Canadian leaders hope trade negotiations won’t derail Columbia River Treaty

The Columbia River Treaty — and what will happen next between Canadian and U.S. governments — has been the talk of the town in British Columbia. The 61-year-old treaty lays key roles in flood risk management and water flow on the Columbia River.

“ This is for people in British Columbia. Really important, and people have talked about it, but for the people of the Columbia Basin, this is visceral. This is part of their lives and histories and souls,” said Adrian Dix, the British Columbian Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions.

Dix spoke at a virtual meeting hosted by the British Columbian government about the future of the treaty. People were so interested that more than 600 signed into the meeting. Webinar officials had to limit the size of the talk.

“ I get asked (whether Canadian officials will cancel the treaty) from time to time in the local Save-On-Foods, for example, on the weekend again,” he said, referring to a Canadian grocery store chain.

That’s not the plan, he said. 

Pausing negotiations for new U.S. administrations to consider policy changes isn’t unusual. This time around, though, tariff threats and trade disputes aren’t all helpful, Dix said.

 ”These really vicious anti-Canadian attacks made on us cause concern and cause concern in the context that we are in,” he said. “With respect to the Columbia River Treaty, we are preparing for any action the American government might take and will continue to defend Canadian and British Columbian interests.” 

For years now, the U.S. and Canada have worked out ways to modernize the Columbia River Treaty, which was ratified in 1964. Updates include considerations for salmon, including Indigenous viewpoints and changes to water storage. The treaty would have expired last year, but negotiators hammered out a potential agreement.

The “agreement in principle” isn’t legally binding until it’s ratified.

However, the treaty won’t be used as a “bargaining chip” in trade negotiations, Dix said.

The U.S. Department of State didn’t answer specific questions sent by email.

Dix said Canadian negotiators are ready to re-engage in talks when the U.S. is ready. He said a modernized treaty would benefit both sides of the border.

In addition, this is the first time that Indigenous nations in Canada and the U.S. have “their own voice on the inside of an international negotiating treaty directly,” said Jay Johnson, the chief negotiator and senior policy adviser to the Chiefs Executive Council of the Okanagan Nation Alliance.

So far, there’s been a lot of collaboration with “tribal relatives in the U.S.,” Johnson said.

“ There are obviously some mutual interests that we have around salmon, around ecosystems, around cultural values, and we’ve worked hard to embed those into, into the agreement in principle,” he said.

However, having a seat at the table isn’t the same as having an “effective voice,” said Nathan Matthew, a Secwepemcw Nation member.

“ So lots of efforts being made to address what we feel are the rights that we have to sit and help with decisions and to deal with the infringements of all of the negative aspects of the construction of the dams and the operations to date. It’s not easy,” Matthew said.

The treaty has had broad support across the political spectrum, on both sides of the border, he said. The initial negotiations began under the first Trump administration.

If Canada or the U.S. decided to terminate the treaty, the current treaty would remain in effect for 10 more years while the current management system was dissolved, Dix said.

“ In short, Canadian action to terminate the treaty would have little effect on the current dispute and would obviously involve losses on all sides,” he said.

However, recent comments by President Donald Trump about the U.S. turning on the “large faucet” to Canadian water supplies isn’t how things work, Dix said.

Water flows across the border and is then in the hands of U.S. management.

“ The idea that Canada can supply water through the treaty for broad American needs is not accurate and is not a concern,” he said, “although it reflects, I think, the nature of the current debate and intentions expressed towards Canada in the American government.”