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.