable to establish adequate guidelines.

The Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec already has a program to support festivals with very specific criteria and clear objectives.

Why is the minister refusing to transfer monies to which Quebec festivals are entitled to the Economic Development Agency of Canada, which could deliver the program to all Quebec regions?

[Petitions, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues here today I am rising to present a petition dealing with the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines and I am proud to do so in the presence of the Reverend Shaun Fryday of the Beaconsfield United Church in my riding who was active in putting together this petition.

I would also like to mention that it had been hoped that my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine would have been able to present some of these petitions, but they were certified as a block so she could not do so even though she had hoped to.

As my colleagues mentioned, this petition asks that the Subcommittee on International Human Rights hold hearings into extrajudicial killings in the Philippines and that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, and the Canadian mission at the United Nations call for an investigation into the political killings in the Philippines by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.

[Philippines, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, according to groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, since 2001 over 750 social activists, human rights lawyers, church workers and journalists have been killed in the Philippines in politically motivated and extrajudicial executions.

This is why my constituents gave me a petition, which I will table later on today, to express their concerns about this situation.

I support this initiative and this petition, and I ask the government to look into this issue and to report back to Parliament as soon as possible.

As I am sure hon. members will agree, it is our collective responsibility to defend freedom, human rights, and the rule of law whenever and wherever they are threatened.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I intend to share my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Fredericton.

On February 27 last, the House of Commons adopted a motion by a vote of 159 to 123 calling on the government to give national status to Exporail, a rail museum on the south shore of Montreal. This was somewhat of a historic moment in this House because it was the first time in Canadian history that the House of Commons had adopted a motion in support of a specifically named museum.

At the time, the parliamentary secretary in arguing against the adoption of this motion, said that museums policy could not be made on the fly, that there could not be an ad hoc approach to museums policy. To that date no museum outside of Ottawa had been granted national status and funding on an annual basis.

A few short weeks later the Prime Minister decided to make museums policy on the fly and on an ad hoc basis by announcing the Canadian human rights museum project in Winnipeg. Of course the foundation for that project was laid by the previous Liberal government. I would add that the Conservative government did not have the common decency to invite the Liberal members of Parliament from the Winnipeg area to that ceremony, despite all the work that the previous Liberal government had done on the file.

I would like to know a couple of things from the minister. In this House about two weeks ago a member from the Bloc Québécois asked the minister how far along she was in analyzing the request by the Exporail representatives to grant the museum national museum status. The minister said that she was looking into the matter. How far along is she in analyzing the issue?

In a letter that I wrote to the minister on March 9 as the advocate for Exporail, I suggested that she and I and representatives of Exporail and the Canadian Railway Historical Association meet to discuss the issue further.

I would like answers to two questions. How far along is the department in looking at this request? When will we be meeting to discuss it?

I would like to make one more point about the Exporail museum. As the minister knows, museums in Canada receive part of their revenues from gate receipts. The average is about 33% of total museum revenues come from gate receipts. Exporail receives 45% of its revenues from gate receipts. I think it is a great candidate for national museum status and funding on an annual basis, especially since the House of Commons in a vote of 159 to 123 affirmed its support for Exporail.

[Water Resources Management, May 10th, 2007]

I do, Mr. Speaker.