Debates of June 14th, 2007

Devils Lake Diversion Project

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for initiating this debate tonight because it is an important issue. She is absolutely right when she says that we must keep the attention of the government and of Canadians focused on this issue. It is not merely, in my opinion, a small border conflict or an isolated conflict. I think it portends very badly for the boundary waters treaty because obviously North Dakota is acting unilaterally, which brings me to my point.

We all think that Parliament should take a stand. I think we all agree that this should not be happening. However, I would like to know from the member, quite sincerely and for my own edification, how we deal with this issue beyond words and passing resolutions and motions.

For example, there is no binding agreement between Canada and the United States on this issue. The agreement that was signed in August 2005 was not a binding agreement. I will quote Mr. William Crosbie, who appeared before the environment committed on October 27, 2005. At the time he was the director general, North American Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He said:

What was announced in August were essentially the key elements of an agreement. We have yet to negotiate the language around those key elements....

Therefore, we do not have a real binding agreement.

One of the reasons that North Dakota was able to open the outlet is that the U.S. EPA, a federal government institution in the United States, changed the threshold of the pollution standards from, and I am afraid I do not know the exact terminology, 300 to 450 milligrams per litre of sulphate which allowed North Dakota to open the outlet. We have the U.S. EPA changing standards, which I do not think it should be doing because it did not do so on a rational basis, and we do not have a binding agreement.

What is the member proposing that we do? We know that Mr. Doer in Manitoba is retaliating in some sense because he is building a dyke that was intended to help the people of North Dakota by diverting some flooding waters. No doubt she agrees that the premier should take aggressive action on that, but what else should be done beyond that?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. What can we do? The first thing we can do is stand up for what is right and just. We owe it to Canadians everywhere to stand up to the United States of America and to the government of North Dakato when something obviously wrong is being committed.

I believe we do have legislation and we do have accords that are binding. If we go back to the 1909 boundary waters treaty, which is a formally signed agreement between Canada and the United States to protect water resources on either side of the border, that is one way we can start.

We can also look to the international joint commission which was set up to deal with disputes to resolve them in accordance with the law. That process has been side-stepped and ignored by the government of North Dakota. I am sure if we had a chance to talk with Herb Gray, who is involved with the IJC, our long-standing colleague, we might hear some true facts about that.

However, let me also point out to the member that the August 2005 agreement is pretty firm. I am reading here from a joint press statement between Canada and the United States, between Manitoba and North Dakota and Minnesota. It states:

The United States and Canada today announced that important progress has been made toward addressing flooding in Devils Lake....

It goes on to talk about the steps that would be taken, steps that involved a compromise to get to that point, of an advanced filter instead of a complete closure and some changes with respect to environmental assessment, all of which were agreed to and none of which have been followed. I think that provides a good basis for further action.

Finally, let me just point out that with respect to the changes by North Dakota in its environmental standards and the changing of the levels of sulphate in order for it to be convenient for its project, we need to stand up and deal with it. The minister of water in Manitoba has gone to North Dakota with the NGO community in the environmental area with support from all walks of life to stand up and say that has to be stopped. I believe that if we stand up with them we can make that kind of impact and effect some real change.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the member if this issue, in essence, is not about, in a very meaningful way, invasive species and different organisms coming into the water systems, particularly the Canadian water system, that over the long haul will destroy all kinds of other organisms and change the balance of the ecosystem in a way that we will need to deal with for years and years. If we do something now that may cost us some money in terms of investment, it may save us in the long haul literally millions and millions.

I look at the Great Lakes in my own area where, for example, sea lamprey was introduced a few years ago. Nobody seemed to pay much attention when it came in but now, in my own area, we spend literally millions of dollars every year simply trying to control those creatures, never mind get rid of them.

I would like the hon. member to comment, if she could, on the kinds of critters she anticipates might come into the Canadian waterway system through this new diversion that may happen if the government does not do something about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has really hit the issue exactly in terms of the seriousness of this whole matter.

We are talking about the possibility of foreign material, parasites, alien species that are found in the system around Devils Lake and in Devils Lake coming into a very large Canadian ecosystem that may not be able to tolerate or adapt to those foreign species or parasitic creatures.

It is a very serious situation. We all know what happened with zebra mussels. When they came in, apparently on the bottom of boats from Florida, to the Whiteshell in Manitoba they then spread from lake to lake as the boats moved.

The trouble with this is that we do not know just how serious it can be, which is why we absolutely need to take action tonight. It is very disturbing to think that for two years this commitment has been on the table and no action has been taken.

Where has the government been over the last year or more? Has our Prime Minister picked up the phone and talked to George Bush about getting that filter system in place? Has the Minister of the Environment picked up the phone and said to the governor of North Dakota and said, “This is absolutely unacceptable. As neighbour to neighbour, we expect you to operate in good faith. You cannot simply turn on the tap and contaminate our water system”. That is not acceptable in any notion of a civilized society.

We expect from the government tonight some very clear steps, some actions that will show Canadians that the government is no slouch when it comes to the United States of America. Good relations means it is able to stand up and be counted and we expect, when it comes to something as precious as our ecosystem and our environment, that it will do just that.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the matter of the Devils Lake outlet tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

As the House knows, the Devils Lake outlet has been a challenging issue for the Government of Canada. While Canada and the United States, under the boundary waters treaty of 1909, have long enjoyed an enviable relationship with respect to our shared waters Devils Lake has been a longstanding irritant within that broader picture.

Obviously our government is very disappointed by the decision of North Dakota to operate the Devils Lake outlet prior to the installation of permanent and effective treatment measures. In light of the important science and engineering efforts in progress, our government believes that the outlet should be closed to allow this work to continue unhampered. The outlet has operated sporadically since Monday. We very much hope that through our concerted efforts we will be able to convince North Dakota to close the outlet.

Since the House took up this matter in June 2005, our government has worked with the United States to implement the terms of the August 2005 joint statement on Devils Lake flooding and ecosystem protection. Under that agreement Canada and the United States agreed to first, work together to design and construct an advanced treatment system, taking into account the results of the ongoing monitoring and risk assessment; and, second, engage the International Joint Commission's international Red River board to develop a basin wide water quality and biological monitoring program for the Red River basin. We were working very closely with our U.S. counterparts on both of the efforts when North Dakota made the precipitous decision to run the outlet this week.

On the matter of advanced treatment for the outlet, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with Canadian technical experts, is carrying out a detailed engineering feasibility and implementation analysis of treatment measures jointly recommended by the Government of Canada, Manitoba and Minnesota.

Work to date confirms the possibility of putting in place effective treatment. We continue to work with the U.S. EPA on the details of the treatment design and hope to see work on installation begin as soon as possible.

As a result of the representation by Canada's ambassador to the United States, the U.S. government has reiterated its commitment in cooperating with Canada in the design and construction of an advanced treatment system and to work with us through the IJC on the survey of fish parasites and pathogens in the basin.

At the request of the Government of Canada and the United States, the International Joint Commission has also been engaged on Devils Lake. Under the commission's international Red River board, important binational science is underway to survey and understand fish pathogens and parasites that may be present in Devils Lake, the Sheyenne and Red Rivers and Lake Winnipeg.

The threat of a possible transfer of alien invasive species from Devils Lake into Canadian waters is at the heart of our government's concerns. This substantial scientific project funded jointly by Canada and the United States is providing important information about biological risks associated with Devils Lake and helping to inform the design of treatment measures.

The second year of this work will be starting shortly and we look forward to viewing the results. However, the operation of the outlet seriously jeopardizes the integrity of the scientific work and underlines the importance of turning the outlet off until this work is completed.

Since the outlet opened on Monday, the government has made its views known forcibly and extensively. Ambassador Wilson has spoken to North Dakota Governor Hoeven to express our disappointment and call for the outlet to be closed. The Minister of the Environment has also spoken with the American ambassador.

As well, this week in Washington the deputy minister of foreign affairs and international trade made Canada's views about the Devils Lake outlet known to his U.S. counterparts. Officials have also conveyed the government's position to the U.S. embassy in Ottawa.

The Prime Minister has raised the issue on the Devils Lake outlet with President Bush. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has also expressed his concerns about the outlet to Secretary of State Rice.

The purpose of raising the issue at the highest level was to stress the importance of installing permanent treatment measures before the outlet was run. We will continue to press the United States government to take action to help resolve this difficult matter.

The Devils Lake outlet project is a potential threat to Canada in three areas: invasive species transfer, water quality impact and socio-economic effects.

First, in the absence of the completion of scientific testing of the water in Devils Lake and points downstream, the risk of invasive species is unknown but concerning. The governments of Canada and the United States continue with this scientific work through the IJC to understand the possible risks from fish parasites and pathogens. Until that work is completed, the outlet should remain off.

Second, Lake Winnipeg and the Red River are sources of drinking water for tens of thousands of people in Manitoba. Without knowing what biota are contained in Devils Lake, there is a potential risk to water quality of the Red River and Lake Winnipeg.

Last, the general degradation of water quality and foreign biota transfer could have important socio-economic impacts on the broader Lake Winnipeg watershed. Lake Winnipeg enjoys multi-million dollar commercial and recreational fisheries. I would also note that the majority of the commercial fishers on the lake are aboriginal Canadians. Lake Winnipeg also supports a vibrant tourist industry.

The government remains deeply concerned that all of these benefits are put at an unknown degree of risk by the unsafe operation of the Devils Lake outlet. We also continue to work with the US EPA on the design of an effective treatment to address the possible risks that I have set out.

Our government continues to press the governments of the United States and North Dakota to close the outlet until this important work is concluded and effective treatment is in place. We will continue our longstanding cooperation with Manitoba on the Garrison Diversion issues, as well as to work closely with the province to protect Canadian interests.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question for my learned colleague. I know the member has a great interest in the Devils Lake diversion project. Could the member inform the House as to his estimation of the colour of the water? Would the water be murky brown or ruby red?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is extremely concerned. This is a very important issue, as I have outlined in my speech. It impacts the Red River basin and tens of thousands of Manitobans who rely on this. It is critically important that we address this.

As I have outlined, the government at its highest level, up to the Prime Minister, is engaged with the government of the United States to tell it we want the outlet closed until a treatment facility is made available.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to the parliamentary secretary who is a member from Alberta. As members on the other side said, the member has a great interest in the Devils Lake project. In fact, it is a bigger problem than Devils Lake. Would the member comment on how it can affect Alberta, his province, and also British Columbia?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleague that I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

This issue is under foreign affairs. Henceforth, I am laying out the position of my government, particularly to the concerns to the Red River district that was raised earlier by the NDP member.

As for other waters in Alberta and British Columbia, they fall under the IJC, with which we have an excellent relationship. This commission was jointly set up to address border waters between each country. Today our debate is on Devils Lake and I am speaking on behalf of the government.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer back to one of the questions asked by the honourable member's colleague from Saskatchewan with regard to the ruby red remark. We are here in an emergency debate right now. I see my colleagues on the other side laughing at this and I find it sad.

The Red River is in my riding and it goes through Manitoba. Members are making jokes with this in an emergency debate. I would like them to respond. I would like them to tell this House and tell Canadians how they really feel about this. We were told a few minutes ago that the honourable member was very concerned about this, but that is not what we are hearing here tonight.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member listened to my response to the question my colleague had asked. If he had listened to my response, I very clearly articulated the concern the Government of Canada had in reference to that issue. I stuck to that issue and talked about that issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great concern that I participate in the debate knowing that the situation is still going on with the Devils Lake outlet.

I represent the riding of Selkirk—Interlake, home to Lake Winnipeg, the 10th largest freshwater lake in the world and the ultimate home of where all this water from Devils Lake is going to end up. We talk about the larger Hudson Bay basin, but my greatest concern is right in my backyard and that is Lake Winnipeg and all the people and communities who depend on the lake.

My constituents have fought long and hard on these water diversion issues. This goes right back to when North Dakota first started talking about the Garrison diversion. That goes back 20 or 30 years. This is something we have been concerned about, because our lake is near and dear to our hearts and is important to us in so many fashions.

Not only is there a threat that the diversion is going to create more flooding along the Red River when it is in operation, especially if it is happening during high water times, but it is going to devastate Lake Winnipeg. When we talk about the water quality or the biota and the parasites and how they might affect the fish stocks, Lake Winnipeg is a green lake and it hosts a huge pickerel fishery and whitefish fishery. Over 1,300 commercial fishermen make their living off that lake and we have to protect it.

I have the great joy of representing this lake. It is important to tourism. It is important to our film industry now. It has some beautiful beaches. Of course it is very important to the overall freshwater fishing industry across western Canada.

The commercial fishermen are really concerned about this because biota can come in and create real havoc to our fish species. It could have an impact on our beaches, and the water sports industries and tourism which make such a great living off our lake. All the communities along Lake Winnipeg are going to be negatively impacted. My family enjoys fishing on that lake. I go there with my daughters. We spend a lot of time on the beach. We do not want to see the quality of the lake compromised any further.

As members of the House are aware, the government of North Dakota decided to resume operations of the diversion earlier this week. Since the full nature and extent of downstream risks to Canada are still unknown, we find North Dakota's decision to be irresponsible as well as deeply disappointing. Our government's position is clear and anchored in the nearly century old boundary waters treaty. Under the treaty, both countries, Canada and the United States, have agreed to protect water resources on both sides of the border. To quote article IV of the treaty, it states:

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

It is a pretty clear statement that we are going to work mutually together to protect our water basins. We remain concerned by the threat of transboundary harm and look to the Americans to uphold their obligations under the treaty by seeing to it that the outlet is closed until it can be safely operated, as we have already agreed to.

We have reason to be concerned by discharge from the outlet without any effective treatment measures installed to date. Our government's concern centres on the possible threat of the biota transfer that I was talking about in Devils Lake. There have been some profiles done and we know there are parasites in Devils Lake that are not common in the Hudson Bay basin, especially in Lake Winnipeg. That is, we are concerned about the microbial, plant or animal life that might reside in Devils Lake, but which might not exist outside of the basin.

This goes back to the situation that Devils Lake has been and continues to be naturally a closed basin. It has not been connected to the broader basin of the Lake Winnipeg basin, or the Hudson Bay basin, and it has not flooded out of its own boundaries for over 1,000 years. It is only logical to assume that much of the larger aquatic life in Devils Lake was likely introduced by humans after the lake was dry after the dirty thirties and the 1940s. It went completely dry, so everything that is in there has been introduced.

These conditions suggest to us in Canada that biota in Devils Lake may well have developed somewhat differently from plant and animal life downstream in the greater Red River Valley and Lake Winnipeg basin, but this matter remains unclear and the degree of this risk is still unknown.

However, we do know all too well that introducing non-native species presents serious environmental consequences and potentially significant economic costs.

Aquatic invasive species can take over and degrade their new environments by displacing or harming native biota.

As well in the nearby Great Lakes, invasive species such as zebra mussels have caused millions of dollars in damage. The invasion of the sea lamprey into the Great Lakes was particularly devastating to the commercial fisheries.

In Manitoba we have multi-million dollar commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries on Lake Winnipeg. I do not want to see them threatened by the same invasive alien species that might be lurking in Devils Lake.

In the absence of any solid final scientific assessment of Devils Lake, the Red River and Lake Winnipeg, the full extent of the risk of transfer of invasive species is still uncertain.

Under these circumstances, our government believes that the outlet should be closed until effective treatment measures can be put in place. Simply not enough is understood about the full range of threats from Devils Lake, both in terms of invasive alien species and its water chemistry.

However, while the full risks may not be fully understood, there still is sufficient cause to be concerned. In such circumstances where there is that cause, precaution is the appropriate measure.

The precautionary principle endorsed by countries around the world, including the United States, is the Rio declaration. It was intended for application in precisely the type of circumstances we are encountering today with Devils Lake in North Dakota.

At its most basic, the precautionary principle calls for prudence in the face of uncertainty. In the matter of the Devils Lake outlet, prudence requires that the outlet be closed while important binational scientific and engineering work currently in progress be allowed to continue unhampered. These efforts will provide a fuller understanding of the biological profile of Devils Lake, the Sheyenne and Red rivers and my Lake Winnipeg.

As well, a more complete understanding of fish parasites and pathogens in the system will help inform efforts under way to design and construct an effective treatment for the outlet.

A surprising amount of the international boundary that we share with the U.S. is made up of water. In fact, over 3,500 kilometres of the border is made up of boundary waters. For nearly a century, framed by the boundary waters treaty, Canada and the U.S. have enjoyed a successful relationship regarding our shared waters. The Devils Lake outlet represents a relatively rare irritant in this long-running and enviable relationship.

In light of the risks to Canada, and drawing on a long tradition of transboundary cooperation, I believe it is imperative that the two countries agree on a solution that protects our environment.

However, once North Dakota turned the outlet on this week, this jeopardized the important work toward finding such a solution, one that would see the implementation of a permanent treatment system at the outlet, an issue that we have been pressing with the United States government for some time.

Our government will continue to urge the U.S. government to continue preparation toward the installation of a permanent treatment system. Up until now, the pace of that work has been far too slow. We have been clear with the U.S. government that we expect the permanent treatment system to be installed prior to operating the outlet and to work with us to help resolve the Devils Lake outlet dispute.

I hope that the State of North Dakota and Governor Hoeven will stop the outlet. When we really look at it, that outlet is having a negligible impact on the water level in Devils Lake. He needs to allow our important bilateral work toward the installation of a permanent treatment system to continue.

I want to talk about a few other things that our government has done to protect Lake Winnipeg.

In the budget, which it is hoped the Liberal dominated Senate will pass, there are research dollars for the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium and the research vessel Namao. There are ongoing commitments to the watershed in Lake Winnipeg. There is over $7 million in budget 2007 that will help protect Lake Winnipeg and the whole basin.

We are taking a strong stand on Lake Winnipeg. I want to make sure that continues. I have been talking with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of the Environment, as well as on a couple of occasions with Governor Hoeven, about working cooperatively so we can find the solution and protect Manitobans.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague on the other side. I know that Lake Winnipeg is very important to him. I wonder if he could expand on the challenges that Lake Winnipeg has already without adding any further challenges from the U.S. We have all attended sessions where we were told of the critical condition in which Lake Winnipeg is right now. If different problems are added, it could be the death knell for the lake. Perhaps the member could expand on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the overall long term health of Lake Winnipeg is utmost not just to me and people in my riding, but to all the people in Manitoba. We all care about it. All parties in this House are very concerned about this situation.

There are definitely some challenges ahead for Lake Winnipeg. It has been having ongoing nutrient loading problems that have led to algae blooms and some of those algae blooms are actually toxic. They are polluting our beaches. When algae washes up on the shore it covers up the sand and this makes it tough to enjoy our white beaches. It is rather disgusting for kids out there. There is a great concern that these algae blooms are creating dead zones in the lake. Oxygen is being deprived and fish are dying in those areas. It is amazing that we still have such a healthy, vibrant fishing industry. The fish that are coming out of the lake, the pickerel, are all testing clean, toxic free.

The problem is not necessarily pollution. It is nutrients. More nutrients do not need to be added and that is essentially what has been coming from south of the border. We are getting a nutrient load of nitrogen and phosphates and that is making it incredibly difficult to clean up our lake.

We try to do what we can within Manitoba, but we have to work with our international partners. We are talking about four provinces and three states in the U.S. that contribute to the nutrients that are going into Lake Winnipeg. We have to find a way to work cooperatively with our American friends. Minnesota is on side with Manitoba on this issue in making sure that the Devils Lake diversion is properly monitored and controlled so that no unnecessary pollutants or invasive species are dumped into the system and that we maintain the overall integrity of the Red River basin and the Lake Winnipeg basin.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Selkirk--Interlake has been a strong advocate for Lake Winnipeg over the years. As a new member of Parliament, I have always appreciated his work in this area.

The Red River flows through my riding in Winnipeg. This is a matter of utmost importance to the city as well as the rural ridings in Manitoba.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake is as big an expert in this House as we have on these issues. I wonder if he could provide some further insight into the process in which these decisions were adjudicated in the past. Multiple levels of government have been working on this issue, and I wonder if he could give us an analysis.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been very fortunate because the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium has done some excellent work. A number of scientists from across Canada and from the freshwater fishery research out of Winnipeg along with a number of universities have participated in the study of Lake Winnipeg.

Lake Winnipeg is actually understudied though as compared to a lot of other lakes. If we look at the Great Lakes, such as Lake Ontario, or Lake Victoria in Kenya, which is a lake of an equivalent size, we are talking about hundreds of studies that have been done. Only about 60 studies have been done on Lake Winnipeg. Last summer I know the number was 57. I am hoping that the number has increased slightly since then.

One of the scientists at the University of Alberta actually compared Lake Winnipeg today to what Lake Erie was 20 years ago when the Mulroney government buckled down and got the job done in cleaning up Lake Erie. It is time to do the same with Lake Winnipeg to ensure that it is there for the long term and is there for the enjoyment of my kids and the next generation, as well as to ensure there is a viable commercial fishing industry and tourism industry for many years to come.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre.

It is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to speak on this critical issue. I do not know if members realize how important this issue is to Manitobans. Any time we do a survey in Manitoba, we find that the health of Lake Winnipeg always ends up being number one, two or three on the list of concerns for Manitobans.

It is very important for us to be here this evening. I thank my colleague who organized this. It is imperative for us to be here to show both the government and our colleagues in the U.S. that it is an important issue and that we think pressure should be put on our neighbours to the south to change their decision.

On May 30, some two or three weeks ago, and actually two weeks prior to North Dakota opening the floodgates, I asked a question on this very issue of the Minister of the Environment. He scoffed at it and said it was a problem he inherited from the previous government.

The reality is that the previous Liberal government had an agreement with the United States to install a high quality filter at Devils Lake. The Conservative government has been in power for close to one and a half years now and had a responsibility to see that this agreement was respected. It has to take its responsibility seriously. It has to stop blaming others. It has to do the job.

The Conservatives always say that they are going to get the job done and they are getting the job done, but in this case, they have not. They have had a year and a half to speak to their neighbours and get the job done.

I believe it is important to understand the severity of what is happening as we speak. North Dakota's Devils Lake has no natural outlet and the water has risen by up to 25 feet over the years, so I think it is important for us to show some sympathy for North Dakota as well. I have been there. I was there on my motorcycle some years ago. We were on a dyke and all we saw was water where there used to be residential homes. It is an absolutely eerie feeling to be out there. There are no trees. There is nothing. We do have to sympathize with what North Dakota is going through.

Having said that, I do not think they should find a solution that is harmful to their neighbours to the north. That is what the problem is. It is unfortunate that over the years we have not been able to convince North Dakota that it possibly was harming our rivers and tributaries.

We also have to consider the fact that this is costing the U.S. a lot of money. It has been very critical for the Americans as well. They have paid approximately $350 million U.S. in flood control costs over the years, as well as $450 million U.S. in damages in the region. We can imagine that there is some pressure on them as well to react to this.

We understand that something has to be done. We understand that Canada and the U.S. have to work together to find a solution, but again, the solution in North Dakota cannot be at the expense of Canada's rivers and lakes.

The solution proposed by North Dakota was to build an outlet that would enable the water to flow from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River, into the Red River and finally into Lake Winnipeg. However, let me explain what the reality is if we allow this to happen.

In regard to the water quality in Devils Lake, someone was asking what colour the water would be. It is a fact that the water is much worse in Devils Lake than it is in the Red River and in Lake Winnipeg. Scientists have expressed concerns about the high sulphate levels, arsenic, baron, mercury, phosphorous, and the total dissolved solids, which are the salts.

The second major concern is the potential transfer of harmful biota. I noticed that my colleague from across the way mentioned this as well. These harmful biota are comprised of different organisms and, in particular, fish diseases that may have been established in Devils Lake but not in the Red River Basin. When those diseases are transferred, the impact could be devastating, although we do not necessarily know what it could be.

A third issue is that in the 1970s the Americans stocked Devils Lake with striped bass. It is a very aggressive competitor and could cause major damage to the sport and commercial fishing stocks. Striped bass are not found in the Red River currently, so introducing this new species could be a huge issue. My understanding is that striped bass actually live 35 years, so once that species is introduced into the river it could become a huge issue for us here in Canada.

If we look at introducing new species, all we have to do is look back at the Great Lakes and the damage the zebra mussels have caused. It has cost both countries, Canada and the U.S., $3 billion in damages in the Great Lakes region alone. We all know what a devastating impact introducing new species in different waterways can have.

To add insult to injury, North Dakota is also considering a future inlet from the Missouri River into Devils Lake to control water levels in Devils Lake. Again, new species would be introduced from the Missouri to Devils Lake, to the Red River and then to Lake Winnipeg. It is totally unnatural. That is the problem right now.

All this would significantly affect the aquatic ecosystem in Manitoba. It is irresponsible for North Dakota to move forward with this and it is unconscionable that the Conservatives have allowed it to happen. It is too late now. Today in the House we heard the minister say that the government would be doing something in 24 hours. We hope something will be done, but the water is flowing as we speak, and I wish he would have said “in 24 hours” when I asked my question in the House two weeks ago. Maybe we could have prevented this from happening.

It is important as well to talk about what is at stake. My colleague spoke to this a little earlier. Lake Winnipeg is Canada's 10th largest freshwater lake and everyone appreciates the importance of protecting one of the most precious water supplies in the world.

Right now in our ridings we are all hearing about the future of water. Water will be the next big issue in the world, but we are ready to allow our 10th largest lake in the world to possibly be polluted, so there is something wrong with this picture. We have to act aggressively and we have to act now.

The Red River is used as a direct source of potable water for 40,000 residents. I do not know if people know that, because I had no idea when I did my research. There are 40,000 people drinking water from the Red River. People depend on this water to survive.

There are also 23,000 permanent residents living in 30 communities along the shore of Lake Winnipeg who depend upon the lake's fishery as a food source. Again, their livelihood depends on this ecosystem. It is critical for them. It is basic survival for these people

Included in that 23,000 are 9,000 people from first nations communities. We all know how critical fishing is to first nations. This could devastate a community that is already facing major challenges in our country.

There is also the $110 million that is spent on tourism in the region every year. That could be impacted, that is for sure.

The tributaries also could be affected. The Seine River is a jewel in the heart of Winnipeg, in the heart of my riding. Anybody who comes to my riding will see the Seine River running right through my riding. For anyone who canoes it, it feels like being in the wilderness. It is absolutely incredible. It runs right through downtown Winnipeg.

As a matter of fact, last Saturday I had the opportunity to canoe it and see my riding from a different perspective. A group called Save Our Seine was promoting a canoe trip on the Seine River. The people in that group saved the river. It was basically dead. They cleaned it up. Over the last five to 10 years, they have brought it back to life. I can tell members that right now those people probably are devastated to see this happening with Devils Lake.

The government and those Conservative members cannot say they were not aware of this or that they were not forewarned.

First of all, there was an agreement reached in 2005 after consultations between Canada and the U.S. A joint press statement issued in August 2005 announced that North Dakota would put in place a rock and gravel filter before draining the outlet to prevent the release of microscopic aquatic nuisance species, including fish, eggs and plants, from Devils Lake, and that it would also work toward setting up an advanced filter. I will quote for members what the agreement said:

The United States and Canada will cooperate on the design and construction of a more advanced filtration and/or disinfection system for the Devils Lake outlet, taking into account the results of ongoing monitoring and risk assessment....

What can we do? The hon. member for the NDP from Winnipeg was asking earlier on what we can do. Obviously at this point, once the water is turned on, it has to be gentle persuasion. We have no choice.

Furthermore, my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa South and environment critic for the Liberal Party, regrets not being here with us tonight, but he has worked very hard on this issue for a number of years. In fact, two years ago to the day he helped broker a unanimous all party statement by the Standing Committee on the Environment to vigorously oppose the unilateral actions then being taken by North Dakota to launch the diversions from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne River. That statement pointed out the proper role of the International Joint Commission and called on the federal government to take up diplomatic and legal tools to prevent any water diversion.

The reality is that we now have water flowing from the U.S. into Manitoba that could be contaminating our rivers and lakes. I understand that just lately pictures were taken of large fish actually getting across the temporary filter, so it is not working. We have to find another solution.

In closing, I believe that all parties have to work together. The damage is done to a certain extent, but I believe we can reduce that damage. We can mitigate the damage if we work together and try to pressure our colleagues and friends to the south to change their minds on this filter.

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

Mr.Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Saint Boniface mentioned that he has been down to North Dakota and has seen the devastation. It is overwhelming. So much flooding has happened there, so many people have been displaced, and so many farmyards are lying at the bottom of the lake, which has been rising exponentially over the last 25 years. Could the hon. member tell us why that lake has been rising so fast?

Second, for the benefit of the rest of our colleagues in the House tonight who may think this is a very local issue and only affects Manitoba and North Dakota, would the hon. member comment on the violation of the boundary waters treaty, what that will do and how it will affect the overall work of the IJC?

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that it is a little frustrating. I understand that the initial solution was to put in an advanced filter, which would have cost approximately $20 million to $22 million. My understanding is that with new technology the filter now would cost somewhere around $7 million or $8 million. The U.S. has spent $350 million on flooding costs and $450 million on the overall damages, so $7 million does not seem to be an enormous amount of money to spend on this. That is my first comment.

With regard to the water rising, this is very abnormal, I am told. I have read that over the last 10,000 years water may have drained into the Red River basin on several occasions, but at very low levels.

It is a huge issue. I understand the U.S. has to do something about it and I do think that both our countries have to understand and sympathize with North Dakota. At the same time, if $7 million is the cost of the solution, I cannot believe that between our two countries, two of the richest countries in the world, there is not a solution at hand.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening tonight to the description of this challenge that is in front of us. I have been hearing about waters that over the last few years have grown and have actually overcome whole neighbourhoods and communities.

I was at a meeting in Sault Ste. Marie last night where we were talking about water in the Great Lakes and how it has dropped by about two feet in the last six to nine months. Where is that water going? That was the big question.

One theory is that it is being diverted to some areas of the United States where there is great drought at the moment. There are huge tracts of the U.S. in desperate need of water. As a matter of fact, those people are taking water from the melting glaciers of the Rockies and running it into parts of the U.S. so they can continue to grow crops, et cetera.

I do not know the history of this, but given that need for more water at a time when this area seems to have more water than it can handle, is there no way to divert the water in another direction? The Americans are trying to put it back into an area where we do not need more water. I believe the Red River floods every year so there is a lot of water there.

Is there no way to divert the water in another direction? We have heard about bulk water exports from the Great Lakes, but everybody is opposed to that because we do not want to lose that water. We certainly do not want give any kind of licence to that kind of thing, but has any thought been given or has any effort been made to look at the possibility of somehow taking this water and getting it to those parts of the U.S., in the same country, where they are in desperate need of water and where there is great drought?

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, actually it is a very logical statement that the member has just made. I am not sure if that idea has been considered. All I can say is that every time we do things that are unnatural, every time we use water for irrigation, every time we lower our rivers and lower our water levels, we pay for it somewhere. When we cut down our trees in the Prairies, cultivate our fields and irrigate them, there is a price to pay.

The basin has changed and we have more flooding. We basically have changed the whole ecosystem. This is a typical example of the unnatural things we are doing. Although we are not sure what the total impact will be, we can all be aware that there is the potential for devastation in Manitoba with this move from North Dakota.

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

Mr. Speaker, many in the House will have heard me speak several times in the past of what many of us in Manitoba call our “beloved Lake Winnipeg”, of the fact that it is, and has been for generations, a source of livelihood, recreation and of economic development for thousands of Manitobans. Like many, I grew up on the shores of Lake Winnipeg, as have my children. It is the 10th largest freshwater lake in the world. It supports a commercial fishery of an annual landed value of over $20 million. Now it is said to be a lake that is in ecological peril.

It is with this in mind and with concerns of the whole watershed that I, too, am speaking tonight to the potential danger to Manitoban communities and to the way of life of many residents of our province by what has happened with the opening of the Devils Lake outlet.

Today we are faced with the unilateral action of the government of North Dakota that took place on June 11. It is without doubt that it is both the responsibility and obligation of both national governments, Canada and U.S. and that of the provincial and state governments to recognize the overarching weakening of environmental standards and the dangers posed to Lake Winnipeg, to the entire Lake Winnipeg-Red River watershed and to respond appropriately.

As we have heard, the opening of the Devils Lake outlet allows water from the lake to flow water into the Sheyenne River, flow east to the Red River and into Lake Winnipeg. The Government of Manitoba and the previous Liberal government expressed opposition to this outlet because of the irreversible impact on the Manitoba ecosystem.

The province of Manitoba, along with a multitude of environmentalists, argue that Devils Lake contains organisms that are foreign and will pollute Manitoba water, negatively impacting the province's fishing and tourism industry. We all know and have heard it cited here tonight that the international boundaries treaty of 1909, almost 100 years old, prevents the flow of polluted water across the border.

There are two issues that are very paramount here.

First, there is the increased chemical concentration in the waters. We have learned recently that the level of sulphates now flowing has been up by over 50%. The North Dakota Department of Health weakened the sulphate standards in the outlet's original operating permit, and did it without the knowledge or consultation with Canada. The Government of Manitoba was unsuccessful in a legal challenge in the United States District Court on that matter and now, along with several environmental groups, are moving the issue forward to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Second, the biota, the living stuff in Devils Lake, puts at risk the fisheries of Lake Winnipeg and potentially all of western Canada. Seven species, three fish parasites and four kinds of algae have been identified in the Missouri water system, which are foreign to the whole Red River water system. We know now that an eighth species, rainbow smelt, has now entered the Lake Winnipeg system. While the pickerel may be getting fatter, we now anticipate that this will be a short term gain for long term pain.

As an aside, I want to advise the House that some time ago I introduced Bill C-387, and I hope we eventually get to it, respecting the National Ecosystem Council as a means of seeing the health of Lake Winnipeg's watershed and others in Canada restored.

I will address another issue as it relates to the impact of the opening of Devils Lake outlet, and my colleague has alluded to it, and that is the rights of first nations people. We know and we have heard many times in the House that first nations people face many water challenges in their own communities. We have also heard that the Red River is a direct source of potable water to over 40,000 people and that over 9,000 aboriginal people depend on Lake Winnipeg for its fisheries.

Recognizing the dangers of the biota and pollutants flowing into the system, National Chief Phil Fontaine, in a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, sent in May 2005, said:

The proposed operation of the Devils Lake Outlet is a source of grave concern to First Nations in Canada.

It goes on to say:

First Nations in Canada have rights that are recognized by the Constitution of Canada, the supreme law of this country, to use rivers and waters for human consumption, sanitation, fishing, navigation and other means necessary to continue our traditional way of life in modern times.

He goes on to say:

Customary international law requires that rivers be used in a manner that is equitable to all concerned, including indigenous peoples. That body of law also requires that states refrain from inflicting environmental harm on others.

Later he says:

As a representative government of First Nations, we look to the United States to respect the ideals contained in its international agreements, and to demonstrate in its international, as well as domestic policies, a genuine respect for the rights and interests of indigenous persons.

The provincial government, supported by the previous Liberal government, expressed concerns to federal and state governments. Under the Canada-U.S. boundary waters treaty, consultations were held and a way forward was prescribed in August 2005 and a joint press release issued. I was going to read from it, but in the interest of time I will not go there.

The agreement was reached on evaluation of water standards and permit levels. Also, mitigation measures were agreed to. North Dakota would establish a rock and gravel filter before the opening of the outlet and the federal government committed to do the design and construction of an advanced filtration system, high tech and probably high cost, but not in the long run. It was a newly redesigned system that is not in place now.

What is happening? My colleague referenced the response from the Minister of the Environment on May 3 when he was asked a question in the House. He laughed and brushed it aside. Today his answers to the question, posed by my colleague, were evasive at best. Are they pressing? I have heard from my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, and I accept his word, but I really want to know whether the government is pressing for the results of the monitoring program carried out by the Red River board under the IJC.

We know the results are complete. They were presented at a meeting in March in Washington. They have not been made public. My question is, why not? Governments are waiting, environmentalists are waiting, the people of Manitoba are waiting.

I have a communication from Friends of the Earth. It wrote to the Prime Minister, President Bush, the Premier of Manitoba and the governors of North Dakota and Minnesota calling on them to account for their commitments, particularly to make public the first year of IJC testing results and to report on the installation of the filtering system. What it goes on to say is interesting. It says:

You are acting like the Pirates of Devils Lake since you are operating the outlet in defiance of your own safeguard agreement.

Is the government raising concerns about the sulphate level? Is the legal action of the province of Manitoba being supported? An appeal was heard in March. Another appeal was filed this month. In September 2006 the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce he was committed to a solution.

Today in the media I heard the minister for water conservation in Manitoba say that it would take 22 weeks of water running through this outlet for Devils Lake to be reduced by half an inch. We cannot wait 22 weeks.

Have funds been offered to construct the filter?

It is incumbent upon governments to base their decisions on scientific investigation. I believe the federal government should be urging that the operation of the outlet be suspended until standards testing of the water quality and the biota are conducted in both countries.

The government must stop laughing and take the matter seriously. Both the economic prosperity and the quality of life of many Manitobans depend on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, for her comments. I know she cares passionately about the lake. She has a cottage in my riding and. As she mentioned, her kids have grown up there, she grew up on the beaches and it is very important to her.

The one thing that all of us is concerned about is the way North Dakota has approached this whole topic. As she mentioned, if it runs the pump at full tilt for 22 weeks, it will only drop the lake a half an inch.

I understand that North Dakota and the northern great plains have seen a great deal of precipitation this spring. For that reason the pumps have been turned on to try to control some of the flooding. There is no question, though, that part of the issue they are facing is the intensive drainage projects that they have undertaken over the last 50 years in North Dakota, especially in western North Dakota, in draining a lot of their wetlands and cleaning up a lot of their agricultural lands. That has created the problem that we face today.

If we look at the larger picture, as was mentioned earlier by the member for Saint Boniface, it has been a thousand years since the last time Devils Lake overflowed. In the dirty thirties the lake was dry. There is something that has changed and it has to do with the overall management of the drainage system within the state of North Dakota.

I know we all feel compassionate for the people of North Dakota, especially those people who live along Devils Lake and the flooding problem that they have faced for decades. What does the member see as the reasonable way for them to address the issues they have facing them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think, quite clearly, the answer is for both federal governments, the United States and Canada, to move forward with a high tech filtration system.

There is no question that people in Manitoba have experienced floods. As a resident on Lake Winnipeg, who has been flooded, I understand what the residents surrounding Devils Lake are dealing with. However, an investment is required and quickly. The longer it is left, the greater the damage undertaken both monetarily in terms of resources and as a toll on individuals.

The solution is a joint approach to the installation of the high tech filter and it should be done in an expeditious way. It is time to stop talking and time to start doing.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the same question I asked her colleague a few minutes ago. What has been done or has anything been done, any study or work entered into and particularly led by the two senior federal levels of government, to redistribute this water in a different way to parts of the U.S. that are obviously experiencing great drought at the moment?

I was at a meeting last night in Sault Ste. Marie. There is a concern that the levels of the Great Lakes have dropped significantly in the last few years and we have an drought in that area. For the last 10 years we have had above normal temperatures and below normal levels of water in that area. We are afraid that some of our water will be taken and diverted into areas, particularly in the U.S., where they are experiencing a need for more water.

Has anything been done or any effort made to look at the potential to take the water now collecting in the area of Devils Lake and distribute it in some way to other parts of the U.S. and put to better use than simply backing it up into Manitoba and making worse an already difficult situation there? I hear there are floods every year in the Red River valley.