Joy Smith

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite. She is from my city. I was a little reluctant to get up and ask a question, but I too can add, very well actually.

Bill C-43 was put together under the normal budget process, where one looks at the initiatives one wants to promote, collaborates with people in the field of expertise, and then looks at what can be done. It takes a certain length of time to accomplish this process. Bill C-48 on the other hand was much different. It was constructed in a hotel room in Toronto in a very short period of time. It was constructed with the NDP. The NDP, quite frankly, was not elected to this House of Commons. There are 19 members here--

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this Parliament is amazing. Bill C-38 is a very important bill but the fact is that the majority of Canadians across the nation have said that they do not want it and the government is trying to jam it through. The Liberals are making sure this happens.

The mandate of all members of Parliament is to listen to the people of Canada. What is happening this morning is abysmal. People in my riding of Kildonan—St. Paul do not want Bill C-38 passed. The members opposite should be listening to all people in Canada, as well as those in their own ridings.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his presentation tonight. It brought forward some very new and important points on issues that we have discussed within our caucus.

Some of the comments he made about Canada-U.S. relations were extremely important. The hon. member mentioned that to work in collaboration with our neighbours to the south is of paramount importance. In the House the current government in power is responsible to take care of these issues. With that, it is our responsibility as the opposition to push, to support, to work on these kinds of issues.

As of July 1, the Devils Lake diversion project was supposed to be opened. Those waters are headed toward the province of Manitoba. Could the hon. member elaborate more succinctly on how the government could better negotiate with our neighbours to the south to ensure that we have that trust between Canada and the U.S. which is so important to all of us?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are couple of things I would like to question because the member opposite has also been here for over a decade and there has been ample opportunity in that time to have this kind of debate in the House.

I am a new member of Parliament, but it is very important, whether one is a new member or not, that this debate be brought to the House of Commons. I said that the Manitoba government unfortunately felt it had to go to court. I commended it for the fact that it is standing alone. Even though we are of a different political stripe, I commend the premier for his fight in this matter. In my opinion. he has done a very good job, and I will put that on record.

I do not know what the members opposite have done in particular because they are not the government in power. The government in power is the Liberal government. Therefore, we all need to ensure that our voices are known in opposition to get things done when they need to be done. We have a grave concern about the Devils Lake diversion.

I want to quote from the Winnipeg Sun Monday, June 20 before I ask the final question. Premier Doer of Manitoba said:

This is a test for the federal government...If Canada can't implement a treaty on water with the United States, what does it say about any other treaty in the world?...It's a real breakdown for the public of Canada and the public of the U.S.

I would agree that we could all stand in the House together on this issue. I like the member's suggestion about sending a letter to all the parliaments. However, we are here tonight in the House when this should have been done a long time ago. The concern is there.

I commend the member for Selkirk—Interlake for his leadership role in this important initiative. It has been in his heart because it has affected his riding, as it has mine. I have had many letters on this issue. I have had many meetings on this issue. There are many things that I have been involved in around this issue.

From what I have heard in the province of Manitoba, the members opposite from the NDP have put a lot of effort into this. I commend them for that and I apologize if I left the member out of that acknowledgement. What I am centred on tonight is not that.

I am centred on the fact that the Devils Lake diversion is soon to open. We are now in the eleventh hour and we have to ensure we have a very strong voice for making that diversion stay put, before anything else happens, until we get a proper environment impact assessment.

This needs to be referred to the IJC. If tonight the present government members say that they have such good intentions and relationships within the United States of America, why then has this referral not occurred? Why has the environmental impact assessment not been done? Why are people in Manitoba not assured that the waterways there will not be compromised?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her very insightful comments. The reason this issue is before the House tonight is because of the gravity of the situation. The frustration is we are now in the ninth hour.

I commend the member for Selkirk—Interlake. I commend the hon. member for her comments. I commend the members in our Senate who have been working so hard. We heard the comment of the hon. member that everybody needs to work together. That is frustrating. People on the American side and on the Canadian side are concerned about this issue.

My hon. colleague is very correct that if this goes through, it will affect all our waters. We cannot stand by and let it happen. It impacts on our beautiful province, as well as all of Canada.

Would my hon. colleague comment on the fact that the diversion was due to open on July 1? It is now in the ninth hour and it is all set to go. The information we have received is from North Dakota is from the man who has his finger on the switch to open the diversion. Could my hon. colleague comment, particularly centred around some of the things she said earlier about referring this matter to the IJC for an environmental impact assessment.

The frustration is many red flags have gone up prior to this. What do we do? Do we sit here and let it happen? We cannot do that. The debate has been brought tonight to the House of Commons on these very serious issues of the environment. Could my hon. colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight I have listened to that speech that was read from the podium, with the member standing there with all the predicted political lines, when the fact of the matter is that July 1 is the day when the diversion is to be opened.

I commend the government of Manitoba. We are of different political stripes, but it has stood alone and has done its best to do whatever it can without any help from the present federal government on this issue. The fact of the matter is that this government has been in power for over a decade and at this time the outlet is being opened without the science.

I have a question for the minister. If the relations were so good and all the support was given from all the states and everybody around, why in the world was this not referred to the International Joint Commission long ago and why was the science behind this not done? The minister's words are very hollow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct one inaccuracy. I said that there was a suggestion, which came from North Dakota quite recently, that a filter could be put in. No mention was made of whether or not the Canadian government should or would pay for the filter. I also said that not enough science was going on to ascertain what to do to ensure that our waters in Manitoba are protected.

I threw out the kind of proposals that came forward from down south and I am saying that we should look at all options. The present government is the government in power and it should be dealing with this. It has had over a decade to do that and the responsibility is squarely on the Liberals' shoulders. Some members from Manitoba have also stated their concern.

Unfortunately, the Province of Manitoba actually put a court case forward about this project. When we are talking about this today, we are talking about the fact that an environmental impact study has to be done. It has not been done. We do not know enough about what is happening in our water systems. We have some data that shows quite clearly that our water system could be compromised.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is about keeping our waterways in Manitoba clean. There has not been enough science on the issue. There has not been an environmental impact study on the Devils Lake diversion. There are solutions to the problem but the problem is that time is running out.

Suggestions have been made that a screen be put in at a cost and that our waters be protected as they come from the U.S. The problem right now is that the Red River is very high and the water levels in Manitoba are very high. When the Devils Lake diversion is opened, it causes the water to come down without knowing what is actually in that water.

We have a bad situation going on in Lake Winnipeg right now. I could go through all the details but I do not have time to do that. However there are very specific bacteria, nitrates and all kinds of things that are compromising the quality of the water in Lake Winnipeg.

Lake Winnipeg is the 10th largest freshwater body in the world and it supplies water to many people in the province of Manitoba. We have raised this issue in the House many times with the government. The flags went up eight years ago about the concerns.

Now that we are right on the brink of the Devils Lake opening, we want to work in a collaborative way with out neighbours to the south to problem solve and ensure that our water quality in the province of Manitoba is kept pure.

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

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake seconded the motion that this discussion be set forward tonight because the issue is of utmost concern to the people Manitoba.

I have to say at the outset that there is a great history with this Devils Lake diversion problem. The Devils Lake diversion is about to open. It was scheduled to open on July 1, but because of bad weather it will be postponed. We are grateful for a little time to keep pushing the matter. This is of great concern to Manitobans because of the potential contamination of the waterways in our province.

The member for Selkirk--Interlake has taken a real leadership role on this issue. The water systems affect his riding and my riding to quite an extent. Over and above that, as members of Parliament from Manitoba, it is our responsibility to stand up for the kind of protection of the waterways that is so drastically needed right now. There has been a myriad of problems around this issue.

Members on the other side of the House actually said that the stalling of the opening of the Devils Lake diversion was due to their negotiation with the United States. I found that quite appalling because that just is not true. The fact of the matter is that the governor of North Dakota has said quite categorically that the reason this diversion was not opened was simply because of bad weather.

Throughout our time here, we have done a lot to try to make this diversion not happen. The present government has fumbled and mumbled on this very serious issue. It has neglected the needs of Manitobans.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I will be sharing my time with the member for Selkirk--Interlake. I am very pleased to do that because of the leadership role he has played in this very important issue for our province.

I tabled in the House today a letter dated May 21, 2002 which was written to Marc Grossman, the under secretary for political affairs at the Department of State in Washington, D.C. by the former ambassador, Michael Kergin. This letter quite clearly indicates there was a reference to the International Joint Commission and an offer was made for Canada to participate in that joint commission. It states:

I am writing in response to your letter of May 20 and other recent correspondence received from the Department of State inviting the Government of Canada to join the Government of the United States in making a reference to the International Joint Commission (IJC) on the compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty (BWT) of the proposed Devils Lake outlet project.

We note in the letter from the Director of Canadian Affairs, Ms. Nancy Mason, dated 17 April 2002, that a Devils Lake outlet has not been recommended as the preferred option in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draft Integrated Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), published on 26 February 2002.

Quite clearly red flags have gone up all over the place. Red flags have gone up about the potential danger and the lack of scientific data that is available and the lack of the environmental impact that was needed to ensure that our waters are kept safe in Manitoba. This lack of scientific procedure for our waters in Manitoba is going to be a great cost to the people of Manitoba.

The waterways feed a lot of industry and commerce and also mean enjoyment and recreation in our province. They support the fishery, tourism and a lot of things. People live along the river. There are a lot of things about the waterways that we hold very dear. We want to preserve them in the province of Manitoba.

Lake Winnipeg is under great duress. Some days there are warnings not to swim in the water. There are concerns about foreign species and bacteria. There is an initiative in Manitoba that centres on the waters in Lake Winnipeg.

It is very easy to put out a press release and use a lot of hyperbole about how the waterways are taken care of. Members opposite have done a good job of that. Unfortunately, they have not done a good job of preventing the diversion from being opened.

It has to do with foreign relations and the lack of interaction that the present government has with our neighbours to the south. There is a lack of goodwill. The proper scientific study has not been done. Many variables have come into play that have put our waterways in great danger.

We have tried very, very hard in the House this past while. The issue started over eight years ago. The present government has been in government for over a decade. This issue is not something that just sneaked up and tapped the government on the shoulder. This was a grave concern a long time ago.

In February 2003 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released information that an alternate method of reducing flooding would be preferred to the Devils Lake outlet project and made some recommendations. A lot of red flags go up in our nation when there are issues as big as waterways. The Devils Lake diversion will affect Lake Winnipeg, the Red River and waters right up to the Hudson basin. It will have a huge impact.

We are having this emergency debate to waken the members opposite. Tonight we expect them to say with great hyperbole that they have great relations with the U.S. They will say that they are doing lots of things and that everything we have said is inaccurate.

The fact of the matter is that the diversion should not be opened. It should not be there. We are concerned about the lack of ability of the members opposite to do anything about this. The red flags are all up. To stand in the House of Commons and actually say in front of Canadians that the diversion was delayed because of their talks is an embarrassment to Manitobans and an embarrassment to all Canadians.

The fact is there has been bad weather. The weather is clearing up. In a couple of weeks' time the diversion will be opened and will dump all sorts of things into the Manitoba waterways.

Tonight we want to stand here and have this discussion. We want Manitobans and all Canadians to know that we are fighting for the well-being of our waterways all throughout Manitoba.

I have to commend the Manitoba caucus. I have to commend the member for Selkirk—Interlake and the member for Provencher, who has spent a great deal of time on this issue, as well as Senator Johnson and Senator Stratton. People in Manitoba are standing up on this issue. Tonight we hope to push the present government into doing something about it.

[Points of Order, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a letter dated May 21, 2002 from the former Canadian ambassador, Michael Kergin, to Mark Grossman, under-secretary of the U.S. state department, in which he stated that this government declined a joint referral.