Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate on the motion put forward by the MP for Kenora, which deals with the incredibly important issue around the Lake of the Woods. He has well described the challenge at play, but I want to debunk a few of the comments he has made so it is clear on the record for Canadians.
The government has taken some important measures like water and waste water effluent regulations, but unfortunately it is not funding our municipalities to allow them to move forward to comply with those regulations over time. Something it refused to do when it was asked by the official opposition was to bring in clean green conditions and attach those conditions to its stimulus spending.
It is also fair to point out in the case of the motion and the history that the MP for Kenora has omitted to give considerable credit to the work of other parties. I am sure he would agree that it is important to recognize a decade a good work that has led to the backstopping of this motion, and not just the non-governmental organizations at play, the tourism groups, the chambers of commerce, first nations, businesses and so on. This has been strongly supported by the Premier of Ontario, my brother Dalton McGuinty, who for years has been deeply concerned about the Lake of the Woods challenge, and its local MPP Howard Hampton, who has been considerably interested in this issue for some time.
I also give some credit, and I hope the member would agree, to his predecessor Roger Valley, who was instrumental in helping to launch this in a significant way in 2004. After all, it was Mr. Valley who brought the Right Hon. Herb Gray, former deputy prime minister of Canada and then the IJC Commissioner for Canada, along with the Right Hon. John Turner, former prime minister of Canada, together in 2004 to facilitate a tour of the area to raise awareness of our Canadian commissioner to deal with this issue in the context of the International Joint Commission. It is important to reflect that Mr. Valley is still considerably concerned about this as is our Liberal candidate in the very same riding.
The motion deserves support because presently the International Joint Commission only deals with the question of water levels in the Lake of the Woods. It is a problem that transcends water levels by far. It is an idea whose has come. Increasingly we now know if we are to manage our watersheds properly, we have to approach management of waterways and freshwater lakes in a watershed context. We have seen that, for example, with some success in the Fraser River Basin in British Columbia.
There is work right in the backyard of the House of Commons, the mighty Ottawa River, which on a daily basis has five times the flow of every western European tributary combined. It is a massive and mighty river upon which most of this region and country has been built. The Ottawa River now is subject to all kinds of layers of complex governance, different provinces, the federal government, aboriginal peoples, users of that waterway, industrial concerns, ecotourism and beyond. In terms of the Ottawa River, which I am convinced is similar to the situation in the Lake of the Woods and its watershed, we now know that we have to progress in the 21st century to a new form of management, which is management by watershed.
The time has come to take this up with the United States. Canada must approach its binational partner in this context. What we are targeting here, what the member is trying to put forward and what so many good interests and good faith people are trying to see, is some kind of Great Lakes water quality agreement parallel applied to this watershed. The damage is now at the back end. We see the net effects of years of improper management and years of delay. It is good to see that six years later, after this was launched more politically by Mr. Valley, this is now the basis of a motion.
I also understand that the International Joint Commission has been helping informally in the region with water quality conferences, for example, and that it is more than seized with the immediate need to see this matter dealt with more comprehensively.
As I said earlier, it really is a question of asking our governments to partner with the United States to refer the matter formally to the International Joint Commission. It is a formal step, a legal step, that must be taken. Of course, that would presuppose the following, and it is something that I am sure the mover of the motion understands.
It means that not only would a reference be required, but funding for a reference would also have to be attached. We cannot ask the IJC, which has no programmatic funding of its own. I assume that the member is working through his own government, particularly with his minister of finance, to at least put a marker down that if this is going to pass through the House of Commons, there will be funding for this reference so that it can be dealt with appropriately at the International Joint Commission.
I say this because a reference to the IJC compels and implies public hearings. Public hearings would have to be conducted. It is quite a lengthy and arduous process. It is also a comprehensive one. I think the member understands that. Again, I would ask him to make sure, and I would of course be here to lend him support in his efforts, that the requisite funding for this reference actually is earmarked by the government's minister of finance.
A lot of folks are concerned about the state of water in Canada. The government has taken some steps. I commend the government, and always have, for its environmental enforcement measures brought to committee some time ago. It was a good piece of work that pre-dated the government and pre-dated my arrival in Parliament. A lot of folks deserve the credit for ratcheting up our standards around enforcement in the environmental area.
I would also hope that the member has in some respects spoken to the International Joint Commission. We have discussed this motion between ourselves and amongst our own caucuses. I would hope that he has spoken to the commission to ascertain its immediate and potential receptivity to receiving this reference, so that it is ready to hit the ground running should this motion pass the House and should it be properly resourced by the government in due course.
Going forward, the question of fresh water is unbelievably important, not just for Canada but also for the planet. We know that the amount of fresh water the planet now provides is presently being oversubscribed in 2010 by almost 40%. Almost 40% more fresh water is being used than the planet is capable of regenerating.
One of the things I hope would help inform this motion is that government would make a commitment to reinvesting seriously. It has talked about a national water strategy. The member has raised some elements of how they want to move forward. What we do not have is the kind of policy capacity left at Environment Canada or at Natural Resources Canada to perform the kind of hydrogeological studies that we need. We need more data and better evidence to be able to arrest these kinds of problems that we are seeing in the Lake of the Woods area before we see them get to a point where carrying capacity is compromised.
If there is anything that the Gulf of Mexico crisis is teaching us, it is that it is reminiscent of the old Fram oil filter from television, where a mechanic would stand in the mechanic's bay and say, “You can pay me now for the Fram oil filter, or you can pay me much later”, when the car is being towed in on the back of a tow truck, because they did not properly service the vehicle.
It is the same when it comes to our ecosystems and our eco services. What we are seeing, in the context of this motion, is a region and a watershed whose natural capital, as I describe it, has been drawn down so deeply, so aggressively and so quickly that we are now seeing problems with carrying capacity. Cottage owners, landowners, speculators and business owners are seeing their investments decline. The municipalities are seeing their tax revenues decline, because the net worth of those properties is being compromised.
The sports fisheries and the ecotourism operations, all of those things, begin to add up seriously. It is that integration of the environment and the economy that is fundamental to the 21st century. I think the mover of the motion, the member for Kenora, understands that. I am quite convinced it is implicit and part of the motion that he put forward.
On that note, I am pleased to support this motion and I look forward to further debate in due course.
