James Bezan

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I participate in the debate knowing that the situation is still going on with the Devils Lake outlet.

I represent the riding of Selkirk—Interlake, home to Lake Winnipeg, the 10th largest freshwater lake in the world and the ultimate home of where all this water from Devils Lake is going to end up. We talk about the larger Hudson Bay basin, but my greatest concern is right in my backyard and that is Lake Winnipeg and all the people and communities who depend on the lake.

My constituents have fought long and hard on these water diversion issues. This goes right back to when North Dakota first started talking about the Garrison diversion. That goes back 20 or 30 years. This is something we have been concerned about, because our lake is near and dear to our hearts and is important to us in so many fashions.

Not only is there a threat that the diversion is going to create more flooding along the Red River when it is in operation, especially if it is happening during high water times, but it is going to devastate Lake Winnipeg. When we talk about the water quality or the biota and the parasites and how they might affect the fish stocks, Lake Winnipeg is a green lake and it hosts a huge pickerel fishery and whitefish fishery. Over 1,300 commercial fishermen make their living off that lake and we have to protect it.

I have the great joy of representing this lake. It is important to tourism. It is important to our film industry now. It has some beautiful beaches. Of course it is very important to the overall freshwater fishing industry across western Canada.

The commercial fishermen are really concerned about this because biota can come in and create real havoc to our fish species. It could have an impact on our beaches, and the water sports industries and tourism which make such a great living off our lake. All the communities along Lake Winnipeg are going to be negatively impacted. My family enjoys fishing on that lake. I go there with my daughters. We spend a lot of time on the beach. We do not want to see the quality of the lake compromised any further.

As members of the House are aware, the government of North Dakota decided to resume operations of the diversion earlier this week. Since the full nature and extent of downstream risks to Canada are still unknown, we find North Dakota's decision to be irresponsible as well as deeply disappointing. Our government's position is clear and anchored in the nearly century old boundary waters treaty. Under the treaty, both countries, Canada and the United States, have agreed to protect water resources on both sides of the border. To quote article IV of the treaty, it states:

--waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.

It is a pretty clear statement that we are going to work mutually together to protect our water basins. We remain concerned by the threat of transboundary harm and look to the Americans to uphold their obligations under the treaty by seeing to it that the outlet is closed until it can be safely operated, as we have already agreed to.

We have reason to be concerned by discharge from the outlet without any effective treatment measures installed to date. Our government's concern centres on the possible threat of the biota transfer that I was talking about in Devils Lake. There have been some profiles done and we know there are parasites in Devils Lake that are not common in the Hudson Bay basin, especially in Lake Winnipeg. That is, we are concerned about the microbial, plant or animal life that might reside in Devils Lake, but which might not exist outside of the basin.

This goes back to the situation that Devils Lake has been and continues to be naturally a closed basin. It has not been connected to the broader basin of the Lake Winnipeg basin, or the Hudson Bay basin, and it has not flooded out of its own boundaries for over 1,000 years. It is only logical to assume that much of the larger aquatic life in Devils Lake was likely introduced by humans after the lake was dry after the dirty thirties and the 1940s. It went completely dry, so everything that is in there has been introduced.

These conditions suggest to us in Canada that biota in Devils Lake may well have developed somewhat differently from plant and animal life downstream in the greater Red River Valley and Lake Winnipeg basin, but this matter remains unclear and the degree of this risk is still unknown.

However, we do know all too well that introducing non-native species presents serious environmental consequences and potentially significant economic costs.

Aquatic invasive species can take over and degrade their new environments by displacing or harming native biota.

As well in the nearby Great Lakes, invasive species such as zebra mussels have caused millions of dollars in damage. The invasion of the sea lamprey into the Great Lakes was particularly devastating to the commercial fisheries.

In Manitoba we have multi-million dollar commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries on Lake Winnipeg. I do not want to see them threatened by the same invasive alien species that might be lurking in Devils Lake.

In the absence of any solid final scientific assessment of Devils Lake, the Red River and Lake Winnipeg, the full extent of the risk of transfer of invasive species is still uncertain.

Under these circumstances, our government believes that the outlet should be closed until effective treatment measures can be put in place. Simply not enough is understood about the full range of threats from Devils Lake, both in terms of invasive alien species and its water chemistry.

However, while the full risks may not be fully understood, there still is sufficient cause to be concerned. In such circumstances where there is that cause, precaution is the appropriate measure.

The precautionary principle endorsed by countries around the world, including the United States, is the Rio declaration. It was intended for application in precisely the type of circumstances we are encountering today with Devils Lake in North Dakota.

At its most basic, the precautionary principle calls for prudence in the face of uncertainty. In the matter of the Devils Lake outlet, prudence requires that the outlet be closed while important binational scientific and engineering work currently in progress be allowed to continue unhampered. These efforts will provide a fuller understanding of the biological profile of Devils Lake, the Sheyenne and Red rivers and my Lake Winnipeg.

As well, a more complete understanding of fish parasites and pathogens in the system will help inform efforts under way to design and construct an effective treatment for the outlet.

A surprising amount of the international boundary that we share with the U.S. is made up of water. In fact, over 3,500 kilometres of the border is made up of boundary waters. For nearly a century, framed by the boundary waters treaty, Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed a successful relationship regarding our shared waters. The Devils Lake outlet represents a relatively rare irritant in this long-running and enviable relationship.

In light of the risks to Canada, and drawing on a long tradition of transboundary cooperation, I believe it is imperative that the two countries agree on a solution that protects our environment.

However, once North Dakota turned the outlet on this week, this jeopardized the important work toward finding such a solution, one that would see the implementation of a permanent treatment system at the outlet, an issue that we have been pressing with the United States government for some time.

Our government will continue to urge the U.S. government to continue preparation toward the installation of a permanent treatment system. Up until now, the pace of that work has been far too slow. We have been clear with the U.S. government that we expect the permanent treatment system to be installed prior to operating the outlet and to work with us to help resolve the Devils Lake outlet dispute.

I hope that the State of North Dakota and Governor Hoeven will stop the outlet. When we really look at it, that outlet is having a negligible impact on the water level in Devils Lake. He needs to allow our important bilateral work toward the installation of a permanent treatment system to continue.

I want to talk about a few other things that our government has done to protect Lake Winnipeg.

In the budget, which it is hoped the Liberal dominated Senate will pass, there are research dollars for the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium and the research vessel Namao. There are ongoing commitments to the watershed in Lake Winnipeg. There is over $7 million in budget 2007 that will help protect Lake Winnipeg and the whole basin.

We are taking a strong stand on Lake Winnipeg. I want to make sure that continues. I have been talking with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, as well as on a couple of occasions with Governor Hoeven, about working cooperatively so we can find the solution and protect Manitobans.

[Ukrainian Famine and Genocide Memorial Day Act, June 13th, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-459, An Act to establish a Ukrainian Famine and Genocide Memorial Day and to recognize the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 as an act of genocide.

Mr. Speaker, this year Ukrainian Canadians mark the 75th anniversary of one of the most heinous crimes in modern history, the state sponsored famine of 1932-33 perpetrated by the Soviet regime of Stalin against the Ukrainian people.

Called Holodomor, which in Ukrainian means murder by hunger, millions of Ukrainians were stripped of their produce in a forced farm collectivization campaign that killed close to 10 million Ukrainians and was devised to destroy aspirations for a free and independent Ukraine.

For decades, the truth about this horrific crime was suppressed by Soviet authorities. The omission of this forced famine and genocide from our history books is very troubling to me, which is why today, as a Ukrainian Canadian myself, I am introducing an act to establish Ukrainian Genocide and Famine Memorial Day.

This bill would not only designate the fourth Saturday of November as a memorial day for the Ukrainian famine, but it also acknowledges the famine as an act of genocide.

I would like to thank the continued efforts of the Ukrainian Canadian community that has worked tirelessly to bring public awareness to the Ukrainian famine and genocide.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[The Budget, June 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal senators continue their threat to ignore the will of the House of Commons. Regarding the budget, Liberal Senator George Baker said:

—I would say I'm duty-bound not just to interfere with it but to vote against it and do whatever I could to delay it.

Last night the House of Commons voted in favour of the budget, but a delay in the Senate could result in the loss of some very important funding.

Could the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development tell the House the effect a delay in passing the budget will have on Canadian workers?

[June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre talked about Lake Winnipeg. Lake Winnipeg of course is something that all of us in Manitoba love and appreciate. I know that the hon. member enjoys a great deal of time along Lake Winnipeg. She has a cabin in my riding. I know it is something that is near and dear to her heart as it is mine.

In this budget we announced $7 million in new funding for Lake Winnipeg. She is criticizing that investment. That is the first investment ever from the federal government for the actual cleanup and restoration of Lake Winnipeg, and trying to reduce the nutrient loading that is going on there.

She talked about commitments that were made in the past. Those were commitments that were not budgeted for. Essentially, what she was talking about were election promises that were never delivered upon.

We have to get past that false pretense that the Liberals were going to do more. The previous government had 12 or 13 years to act upon that and never once delivered on the problems facing Lake Winnipeg.

Let us accept the fact that there is $7 million in this budget that she should be supporting to cleanup Lake Winnipeg, so that our communities and our drinking water, and the beaches that our children love and enjoy can finally be addressed.

[Agriculture, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's cattle industry continues to suffer from the impact of BSE since it was detected in 2003. Cattle producers are negatively affected by the trade sanctions imposed by other countries.

Would the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what has been taking place to help eliminate this disease from Canada and what he has been doing to reopen beef and live cattle export markets with our trading partners around the world?

[Agriculture, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government is getting things done for all Canadians. Whether they are anglophones or francophones, urban Canadians or rural Canadians, people right across the country are seeing the results of the hard won efforts of this Conservative government.

Today the Minister of Agriculture assigned responsibility for the rural and co-op secretariat to the Secretary of State for Agriculture. Would the secretary of state tell us how he plans to help farmers and other rural Canadians?

[Water Resources Management, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Motion No. 249, introduced by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

Many of us here, at least those of us on this side of the House, agree that sustainable water use and management are fundamental to Canada's and the world's social, economic and ecological health. That is why water is part of this government's environmental agenda and that is why we are here today to debate Motion No. 249.

Motion No. 249 calls on the federal government to “immediately develop, in consultation with the provinces, territories, Aboriginal groups, municipalities, local community organizations, and others, an integrated water resources management strategy”.

This motion focuses on advancing the concept of integrated water resource management to measure, monitor and protect freshwater.

Integrated water resources management is a water management approach that advocates decision making based on engaging stakeholders and incorporating ecological, social and economic considerations. It is an approach that this government is already on track with.

In fact, we are doing more than that. This government is making progress at advancing integrated water resources management. For example, our work on water is already bringing together provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal peoples, and stakeholders such as municipalities, industry, energy, agriculture, non-governmental organizations, community groups and research teams.

Our government is also working to ensure that our plan is effective. We are working through partnerships when making water management decisions.

This concept has been in place for more than 20 years. In fact, the Mulroney Conservative government passed the 1987 federal water policy. The federal water policy that was introduced then called for integrated water management planning.

It also called on the federal government to achieve this through its programs, policies and laws. This government has been working to make many of these principles a reality.

The federal, provincial and territorial governments all have responsibilities when it comes to water.

For example, the provincial governments are responsible for many aspects of land use planning and development that can impact water quality and availability. To fulfill these responsibilities, the provinces and territories have recently introduced a number of water policies that promote protection from source to tap as well as broader watershed management planning.

For the federal government, boundary and transboundary waters shared with the U.S. are areas where our federal jurisdiction is clear, so we have put in place programs to measure, monitor and protect freshwater in these areas.

These are areas where the jurisdictions are clear, but because we all recognize that many of these responsibilities are shared, there are also a number of integrated partnerships that already exist here in Canada.

For example, the Atlantic coastal action program and the Great Lakes 2000 program are two solid examples of integrated planning, leading edge water science and extensive partnerships. These initiatives are based on federal-provincial cooperation and extensive engagement of municipalities, NGOs, industry and citizens.

There is also the National Water Research Institute, which has led influential national assessments of current and emerging threats to water quality, water quantity, and aquatic ecosystem health for more than 30 years. As well, across our country there are many Canadian universities that are also involved in water research.

There is also a federal water research agenda that identifies several priority areas for integration of federal water science carried out by many departments.

That is not all. This government has taken a broad approach to the environment that covers a number of priorities such as conservation of species and spaces, clean air, climate change and, of course, water.

As well, this government has also made it a priority to help ensure that all first nations residents have access to safe drinking water.

We are working to address the needs of communities with high risk drinking water systems by building on the plan of action for drinking water in first nations communities. We will also be basing future efforts to improve water quality on reserves on the options raised by the report of the Expert Panel on Safe Drinking Water for First Nations.

There are many examples of cooperation on water at the national level, but this cooperation happens most significantly at the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. We see this cooperation there because there is a formal mechanism for effective intergovernmental discussion and coordinated approaches to environmental issues, including water management, which is provided by the council.

However, it does not end there. That is because, for the most part, the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions all recognize that there is a real need for both collaboration and an integrated approach to water management.

There are many examples of the integrated water resources management approach in practices. Federal, provincial and territorial governments regularly cooperate on the national collection of water quantity information through national agreements on water quality and quantity monitoring.

There is also a great deal of cooperation when it comes to integrated watershed management, so much so that collaborative water management has become a cornerstone of integrated watershed management requiring that stakeholders be activity involved in water management decisions.

At the watershed level, management generally involves the local advisory board with members from provincial, territorial and local municipal governments, aboriginal peoples, industry, educational institutions, local stewardship groups, development groups, wildlife groups, environmentalists, landowners and, of course, the concerned public.

There are many examples of this, such as the Fraser Basin Council, the Great Lakes action plan and the South Saskatchewan River basin. In my home province of Manitoba, the Red River Basin Coalition not only includes all of the stakeholders in Manitoba, but also stakeholders in the states of North Dakota and Minnesota, working cooperatively to address the issue of our common basin.

As well, my riding includes both Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba, some of the largest freshwater lakes in the world. Our Conservative government has taken a very proactive approach to protect these lakes and their basins by investing $7 million for the protection of the Lake Winnipeg basin and a further $450,000 to support the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium.

There are many examples that we can look to but there is not enough time today. Rather, I invite the members of the House to look at what the government is already doing in partnership with the provinces and territories.

The government is already acting on its commitment to collaborative, integrated management of water policies and programs through action. The government is already implementing much of the spirit and the substance of the motion. We will continue to work with our partners.

We are working together with the provinces and territories to find concrete and realistic solutions to Canada's environmental challenges, which is why we introduced our turning the corner action plan last month. We are continuing to make Canada's environment a priority, not only for this government but for all our governments and our people for today and in the future.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the Canadian agriculture policy, eight (8) members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. from May 14 to 16, 2007, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[Business of Supply, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among all parties and I think if you were to seek it you would find there is unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in relation to its study on the Canadian agriculture policy, eight members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., from May 14 to 16, 2007, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[Senate Tenure Legislation, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is getting out from behind the closed doors of the Liberal caucus. Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition has reportedly ordered the senators to pass the Senate tenure bill, a bill that has been obstructed in the Senate for almost a year now.

However, the unelected and unaccountable Liberal senators have told him what he can do with his quaint notion of supporting a modest, democratic reform measure. The Liberal senators are in open defiance of their helpless party leader.

Canadians want to know: Why is the Liberal leader so weak and powerless? Why is he impotent in the face of a challenge of the superannuated wing of his own caucus? Why can the Liberal leader not just get up and get the job done on Senate term limits, and on so many other issues?

On May 30 we are planning a party for the Senate term limits bill. It will be one year since the bill was first introduced in the Senate. We hope the Liberal leader will come; after all, it will be the one year anniversary since he said that he supported Senate term limits.