Debates of June 21st, 2005

Devils Lake Diversion Project

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

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.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the member's interest in this project because the first time we heard him speak on it was in the last week, but better late than never.

I am a little confused as to why he uses as his reference information that is provided by the proponent of opening the dam and sending the polluted water into Manitoba. That seems to be the position he is supporting. I do not understand how that serves the interest of his constituents.

Given that he claims some knowledge on this file and claims to be a bit of an activist on this file, perhaps he could tell us what the position of the state of Minnesota is on this. How many governors are actually supporting Manitoba on this?

Could he tell us what the positions are of the Great Lakes Council, the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario? Could he tell us why he is so opposed to the actions of Premier Doer who has been doing an absolutely stellar job at presenting this case? His colleague, who spoke earlier, said that was the position of her party on Premier Doer's ill-advised court case.

If the member is so involved in this, could he perhaps give us a few facts other than simply repeating the misinformation that has been put on the record to date?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

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.

[Inky Mark, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for bringing this motion forward for debate this evening and also the member for Selkirk--Interlake for the excellent job he is doing.

Tonight the timing of this motion certainly shows where the government has been over the last decade. This is the eleventh hour. This is the time when the pumps are going to be turned on.

The government has had over a decade to deal with this problem. I remember hearing about this problem before I was a member of Parliament. After becoming a member of Parliament, I remember hearing previous foreign ministers debating and talking about this.

Unfortunately, the government missed the opportunity to do something about the water. At a minimum, it could have had this referred to the International Joint Commission. I still remember going to a meeting where then foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy made a presentation to the Canada-U.S. friendship association, I believe, on this very topic. He was struggling at that time on having it referred to the International Joint Commission.

Here we are, at the eleventh hour, and the pumps are ready to be primed to dump water into the Sheyenne River and into this country's water courses. I have a question for the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake. What went wrong? Why over the last 12 years did the Liberal government not do something about it and not get us to this point?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

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.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this emergency debate on the Devils Lake outlet.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the Minister of the Environment, who is also very committed to this important issue for our government.

Canada believes the Boundary Waters Treaty is fundamental to the management and protection of the boundary and transboundary waters between Canada and the United States. We are very determined to defend the integrity of the treaty and the role of the International Joint Commission.

The government has conveyed Canada's concerns regarding the North Dakota Devils Lake outlet to the highest levels of the United States government on many occasions over the past number of years. We have worked diligently with the government of Manitoba and all Manitobans to present our concerns to the U.S. government.

We have garnered widespread support in the United States for our position on Devils Lake. The governors of Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio and congressional representatives from Minnesota, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Washington and Arizona have all supported Canada's position on Devils Lake.

The Assembly of First Nations, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence mayors, the Great Lakes Commission and Premiers McGuinty and Charest of Ontario and Quebec have all voiced their concerns about the Devils Lake outlet.

Why has there been overwhelming support for Canada's position on Devils Lake? It is because everyone recognizes that a remarkable percentage of the border we share with the United States is made up of water. In fact, some 3,500 kilometres of the border, from the Pacific to the Atlantic Ocean, is made up of boundary waters. That is a lot of water, and consequently, people on both sides of the border recognize the importance of binational management of the border waters. This is why so many diverse organizations and political leaders have supported Canada and our stand against the Devils Lake outlet.

Our work on Devils Lake began a number of years ago. We have consistently and repeatedly expressed our concerns that an outlet from Devils Lake would pose an environmental risk to the waters of the Red River and Lake Winnipeg.

Our position is quite simple. In 1909 Canada and the United Stages signed the Boundary Waters Treaty, under which both countries agreed to protect water resources on either side of the border. To quote from article 4 of the treaty:

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

To date, the Boundary Waters Treaty has proven extremely valuable to both countries. The independent, binational International Joint Commission, the IJC, was established by the treaty to provide the principles and mechanisms to help resolve disputes and prevent future ones, primarily those concerning water quantity and quality along the boundary between the United States and Canada. Preserving the integrity of the Boundary Waters Treaty is critical to both countries.

Canada first raised concerns about a possible state funded North Dakota outlet in 1999. We have consistently expressed our concerns about biota transfer from Devils Lake into the Red River and Lake Winnipeg. We have raised questions about the impact of the Devils Lake outlet on water quality in the Red River basin and what the socio-economic impact will be to downstream water users in Manitoba.

In 2002, the United States made a referral to the IJC, but concerning an entirely different reservoir proposed by the United States federal government.

The Conservatives are plain wrong when they say that the United States proposed a referral to the IJC for this project. It was for another project completely. It was about an outlet proposed by the federal authorities of the United States, not the one by the state of North Dakota. Things must be clear in the House.

Canada said at the time that it would be premature to send it to the joint commission as long as the environmental assessment had not been completed.

The 2002-03 environmental assessment was very contentious. The project was strongly opposed, particularly by Minnesota, Missouri, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Canada and Manitoba.

Canada announced it was prepared to discuss several North Dakota water diversion plans being developed at the time, which may have repercussions under the Boundary Waters Treaty.

When the state of North Dakota began construction of the Devils Lake outlet, we made our concerns known and we sought assurances from the United States that the Boundary Waters Treaty would be respected. This is why in April 2004 we asked the United States to join with us in referring the Devils Lake outlet project to the International Joint Commission for an independent, scientific assessment of the outlet.

The International Joint Commission has a proven track record in helping the governments of Canada and the United States resolve difficult and contentious issues along our shared waters.

Over the past number of months, the government has pulled out all stops in our effort to reach a resolution on Devils Lake. Ambassador McKenna has called on congressional leaders and met with governors to discuss Canada's concerns with the outlet and to seek their support in referring this to the International Joint Commission. The Prime Minister has spoken to the president to underline the importance of Devils Lake to Canada. This type of leadership is making a difference and is welcomed and recognized by our supporters.

Let me quote from an article authored by the Friends of the Earth. It states, “To his credit, Canada's Prime Minister...has raised Canada's concerns about the Devils Lake scheme directly with [President Bush]”. Not only has the Prime Minister intervened, but cabinet ministers have spoken to their U.S. colleagues to ensure that everyone is aware of Canada's concerns.

Although we are still working hard to find a resolution, our efforts to date have met with some success. We have been able to dramatically raise awareness about our concerns with the outlet and, more important, we have reached out and obtained the support of dozens of members of Congress, mayors, governors, environmental organizations and U.S. editorial writers.

Because of our intensive efforts, we now have the White House Council of Environmental Quality involved in the discussions. Those discussions are continuing and this government is committed to pursuing a solution that protects Canada's environment and respects the Boundary Waters Treaty.

Canada is determined to find a solution that respects the Boundary Waters Treaty, that commits both governments to cooperating in order to prevent transboundary pollution. Whether through the International Joint Commission or any other mechanism that works with the treaty, our goal is to find a solution to prevent the migration of invasive species from Devils Lake.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

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.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that it is certainly not because of the interest of that member or of the Conservatives, who have shown absolutely no support for this government or any interest in the government taking any action on this issue.

This is absolutely a catch-up exercise for them, with the Conservatives trying to catch up at this time while we have been at work for years. We have garnered a lot of support.

That is typical Conservative propaganda. The lady stands in the House and asks what support there is. I have been very proud to see all of the support that the Canadian position has garnered in the United States.

The Conservatives say, “What is this?” They say, “We do not believe that”. One cannot confuse the Conservatives with the hard facts. That is the problem. They have absolutely no true interest in this except scoring cheap political points.

We want a resolution for this. We will want a defence of the Boundary Waters Treaty. We have engaged with the White House and the environment commission. There are discussions going on right now to make sure that we will avoid the transfer of species into Lake Winnipeg and the Red River.

We want action and concrete development over this and we are going to get there with the support of Manitobans, all Canadians and a lot of Americans. That is what really counts on this issue.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the tone of this debate worries me. We are only an hour into it and the partisan jabs are taking away from the seriousness of this issue.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is right that the government has been on this file as long as the Government of Manitoba has been on this file. I personally went to Washington with the former minister of foreign affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, in 1999 to make our case at that time. We stated that whatever model the Americans were proposing would be catastrophic because the interbasin transfer of water is something we have to speak out against and we have to demand respect for the Boundary Waters Treaty.

We are at the 11th hour and this is not a time for partisan bickering from the Tories. I was hoping that we could stand united as the Canadian House of Commons and send that united message to our negotiators in the United States, federal and provincial, so that they can convince their American counterparts that Canada is seized of this issue and that our Parliament is speaking with one voice to implore them to reverse this catastrophic decision.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre is absolutely right. It is important that, in Washington and in North Dakota, we register that the House of Commons is absolutely serious about the discussions that are ongoing with the White House at this time.

We do not want this outlet be opened before we have made progress on a scientific basis. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment who will be following me, will be developing these elements that are so important to us.

The House can count on us. I agree that it is the 11th hour. We must ensure that we succeed in delaying the opening of the outlet until we have all of the guarantees and the appropriate tools to protect our waters. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, will be very articulate in describing exactly what it is that we are doing.

[The Speaker]

I encourage all hon. members to address their comments to the Speaker instead of to other hon. members.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend a lake in my country, and what a lake!

Lake Winnipeg is the 12th largest freshwater lake in the world and the sixth largest lake in Canada. It is the third largest lake located entirely within Canada, and number one in the hearts of Manitobans.

This Parliament has a responsibility to Manitoba, to Canada as a whole, and to the planet quite frankly, to protect Lake Winnipeg. It is a superb lake and a world class tourist destination. Its watershed and drainage basin includes parts of four provinces and four U.S. states. The Lake Winnipeg drainage basin is nearly one million square kilometres in size and is home to five million people. It has a large fishing industry.

The state of North Dakota has embarked on a project to discharge water from Devils Lake into nearby Sheyenne River. The Sheyenne River flows into the Red River and subsequently north into Lake Winnipeg.

The Governments of Canada and Manitoba are deeply concerned about the possible threats to Canadian waters posed by this project, which is nearing completion. We are concerned about possible effects on the ecological integrity of our waters and the economic consequences that could be caused by diverting Devils Lake water into the Red River watershed.

Let me tell the House why the Government of Canada is so vigorously engaged in efforts to resolve the Devils Lake outlet dispute. Thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister, the White House is engaged in exploring possible solutions with us. Let me tell the House why Canada is so committed to finding a solution that protects our environment and reflects the spirit of the Boundary Waters Treaty.

This project is proceeding without a thorough environmental review. We believe that the Devils Lake outlet should not operate until appropriate safeguards are in place. There are good reasons to be concerned with the outlet currently being built by North Dakota.

Devils Lake has no natural inlet or outlet, meaning that it is isolated from the broader Red River basin and has been for approximately the last 1,000 years.

Indeed, in the 1940s the lake was essentially dry meaning that all of the larger orders of life, such as the fish now in the lake, have been introduced by people since that time. Canada is very concerned about the possible transfer of species which may now be living in Devils Lake but which are flowing to the Red River and Lake Winnipeg.

Such biota transfer can have devastating environmental and economic impacts. Canadians and Americans are well acquainted with the harm caused by alien invasive species in the Great Lakes by the introduction of foreign species such as zebra mussels.

A commitment to the principle of precaution means that we must be careful. We must ensure that we have done the science and have the necessary safeguards in place before the outlet starts operations, if the outlet is the solution. Once alien invasive species enter a new system and establish themselves the damage is done and there is no undoing it.

The science concerning Devils Lake biota is insufficient, a view shared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who have identified a number of species of concern for baseline monitoring. In fact, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains concerned about biota transfer even if the state of North Dakota apparently is not.

The Army Corps of Engineers is developing a plan and processing biota sampling in Devils Lake focused on biota of concern and designed to identify the presence of species that could spread to other areas of the Red River watershed. The gaps in the science need to be filed in order to understand the full extent of the risks posed by the biota in Devils Lake and how best to address that risk.

The Canadian position is clear. We must ensure we have sound science, determine the mitigation that is required and then install the necessary safeguards to protect the watershed against any additional possible biota transfer. Canada is also concerned about the discharge of poor quality water into the broader basin.

Canada and the United States have agreed to a set of water quality objectives. Environment Canada monitors the chemistry of the Red River as it crosses the border at our station at Emerson, Manitoba. My department has increased the frequency of monitoring at the border. Right now monitoring is done every minute.

It is my goal to support Canada's efforts by ensuring that we have the best information possible regarding any changes to water quality. As well, I have announced that we are enhancing monitoring and data gathering efforts to ensure detailed information on water chemistry, and plant and animal life available for Lake Winnipeg and the Red River.

Devils Lake water is very salty. It has a high concentration of totally dissolved solids, including sulphates. Discharging this water into the Sheyenne River and Red River system will increase the number of times that IJC water quality objectives are exceeded at the border and will likely violate the Boundary Waters Treaty.

In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has indicated there would be increased loads of phosphorous and nitrogen in Lake Winnipeg from Devils Lake waters at the time when the depletion of lake oxygen is a recognized problem. In fact, the additional phosphorous from Devils Lake, as much as 40,000 pounds per year, could create a thick layer of algae on nearly 10 miles of Lake Winnipeg beaches.

It is important to remember that everything from Devils Lake will ultimately end up in Lake Winnipeg. In this respect, the threats to Canada are very different when compared to downstream communities in North Dakota and Minnesota. While the water passes through those states, it accumulates in Lake Winnipeg. This is why Canada is so committed to pursuing a solution that will protect our environment, reflecting the spirit of the Boundary Waters Treaty.

The treaty calls on both countries to cooperate in preventing transboundary water pollution before it occurs. Whether it is through the International Joint Commission or another mechanism, although IJC references are preferred solutions, any other mechanism consistent with the treaty fits our goal to work toward a solution that addresses Canada's environmental concerns to protect the Sheyenne River, the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and the Boundary Waters Treaty.

I therefore appeal to my colleagues' sense of responsibility so that Parliament may, with one voice, work to find the right solution for the Sheyenne River, the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and the treaty that, for over a century, has served the two countries so well.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here to argue about the science or the importance of the Boundary Waters Treaty. We all understand that.

On our side of the House and I think everybody in my riding who is going to be detrimentally affected by this decision in North Dakota if it unilaterally decides to turn on the switch and start pumping water, we want to know what plan is there in place? We need to know what we are doing right now today in our negotiations with the U.S. state department. Where are we at with Secretary Condoleezza Rice in ensuring we get the referral from the U.S. to go ahead to the International Joint Commission.

We need to know if that fails, if the Americans for whatever political purposes internally decide not to make that reference to the IJC, what is our next step?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is never too late to be positive and to work together. I hope his party will change its tone because up to now it has been more involved in partisan politics than anything else. It is not too late and I welcome the question.

Indeed, we are working very hard. I am very pleased that since the intervention of the Prime Minister with the President, the White House is now involved in the discussions. Our officials are exchanging information and data.

Our case is so strong which gives me confidence; however, we will see. I cannot commit myself to anything because I have no capacity to predict what will happen, but I can give my colleague the assurance that we are doing everything to pass on all the information to White House officials to ensure that at the end of the day they will help us to find a good solution.

Our preference is still a reference to the IJC. It is what we are pushing, but there are other solutions that will come forward with the same result, which is to protect the quality of the water and the biota.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of the Environment would care to comment on the claim which was made by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul that the delay, the idea that the water will not be turned on July 1 as originally designated, is only due to the weather and not due to the negotiations. If that were true, it is something we would want to know and have confirmed. Or is it the case that it may well be weather, but it may also be the negotiation because July 1 is not that far off.

Could the minister tell us if he has a firm commitment from the United States that the tap will not be turned on until such time as this process concludes itself, one way or another?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we understood that it was the case. The governor since then said no, it is the weather. If he wants to say it is the weather, it is fine with us as long as we have the capacity to have the time to find a good solution. I will prepare the submission this week. I am sure the hon. member understands that there is a lot of local politics involved and I do not want to hurt this cause at all. We have time to meet and to find a good solution.

If the governor is so sure that there is no problem about the biotic and the quality of the water, why would he resist taking the time to have a sound environmental assessment with good science backing his case? It is what we are saying. We do not want to create any problems for him locally. We want to find a good solution for everyone. The Cheyenne River is part of his state. He needs to be very responsible and we want to work in a very positive way. I am sure this Parliament wants to carry this message.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister. When he speaks of the right solutions, what does he plan to do if the United States refuses to make a joint reference? Would Canada make a reference alone and obtain an advice or a recommendation, which in reality has almost the same weight as a decision in the past?

I am well aware that the joint reference is preferable. However, if the United States refused, does he foresee Canada making a unilateral reference?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that if we go it alone, if Canada makes a unilateral reference—which is a possibility, I am not ruling out any possibility today—it would not resolve anything. In any case, once the water goes through the canal and reaches the river and then the lake, the damage from the invasive species is done. This is not really a direction we want to go.

We are monitoring water quality very carefully. As I mentioned earlier, we are sampling every 11 minutes. We have upgraded our monitoring and are preparing for every eventuality.

I am not saying we are ruling out my colleague's hypothesis, but I do see it as a positive solution. It would really be the last resort. It would be a symbolic gesture.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in this emergency debate on an important issue affecting Lake Winnipeg, the Sheyenne River and the Red River. Not only national but also international solidarity is essential when it comes to water. The problem caused by the desire of the state of North Dakota to build this 22 kilometre canal from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River, the Red River and ultimately Lake Winnipeg.

I want to give a bit of context. Any Quebeckers listening may not be familiar with the problem, which can occur in other areas and at other times. That is why it is important to develop this awareness and this solidarity.

First, I must say that environmentally concerned people in Quebec are already well aware of this problem. The members of the Bloc Québécois did a tour about water from the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes. We were told that it was imperative to urge the federal government to make a joint reference, with the United States, to the International Joint Commission about the possible diversion of water from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River, the Red River and Lake Winnipeg.

People concerned with the environment and water know that we cannot allow such a precedent to occur, by which polluted and salty water from a lake in North Dakota would be diverted. There must be opposition, and not only from the various levels of government. It started with public opposition. I heard the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake who was angry. I can see why. The public has the impression that the government has been dragging its feet.

There was already considerable awareness in May when we met with a number of environmentalists. As you have no doubt heard, on May 26—I am pleased to underscore this—the mayors of cities on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence attended a large meeting. This was a new coalition called the International Association of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors . These mayors adopted a resolution calling specifically for the U.S. Secretary of State and the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs to refer the Devils Lake dispute to the International Joint Commission so that it might examine the economic and environmental impacts of this controversial diversion plan.

Toronto Mayor David Miller made the following statement at that time, “If we lose the battle of Devils Lake, it sets a precedent that could allow the diversion of the Great Lakes.” That was one of the important conclusions that came out of this 19th conference of the International Association of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors, which was held in Quebec City.

I should point out without further ado, for those listening who may not be aware, that there has been a boundary water treaty between Canada and the United States since 1909.

That treaty addresses all the problems relating to waters originating along the Canada-U.S. border.

Under the treaty, no diversion of boundary waters on either side of the border which affects the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the border shall be made without the prior approval of the International Joint Commission.

By signing that treaty, the United States and Canada also committed to no contamination of boundary waters or cross-boundary waters which would be harmful to the health of those on the other side of the border.

When they note a problem that violates their obligations, the United States and Canada do have a recourse. I must point out, however, that the recourse is stronger if it is joint. When it is, the International Joint Commission can make use of its power to impose a ban or demand corrective action. When the request does not come from both sides together, the commission still undertakes a study. The recommendation in this case still has a powerful moral force. It is not worthless but, understandably, a joint reference has more weight. The role of the International joint commission is, therefore, an extremely important one.

Let me come back to Devils Lake. This lake is located in North Dakota. For about a decade, this state has had a problem because of record high water levels, which have practically tripled the size of the lake. As a result, farms and fields close to the lake have been flooded, forcing the evacuation of several families. The problem gets worse every spring.

The North Dakota authorities began building a canal—a fairly sizable one—22 km in length in order to divert some of the water from Devils Lake and to stop it from flooding. This $28 million project consists in linking Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River, which is a tributary of the Red River, which flows into Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba.

The canal was initially scheduled to open on July 1, 2005. The reason the public was alerted and environmentalists were up in arms, as I mentioned earlier, is that the waters from Devils Lake in North Dakota are highly polluted and extremely salty.

On the other hand, Lake Winnipeg is one of the aquatic gems of Canada, Manitoba even more so and even the world, as the Minister of the Environment just said. In 2003, the Manitoba government had decided on a plan of action to restore the water quality to early 1970s levels. All that work would be compromised, to say nothing of all the drawbacks related to foreign species entering Lake Winnipeg, and the pollution and salinity I already mentioned.

What was done?

It is an interesting fact that the Canadian and Manitoban governments were already putting pressure on North Dakota in 1999 to block water diversion projects. That is clear. In fact, ambassador Raymond Chrétien and the Manitoba premier met with senior American officials and representatives of various groups. In July 2001, despite the fact that the environmental assessment had not been completed, North Dakota called for tenders to develop a temporary diversion project.

In 2004, the Government of Canada, alone, requested that the Devils Lake diversion matter be referred to the International Joint Commission. As I said earlier, an isolated request has little impact. The North Dakota government opposed estoppel claiming that it had proposed to Canada that it submit the Devils Lake matter in 2002, but that Canada had refused.

I tell people in Quebec following this debate that our Conservative colleague is complaining because the Government of Canada refused North Dakota's call for a reference in 2002. The Government of Canada had said at the time that it was premature to make a reference to the commission, since regional authorities were still being consulted about the diversion canal.

By that I mean that I understand the anger of the member for Selkirk—Interlake, but the government can defend itself. However what counts here? What counts is that there be unanimous agreement to bring more pressure to bear on the American government and on American colleagues, who should in turn put pressure on the government. In this instance, the disaster that would follow the opening of this famous diversionary canal affects not only Manitobans, Canadians and Quebeckers, but, ultimately, everyone.

Once again, I point out that the mayors of Canada and Quebec met in Quebec City and said that if the canal were allowed to open, it would be tragic, because, afterward, it would be impossible to oppose any of these diversions, which, however, are banned under the treaty of 1909, if the International Joint Commission does not give its approval.

The Prime Minister says it is he who awoke President Bush to the matter. What counts is that the States is refusing to refer this matter jointly. Like me, Mr. Speaker, you no doubt received a letter from American senators calling on us to put pressure on our government. They say they are doing the same thing with theirs.

That is the kind of action in which parliamentarians are useful. I do not know if this has been done, but what if, as parliamentarians, we send a fax tomorrow and the day after to all parliamentarians in all the states affected so that they can put on some pressure, too. Perhaps this would be one way to push the American government and ensure our colleagues in Manitoba that they are not alone. They are right to be fighting this tooth and nail.

I am speaking this evening to tell them that we are aware, that we know that they are 100% right to fight this battle and we offer our cooperation. That is basically what I wanted to say. I know that I am speaking on behalf of many people.

However, I repeat, even if we have a lot of water—a lot of good quality water, we believe—polluted waters anywhere will pollute others, because of climate change. So we need to develop a new solidarity with regard to the issue of water. I hope that this serious problem will raise everyone's awareness about the need for solidarity on such issues that go beyond the environment. They are, in fact, a matter of life or death.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

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?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if someone can pick up on the proposal I made a while ago. We all have our caucus meetings tomorrow, and if a letter was already drafted, it could be faxed or e-mailed to the various U.S. legislatures. You could, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, accommodate us with the addresses of the various state legislatures along the border.

It would seem to me that this would at least be an extremely positive and concrete action instead of just waiting, as you say. We cannot wait, in fact.

I have heard one of the interpretations of the issue. My colleague asked a question on this. What are the grounds for saying that if it is stopped, it is because the Sheyenne river level is higher and so the diversion cannot take place? Is that the reason, or is the pressure from Canada? We do not know. I do think, however, that this is no reason to halt the pressure. In fact, it is a reason to continue it. I can see now that this pressure can be done through members of legislatures. It is a pity we did not have the opportunity to speak together earlier on this in order to see how we could combine our efforts.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I must thank my colleague from the Bloc for her excellent speech. I noted her considerable experience in matters relating to international joint commissions and protection of our waters.

The question I would like to ask her concerns the International Joint Commission. If we cannot submit the Devils Lake problems to this body, will that establish a precedent? Could it be very dangerous for other subsequent decisions? If the International Joint Commission cannot find a solution, will that be a problem? That is my first question.

The second concerns water quality. If we cannot stop the diversion of the waters of Devils Lake into Canada's rivers, as far as Lake Winnipeg, can we imagine the serious problems this would create for the quality of water in general in Canada?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough information to answer the second question. I cannot therefore accurately describe the consequences.

What I understand, however, from the information I do have worries me. It is quite worrisome. Lake Winnipeg is a large body of water playing an important role for ecosystems. It cannot be allowed to become polluted or inhabited by new species or have its salinity altered without major consequences.

I come back to the member's first question. The environmentalists we met were very concerned. Up to now, the International Joint Commission has been the ultimate authority in water matters. Both countries have invested significant resources. Each has, on the International Joint Commission, scientists and experts in all areas to carry out studies. It is a big operation. This is the commission responsible for assessing water quality. In my opinion, a lack of rigour in the management of water quality would create a very important precedent, since, in the future, the abandonment of this management could be allowed.

For this reason, I am saying we must at least try to mobilize the elected representatives in other legislatures. If other plans are proposed, I am sure the Bloc members will be prepared to study them.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

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.

I had certainly intended initially to rise in my place on behalf of the NDP and commend the member for Kildonan--St. Paul for making possible this emergency debate. It is certainly something that we considered on a number of occasions. We have been very active on this issue, as anybody who is in the House knows. I have raised this a number of times, my leader has, and other NDP MPs have. Therefore, I was very disappointed with the tone of the initial presentation. If one listened to the member for Kildonan--St. Paul, one would have thought it was only the Conservatives who cared about Devils Lake.

She talked about the Manitoba caucus and she went on to list the members for Provencher and Selkirk--Interlake and whoever else she mentioned, but it became rather transparent after a while. I know the Conservatives sometimes talk about transparency, but I am not sure that is the kind of transparency they are looking for. It was rather transparent that instead of this being the kind of debate that I had hoped it might be, at least in its initial stages it was a form of political catch-up on the part of the official opposition when it comes to this issue. The Conservatives are making up for the fact that perhaps they felt they had not been as active on this as they should have been, although I know the member for Selkirk--Interlake has been interested in this for a long time, and I do not want to take anything away from him on this, but he should be because Lake Winnipeg is smack dab in the middle of his riding.

He went to the conference in Fargo in January. I almost went to that myself but I did not get there. I know he has been concerned about this issue, which is why I do not understand why he would allow himself to be part of a debate, the tone of which I hope is changing now. Certainly his last intervention was much more helpful than the initial interventions. It hope this becomes a debate by which this House could express itself in a unanimous way and in a way that is helpful to the government. It is not helpful to suggest that somehow the project which is now about to be opened, the Devils Lake outlet, is the project on which Canada once had an opportunity to have an IJC reference and did not, because that is not true.

I do not think anybody would accuse me of being easy on the Liberals. I do not really have a reputation of being easy on the Liberals. If I thought that somehow they had made a mistake, I would be the first to say so, although I might not say so tonight because hindsight is easy and it may not be useful. Even if the Conservative analysis were right--and I do not think it is; I think it is wrong in this case--but even if it were right, it would not be useful to be bringing that up tonight and giving the North Dakotans and others who want this outlet to go ahead something to pick at and say, “The Canadians cannot even agree among themselves. They had a debate in the House of Commons the other night and all they did was argue with each other”. That is really helpful, and I hope I do not have to emphasize that I am being sarcastic.

I remind the hon. member, who chose this particular strategy for reasons that are just beyond me, of a letter from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that went to Condoleezza Rice on June 9, 2005, just several days ago. It is a letter that was agreed to by all members of the committee, including the Conservative member.

I will read one paragraph from the committee letter:

The Committee is aware that the United States asked Canada to join in referring to the IJC a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers diversion project in 2002. Canada at that time suggested that it was premature for such a referral since the USACE project--

--that is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project--

--was undergoing domestic assessment. The state sponsored project under question now is not--

--I repeat from the letter sent by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development:

The state sponsored project under question now is not that of the USACE and does not include any provisions for safeguarding water quality as was contained within the USACE proposal.

The fact of the matter is, as I understand it, the Army Corps of Engineers' proposal was dropped by North Dakota because of the very things that the Army Corps of Engineers said about the project when it did its analysis. I will review some of the things that it actually did say.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers confirms that an outlet “would have adverse effects in downstream receiving waters, including degraded water quality, increased erosion, increased sedimentation, reduced aquatic habitat value, loss of aquatic resources, loss of riparian habitat, effects on water treatment facilities”, et cetera.

It went on to say that there is about a 75% chance that if an outlet were built it would not be economically beneficial. It said that the present operating plan does not meet all downstream water quality standards and objectives, and that any revised operating plan that attempts to reduce water quality effects would likely result in less economic feasibility.

The North Dakotans did not want to have anything to do with this analysis, so they went ahead and did their own project. They designed a project to escape the possibility of environmental assessment. If they had to run this pipe across wetlands, instead of running it over top of the wetlands because that would have triggered an environmental assessment under U.S. law, they would run it under the wetlands which did not require an environmental assessment.

I am trying to point out the difference between the two projects, the one that is about to open and the one that we are worried about, and the one that was on the table earlier as a result of the work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Someone, some student who is doing a Ph.D. thesis or something, might want to argue at some point about whether or not the acceptance of an IJC reference on that earlier project that never came to pass might have brought forward information that might have been helpful, that might have been this and might have been that. But tonight, on the eve of the United States having to make a decision about whether or not it should heed the Canadian call for an IJC reference, the last thing in the world we need to have reinforced is any argument that says, “You Canadians had your chance and you blew it”.

That is real solidarity. That is real strategic thinking. That is real tactical thinking. That is just straight political thinking in the worst possible way.

I just had this sinking feeling as I sat here tonight that this is why I sometimes just hate politics. What should have happened here tonight initially was an opportunity, an emergency debate, a good idea gone bad, which hopefully will get better as the evening goes forward, because we have lots of time left. It is a good idea gone bad because someone wanted to make political hay on this. It is not making political hay on anyone because, as far as I am concerned, it is pretty transparent what is going on.

It would have been so much better and the member for Kildonan--St. Paul would have been in a better political category, if you like, if she had just stuck to facts and pressured the government. I do not think the government has been perfect on this. I think it took a while to get the Prime Minister's attention on this issue. We worked hard at getting the Prime Minister's attention on this. There is nothing wrong with pressuring the government on this.

However, there is something wrong with giving comfort to the position of those who would open this outlet on July 1, or on some subsequent date if the negotiations that are now going on fail.

We brought pressure to bear on the government. One can never prove these things, but I think some of the questions that we asked helped the Prime Minister to focus on the fact, particularly when we thought that there might be an election coming. I remember asking a question and saying that the worst thing that could have happened in some ways, leaving aside all the other questions, would have been for us to have been in the middle of an election as we approached that July 1 date and have had no focus at all. People would obviously be focused on other things.

I asked a question of the Prime Minister in the House and I spoke to him personally after. I said, “You have got to call the President”. He said, “I will”. I understand that he did. We are waiting for the phone call back. When is the President going to show the kind of respect that he should show a Canadian Prime Minister and call us back, hopefully with the news that the White House has been able to bring North Dakota around and provide for the joint IJC reference. That is what we are hoping for. I think the government does owe us not just a rendition of everything that it has done, but what is the government's plan in the next few days and in the weeks to come?

I am convinced that the Minister of the Environment is sincere about this and is working very hard on this file. Sometimes I feel that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is too ready to tell us everything that he has done without telling us exactly what the plan is and what is going to be done in the next little while to make sure that we do not end up with the worst of all possible worlds.

The worst of all possible worlds for Manitobans, and not just Manitobans because I think the Minister of the Environment was right when he said it really has to do with the planet. If this can happen to one ecosystem, a huge, giant ecosystem, the Hudson Bay basin, then it can happen to any ecosystem. If one state can decide unilaterally to pollute an entire half continent in order to solve a local problem and that is not referred to the International Joint Commission, and that is something that state is allowed to do on its own, this sets a terrible precedent. It is a precedent that Canadians, and perhaps sometimes even Americans, might come to regret.

It is for that reason there are Americans on the Canadian side on this. That is why it is inappropriate to speak of Americans generically when it comes to this. We are reminded, as we should be, that the state of Minnesota has worked hand in hand with the Government of Manitoba.

There are other governors, other states and other mayors working toward an IJC reference, including, I believe, the governor of Ohio, Mr. Taft, who is the grandson of the Taft that set up the IJC to begin with. These are all political victories, but they are only political victories that count if in the end they result in an IJC reference, if in the end they result in a situation where that polluted water with the foreign biota and heavy phosphorus content and God knows what else does not make its way from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River and into the Red River and ultimately into Lake Winnipeg and into the Nelson River and Churchill River and into Hudson Bay.

This water in Devils Lake has been there by itself for a thousand years. It should stay by itself. Interbasin transfers of water such as this are simply wrong.

I plead with my North Dakota neighbours not to do this. I have been in North Dakota many times in my life. This is not how a neighbour acts. A neighbour does not solve his or her particular problem by dumping it over the fence and letting someone else deal with the consequences. That is basically what this amounts to.

I was also disappointed, I might say, and the member for Kildonan—St. Paul might want to correct the record on this if she did not mean what she seemed to say, because at one point she said, “Unfortunately, the Manitoba government took this matter to court in North Dakota”.

Did she mean that the outcome of the court decision was unfortunate? That is true. Was there an implied criticism of the Manitoba government for taking the matter to the North Dakota supreme court? Perhaps she could make that clear. When someone suggested she had done that, she seemed to be rather active in her seat, claiming that was not what she said. I listened carefully to what she said and she used the word “unfortunate”.

Perhaps she could clear up whether she thinks the Manitoba government has been going about this in the wrong way. There has been a great deal of solidarity in Manitoba about this. I do not remember the Conservative caucus and the provincial legislature or for that matter, up until the other day in the House, there being any of this “You should have done this” and “You should have done that”, arguing about the past.

Some of us have been asking “what are you going to do now”, “when are we going to get an answer” and “time's running out”, and that is all appropriate . However, to take this sort of argumentative view of what has happened, particularly with respect to the so-called IJC reference that the Canadian government turned down, I think is a very unfortunate way to go about it.

I do not have a whole lot more to say but I could quote extensively various things that have been said about the Devils Lake project. I think we all agree that it is bad. I do not need to persuade people here that it is a bad thing. We need to persuade people in Washington. In order to do that, we have to be together. I guess that is the message that I am leaving.

I do not mean we have to be uncritically together. It does not mean that we cannot step up to the Prime Minister, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of the Environment and ask them why they are not doing this, or say to them that we think it might be better if they do this and ask why are they not. Then they will give their argument. However, we should not do this in public. We should be trying to put our best foot forward in these dying days.

There is a lot of talk these days in the United States about security. What could be more a question of security than the integrity of an entire ecosystem? I understand and appreciate the fishing industry on Lake Winnipeg. I like to go up to Gimli and lay in my annual supply of pickerel just like everyone else. The idea that the pickerel fishery might be destroyed ultimately by foreign fish species entering Lake Winnipeg I cannot even begin to contemplate.

I think of what could possibly happen to Lake Winnipeg, and it is only possible, but that is why we want the IJC reference. We want to do the science. We want to do the reference. We want the precautionary principle to apply and then let it follow from there. I cannot imagine the United States, a Christian country, allowing this to happen.

The President is always talking about America as a Christian country. There are things I learned in Sunday school like “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I do not think this is the way the United States would want other people to treat it. I do not think this is the way the United States would want Canada to treat it in a similar situation.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say indirectly to the President, as I am sure he is not listening, Christian action is not just a matter of individual morality. It is not just about marriage, abortion and all the other issues that are sometimes referred to as moral issues. How one treats one's neighbour's ecosystem is a moral issue. How one treats the environment is a moral issue. How one treats creation is a moral issue. If one treats creation without respect and if one does not exercise the kind of stewardship that humankind was charged with in Genesis for looking after the earth, then that person is as subject to criticism from a biblical point of view as anyone else.

Therefore, I implore anyone who is listening from the American embassy on TV, because they obviously are not here, to take this message back to the White House. Let us have a reference to the IJC. Let us do it properly. Let us do it the way good neighbours do things and let us take it from there.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

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?