]> http://billblaikie.ca/taxonomy/term/65/0 en http://billblaikie.ca/node/366 <p><strong>Thursday October 23, 2003</strong><br /><strong><br />Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Transcona, NDP): </strong>Mr. Speaker, obviously we feel that this last year&#39;s surplus could have been used for some of those needs.</p> <p>I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs who, in response to a question by the member for Winnipeg Centre yesterday, said that it was up to Secretary of State Colin Powell to decide whether the Devil&#39;s Lake diversion violated the boundary waters treaty. What happened to Canadian sovereignty here? Surely it is not just up to Secretary of State Powell to decide whether this violates the boundary waters treaty.</p> Questions 2003 Devil's Lake Diversion Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:15:00 -0500 http://billblaikie.ca/node/455 <p><strong>June 14, 2005 </strong></p> <p> <strong> Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP):</strong> Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.</p> <p> Canada Day is approaching and yet Canada Day is the day that North Dakota, in a perverse sense of what it means to be a neighbour, has decided to turn on the tap of the Devils Lake diversion.</p> <p> The Prime Minister has talked to George Bush. When does he expect to hear back from the White House as to whether or not we are going to celebrate Canada Day from here on in as the day the United States chose to ignore the boundary waters treaty?</p> Questions 2005 Devil's Lake Diversion Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:15:03 -0500 http://billblaikie.ca/node/153 <p><strong>June 21, 2005</p> <p>Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP): </strong>Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague from the Bloc for her suggestion that we give some thought in the days ahead to how this House might express itself unanimously with regard to the Devils Lake outlet. Perhaps there could be some collaboration, I would suggest, among the House leaders tomorrow for a unanimous motion that could be passed by the House and communicated to the U.S. Congress, both to the House of Representatives and to the Senate. It would seem to me that if that message could be conveyed and an appropriate motion drafted in order to convey that message, that would indeed be a good thing. It would convey a spirit of unanimity and solidarity here in the House, which unfortunately was sadly lacking at the beginning of this debate.</p> Devil's Lake Diversion Speeches 2005 Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:44:26 -0500 http://billblaikie.ca/node/152 <h4>June 7, 2005</h4> <p><strong> </strong> <p><span><strong>Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP):</strong> </span>Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the very serious need now for a full court press on Washington with respect to the Devils Lake diversion.</p> <p>We only have a few weeks left. The Prime Minister has said that he has been in touch with the President. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us when he expects to hear back from the President or Condoleezza Rice. </p> Questions 2005 Devil's Lake Diversion Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:44:26 -0500 http://billblaikie.ca/node/151 <p><strong>May 10, 2005</strong><br /><strong><br />Hon. Bill Blaikie (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP):</strong> Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the past I have felt that concentration in Parliament on corruption and scandals and like that was putting a larger question at risk and that is the long term sustainability of our environment, which if we do not save all these other questions become academic.</p> Questions 2005 Devil's Lake Diversion Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:44:26 -0500