Debates of June 21st, 2005

Devils Lake Diversion Project

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for correcting the record with respect to the Manitoba government taking the matter to the supreme court of North Dakota. It seemed to me that was an appropriate course of action and one that we all wish would have succeeded.

I also thank her for her compliments on the work of Premier Gary Doer, who I have kept in close touch with on this issue. We have tried to be respectful of the fact that there is a time and a place for things to be on the floor of Parliament and then there is a time for them not to be. This is often a matter of difficult political judgment when negotiations are ongoing.

I remember when the Conservative government was in power and I remember what happened with respect to the CF-18. That is a different issue all together but a good example. I remember going over to Conservative backbenchers and cabinet ministers and asking them if I should raise the issue on the floor of the House of Commons. They told me not to raise it because everything was going okay. They felt that if I raised it, I might wreck it. They thought I might say something that would harm the negotiations so I did not say anything. Then the government did not get the CF-18 and we were raked over the coals for never saying anything. That is the dilemma of the political process sometimes. I just mention that as an example.

Premier Doer is right to say that it is now up to the federal government. He has said that it is between the President and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not the first prime minister to have difficulties with the United States of America over environmental problems.

I was here in the House during the time of the acid rain tensions between Canada and the United States. Each government agreed to appoint a special envoy. Bill Davis was the Canadian special envoy and a man by the name of Drew Lewis was the American special envoy. They were both charged with coming up with a solution. I would suggest to the frontbench of the Liberals here tonight, which at the moment is the President of the Treasury Board, that one option might be to appoint an envoy from either side to come up with a way to deal with this.

What is important is that we come out of this tonight with the unanimous message that the Parliament of Canada is very concerned about what will happen to Canada-U.S. relations if this goes ahead without an IJC reference. What will happen to a major Canadian ecosystem if this goes ahead? We can argue about a lot of other things later, but for now we need to speak with one voice. I hope that we will all go back to our House leaders early tomorrow and tell them that this issue came up on the floor of the House tonight.

The member said that she was a new member. I was not implying there was anything wrong with her bringing this motion forward as a new member. I intended to compliment her for doing this. I was just not happy with the initial tone of the debate, but I think that is changing. I hope we can proceed from here.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make an observation. The member for Elmwood--Transcona, who used to be my MP, was somewhat critical of my colleague from Kildonan--St. Paul, and I think unfairly so.

I listened to his speech very carefully and he started to give an implicit criticism of the President of the United States after chastizing the member for Kildonan--St. Paul about working together in a cooperative fashion. He was somehow suggested that the President's Christianity was somehow less worthy than others. Quite frankly, I do not think there is a place for religion in this debate.

I would think the better approach would be to ask what the IJC does. What are the principles involved here? This is a legal dispute. Let us not get into the morality of one individual, even if he is the President of the United States. We as parliamentarians, and I hope that he as the President of the United States, believe in the rule of law and that is what we should focus on. That is where this debate should be going.

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

Mr. Speaker, at one level I think the member for Provencher is really stretching it. I was exhorting the president. I was not criticizing him. I was exhorting him to do a certain thing, which I think is consistent with the best principles to be found in the biblical tradition that both he and I subscribe to. I do not see anything wrong with that.

What I do see wrong with this is the implication by the hon. member for Provencher that somehow this is not a moral issue, not a religious issue, but just a legal issue.

When all the religious arguments were made on the committee that the member just recently served on, he probably did not say to those people, “This is just a legal issue. It is not a religious issue. We do not want to hear your religious arguments”.

This is precisely what is wrong with the current role of religion in politics: that it is constricted to two or three different issues.

I say that the care of creation and the environment is a religious and a moral issue. I disagree with the member and I think most people in his religious community would too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for Elmwood—Transcona for the very constructive tone that he has brought to this debate. I absolutely agree with the position he has taken and I think it would be very interesting to see what could be constructed in the House by way of a unanimous resolution on this issue.

Part of the problem we face right now is that as this issue has progressed, as it has gotten closer to the completion date, the rhetoric around it has risen. There has been a great deal of misinformation put on the record. I think it has led some people to be a little confused about what is going on.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

I worked with a group that was working on and raising concerns in 1980 about the Garrison project, a project that was designed to bring water from the Missouri watershed. At that time there was a great deal of concern because that was an absolutely complete interbasin transfer, moving water from the Mississippi water system across the continental divide and into the Red River.

The state of North Dakota was doing that because it had a problem. North Dakota was in a very dry area and thought that if it could bring some more water into what was essentially a dry lake, it could create a pool of water that could be used for irrigation. There was a great deal of concern raised because of the interbasin transfers.

After a great deal of time and advocacy, that project was stopped by negotiations between the two countries.

Since then, the state of North Dakota has undertaken to drain a number of its wetlands and turn previous wetlands into agricultural land, which has led to the gathering of a great deal of water in the basin. It has risen and has flooded surrounding towns and communities. They have had a great deal of damage and have had to respond to that and try to correct the damage created with the draining of those wetlands.

The misinformation that is carried into this House does not originate just from some of the members on the other side. It is contained in a letter from some of political proponents of the project in a letter to the President of the United States on June 10. On the question of whether or not the water is polluted and whether it poses a danger, the proponents themselves make the statement that “if uncontrolled overflows occurred, something that has happened several times in the past centuries, the effects would be catastrophic, causing serious environmental and health problems for downstream communities”.

That is the position of the proponents on the quality of the water that they now wish to send north to us. They talk about this famous Army Corps of Engineers project, but members have read the letter from 2002. I have the letter from 2004, which was written to Governor Hoeven by Paul V. Kelly, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, in which he makes it very clear that the remarks relative to the federal Army Corps of Engineers did not apply.

While Governor Hoeven has said that federal government under Secretary Powell had provided additional assurance that an outlet would not violate the treaty, in fact he was specifically written to in order to: “draw his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State's June 20, 2004, assurance concerned only the federal project under discussion for Devils Lake. The secretary has not reviewed the state project and has expressed no view”.

We heard the information from the member for Elmwood--Transcona, who went further with the concerns that were raised about what an uncontrolled project would do to the watershed in Manitoba.

The solution is clearly to respect a treaty that has served our two countries very well. The solution is clearly to move this to the IJC, as we have done some 53 times in the history of that treaty. The inability to get it there is what poses the problem. The suggestion by the proponents, as they say in their letter to the president, that it takes eight and a half years to do an IJC reference is just nonsense.

For the 1997 reference on the protection of the Red River, the interim report was completed in six months. The 1999 reference to examine water uses and diversions in the Great Lakes was completed in a year. The 2004 reference on Missisquoi Bay was completed by the IJC in less than a year. Also, Premier Doer and Ambassador McKenna approached the IJC to see whether it would take a time limited reference, which it was only too willing to do, for it too is concerned about the impact of this transfer.

It goes on. There are statements that the Army Corps of Engineers concluded that an outlet is the best means to address the flooding problem. Yes, in the Army Corps project it was. It was a much larger project, moved a much larger volume of water and came equipped with a number of mediation steps such as sand filters, ultraviolet treatment and sedimentation devices, none of which have been included in this particular project.

Therefore, to say that this is an acceptable solution to this is just simply wrong. In fact, here is what the hydrology on this particular project suggests. It is proposed as a solution to this lake that has big surges in water, that this will be a means of controlling that, but the hydrology says it will reduce the overall volume of the lake by about two inches a year, hardly the stuff that controlling a lake that is moving in feet is going to cause.

Having said all of that, there is a real problem. North Dakotans are our friends. North Dakotans are not our enemies. As we characterize this as a battle between the two groups, I think we do ourselves a disservice. They come up to visit us. We go down there to visit them. Our hockey teams beat theirs and their baseball teams beat ours. It is all about being a neighbour. It is a tragedy that this has come to the point where the sides are drawn up and even willing to contemplate the pollution of the other side.

The North Dakotans have a problem. This lake is causing the problem, but they have time. The latest meteorological information from the U.S. weather service suggests that the chance of there being growth in the lake, because of low snow pack in recent years, is about 20%, so they have time to wait until we complete the review. They have time to wait until we get the proper remediation in.

I think we have a responsibility to be sensitive to the concerns they have. We cannot stand idly by and watch while our neighbours are flooded and their homes destroyed and all of that without trying to do something to be of assistance, but to solve their problem by simply moving it north to us is not an acceptable solution. To do as was suggested by some of them, to simply let the water flow and then deal with the pollution on an after the fact damage claim, is clearly inappropriate in a modern society that is concerned about the environment.

So what to do? I have been engaged in this and I think Premier Doer deserves enormous credit for the leadership he has shown on this file. He has pursued this on a state to state level. He has pursued this in the courts in North Dakota directly. He has pursued this diplomatically in Ottawa with the various governors. I have been down with him to Washington. We went around together on one of the trips and I was down on others. I have met with and talked to all four proponents of this project.

Frankly, while some members do not like to hear it, the action taking place right now is a result of the conversation directly between the Prime Minister and President Bush. That has given me some hope. I want to commend both the Prime Minister and President Bush. There are some political forces at play in the U.S. that make this very difficult. President Bush could have simply thrown up his hands and said it was a state problem. He did not. He has his office actively involved and we are looking at ways that may find solutions. There are discussions going on. I think all the actors are acting responsibly.

The political rhetoric is up so high that it is very difficult to talk about this without resorting to the image of a battle, but in reality I think that people of goodwill and good minds are trying to find a solution which offers some hope to the people in North Dakota that the tremendous damage they are suffering will be dealt with and that it will be dealt with in a way that does not simply move the problem north to those of us who live in Manitoba. I remain very hopeful of that.

Ambassador McKenna has done a tremendous job at getting this around. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have been equally very strongly engaged, and those discussions go on.

As the member for Elmwood—Transcona suggested, a very clear, unanimous message of solidarity from this House would be very helpful to continue to impress upon the political leadership of the importance of this issue.

There is another problem, if a state can violate an international treaty with impunity, then we have no treaty. What is to prevent British Columbia on the Flathead River?

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern over some of the comments that were made earlier tonight. The House has to understand that this is an issue that I am quite passionate about. It is an issue that is going to have a detrimental effect on the people living in my riding. More importantly, their concerns are being expressed by me tonight here in this House.

I want to follow up on some of the discussion that we are having now on the possibility of having a unanimous decision made by this House and bringing that forward, so that we can take that in good faith to the U.S. administration to hopefully get that IJC referral.

I would even challenge the minister one step further. Would he also be interested in ensuring that we have representation from all parties in this House to go down to present that motion and letter to U.S. Secretary Condoleezza Rice. We could also meet with the appropriate people in the senate and congress on this very issue and convince North Dakota not to work unilaterally here and make a decision that will violate the Boundary Waters Treaty.

We must ensure that these treaties that we have in place are respected. We must stay away from setting a very dangerous precedent.

I too, like the minister, feel sorry for the people who live around Devils Lake. Due to decisions made in that state, they are now undergoing high waters year after year. In a wet season, such as we are having this year, they will be relocating probably another 20 or so residences. They actually go in and move entire yards, all the homes, to a higher and dryer location.

That is not sustainable either. We must realize that they have a flooding problem in North Dakota, as the minister noted. I understand why they are under pressure to do something about it.

As the science has dictated and as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has said, and as I stated earlier in my speech and quoted from the letter from the director of the U.S. department of natural resources, it is an ill-founded project.

The fact remains that the North Dakota government wants to throw the switch. Whether or not it has the patience that is required to get an IJC referral is another matter.

Will the President of the Treasury Board commit to going ahead with a joint recommendation from this House, presented by representatives from all parties, to the U.S. administration and get the IJC referral that we so desperately want?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, should we get a unanimous resolution of that sort from this House, I would encourage a number of ways to get that message down there.

The only caveat I would put on it is that I am not the lead minister on this. I defer to the knowledge of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the ambassador who is right at the point of contact. I would seek their advice on what would be the best way, whether a parliamentary delegation or some form of all party group or whatever. It is not for me to comment on that. Certainly, I would think it would be a very welcoming show of solidarity from this House on this particular issue.

There is a much more serious outcome to this if we do not get purchase on this. I am deeply concerned about that. I have said that I am encouraged right now by the tone of the talks and what is going on, and the fact that there are still talks going on and meetings being called.

If this House were to come together and unanimously support the reference to the IJC and urge the U.S. to do that, I think it would be of assistance in this debate. I would encourage the member to do what he could on his side to bring his members to that conclusion.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this issue. When we take a look around the House, we see that it is not totally but predominantly members of the House from all parties from Manitoba who are speaking to it. We are speaking to it because this issue is of grave concern not only to ourselves but to all Manitobans.

I would like to speak to some of the myths and misconceptions about the proposed project and as it relates to the IJC. There have been a number of statements made both in and outside the House that need to be clarified. My colleague from Elmwood--Transcona has certainly addressed it as has my colleague from Winnipeg South.

However, I am going to reiterate some of the comments because it is important that the record be put on the table so that Canadians know what has and has not happened.

First, we heard that Canada refused a U.S. request in 2002 for an IJC reference on Devils Lake. Again, my colleague from Elmwood--Transcona has spoken to it indicating that somehow our concerns over the U.S. proposal meant a rejection by Canada of a reference to the IJC. The devil truly is in the details on this file.

It is easy to stand up and point to letters and claim that Canada turned down a reference. It is easy to do when we are listening to only one story, and when we are more interested in scoring points perhaps than working constructively to solve the problem. I too am pleased to see a consensus emerging tonight that would work toward a joint initiative by the House.

However, it is important to note that Canada did not refuse a U.S. request for a reference in 2002. The request in 2002 was indeed for a different outlet, one that was to be constructed, as we have heard by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and one that was going to have some environmental safeguards that are not currently present in the outlet that the state of North Dakota is constructing.

In 2002 the U.S. request was premature. A U.S. environmental assessment had not been completed. The proposal to build an outlet to address flooding in Devils Lake was not determined in fact until October 2003. Canada did not refuse the reference requested in 2002, but simply said that as per the joint commission tradition, the United States domestic approval process should be completed first.

I want to remind all members that in April 2004, 15 months ago, Canada asked the United States to agree to a joint Canada-U.S. International Joint Commission reference for the state funded Devils Lake outlet.

The talk of a 2002 reference is in fact a red herring. In April 2004 Canada proposed to the United States a specific reference on the state funded project. Had the United States agreed to the reference in 2004, the study would have been completed, and Canada and the U.S. would be making an informed decision today based on recommendations from the International Joint Commission.

We have heard from different areas that the IJC takes too long to make its recommendations, that a reference on Devils Lake could not be completed in less than eight and a half years. That is nonsense. As my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre has indicated, it is simply not true.

The International Joint Commission has now for nearly 100 years provided governments with reports and recommendations based on independent sound science.

The commission has proven time and again that it is able to carry out references on a complex environmental issue in a timely manner. As we heard, in the 1997 reference on the protection of the Red River, the commission delivered its interim report on flooding in the Red River basin within six months of having received the reference.

The 1999 reference to examine water uses and diversion in the Great Lakes which was a comprehensive study that involved both federal governments, eight state governments and two provincial governments, was completed by the commission in one year after it was given its reference. The IJC is able to carry out references in a timely manner, and is anxious and willing to do so in this instance.

We have also heard that Devils Lake has overflowed in the past and, as we all know, we have great compassion for those who live in a flooded community for a community in our own country is facing that tragedy at the moment. But again, the facts tell a different story.

Devils Lake is a closed basin. It has no natural outlet and has been isolated from the Hudson Bay drainage basin for over 1,000 years. We have heard from some that North Dakota has undertaken hundreds of studies on Devils Lake and that it has examined all the potential environmental impacts of the outlet.

Again, the reality is somewhat different. There was no environmental assessment done on the state outlet project. The North Dakota department of health issued a permit under the U.S. clean water act based on insufficient water quality baseline data that did not include monitoring of the environmental impacts or requirements for monitoring foreign biota.

These conflicting assertions underscore the importance of why we must work with the United States to reach a solution that is acceptable to Canada. It is in the interests of both our countries that we come to an amicably negotiated resolution of this issue.

Canada is committed to pursuing a solution that protects our environment and respects the Boundary Waters Treaty, a solution which would call upon both governments to cooperate in preventing transboundary pollution. This is an important issue because in the future we may have issues that affect the United States so it is important that we honour and respect the International Boundaries Commission.

Our goal is to find a solution that would protect Canada's environment. Our goal is to find a solution that would protect the Lake Winnipeg water basin, which is so critical to the economic and social well-being of Manitobans.

I urge my colleagues to come together in a resolution from this House that we can take forward. It is time that we worked together. The hour is late. We must come to a common position, if not a solution, from this House.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could give me her specific understanding of what is going to happen, as far as the precedent-setting case in this particular circumstance.

We have in front of us the International Joint Commission that may or may not look at this particular issue. If it does not look at this issue, the ramifications of setting a precedent, especially with our unique interests between our borders, could be amazing and dramatic. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Boundary Waters Treaty is not honoured today, a treaty that has been in place since 1909, its effectiveness would be certainly in question and future issues that come to the fore on either side of the border would be called into question as to whether they in fact should be referred to the IJC.

This is an important issue, not only for Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg and the Hudson Bay water basin but it is an important precedent that could have an impact right across the country.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I think the member's comments are reasonably justified, I take some issue with the significance of this and with the people who are here this evening.

This issue is a phenomenally important one with regard to the Great Lakes and, in particular, with some of the issues that have been going on for the last four or five years where eight of the Great Lakes states in the U.S. are very interested in accessing the water in the Great Lakes and exporting and diverting the water out of the Great Lakes.

I want to say to my colleague from Winnipeg that if in fact the Devils Lake diversion is allowed to go ahead without IJC involvement, it will have a major impact, so that the Great Lakes region is very much watching this issue.

Being that the member is on the government side of this, I am very concerned that I am not hearing an alternative strategy from the government. We have pushed it as far as I can see it can be pushed with the federal government and certainly with North Dakota. Is the member aware of any alternative the Government in Canada has if we cannot reach an agreement to resolve this issue?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. This is an important issue for the Great Lakes and I should have acknowledged that, as well as acknowledged the presence of other interested members in the House.

The immediacy of the Devils Lake decision affects those of us from Manitoba and as we can see by the presence in the House tonight of so many members from Manitoba, we are very concerned about the immediacy of the decision.

The government at the moment is negotiating hard to come to some resolution on this issue. I am not privy to all of the details but what I do know is that there are intense negotiations ongoing at the moment to resolve this in the interests of both countries. I think that would be the best solution to this issue.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this important issue and I thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for bringing this matter before the House.

It is an issue that is of great concern to the constituents in my riding of Provencher, which takes up most of southeastern Manitoba, stretching from the American border up to Pine Falls and from the Ontario border to the city of Winnipeg. The Red River flows through my riding, around the city of Winnipeg, back into the Red River north of Winnipeg and ultimately into Lake Winnipeg.

I had an occasion this weekend to spend some time on Lake Winnipeg and on the beautiful Victoria Beach. Many people know the area of Victoria Beach and Grand Beach. The area has some of the most beautiful beaches and recreational areas in the world.

This issue would have an impact on my riding in terms of the quality of water. It would also have an impact on the environment, not only in respect of humans but animal life as well. The threat to the ecosystem is undoubted. Indeed, many have grave concerns about this particular issue.

Manitoba is primarily concerned with not only increasing the flow of water through the Red River and Lake Winnipeg, which will add to the risk of flooding, but it is also concerned about the environmental impact of this particular project.

Over the last number of years my riding has been subjected to a lot of flooding. Some of it has been due to rainfall, as it is this year, but at other times there is a concern that it is water being drained out of the United States.

I want to add for the record that I am sharing my time with the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

The problem of water coming from the United States creates tensions with our American neighbours. I know concerns have been expressed about the unilateral action of the Americans on this particular file. I want to stress again the fact that we have good relations with the Americans generally speaking. My own riding depends very heavily on the manufacture of goods that are then sent into the United States. I do not think my riding is unique in that respect but approximately 80% our manufactured goods would cross the line into the United States.

From time to time we have concerns with our American neighbours, not only on water quality but on issues like softwood lumber in the northern part of my riding. We have, of course, the BSE issue and things like tariffs on pork. Farmers in my riding are heavily involved in agriculture and the raising of hogs and the transporting of pork across the line is a very important mainstay of my agricultural community.

All of these issues raise disputes from time to time. The point is, though, that as good neighbours we need to always be respectful. That is part of the problem now. We have come to this situation where, unfortunately, our relationships with our American neighbours have not always been what they should be. Rather than adopting a respectful tone with our neighbours, we have been sometimes critical. I think many of our constituents have been angry at the Americans but it is incumbent upon the people in this House to rise beyond that anger.

I had grave concern when I heard the member for Winnipeg Centre talk about using trade sanctions against the Americans as a reaction. As a knee-jerk reaction that may sound wonderful to some individuals until they realize how much of our goods would be affected by that kind of trade sanction. Making those kinds of threats and comparing North Dakota with North Korea is not helpful. I hope the member has made it clear to the Americans that he spoke in anger and in haste but that he was simply trying to reflect the very real concerns of our constituents.

The lessons to be learned here are that we should minimize our confrontations with our American neighbours and that we should seek legal alternatives.

The member for Elmwood--Transcona indicated that I did not think the issue was a moral issue. Of course it is. What I suggest is that instead of comparing our morality, because we all have different codes of morality that we abide by, that we focus on the rule of law, and in this particular case, the treaty in question. I suggested that we try to resolve our disputes through that particular treaty because it does encompass a certain morality. It is the morality of good neighbours working disputes out together.

I did not think it was particularly helpful that we thought that somehow Mr. Bush had a morality that was somehow less than that of Canadians. We have a mechanism to resolve these disputes without making these kinds of inferences. We need to move along.

I found it very curious to hear the President of the Treasury Board express his concern about what may be damaging to our environment, and I think there is a real possibility that there will be damage to our environment, and that this artificial influx of water is not in the best interests of Canadians. I believe that as well.

At the same time, we have been criticizing the Americans and the President of the Treasury Board has been critical of the Americans in terms of not coming to the table and talking.

The truth is that in my own riding of Provencher right here in Canada, where that same water is flowing along the Red River and sometimes causes serious flooding, as it did in 1997, the President of the Treasury Board is unwilling to speak to some of the mayors of the municipalities that are being affected by the expansion of the Winnipeg floodway. These mayors are saying specifically that with the operation of the floodway there will be artificial movement of water that will artificially create flooding that will cause damage.

I recently read a letter from the mayor of Ritchot, a municipality just south of the city of Winnipeg that was severely impacted by the 1997 flood and in other years when the floodway was used. The mayor of Ritchot has been asking the President of the Treasury Board to sit down and talk with him. However, for one reason or another, the same standard that the President of the Treasury Board expects of the Americans he is not willing to do for Canadians in his own home province.

I am very disappointed and I think the President of the Treasury Board should attend to that matter immediately and sit down with the people in Manitoba and talk about these issues.

These matters begin by practising those principles at home. I look forward to working together with all members in the House to resolve this difficult issue.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be here this evening to participate in this important debate on the situation with Devils Lake and the degradation that the diversion of that lake could cause if it is diverted into the Red River and Lake Winnipeg and indeed the whole Lake Winnipeg watershed. That affects so dramatically the central part of this continent and our country.

People in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas are somewhat removed from Devils Lake and from Manitoba, but they are concerned about this issue as well. I have heard from a number of my constituents who know the importance of this issue and know the very important points that are at stake in this whole discussion. There are the ecological concerns, the environmental concerns, but also the concerns around international relations and how our relationship with the United States works, and the importance of respecting the International Joint Commission and its processes as well.

In British Columbia we have waterways that travel across the border. We know the importance of this situation. It is something that demands our attention right across the country, not just the folks in Manitoba.

I listened with care to the member for Provencher. I heard him talk about the need to have a respectful discussion with our American neighbours about this issue. It seems to me we are getting to a crunch point in all of this. The spigot was going to be turned on on July 1, and I gather that has been delayed for some reason. I appreciate the need to be respectful. He said that sometimes we come across as just critical, but it seems to me it is possible to be both critical and respectful at the same time.

I want to ask him, is there not some urgency now to see this situation resolved? Do we not need to be a little clearer and perhaps more direct in our search for a lasting solution to this very important question?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the point I was making is that we can be forceful without being disrespectful. In the press in Manitoba, I have heard members from the member's party refer to North Dakota as North Korea, as though our good neighbour North Dakota could be anywhere near what North Korea is. I have also heard reference to the Americans as bastards. It is simply not an appropriate term to be using.

I know this issue is coming to the crunch. I know that tensions are high in our province on this issue, but we can be forceful without being disrespectful. That is all that I was urging in that respect.

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

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?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the governor of the state of North Dakota gave us a very concrete example. He indicated that if we were that concerned about the quality of water that was going to come out of Devils Lake, why would the Canadian government not invest in the $20 million sand filter? It is a $20 million cost. When I see the money that is being spent by the House, why would the government not simply say that it will come up with the $20 million and have it installed in order to preserve half of the water supply of the northern half of the North American continent?

That is a very simple proposal and something we could say to the Americans, “Let us do it right now. Here is the $20 million. Let us do it”.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for bringing forward this motion for an emergency debate tonight. I would also like to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for his continued interest in pressing the government on this very important issue.

The fact that we are here tonight is as a result of Devils Lake growing in surface area due to an increase in water flow to its water basin. I really feel for the people around Devils Lake because their homes are being flooded. In Manitoba we share a certain sensitivity to that predicament. However, it is also clear that there needs to be a solution found that can protect the environment in North Dakota and also in Manitoba.

We have heard a lot about Lake Winnipeg and the Red River, but the fact is that this affects my constituency in Manitoba as the Assiniboine River which is a tributary to the Red River is in my riding. It affects other rivers in Manitoba, the Canadian Heritage River, the Bloodvein River which is a well-known canoeing river, the Hayes River, the Echimamish River, the Nelson River and the Saskatchewan River system. It affects not just Manitoba but also Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It may even cross over into other watersheds all the way over to Quebec.

That brings me to the next point. It is interesting to see all the different stakeholders that support this issue going to the IJC. Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Missouri all support this going to the International Joint Commission.

I know it is not appropriate to comment on who is in the House, but maybe I will because there is no one on the government side of the House to raise the point of order. On such an important issue as this, it is too bad there is not more interest from the people who are actually involved in having an impact on international relations with the United States. They are the people in government.

This seems to be a consistent theme with the government. It drops the ball on issue after issue. We saw this in 2002 when the government had the opportunity to have the IJC look at this issue. It could have dealt with it at that time, but instead the government decided to delay and postpone and now we are in a crisis situation. We have two weeks before the valves will be opened and our Canadian water system could be contaminated with the pathogens and other aquatic life due to government neglect.

We see this in other issues, in dealing with health care, in dealing with our military, in dealing with the sponsorship scandal and corruption. The government just delays and delays and does not do anything until there is a crisis. I think most members from all the opposition parties would agree that the government does not take action fast enough. Actually it creates many of the problems in which we find ourselves.

I would like to quote from the Bournday Waters Treaty of 1909. It provides equal protection for the U.S. and Canada and I would like to quote it. It says:

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

That is in article IV of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Clearly the Devils Lake project would do that. It have would be helpful, when this became obvious that it would become an issue, if baseline studies would have been undertaken. They were not.

We need to ensure that the government pushes for these things, not just now but also in the future. We need to learn from what has occurred here due to the government dithering. We need to ensure that we do not allow this type of thing to happen again. That also leads into the precedent which other members from the other opposition parties have raised. I think it is a very valid concern.

This time we are dealing with Devils but next time we might be dealing with the Columbia River, the Great Lakes or some other issue. It is a slippery slope. If we do not have this treaty enforced, if we let it slide by, who knows where it will lead us. It is disturbing how the government has allowed our sovereignty to slip away in this respect.

What do we do? It is unfortunate that some Liberal members have antagonized the Americans. I am thinking in particular of one of the Winnipeg Liberal MPs. However, let us look beyond that. I believe it is very important that this issue is raised with the IJC and that there is a delay in the opening of the valves is undertaken.

I have a geological engineering degree and I have looked at issues of the hydrology. As the surface area of Devils Lake increases, it takes more water per centimetre of increase in lake level for the lake to go up. That may mean the lake will not rise at the rate it has in the past and therefore allow more time to bring the issue forward to the IJC. On the suggestion that it could take eight and a half years, let us apply the common sense test and say that we will expedite it.

It is in the interest of the Americans and it is certainly in the interest of Canada to do that and move forward on a good faith basis and within the framework of the Boundary Waters Treaty. That would serve the people well.

I commend the province of Manitoba. The provincial government stepped in when the federal government failed to do so. It is again disappointing that the federal government, which has the constitutional obligation to ensure our relations with other sovereign states are protected, has failed to do that and the provincial government came in to fill the void. Again, that shows the lack of leadership of the Liberal government when it comes to Canada-U.S. relations and Canada's role in the world.

I hope, for the sake of the environment and our water supply in the go forward basis, that the Devils Lake issue is resolved in a manner which will protect our water supply. We can also show empathy to our friends in North Dakota that we understand the flooding issue is indeed a problem and there are other ways to skin a cat.

I encourage that this goes forward to the Boundary Waters Treaty framework and that the government does everything possible to ensure that occurs.

It is unfortunate, again, that the government missed the opportunity many years ago, but let us go on, on a go forward basis. I am sure the opposition parties would agree.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, this may be a bit unfair to the member for Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia, but the last speaker from the Conservative Party advocated right to the very end. I did not get a chance to ask him if Canada should take on the bill, in effect, for dealing with the pollution that is coming from the U.S. side of the border.

Is that the position of the member's party? Because that is not the first time I have heard it. I have heard it informally before this. If so, will it also to take the position that we will start to pay for the clean up of the coal-fired plants on the U.S. side of the border, the transboundary air pollution which is literally killing a number of people in my riding in southwestern Ontario?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, the answer to that is the Conservative Party does not advocate paying for filtering processes in the United States. It is the responsibility of the United States to ensure that its waters are clean, especially when it affects other countries. I am thinking of our country specifically.

I would like to share this with the member. It is my understanding that the water from Devils Lake is not even used in irrigation in the United States. I think that sends the message home that there are potentially really bad things in the water and that we need to protect our Canadian water supply. That needs to be the number one priority.

I would also like to point out and remind the members that it is not just Manitoba and it is not just Canada. I listed half a dozen states that also agree with our position. That is the right thing to do. We have to respect each other's environment. As a member said previously, there is only one Earth and we are all a part of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to compliment my colleague and friend from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia for his intervention. My colleague has been a long time activist in ensuring that environmental issues are taken care of. He also has training in engineering, majoring in hydrology. He knows this issue very well. I appreciated his comments today and the insight he brought to the discussion.

The thing we have to take a look at, and that he alluded to it, is our friends in North Dakota are facing some flooding issues. However, they are also, in trying to alleviate that problem, going to create some violations of the Boundary Waters Treaty, which was established back in 1909 and sets out parameters as to what we can do in the aspect of water quality.

Could he speculate on what might occur if the North Dakota government decides to go ahead and violate that treaty?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, first, my degree was in geological engineering and my specialty I guess was groundwater hydrology specifically. What we are talking about is surface hydrology.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake raises a very interesting point. What will the impact be? Given that there has not been baseline studies undertaken, it is difficult to pin that down. That is why the science needs to be done. That is why those studies need to be done to see what is in the waters in Devils Lake and what is in the waters in Manitoba in our watershed. We have to be able to compare the two. I am not convinced those studies have occurred.

Assuming there is significant nasty stuff coming from Devils Lake into ours, over time it will affect the watershed right from the Rocky Mountains into Ontario and maybe even across watersheds and peripherally across the country, as we have seen with the zebra mussels.

It could be a big problem. That is why we need to solve it now.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to make it very clear that the Minister of the Environment has raised this issue on many occasions, and certainly the Prime Minister recently raised this issue directly with President Bush. We are very pleased that the White House has become directly engaged.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a Canadian issue. This is an issue in which all Canadians have a stake because of what could happen. That is why it is important that we work collaboratively to ensure, in the discussions the Government of Canada is having with the White House and with other American politicians, that at the end of the day we have a resolution that is good for Canada and good for the United States and that protects and preserves the ecological integrity of the system and certainly of the environment.

The spirit of the Boundary Waters Treaty is extremely important. Since 1909 it has been the keystone in terms of how we have resolved issues with the IJC. I know that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with whom I will be splitting my time, will be elaborating on that.

We have worked very closely with the government of Manitoba for years. I want to praise the government of Manitoba for the work it has done; there is no light between the government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada on this issue in terms of what we are trying to achieve.

I would mention that there have been many meetings where we have raised these concerns. More meetings are going on, but particularly in April of this year the President of the Treasury Board, the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, Ambassador McKenna and provincial ministers from Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec held meetings with senior U.S. officials.

The Minister of the Environment continues to bring this issue to the attention of his U.S. colleagues, particularly the White House Council on Environmental Quality, for example. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of course has raised this issue with the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. The Minister of the Environment has never let an opportunity go by where he has not brought forward these concerns, because if this project were to go ahead it would be extremely important that the environmental integrity be protected.

This is not, as I say, a partisan issue. I was a bit disappointed with the last speaker's characterization of the 2002 issue, the so-called reference. I want to again point out that the reference was based on a federal project, not on a state project, that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had not finished its environmental assessment, and that there was not even certainty as to whether the project would go ahead. It was not even sure that there would be funding at the time. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers never recommended an outlet as an alternative.

It is important that we should be looking at and concentrating on where we are going and how we can achieve a successful conclusion. Those who would suggest that Canada missed an opportunity in 2002 are not, with all due respect, providing the facts.

The fact is that we are prepared to have this referred to the International Joint Commission. We are prepared to ensure that in the end the integrity of the ecological system is protected and that bodies of water such as Lake Winnipeg are protected. It is in all of our interests, whether we come from British Columbia, Newfoundland, the Arctic or anywhere in between.

Clearly over the last few months we have built a broad coalition of all stakeholders, whether they be NGOs or whether they have been political leaders on this side or the other side of the border, provincial, municipal, et cetera.

The all party House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development had a press conference in which all parties said that we must act with one voice on this issue. We cannot allow partisan politics to deflect from the fact that at the end of the day if we do not do this right we will have a major environmental problem. That is why we have to work very closely together.

Obviously it is important to work with people in the United States Congress such as Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota or Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio. It is important for us to work with these political leaders, such as Senator Richard Lugar in Indiana.

We saw the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence cities initiative, a coalition of mayors, including the mayors of Toronto and Chicago and mayors from Quebec and Ontario and eight Great Lakes states, pass resolutions, all of course supporting the call for action.

There is no question that at this time negotiations are going on and they are very sensitive. I would hate to think that members in the House would say or do something which would in fact provide ammunition for those who would take a shortcut in terms of dealing with a sensitive environmental issue.

This government is concerned, and I know all members in the House are concerned, about the possible effects on the ecological integrity of our water and the economic consequences that could occur. We are concerned about the possible introduction of foreign species. Having listened to some of the speeches this evening, I note that this has been a common thread.

We must ensure that we have done the science and have the necessary safeguards in place before, if the outlet were to start. I can certainly assure everyone, and I know the Minister of the Environment has made it very clear, that we will not rest until we have a satisfactory conclusion to this.

The preference, of course, is the reference to the IJC, but we want to make sure that the end result is going to be in the interests of both parties, because it is not just this particular issue. There are other issues that may come up down the road and we would want to be sure that the mechanism which in fact has served this country and the United States well since 1909 is protected and utilized.

There is no question that the efforts that have been undertaken by all governments, all NGOs and all parties have in fact clearly put this on the radar screen for people to say, “Stop. Let us do the right thing”. We only get one opportunity and this opportunity is to ensure that no stone is left unturned until we reach a resolution. I think that is what all members want. I commend the member opposite for raising this issue this evening.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development came together. In a minority Parliament sometimes we hear a lot of political rhetoric as people take different positions. The committee was very clear, saying it wanted to make it very clear to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. A letter was sent from the committee, which all members supported, to also make sure the White House was engaged. Again I refer to the Prime Minister's discussion with the President of the United States.

We have worked together and we will continue to work together because we know that in the end it is in all of our interests to do so. I trust that at the end of the debate this evening we will all speak with one voice and say that this project cannot and must not go ahead without the full environmental assessment that is needed.

I believe very strongly that we have the mechanisms in place to deal with it. I also believe that the pressure and the actions of the Department of Foreign Affairs, on which my colleague will elaborate, as I have said, have been very helpful and very constructive in ensuring a resolution of this situation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his intervention this evening and for his emphasis on the non-political nature of this issue.

I too was somewhat disturbed by the comments of the member for Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia which had a tone similar to the member for Kildonan--St. Paul, a partisan edge and a political spin that just does not seem to be warranted this evening.

I would like to draw on the strength of the words posed by my colleague, the member for Elmwood--Transcona, who urged us to rise above that kind of bickering and to realize that this was an issue of public interest. This is a matter that threatens all of our lives and it is something on which we have to fight together.

In fact, there is strong representation from all quarters on this issue, whether we are talking about Premier Doer's government in Manitoba or the efforts by members in this House from all sides, as well as the environment committee which came forward with an all party statement and plea to Condoleezza Rice.

My question for the member has to do with the urgency of this issue. Earlier this evening it was suggested that we might actually work toward a resolution adopted by this House that would be unanimous and sent to our counterparts in the United States. I would like the member to think about the following words and tell me if he thinks this would have the support of his colleagues. I would like all my colleagues to think about this overnight and come back tomorrow with a willingness to do this.

This is the suggested resolution:

That this House unanimously request the United States House of Representatives and Senate, pursuant to the Boundary Waters Treaty, to call for an immediate referral to the International Joint Commission for independent assessment and review of the Devils Lake diversion project.

I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could give some indication of support or at least of seek the support of his colleagues overnight.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her suggestion and welcome it. Anything we can enunciate with one voice from this chamber to the United States Congress would be helpful and I certainly would take it under advisement. She has made some very good comments and they articulate what we are trying to achieve, which is a resolution based on science and a strong environmental assessment.

I think those are the kinds of comments and the kind of non-partisan wording that are helpful. Certainly we, as a government, are prepared to look at anything that will move the yardstick in that regard.

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

Madam Speaker, I note that the parliamentary secretary has gone back to saying that the letter that was referenced earlier today in question period and again in the House is wrong.

Maybe the member will understand some of the frustration that I have as the representative for Selkirk--Interlake, the home of Lake Winnipeg, and the frustration that I am feeling from my constituents. We are quite upset that there seems to have been an opportunity to make a reference to the IJC about a Devils Lake outlet.

Regardless of what project that might have been, I am at odds wondering why we would not want to make that representation, why we would not want to have the IJC look into the possibility of what the water quality is in Devils Lake versus that of the Red River basin watershed.

We have a situation where North Dakota wanted to go in some way, in some fashion, with some project a few years ago on Devils Lake and we had the opportunity to look at that. I would like to know why we would not have gone down that path then.