Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and teammate with FC Commoners for raising this issue and giving me a chance to reply.
As a resident of the greater drainage basin, my colleague understands why the Columbia River Treaty is important to the region.
The Columbia River Treaty between Canada and the United States is a 1964 agreement that regulates electricity cost and production.
The objective of this treaty was the creation of benefits that are to be shared equitably between Canada and the United States, and this remains the goal.
Based on the geography of the basin, it made sense to build three dams and reservoirs on the Canadian side that would provide flood protection and increase hydro power generation in the United States. In exchange for this benefit to the U.S., British Columbia received a one-time payment of $64 million for flood protection for 60 years.
The province also receives one-half of the incremental electrical power generated at U.S. hydro power facilities from the managed flows of water from Canada, which currently sits at around $100 million to $200 million per year.
In its more than 50 years, the treaty has protected our neighbours and helped provide hydroelectricity for basin residents on both sides of the border.
I should also add that, due to water storage and the managed flows, other benefits have also ensued. These include flexibility to allow for stable water levels for irrigation, navigation, and recreation. This amounts to benefits beyond those explicitly covered by the current treaty.
Now we are at a crossroads in the life of the Columbia River Treaty. A provision in the treaty allows either Canada or the United States to terminate it after 60 years, which as my hon. colleague mentioned, would be in 2024. Both countries have conducted reviews to determine what its future should be.
On the Canadian side, British Columbia, which through the 1963 agreement with Canada holds most of the obligations and benefits of the Columbia River Treaty, has led the review.
The United States recently completed its review and has indicated a desire to begin negotiations on the treaty's future. To begin negotiations, we need first to develop our negotiating mandate.
Until then, we continue to pursue informal discussions with our U.S. counterparts and intensify our side-by-side engagement with the province, first nations, and local Canadian communities.
Let me reassure the member opposite that we are working and will continue to work closely with those local communities, first nations, and the Government of British Columbia on the future of this treaty.
I would like to add that, when the treaty was first negotiated 60 years ago, the affected first nations were not consulted. Because of the treaty and activities involving the Columbia River in the decades preceding the Columbia River Treaty, first nations and residents of the drainage basin witnessed the loss of very valuable land and cultural sites and the demise of the salmon migration.
The repercussions are still making themselves felt in the form of dust storms and the loss of beaches and recreational opportunities. We cannot go back in time and change what happened, but this time, we will negotiate a new Columbia River treaty with the active participation of first nations and drainage basin residents.
I thank my hon. colleague for re-raising this issue.