Joy Smith

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing tonight in the House of Commons is exactly what should be done, which is that all parties are working together to problem solve. We are standing as one voice to ensure that the parties involved in the U.S. understand that the outlet needs to be closed.

The problem is that the scientific data is not as extensive as we would like it to be. There needs to be more scientific study. Right now, with the opening of the outlet, the IJC has been engaged to oversee biological analysis on Devils Lake, the Sheyenne River, the Red River and Lake Winnipeg. This does interrupt it to a degree.

What we are doing tonight, working together to problem solve, is exactly what needs to be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is a challenge right now. I can look into the details for the hon. member and get back to him on that issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

I am pleased to rise tonight to put a few comments on the record concerning Lake Winnipeg. My daughter and her husband live very close to Lake Winnipeg and I hear weekly about the challenges that are there for the residents living on our beloved Lake Winnipeg.

It is not the first time I have risen to speak about Devils Lake. Almost two years ago, as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North mentioned, on June 21, 2005, I myself called for an emergency debate on this matter. I would like to commend the member for Winnipeg North for calling this debate. Devils Lake is an issue that warrants the immediate attention of this House and it is good to see the initiation of this debate so we can address this right in the House of Parliament.

One of the most compelling and crucial aspects of the diversion of water from Devils Lake into Manitoba is the looming threat of the pollution of our rivers and lakes, and we have heard that throughout the evening tonight. During the 1990s, high levels of precipitation caused Devils Lake to swallow large amounts of land that surround it. The lake has since risen more than seven metres, submerging 28,000 hectares of farmland and causing 300 households to abandon their land. The solution for this was to build an emergency outlet that would channel water into the Sheyenne River, which would then combine with the Red River to eventually empty into Lake Winnipeg.

I am very familiar with the Red River as it flows through my constituency of Kildonan—Paul. Manitobans and Winnipegers know that Lake Winnipeg and the Red River are two bodies of water in our province that are very significant bodies of water and e bodies of water that are under duress. Lake Winnipeg, as the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake mentioned a few minutes earlier, has many problems with the algal blooms and with nitrates.

My daughter often tells me that no one can go swimming in the lake simply because of the water alerts. No one even wants their dogs lapping the water from the lake because of the pollutants.

We know that a non-binding agreement in 2005 between Ottawa and Washington allowed for the flow of water from the emergency outlet by North Dakota as long as an advanced rock filter be built. Sometimes that is forgotten. This filter was to protect the Red River and Lake Winnipeg from the alien fish and plant species, as well as the pollutants. This important filter has not yet been built by the U.S. government. Currently, the only filter in place is a simple $50,000 rock and gravel filter that in August 2005 actually broke during the initial testing. This is a grave concern.

Another alarming development is the change to North Dakota's health department sulphate limits, which increased the allowable limits for sulphate levels in the water. Previously, the level of sulphate in the water being channeled through the emergency outlet was 300 milligrams per litre. The permit was revised last August and the state health department will now allow the Devils Lake emergency outlet to operate when up to 450 milligrams of sulphate are present in the Sheyenne River.

Canadians take pride in our environment. We have the most beautiful country in the world and we would like to preserve it for generations to come. If North Dakota continues to allow the water from Devils Lake to flow into the Sheyenne River, the Red River and finally into Lake Winnipeg, the environmental results will be alarming.

Lake Winnipeg, which our government has devoted $7 million to clean up, will continue to be polluted. This is a very important point because now both our government and the provincial government have taken special care to ensure that Lake Winnipeg, which is under duress as we speak, cannot afford to have pollutants added to its waters. The commercial fishing industry is also in jeopardy as pollution and new species could threaten current fish populations.

Apart from minimal operations in August 2005, during initial testing the Devils Lake outlet did not release any water at all in 2006. It comes as a deep disappointment today that North Dakota opted to operate it starting on Monday afternoon of this week. As we understand the situation, the outlet has run intermittently this week and has released minimal amounts of water into the Sheyenne River. Nevertheless, our government is very concerned by this recent development and particularly the members from Manitoba.

We understand that residents in the Devils Lake basin faced rising flood waters in the period leading to May 2006 when the Devils Lake level peaked. Our government is sympathetic to concerns about flooding and certainly Winnipegers are sympathetic.

Indeed, North Dakota's neighbours in Manitoba know what it means to live with the persistent threat of Red River floods. Nonetheless, North Dakota's decision to operate the outlet places Canada at an unknown and unwarranted degree of risk. The choice to discharge water from the outlet comes at a time when the level of Devils Lake is substantially below that of a year ago.

In this respect, I believe that North Dakota's decision is not only very disappointing, but very unnecessary.

I would like to review some recent history regarding Devils Lake for members of the House but I think most of it has been covered tonight so I will cover the salient points that have not been covered.

In May 2006, Devils Lake levels peaked at a little more than 1,449 feet among mean sea level, just short of 1,500 feet. Throughout 2006 not a drop of water was released from the outlet. After reaching its peak in May last year, lake levels then fell dramatically due mainly to evaporation. By earlier this spring, the level of Devils Lake had dropped by more than two feet below the 2006 high water mark.

While the lake level has risen in recent weeks, as it does every year around this time due to seasonal rainfall, it remains well below the 2006 maximum.

This week, with the lake level well down from a year ago by more than a foot, North Dakota, without warning to the Governments of Canada or the United States, decided to run the outlet. The lake level simply does not warrant placing Canadian waters a risk.

A second point to understand about the system is the important constraint placed on the outlet by the water quality of the Sheyenne River. The Sheyenne River is the receiving water for discharges from the outlet. Devils Lake water contains a high level of sulphates and a high concentration of dissolved solids.

In order for the outlet to operate, flows in the Sheyenne River must be sufficient to dilute the salty water from Devils Lake. There is maximum concentration of sulphates, a type of dissolved solid, that is allowed in the Sheyenne River under the operating permit for the outlet.

In addition to the lower water levels in 2006, North Dakota could not operate the outlet due to high sulphate levels that exceeded the level allowed under its permit. North Dakota then decided to unilaterally change the permit, which is currently being challenged in court.

This week, due to seasonal rainfall, the flow in the Sheyenne River was sufficient to provide dilution to allow for discharges from Devils Lake this week. However, there was insufficient dilution to allow for anything like a significant release of Devils Lake water.

Indeed, even under optimal circumstances, the Devils Lake outlet would have a minimal impact on reducing lake levels. This week, even with good flow in the river, the discharge of Devils Lake water into the Sheyenne River had a trivial impact on reducing lake levels.

To be clear, the decision to operate the outlet was unnecessary. It exposes Canadian waters to an unknown degree of risk from invasive species transfer.

I am proud of the steps our government is taking to quickly deal with this issue. Our environment minister and the regional minister for Manitoba met with the Manitoba provincial water stewardship minister on Tuesday to discuss this issue. The environment minister agreed to voice Manitoba's concerns within 24 hours to have the August 2005 agreement respected, as well as request that the U.S. government have the Environmental Protection Agency review the standards governing the operations of the Devils Lake emergency outlet.

I am grateful to the member for Winnipeg North for bringing this issue to the House tonight.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this very timely topic and I commend the hon. member for Peace River for introducing Bill C-428. I am fully aware of the member's interest in this area and of his concern for the problems that illegal drugs inflict on Canadians.

I know the member and I have spoken about his concern about his constituency and the fact that crystal meth is something that is growing in our country and something that has to be addressed. I want to congratulate him especially for drawing the attention of the House to the complex difficulties created by methamphetamine.

We know that methamphetamine is chemically similar to amphetamine but its effects last longer and are more toxic. Methamphetamine has a similar chemical structure to that of amphetamine but it is has a stronger effect on the central nervous system. The appearance and euphoric effects vary with the method of administration but they are nearly immediate and can last for 12 hours or even more.

Novice users can obtain a high by ingesting only an eighth of a gram of methamphetamine, while a regular user ingests more to get this effect, up to 250 milligrams. On a runner binge lasting several days, the user may take multiple grams of methamphetamine.

Unlike many other drugs of abuse, methamphetamine not only affects the release of certain brain chemicals, such as dopamine, but also damages the neural tissue within the brain itself.

Methamphetamine exposure can damage the areas of the brain related to both cognition and memory. In some cases, even years after discontinuation of use, some brain functioning may not be fully restored to pre-methamphetamine levels. For this reason, methamphetamine addiction places an individual at heightened risk of long term cognitive and psychological problems, including episodes of violent behaviour, paranoia, anxiety, confusion and insomnia.

The acute effects of methamphetamine include increased heart rate, body temperature, blood pressure and alertness. Methamphetamine consumption induces a strong feeling of euphoria and is highly psychologically addictive. This potent central nervous system stimulant affects the brain by acting on the mechanisms responsible for regulating heart rate, body temperature, blood pressure, appetite, attention and responses associated with alertness or alarm conditions.

The effects of meth, such as increased attention, decreased fatigue, increased activity and decreased appetite, together with its low cost and variety of administration routes, make methamphetamine a drug of choice for street youth and partygoers.

This is very unfortunate because often young people have a misconception of the addictive nature of this very dangerous drug. Often they can get hooked on it very easily and very quickly.

It is a common belief that methamphetamine gives people super human strength. Methamphetamine users often become heavily immersed in what they are doing and are prone to violent outbreaks. Chronic methamphetamine use attacks the immune system and users are often prone to various types of infections. There are also short and long term health effects, which the parliamentary secretary talked about earlier in his speech. They include paranoia, liver damage, brain damage and depression.

The rate at which methamphetamine takes effect depends on the method of administration. Taken orally in pill form or as tea, methamphetamine takes effect in 20 to 30 minutes. When snorted, its effects can be felt in three to five minutes. Injection and inhalation by smoking produce effects more quickly, in seven to fifteen seconds. They only last for a few minutes, but are extremely pleasant to the user. The half life of methamphetamine, the time it takes for 50% of the drug to be removed from the body, is 12 hours.

Methamphetamine use has a number of impacts on users, our communities and on society generally. The quality of life among users of methamphetamine is typically greatly diminished. Furthermore, individuals may be unmotivated to seek help as methamphetamine use can create seemingly high levels of energy and productivity. Communities can become vulnerable to petty crime, social disorder, associated risks to health and increases in violence, large scale labs and drug trafficking. When a user is addicted to this drug, it not only affects the user but the families and communities around the user.

Methamphetamine production operations also pose serious public safety and health hazards to those in and around production operations. These operations can result in serious physical injury, from explosions, fires, chemical burns and toxic fumes. They produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems and endanger the lives and health of community residents. In addition, first responders are also placed in extraordinarily dangerous situations when responding to calls where clandestine labs exist.

The collateral damage of methamphetamine includes effects on families, school staff and students, law enforcers, fire departments, paramedics, health care practitioners, businesses and property owners. These individuals experience second-hand symptoms of methamphetamine use.

First responders may experience exposure to production byproducts, fire or explosion hazards and may be subject to the violence and aggression from addicts or frustration and stress from inadequate resources or judicial restraints preventing them from taking action.

Parents may also experience emotional and financial stress as a child goes through treatment, strain from missing work, fear, embarrassment, shame and guilt. The family may also encounter gang related crime, contamination, violence and disciplinary problems as the child continues to abuse the drug.

Staff and students in the schools may face users with behavioural problems, classroom disruption, absenteeism and negative peer influence.

There are also significant health risks and costs associated with dismantling labs and removing processing agents from these locations. Currently certain expenses are borne by the responding police services, property owners and insurers.

The bill put forward by member for Peace River proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so as to prohibit the production, possession and sale of any substance, equipment or other material that is intended for use in production of or in trafficking in methamphetamine.

I support the bill. However, I note that it does not contain a specific penalty attached to the new prohibitions. We have spoken about this and I know the intent is to deal with this. The bill would be improved if it contained such a penalty. As well, the bill could impact on numerous retailers selling common articles for legitimate purposes.

I believe the bill could be improved if the criminal intent was clarified, as the member for Peace River has discussed with members on this side of the House, such that innocent or legitimate activities would not get caught.

The bill could very well provide us with further tools to counter and combat the methamphetamine problem. I urge all hon. members to support this bill.

I again thank the member for Peace River for his insightful dialogue and hard work on this bill toward ensuring that crystal meth is no longer on the streets of Canada.

[Health, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal MP for Bramalea—Gore—Malton made a statement in the House praising Rick Hansen for his dedication to raising research funding to treat spinal cord injuries. Yet this week the member voted against a budget that gave the Rick Hansen Foundation $30 million to continue its important work.

Could the Minister of Health convey to the House what will happen to that funding if the Liberal Senate delays the adoption of Bill C-52?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this budget that is so important to Canada and so important to my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul and indeed to Manitobans.

Our budget will reduce the tax burdens on working families, and this budget will protect our environment and modernize our health care system. This is a very important budget that has to be passed by the end of this month. I must say that this government will provide equal treatment to Canadians and this is what this budget delivers.

Through budget 2007 we are providing the provinces and territories with well over $39 billion in additional funding to restore fiscal balance in Canada. We are returning equalization to our principled, formula-based program. I would like to take a moment to talk about how this does apply to my province of Manitoba.

Restoring the fiscal balance will provide Manitobans with $3.1 billion in 2007-08 and this includes $1.8 billion under the new equalization system. It will provide Manitobans with $807 million under the Canada health transfer. It will also provide Manitobans with $350 million for Canada social transfers including additional funding for post-secondary education and child care, and $83 million for infrastructure.

I would like to ask my fellow members of Parliament and the opposition to support Manitoba. I would encourage them to listen to Manitobans. Even the premier of Manitoba said this federal budget contains good news for our province and I would encourage the NDP members from Manitoba to do what is right for the people of Manitoba and support this important budget.

The NDP premier of Manitoba said, “So, I actually think the compromise is supportable by Manitoba. I think that it is difficult to get 13 separate leaders of provinces to agree on a perfect solution. And I think the consensus in the report that was produced by the former Liberal government, acted upon by [the] Prime Minister, is the appropriate way to go. And it treats hydro at least equally to oil and gas. And from that perspective I disagree with the member from Nova Scotia and his position, and I agree with [the] Prime Minister in his position”.

Here in the House we have NDP members of Parliament who are opposing this budget and complaining about it. The fact of the matter is the NDP premier of our province fully supports it. It is obvious that we have to look at what this does for our province.

We believe that paying down the national debt is important for Canadians and our government is lowering our national mortgage by $9.2 billion on top of the $13.2 billion we have put against the debt since elected. This is equivalent to $700 in debt relief for every individual Canadian. Through our tax back guarantee, lower debt will mean lower interest payments which will mean lower taxes. This is a good start because we believe as a government that Canadians pay too much tax.

In my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul parents struggle daily with the challenge of raising a family. With higher costs of living, housing and energy, it is not easy. We need to make it more affordable for people to have children and to raise them. As a result we have created a working families tax plan and that is important to families all across our nation.

It has four components. First, for families with children it includes a brand new $2,000 per child tax credit for children under age 18. That will help families get ahead. This will save families in Manitoba $54.1 million.

Second, we are ending the marriage penalty through an increase of the spousal and dependant amounts to the same level as the basic personal amount to provide up to $209 of tax relief to a supporting spouse or single taxpayer supporting a child or relative, saving Manitoba residents an estimated $8.4 million. This is a lot of money.

Third, we are helping parents save for their children's education by strengthening the RESP program. As the mother of six children all of whom have gone through university, I know what this means to Canadian families and to Manitobans.

Fourth, we are helping seniors by raising the age limit for RPPs and RRSPs to 71 from 69 years to save Manitoban taxpayers $1 million. This is getting direct results for hard-working Canadians.

Welfare is a difficult situation many Canadians face. Too many people feel trapped on welfare. A single mother with one child who takes a low income job can lose almost 80 cents of each dollar she earns because of higher taxes and reduced benefits for drug and dental coverage.

To help people get over this welfare wall, we are investing more than $550 million a year to establish a working income tax benefit. This measure will help remove barriers that discourage people from enjoying the dignity and independence that comes with a job. This new working income tax benefit of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families will reward work. It will strengthen incentives to work and will benefit Manitoba workers to the tune of $18.9 million.

I would like to remind the member for Winnipeg North what she said about the working income tax benefit. She said:

It's an important program that goes in the right direction.

I would hope that this means she will be supporting this initiative and supporting the budget. This budget is very important. It has to be passed by the end of the month or a lot of people will miss out.

The budget includes a new long term plan for infrastructure that delivers $33 billion over the next seven years. There is an estimated $17.6 billion in base funding which consists of the gas tax fund and the increase from 57.1% to 100% in the rebate that municipalities receive for the goods and services tax they paid in 2007-08.

Base funding for Manitoba is forecast to be $46 million. The Government of Canada is providing $26.8 million of gas tax funding for municipalities in Manitoba in 2007-08. This is very important to Manitobans. There have been so many plans in terms of the infrastructure advantage from this government that really benefit Manitoba.

Manitoba will benefit from the enriched $1 billion Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor initiative. The Red River floodway is very important to the province of Manitoba and in preventing the flooding of the city of Winnipeg. There is a recent federal commitment of $170.5 million to complete the expansion of the Red River floodway. This will enhance the level of protection enjoyed by the residents of the city of Winnipeg. Members will remember that there was a very big flood a few years back which threatened the whole city.

Preserving and protecting our environment is a priority for our government. We have made tremendous strides in this budget.

In order to protect Lake Winnipeg, the Red River and other Manitoba rivers we are establishing a new national water strategy. It is all centred on the budget that needs to be passed by the end of June. This national water strategy will improve municipal sewer and water facilities.

The new Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change will provide support to those provinces and territories that identify major projects, as we have done in Manitoba, that will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Canada's new government intends to provide Manitoba with almost $54 million through this initiative. Water quality in Lake Winnipeg has deteriorated. This budget will provide $7 million over the next two years to Environment Canada in our province.

Unless Bill C-52, the budget implementation act, is passed in the House of Commons and Senate by June 30, the critical funding for Manitoba and for my constituency will be lost.

When elementary schools, such as Bird's Hill School or Maple Leaf School in my riding, write letters about their concern for the environment, how would I explain to students, our country's future leaders, that $54 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution was lost because opposition parties in the House of Commons voted against the bill? At my next seniors round table discussion at Donwood South or Carriage House North when one of my constituents asks why parliamentarians gave up $27.9 million to help reduce patient wait times in Manitoba, how would I explain that?

Without that funding, how do I explain that we are working toward ensuring that all Canadians receive essential medical treatment within clinically acceptable wait times? And what about the over $21 million for labour market training? All this money will be lost. It is critical that the games in this House of Commons stop and that the opposition parties get on board.

The population in my province of Manitoba is waiting for this budget to pass. They look forward to the passage of this budget. The future of this budget is in the hands of parliamentarians here today on Parliament Hill. It behooves us to be responsible and pass this budget and see that Manitobans get that money.

[Status of Women, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is out. The Liberals were out of touch with women.

When the Liberals were in government, they commissioned a Status of Women Canada report. In reports, the agency's own staff labelled it “a relic of the past” and said, “We're not showing results”. The reports concluded that gender equality was no longer a headline political issue for the federal government.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women say what our Conservative government is doing for women?

[Petitions, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. Canadians all across this country are calling on our government to continue to combat the human trafficking crime that is occurring in our country.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly applaud my colleague from York West. I know my colleague was the chair on the status of women committee when our witnesses came forward to talk about the human trafficking issue across this country.

I am gratified to hear about her support to get the bill to committee as quickly as possible and to have the debate. As she said earlier, we all know that the parliamentary process definitely is to make sure that we do have the debate to examine every bill in committee very thoroughly. That is what we do here on Parliament Hill.

The reality in Parliament this year which concerns me as a member of Parliament is how many bills have been dragged out for the better part of a year with stalling tactics and so on. Having said that, with Bill C-57 it is very gratifying to hear how concerned the member opposite is about ensuring that this does get to committee, so the debate can carry on and also her concern about making sure that the debate continues on very quickly and thoroughly, but to get it back here.

I was really quite taken aback at what the critic for immigration said about the bill. This is why perhaps the issue has come up today about how quickly the bill would go through. Could the member comment whether there is a division among the Liberal caucus in terms of what we should do with the bill and could she explain some of that to ensure we get the bill debated as soon as possible?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this government is very aware of the report and is working with it every day. It is not just one minister. All the ministers are working on this very important issue.

I have to say that we have done more than the previous government did in 13 years. We have done it in just over a year. We are taking action. We are working fast.

All these recommendations are being looked at. They are very important recommendations. We can see that with the 120 days that has been put in place since we got into government. We can see that with Bill C-57. Those are the things that we are pushing through right now, along with the stiff criminal laws for people who perpetrate those crimes.