James Bezan

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette makes a good point. The reality is that Governor Hoeven of North Dakota holds the switch and he is about to pull that lever. We had the opportunity to go back and have that referral. The government has dropped the ball too many times on this file.

Some members like to ask where have I been in the past. I am new to politics and have only been here for a year, but I have been up on this question a number of times. I have also made statements in the House. I also will tell members also that this is one thing that I have worked hard on in my riding. I have been down to North Dakota talking to the North Dakota water commission when the Liberals have been sitting around here and not making the job happen.

We have to make sure that we have the opportunity and that we have two-way dialogue with our friends in the United States to get this resolved and resolved quickly.

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

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the source of my information is largely from the province of Manitoba. It is not coming out of North Dakota at all.

I meant to say this during my speech but unfortunately ran out of time. The province of Manitoba is of a different political stripe than I am, but it has been fighting this battle by itself. The state of Minnesota of course has been cooperating with it recently and I believe the state of Iowa stepped in to help as well.

However, in the original court case that went on in North Dakota, which was referred to the Supreme Court, in a joint submission between the state of Minnesota and the province of Manitoba, the Government of Canada was not there to help.

We need to look at the real facts here. The facts are that there was an opportunity when there was a reference to the IJC offered back in 2002. The Liberals sat on their hands instead of doing what was right, instead of going ahead and making sure that we were able to get everything done to take care of the needs of Manitoba, the needs of people in my riding, the needs of my fishermen and my tourist businesses.

We needed to have that referral, but the answer was no. Canada went for the gusto instead of going and getting what we actually needed done at that time. We could have derailed the whole project back in 2002. Now we are sitting here, without any opportunity. The horse is out of the chute, we are riding and I do not think we are going to make the eight seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to again speak in the House to the Devils Lake diversion project and the impact it will have. I thank my colleague from Kildonan--St. Paul for her leadership on this and in bringing it forward on behalf of the Manitoba Conservative caucus.

I also want to thank Senator Janis Johnson and Senator Terry Stratton for the work they have put into the boundary waters issue for the past 20 years, going right back to the Garrison diversion out of North Dakota and getting that one derailed.

I also have to thank all my Manitoba Conservative caucus colleagues for continuing on with this fight over the last number of years. I know that since I became a member of this House a year ago, this has been one of the issues that has been the most important to my riding.

The impact on Selkirk--Interlake, of course, would be enormous. We have to remember that my riding houses the 10th and 11th largest freshwater lakes, and that includes Lake Winnipeg which is the virtual ending point of the water coming out of Devils Lake. If this water is allowed to pump out into the Red River and ultimately into Lake Winnipeg it will have a huge impact

It will have an impact on many commercial fishermen who reside around the lake. We have a huge tourism industry that is built upon the beaches and the water sports that can be enjoyed on Lake Winnipeg. My own family enjoys fishing on that lake and enjoys spending time on the beaches. We do not want to see the water quality in Lake Winnipeg compromised any further.

I want to go back a little and talk about the water quality of Devils Lake. Maybe the ministers across are not aware of it, but Devils Lake is a contained basin. Essentially, it has no natural water outlets. All the water that flows into the lake stays in the lake. It is isolated from the Red River basin and the Hudson Bay watershed, and it has been that way for over 1,000 years.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did a study on the pollution problems associated with Devils Lake. We have to remember that there is foreign biota in there and biota is a parasite that can affect the fish populations. Devils Lake contains at least two biota that are different from those found in the Red River and in Lake Winnipeg.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said that they needed to study the issue further to determine what other biota was in Devils Lake because the studies that have been done to date have been very poorly done. However, even with those poor studies, they still have been able to identify two biota species that are different from Lake Winnipeg.

We also know there are high levels of salt and sulphates and it has been estimated that 40,000 pounds of phosphorus will be discharged from Devils Lake when the outlet starts operation.

Lake Winnipeg has been fighting for some time with its own water quality issues. It has been compared to Lake Erie 25 years ago. It is a lake in crisis. We have these huge toxic algae blooms happening in the lake and we really need to ensure we are not putting more problems in there and try to clean up the problem that we have right now and try to divert this water coming from Devils Lake someplace else.

The other thing we have to remember with Devils Lake is that the fish populations in Devils Lake are all stocked fish. Devils Lake, in dry years and in normal years, before the drainage programs were started in North Dakota, all the runoff went into Devils Lake and the fish often would die. The lake often dried right up. In 1942 the lake was completely dry. All the fish stock died. More water had to be brought in through the changing seasons, wet and dry, and more fish were brought in to stock it. Some of the species that were put into the lake are not naturally found in the Red River basin, such as striped bass, but there could be other invasive species.

One thing that is still being questioned is the mercury levels in Devils Lake. We also do not need to be dumping more mercury into the Red River basin either.

I want to read a letter Stephen Mafhood, the director of the U.S. Department of Natural Resources, wrote on June 18, 2003, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He said:

In summary, we consider this project to be one of the most ill-informed and least plausible of all Corps projects ever reviewed by this agency. It makes no economic sense, it would create ecological and environmental damages far exceeding the supposed benefits, and would likely fail to achieve any of its objectives with the exception of offering comfort, actually false comfort, to those who are pleading for some action. Operation of the proposed outlet would likely prove harmful to the environment in the Sheyenne River, downstream rivers and, in the long term, Devils Lake itself.

He definitely saw the folly of going ahead with this Devils Lake diversion.

We have a bit of history here. Back in 1909, the two great nations of Canada and the United States decided to sit down and develop the Boundary Waters Treaty. That established the International Joint Commission, which gave us a dispute settlement mechanism to deal with issues of water that crosses our international border.

In 2002, the U.S. State Department invited the Canadian government to participate in a joint reference, because these references have to be done jointly, to the International Joint Commission. In the letter written by Ambassador Michael Kergin, who was the Canadian ambassador at the time, to Marc Grossman, who is the undersecretary of the U.S. State Department for political affairs, he stated:

In the view of the Government of Canada, it is inappropriate to refer to the IJC a proposal, such as the potential Devils Lake project, which is neither finalized nor recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers, to determine whether it would be compliant with the provisions of the Boundary Waters Treaty.

He goes on to say:

Furthermore, there are other Garrison water division and inter-basin transfer proposals, such as the Northwest Area Water Supply project, that also have potential transboundary effects, which will need to be addressed in a reference. In order to avoid multiple references to the IJC, it would appear sensible at the appropriate time, to discuss a reference that would be broader than that pertaining simply to the Devils Lake outlet.

I maintain that we had an opportunity here to have a reference made on the U.S. invitation. I always say that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush and we went for the gusto. We wanted to do everything at once and now we do not have a reference at all.

Of course that sent a mixed message to North Dakota. It did not see any opposition so it went ahead and developed the diversion, and construction is almost complete. We are only a matter of days away from North Dakota actually opening the outlet and turning the pumps on.

The government has dropped the ball on this. The government has either been incompetent in the negotiations or it does not care about Manitoba, or are throwing caution to the wind here on our international treaties.

Governor Hoeven of North Dakota has said that Canada should actually go out and buy the sand filter recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for $20 million U.S.

The reality is that the project is built. I went to a conference in January in Fargo to talk to the people at the North Dakota water commission and hear more about the project. They are ready to go. The money is spent and they want to turn on the switch and start pumping. Of course, wet weather is what is holding this back.

There is no negotiated delay, as the government has led us to believe. The only delay is a rain delay. Water levels are high and it is too wet to finish off the construction but they will go ahead as soon as they have the opportunity to put the final touches on the project and complete it.

We are into the 11th hour here. We really need to think about protecting our Manitoba waterways. If we were to allow this project to go through without a referral this could set a dangerous precedent for all other transboundary issues under the Boundary Waters Treaty. We may as well just throw away the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 but I do not want to see that happen.

We need to do the full court press. We need to get a deal. We need to change the project and make whatever amendments can be made to protect Manitoba, our waterways and Lake Winnipeg.

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

Mr. Speaker, are there questions and comments?

[Natural Resources, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will want to rethink his answer.

Marc Grossman of the U.S. Department of State sent a letter on May 20, 2002 to the Canadian embassy inviting Canada to join the U.S. in making a reference to the IJC on the then proposed Devils Lake project. Ambassador Kergin replied in writing:

In the view of the Government of Canada, it is inappropriate to refer to the IJC a proposal, such as the potential Devils Lake project--

Why did the government blow such a great opportunity to make a joint referral to the IJC?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the $4.6 billion that was promised in the original budget and taken out of Bill C-43 was going to be targeted toward corporate tax relief to make our industry more competitive, to create more opportunity for reinvestment and job creation. We like to throw out rhetoric as to what is meaningful, but any dollar that we can put back in the pocket of Canadians is meaningful. I will trust Canadians any day of being able to spend their money more wisely than the government. We need to give them that opportunity and put those dollars back in their hands.

We have been debating the bill for some time now along with Bill C-43 and I have not heard anything from the other side that would convince me that if Bill C-48 were so important, that the Liberals would have put it in the original budget. They have never come out and said that it is a good idea. Bill C-48 represents only one thing and that is to buy NDP votes to ensure that the Liberals stay in power. That is what it is all about.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

At 20% interest, it was almost impossible. If the interest rates were at the same level as they were during the last 12 years, there would have been a surplus posted the last three or four years of the Conservative government back in 1984-85 when it came into power.

The other thing to take into consideration is that spending has gone through the roof over the last few years. Since 1999-2000 spending has increased 44.3%. That is not responsible. Sure, the government has a flood of income but we just cannot keep on spending. Let us return some of that back to the taxpayer. Let us put more of that against the debt. No, we are going to invent some more programs that are not going to be fiscally responsible and will jeopardize our status now as a nation, as the Liberal government likes to do all too often.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the first time I voted in a federal election was in 1984 and I was more than happy to vote Conservative and replace the Liberal government of the day.

I took out my first loan in 1983 to buy some cows and the interest rate was over 22%. My father was feeling the same burden in his farming situation. Interest rates were so high in this country that no one could make a viable living. No one could start up a new business and it was choking the nation.

Then we had the chance to turn that around. It started with the Conservatives bringing in the trade agreements and the taxing regime, so that we could have a healthy economy and a healthy federal budget. As has been said--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak at report stage of Bill C-48 to address a lot of the concerns that the constituents of Selkirk--Interlake and I have with this bill. The big thing is we are talking about $4.6 billion that is contained in a document that is only six pages long. The last three pages make really good reading as they are all blank. Essentially this bill gives a blank cheque to the Liberal government to do with as it pleases.

We do not want to see any more boondoggles or scandals take place in the government. One of the reasons I entered politics was to make sure that we could put an end to wasteful spending, get the biggest bang for our buck as taxpayers and defend the interests of taxpayers here in the House.

The big concern is there are a lot of great ideas laid out in two pages of spending proposals, but there is no plan to support them. We voted on Bill C-43 just last week. When that bill was tabled, it was tabled with volumes of books as a backstop, as a plan, as a way to have the checks and balances in place for the spending that the government was promising. During the spring the committees sat down and went through the budgets for the respective departments and voted on the budgetary estimates line by line. Those are the types of checks and balances that are needed to ensure that government spending is kept in place so that the taxpayers are getting the benefits and the services they have requested.

I fear that the programs and policies that are being supported in this very thin bill will open the door for more mismanagement and more boondoggles. We only need to look at things like the gun registry, the HRDC boondoggle and many other programs that have been overrun because there has not been adequate planning put in place for the spending. We have to make sure that the plans are there and that the dollars are spent wisely.

I am the associate agriculture critic for our party. One thing that concerns me is that the NDP members often come in here and say that agriculture is very important to them, but unfortunately there is not a single line in the bill that even addresses any agricultural concerns. I have to wonder what the NDP priorities are if that party is not addressing agriculture. It makes up such a crucial part of our economy here in Canada, not just rurally but the entire GDP is largely based upon our agriculture and resource sectors.

All the spending that is planned in the bill is not really very beneficial to rural Canada. I represent a very rural riding. I do not see anything in the bill that is going to help with doctor shortages in our area. I do not see anything in it that is going to help with access to federal services in rural Canada. I do not see anything in it that is going to help our farmers improve their marketplace. For those reasons, I cannot support Bill C-48.

There is a paragraph in the bill that addresses foreign aid. I think it is admirable that we would increase our foreign aid to at least 0.7% of GDP, which is a number that has been bandied about since the 1960s as the ideal mark in funding foreign aid. However, we know that currently, as was already talked about with respect to CIDA, there is a shotgun approach to foreign aid. Money is thrown all over the place, sprinkling a little here and a little there. It is not really getting to the crucial parts, the areas of importance to help those in need.

Whether we are looking at poverty or children's issues around the world, essentially we should target a few countries. We should focus our resources on a few countries to get the biggest bang for our buck to help those people who need it the most with their education and their farming activities and help them provide for themselves. Those are things that we want to address.

We are talking about throwing more money at foreign aid, but we have a real crisis here in Canada right now and that is why we need more farm aid. We have a BSE crisis that needs to be addressed more adequately. Farmers are still not getting the dollars into their pockets and we need to ensure those things are taken care of first before we start throwing more dollars into foreign field.

We have to realize what this bill is all about and what brought it about. If this bill were so important to the Liberal government, it would have been in the original budget back in February. We know that it was all about getting 19 more votes to support the government. The NDP negotiated this deal in a backroom on a napkin and this is what it came up with.

This has been traded off with some really major tax cuts that we need to see take place to create more jobs and more opportunity in this country. The $4.6 billion could have been better used to ensure we create more opportunities and a better and more competitive environment for business. We would see more jobs and, by and large, a better economy because of these tax cuts. Unfortunately, we have traded that off for votes and that is shameful.

There are a lot of things in the original budget that we could support but there is nothing in Bill C-48 that we can really dream of being brought forward and put into play. There is no accountability, no checks and balances, and nothing for agriculture. We are always quite concerned in ensuring that we address the needs of taxpayers as much as possible, so that we can go forward and put in place the services they desire. I do not see that happening here in a legitimate way.

[Natural Resources, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the sun is shining in Manitoba and North Dakota and it is starting to dry up. We are only a matter of days away from the opening of the Devils Lake diversion. This weekend North Dakota Governor Hoeven challenged Canada and said that if we want a sand filter as recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, we should put out the $20 million to buy it.

Since the government has been unable to convince the U.S. to make a joint referral to the IJC, will it take up Governor Hoeven's challenge, work with North Dakota and protect Manitoba's waterways?