The $475 million investment nearly doubles U.S. federal
spending on Great Lakes priorities. The money will be
spent on cleaning up toxic pollution, fighting invasive
species, restoring habitat, non-point pollution
issues, and monitoring results.
(click image to enlarge in new window)

The Environmental Protection Agency just completed a series of public meetings to collect public comment and determine the best way to implement President Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

A total of eight meetings took place in cities across the Great Lakes. The meetings were well attended by the public, NGOs, and state and federal agencies.

Cameron Davis, special advisor to the U.S. EPA, set the tone before a full auditorium in East Lansing, Michigan, by calling for “urgency, action, and accountability.”

“We know the lakes are hurting, it is time for action,” Davis said.

In Rochester, New York, a packed room voiced strong support for the new commitment to Great Lakes restoration. Commenters stressed accountability, as well as the need to address tributary and watershed deterioration, to coordinate with Canada, and to access the expertise at the local level.

The EPA hopes to maximize the effectiveness of the initiative by hearing from those with on-the-ground knowledge of the priorities in restoring the Great Lakes and what might be missing from the draft outline.

Comments geared toward the draft were consistent and solutions-based. Amongst the comments, a theme of collaboration, public education, health, and prevention of invasive species resonated.

The Restoration Initiative aims to fund projects through a grant process. Projects that tackle problems such as toxic pollution, invasive species, near-shore health and non-point source pollution, habitat and wildlife protection, and evaluation that are considered “shovel-ready” will be considered strong contenders.

This funding is also intended to be a new source of funds. It is not intended to supplant existing resources.

The amount to be allocated in the 2010 budget is still being fine tuned. The House of Representatives has passed the initiative at $475 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $400 million. Once the full EPA budget is approved the total amount of the Initiative will be determined. The total is expected to be between $400 and $475 million. This investment increases federal Great Lakes environmental funding to about $1 billion annually.

These funds are the first installment of a $5 billion dollar Great Lakes trust fund that Obama promised during last year’s presidential election. Eleven agency and cabinet organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Homeland Security, for example, head-up the development and implementation of the Initiative.

If you would like to learn more about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, visit www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri. The new grant proposals to restore the Great Lakes are being accepted this fall, with over half of the 2010 total federal funding to be allocated at the local and state level.

Melinda Koslow is the Regional Campaign Manager for the Safeguards Program at the National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Regional Center. She can be reached at koslowm@nwf.org.

In this case, the rumours were true. In a special ceremony on the Rainbow Bridge across the Niagara River, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the announcement with Niagara Falls as her backdrop.

“In its current form, the Great Lakes Agreement does not sufficiently address the needs of our shared ecosystem. So I’m pleased to announce that Canada and the United States have agreed to update the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,” said Clinton.

Her Canadian counter-part, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, while never explicitly mentioning the Agreement, echoed the importance of cooperation in sharing the waters of the Great Lakes, remarking “Today, the Great Lakes face a number of new challenges. As a result, we are taking new steps to protect them. We will work together to ensure that citizens of both countries have access to clean, safe, and healthy water, that there is a reliable and secure supply.”

For advocates of Great Lakes protection, Clinton and Cannon’s comments were an encouraging sign that the federal governments are clearly focussed on protecting these vital waters.

The governments hope to have a revised GLWQA signed in about a year. The governments have stated that the Agreement will still focus on water quality but that it will be updated to address invasive species, new chemicals of concern, and to make use of our improved knowledge of how to protect the ecosystem.

The two federal governments held a preliminary meeting at the end of July and plan to hold another meeting in late September. At the September meeting, they hope to have agreement on the workplan for renegotiating the Agreement. The Canadian federal government plans to set up a multi-stakeholder committee to advise it throughout the negotiation process. The U.S. government has not yet said what methods it will use for public involvement.

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has been the catalyst for major initiatives to clean up and protect the Great Lakes. The Agreement was first signed by Prime Minister Trudeau and President Nixon in 1972 to address the excessive nutrient loadings that were literally strangling Lake Erie and causing severe damage in the other Great Lakes. It was subsequently revised in 1978 and 1987, again using trail blazing world-leading science on pollution prevention and setting a new global standard with concepts like virtual elimination and zero discharge.

Since the last renegotiation, the Agreement has begun to stagnate as new and unforeseen challenges threaten the lakes. From climate change to invasive species, to new chemicals of concern, the current Agreement is ill-equipped to tackle these problems.

Great Lakes United has been working with its allies to give voice to the public’s desire for a reinvigorated agreement. In 2007, the coalition identified 13 principles to guide renegotiation and they are now working to further detail these and ensure that they are included in the Agreement.

Mythologized as the world’s longest undefended border, a new era of heightened security concerns have changed the way border communities interact with their international counterparts.

In March of this year, I was excited to be back on the water, putting my kayak in a section of the river that I knew would be free of ice in early spring. After a short hour-long paddle very close to the American shore, some other individuals knew that section of the river would be ice free: Border Patrol. Acting upon a supposed “call from a concerned citizen” I was greeted at my car by an unmarked Border Patrol vehicle. Before our encounter was over, four more Border Patrol trucks had the parking lot secured.

By the end of the meeting, the Border Patrol officers and I were laughing about the situation. But, it is a reminder that there is a lot more occurring on the narrow connecting channels of the Great Lakes than the flow of water. As vast as the Lakes are, there are only a few areas where you can pass over the lakes easily.

And while humans may have trouble crossing an arbitrary and imaginary line in the water, other creatures do it without second thought. The Niagara River, which separates New York from Ontario for about 37 miles, connects Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and includes the mighty Niagara Falls. It is also recognized as a vital corridor for bird migration. These cross border regions are essential to the vitality of the entire system.

On any given day, the free movement of people, goods, and animals happens without any noticeable resistance, until one side of the equation shifts the equilibrium.

One of the busiest border crossings, the Peace Bridge does not do much to inspire. In a city known for its architectural achievements, calls for a ‘signature bridge’ were quieted last year when the flight pattern of the common tern, an endangered species, was found to be disrupted by the cables of a proposed bridge design.

A year later, our community is divided on this and other issues, such as where an expanded plaza for the Department of Homeland Security should be located. While Fort Erie may have more available land, sovereignty and economic concerns have left the proposed plaza on top of about 80 homes on Buffalo’s Lower West Side and part of Fredrick Law Olmsted’s park system.

Regardless of which side of the issue you find yourself, the fact remains that I am still kayaking under the same dreary bridge that was built in 1927. For a task that seems relatively simple to many, the cross-border social, economic, and ecological realities are all too apparent in Peace Bridge discussions.

In spite of the debates and controversies, this past April, signs of life on the Niagara River persisted. New man-made habitats were constructed for the common tern near the breakwaters of the Buffalo Harbor, just south of the Peace Bridge and the crew teams of the West Side Rowing Club have begun preparing for their spring regattas on the Black Rock Canal.

Just as American college students will always cross over to Niagara Falls, Ontario to enjoy the lower drinking age and Canadian shoppers will continue to take the trip over the bridge to enjoy the lower sales taxes, life in our border communities will continue for the bird, fish, and other animals that do not realize they are zig-zagging across an international boundary that has been peacefully managed for 100 years.

Water Quality – A Treaty After-Thought

Where the Boundary Waters Treaty has been seen as leading on environmental matters is in what appears as an add-on sentence at the end of Article IV: “It is further agreed that the waters …. shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other side.”

This sentence has been used as the foundation for some of the most significant and forward thinking developments in pollution prevention and control in the world. It is the basis under which the governments have referred boundary pollution matters to the IJC for study and recommendations, and is the source for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

The other significant aspect of this sentence is its absolutist nature: it implies that no injury is allowed. This strong language has led to phrases such as “virtual elimination” and “zero discharge” in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

While this statement has been used to make dramatic advances in environmental protection, the phrasing is consistent with the rest of the treaty in that it is only concerned with human health and property interests – not the ecosystem.

Agreeing on Water Use

While great gains have been made on protecting the water quality as a result of the treaty, it’s original intention was to quell potential conflict and discern who can do what with the water. The greatest areas of contention in this regard were over navigation rights and water rights for hydroelectric energy production.

When the treaty was drafted in 1909, there was already conflict over access to the great navigational potential that the Great Lakes provided. While road, rail and air travel have since come to dominate the transportation network of today, ships were a more significant component of the early 20th century transportation network.

Drawing a line through such large bodies of water like the Great Lakes may work on a map, but is pretty impractical on the water. To overcome the disputes the treaty guaranteed access for both Canadian and U.S. ships to all the waters of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, including Canadian access to Lake Michigan – a lake fully within the U.S. boundary.

As industrial output in the region continued to grow into the 20th century, the tremendous hydro-power potential of Niagara Falls and the St. Marys River was in the eyes of developers on both sides of the border. The potential of the St. Lawrence River would later be addressed under the treaty.

The BWT set up a mechanism to resolve conflicts over access to the waters of the Great Lakes to generate electricity. One of its provisions is that Canada and the U.S. will have “equal and similar rights in the use of the waters.”

To play the role of referee, the International Joint Commission (IJC) was established. Among other responsibilities, the IJC would make decisions around the flow of water in order to protect navigational power generation interests.

The BWT specified an “order of precedence” that must be used when making decisions about water flows and use. Nowhere in this list, nor anywhere else in the treaty, is protection of the environment and ecological function for non-human purposes mentioned. Instead, the list ranks priorities starting with domestic and sanitary purposes, followed by navigation, then power generation and irrigation.

Eco-what? Environmental-who?

The absence of environmental considerations has left us where we are today, where decisions to protect navigational and power generation interests have resulted in major destruction of the environment. This is especially evident upstream of the Moses-Saunders power plant in the St. Lawrence River.

While Article VIII does include a provision for the “protection and indemnity against injury of all interests on the other side of the line which may be injured thereby”, this has traditionally been defined as direct human interests, such as shoreline owners – not the environment.

The non-environmental nature of the BWT is a major cause of the conflicts that the IJC now finds itself in as it conducts major reviews of flows and levels in the lower Great Lakes (Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River) and in the upper Great Lakes (Lakes Erie through Lake Superior).

For all the criticisms leveled at the IJC, they are bound by the language of the Boundary Waters Treaty. It will take all the creativity the IJC can muster to protect the environment within the strictures of the BWT.

If the treaty is to truly live up to its mythology, the Canadian and U.S. federal governments must revise the BWT and turn it into an environmental treaty. However, the prospect of getting a revised treaty through the U.S. Senate and the Canadian Parliament is an overwhelming thought.

Equal Rights and Binationalism

For as long as Canada existed, a fear of U.S. domination has been strong in the national psyche.

Built into the BWT are critical safeguards that ensure equal rights and treatment under the treaty. This includes the provision that each country will have equal rights to the use of the waters, a guarantee of access to all waters of the Great Lakes system for navigation purposes, and an equal number of Canadian and U.S. appointees on the IJC and on all its boards.

With equal representation on the IJC, no decision can be made without support from commissioners on both sides of the border, though traditionally the IJC has made decisions by consensus.

The binational approach that favours a cooperative search for shared solutions to problems in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin is an invaluable outcome of how the BWT has developed over the past century. If, as scientists predict, the abundance of the waters of the Great Lakes basin can no longer be taken for granted in the coming century, this situation may change.

Conflicts over water use will escalate and the Canadian and U.S. governments may find it harder to come to shared solutions around the use and flows of water in the basin. And the damage to the ecosystem will also increase.

While 100 years of the Boundary Waters Treaty has, on the whole, led to the successful navigation of the waters of international relations, there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so. Without any overt environmental considerations, it is unclear whether the regime it establishes will be up to the challenges of the next century.

Three years ago, nearly 200 scientists said we had less than a decade to turn around the spiraling decline of the Great Lakes ecosystem, or it might collapse entirely. In 2009, the lakes are still beleaguered by the unfinished clean-ups of the last century, and the new, complex stresses of more than 100 invasive species, the return of dead zones, algae, a new generation of chemical pollution, and a warming climate with more extreme weather.
Among scientists and citizens, the Great Lakes are on the “can’t wait” list.

Unfortunately, during Obama and Harper’s meeting in Ottawa, the Great Lakes were not placed on the leaders’ list. While there was a lot to cover in this brief visit, one would think that the engine that drives the third largest economy in the world—the trans-boundary Great Lakes region—would have been on the short list.

In 2008 the Brookings Institute pointed out that the lubricant for this massive economic engine is the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, decades of environmental degradation have lessened this competitive advantage and have brought Great Lakes health to a tipping point. The Brookings Institute concluded that improved environmental protection is essential for the economic well-being of the Great Lakes region. They asserted that this requires a binational effort that commits to shared goals. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is a prime tool for achieving this binational effort.

Since 1972, the Agreement has played an important role in shaping the efforts of the United States and Canada in their effort to protect and restore the freshwater treasure we hold in common. It sets out the two countries’ shared goals and plans for protecting and restoring the lakes and has led to major initiatives to clean up and protect them. Yet, for much of the last decade the Agreement has only collected dust.

Leaders in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River region, have repeatedly asserted that now is the time to update and revitalize the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These voices are coming from all sectors, including environmental and wildlife conservation groups, scientists, industry, the broader public, in addition to federal, provincial, state, aboriginal, tribal, and municipal governments.

This is why more than fifty groups sent a joint letter to Prime Minister Harper and President Obama calling on them to formally state that, beginning this year, they will  revitalize and revise the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement within the context of 21st century challenges. The letter also urged them to involve the public in the decision-making process around revising and implementing the Agreement.

Unfortunately, the leaders did not make this commitment at their meeting. Yet, the activities that produced the letter did raise the profile of the need for a renewed Agreement among people in government across many jurisdictions. It also led to considerable media coverage, getting the words “Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement” into the press for the first time in many years. And perhaps most importantly, it provided a catalyst for environmental and conservation groups from across the region to collaborate on strategies and to make plans to move forward on revitalizing this important framework for Great Lakes protection.

We will continue to urge President Obama and Prime Minister Harper to forge a new, bold partnership in binational problem solving for the Great Lakes through a renewed Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Doing so will help revitalize our struggling economies, improve public health, and help buffer the inexorable ecological disruptions from our changing climate.
jjackson@glu.org
jane@janeelderstrategies.com

“Seaway acts to flush Great Lakes invaders”
– Muskegon Chronicle, May 6, 2008

After years of watching new invasive species arrive in the ballast tanks of ocean ships, the St. Lawrence Seaway has finally put in place measures to address ships that arrive in the Great Lakes with “no ballast on board” but still harboring residual water—and invaders—at the bottom of their tanks. In addition to ballasted ships flushing their tanks out in the open sea, these ships are now also required to flush, killing or purging many invaders that may be lurking. While this is not an 100% effective measure, and we must continue to press towards ships meeting national discharge standards, it represents a significant step forward in protecting the Great Lakes.

“IJC abandons gutless plan for dam”
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 18, 2008

Activists from across the region rallied to prevent the International Joint Commission from implementing a management plan for the Moses-Saunders Dam that would have damaging effects on coastal habitat. “Plan 2007” would maintain the status quo for managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River levels. American Rivers has suggested that these management practices have made the St. Lawrence one of America’s most threatened rivers. The IJC is now working on a broader, more inclusive, process for developing a water levels plan that would benefit the environment after suffering 50 years of damage.

“Montreal Selects New Sewage Treatment Technology”

On January 30, 2008, the city of Montreal announced that, after years of study, ozone will be the disinfection technology implemented at its sewage treatment plant. According to the Mayor of Montreal, Gérald Tremblay, it is a big step forward in improving the water quality of the St. Lawrence River and for the benefit of Montrealers and residents downstream.

The ozone technology meets the requirements of Montreal wastewater, in addition to dealing with emerging substances. The Montréal sewage treatment plant treats 2.5 million cubic meters of water daily, about 50 per cent of all wastewater in Quebec. From the perspective of sustainability, this disinfection process takes into account the elimination of viruses and bacteria, emerging new compounds, including pharmaceuticals and surfactants (detergents).

“Congress Passes Great Lakes Legacy Act”
–Targeted News Service, October 1, 2008

Before adjourning for the fall, Congress reauthorized the Great Lakes Legacy Act, providing $54 million per year to clean up toxic pollution across the region. Funding from the legislation is being used to clean up such pollution as contaminated sediments Indiana’s Grand Calumet River (an Area of Concern) and Milwaukee’s Kinnickinnic River.

Congress passes historic Great Lakes protection
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 23, 2008

After seven years of negotiating the agreements and passing them in the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, and Quebec, the Great Lakes Compact and its sister international agreement became law this fall. The agreements represent the strongest protections in Great Lakes history against harmful diversions and introduce strict conservation standards for the regions most wasteful water users.

“Minnesota Voters in 2008 Approve $5.5 Billion to Protect Land and Water”
Marketwatch, November 5, 2008

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Cultural Heritage and Natural Area amendment to Minnesota’s constitution was passed on November 4, raising $300 million every year for 25 years. The funds will go toward cleaning up polluted waters and lands, establishing conservation easements, and other projects to ensure a environmental legacy for future Minnesotans.

As the United States’ two-year presidential saga crescendoed to a fever pitch in the days leading up to November 4—the call for “change” echoing across the country— Canadians found themselves also going to the polls based on a snap election widely criticized as a manoeuvre of political opportunism.

Characterizing the current parliament as dysfunctional and ineffective, Prime Minister Stephen Harper went to Canadians a year ahead the fix election date his government passed, asking for a renewed mandate for governing. In reality, he was hoping to increase the number of seats for the party, giving him enough to form a majority government with which he could push his plans forward unhindered by the opposition.

Six weeks later, little had changed. The Conservatives had only gained 19 seats, ten short of a majority. The New Democratic Party was able to gain eight seats, while the Bloc Quebecois lost two. The Liberal Party took a drudging, losing 26 seats and falling to their lowest representation in parliament in over 20 years.

This utter lack of change offers a sharp contrast to an historical election in the United States.

When U.S. voters took to the polls they elected the country’s first African-American president, Barack Obama. A Senator from Chicago, Obama made significant inroads in traditionally Republican territory across the country, beating out political veteran, Senator John McCain. At the same time, the Democratic Party solidified their majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Now that the dust has settled, what do these two elections mean for the Great Lakes?

A Great Lakes President

Consistently, protecting the Great Lakes has cut across party lines and been a clear bipartisan issue. During the U.S. campaign, both presidential nominees signed a pledge, committing to passing restoration legislation during their term. No matter who would win the election, there was good reason to be hopeful that the 44th president would be a positive force for the Great Lakes.

During the campaign Obama released a $5 billion plan to “jumpstart” Great Lakes restoration. The plan includes an aggressive approach to toxics cleanup, as well as a “zero toxics” policy for identifying and reducing toxic pollution. Invasive species would also be a priority, with the government taking steps to stop the discharge of invasive species from ballast water and preventing future introductions to the lakes.

The plan would also create a Great Lakes coordinator, who would prioritize the coordination of federal, state and local agencies.

The Impacts of a Hurting Economy

Of course, a $5 billion spending plan is great, if the money is there to spend. The United States currently carries a $10 trillion debt, with outgoing-president Bush’s 2009 budget showing a deficit of just over $400 billion. With the markets tumbling, finding the funds for new spending will be difficult for the next president.

“What is likely to be a prolonged and severe recession makes it difficult to launch climate change or energy initiatives that are perceived as hurting the economy,” said Michael Kraft, professor with the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.

“But [this is] a good time for green jobs initiatives as part of a federal economic stimulus. Obama emphasized investing in these kinds of jobs during the campaign as a way to integrate environmental and economic concerns.”

The Canadian government finds itself in a better financial position, but the ailing economy is still having an effect. Manufacturing jobs, the core of Ontario’s economy, are disappearing and the province is now considered a “have-not” province, eligible to receive funding from the federal equalization program. The program redistributes money contributed by each province and territory to ensure balanced services across the country.

Renewing International Cooperation

Cleaning up the Great Lakes depends on the cooperation of both federal governments. With the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement up for possible renegotiation, the degree to which either country is willing to work on international environmental concerns will be a true test of their commitment to the Great Lakes.

“The current [United States] administration has been a real disappointment when it comes to working with other countries on environmental issues. I think there is a real change to come,” said Kraft.

In Canada, the re-election of the Conservative Party brought with it a cabinet shuffle. With the Water Quality Agreement on the table, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will play an increasingly important role. The new minister of foreign affairs is Lawrence Cannon from Quebec. He was first elected in 2006, when he became minister of transport.

As of press time, Obama has offered the position of Secretary of State to New York senator, Hillary Clinton.

Pundits have commented that the new cabinet was designed to be friendly toward the new administration in the United States. Just days after the U.S. election, Canadian officials had proposed a climate change pact between the two countries. The pact is considered a means of getting Canada onto the already busy agenda of the president-elect, while also ensuring the United States looks to Canada as an energy supplier. Whether this is indicative of a greater willingness to work binationally on environmental issues or a means of selling more Alberta oil (and further ravaging the environment) is unclear; only time will tell.

What will the emphasis be on the environment?

Over the past fifteen years, the staffing and budget for Environment Canada have been substantially reduced. Previous environment minister John Baird sent a briefing to the Treasury Board at the beginning of this year stating his intention to further cut the budget for the ministry by approximately twenty percent over the next several years.

Since the cabinet shuffle, Baird has been moved to Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, with Calgary MP Jim Prentice taking over the environment portfolio. Environmentalists fear that a re-elected Harper government will follow through on the budget cuts that Baird announced. This will inevitably result in further destruction of the capacity of Environment Canada to carry out programs to protect the environment, including those programs directly affecting the Great Lakes.

While Obama still has thousands of appointments to make in lead-up to the January inauguration, the environment can only increase in relevance compared to the Bush administration, which rarely gave environmental concerns a strong consideration.

The appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff is a positive indication. Emmanuel, a member of the House of Representatives, has been a devoted champion for the Great Lakes, including sponsoring comprehensive restoration legislation in 2003.

The Road Ahead

While there has been tremendous change (and also tremendous lack of change), citizens will need to continue to pressure governments on both sides of the border to act to clean up the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. While opponents may still try to drive a wedge between the economy and the environment, there is much potential for 2009 to be an exceptional year for the Great Lakes, but these gains will only be made by continuing to pressure both governments to identify this region’s health as a top priority.

By Brent Gibson & John Jackson

UPDATE: Governor General sends Federal Parties to the corner to think about what they’ve done

In early December, the Canadian federal government delivered an economic update to Parliament. Typically the update is a relatively minor event in the life of a government, but for Canada’s Conservative Party, it nearly toppled them.

The update contained three aspects that opposition parties refused to support: the absence of stimulus spending, the elimination of election funding for parties who garner a certain amount of public support, and the elimination of the right to strike for public servants, some of whom have expiring contracts to renegotiate in the coming months.

While the government cited the need to tighten the spending belt during an economic downturn, the measures were widely considered strongly partisan, with the election financing decision a particularly aggressive move to undermine, if not cripple, the opposition partys’ ability to stage an election campaign.

Several years ago the then Liberal government under Jean Chretien put in place strong limits on corporate and union donations to political parties. In exchange, parties that earned at least the 5 per cent of the popular vote in a federal election would be granted approximately $2 for every vote earned.

This amounts to approximately $30 million in taxpayer support of political parties. Contrast this to the recent snap election which cost taxpayers ten times that amount at $300 million.

For the Liberal Party and the NDP, this funding is critical, since both parties previously relied on corporate and union support. For the Conservative Party, with a much stronger grassroots fundraising base, the cut would have much less of an effect, despite that they take the most from the pot since they earned the most votes.

The opposition parties refused to vote in favour of the update. Considered a “confidence motion”, if the bill failed to pass parliament the government would be defeated, and the governor general — the Queen’s representative in Canada — would have to decide whether to call an election or ask the the leader of the opposition if they could form a government with the support of the other parties of the House.

In lead up to the vote, the Liberal Party and NDP signed upon a power-sharing agreement to form a government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, which agreed to support the coalition government on any confidence motion for 18 months.

Realizing that there was no way to avoid defeat in parliament on December 8, and that the governor general would likely grant the opposition the chance to lead, Prime Minister Harper met with the Governor General on the Thursday prior to ask her to exercise a third option: prorogue parliament. This would mean suspending parliament until late January, when the Conservatives are expected to deliver a full budget.

In the wake of the Governor General’s decision to prorogue, Liberal leader Stephané Dion stepped down. While he had already announced his resigination, he intended to remain interim leader until a May leadership convention crowned a new chief. However, after wide criticism for how he and his staff handled the political crisis, there was a strong desire to put a new leader in place before Parliament returned in January.

In the end, leadership front-runner Micheal Ignatieff was named interim leader after the other two leadership candidates, Dominic LeBlanc and Bob Rae, stepped down.

Ignatieff has not shown strong support for the coalition, and with his leadership there is a strong likelihood that the government will survive a confidence motion over the budget in January, presuming it is includes a significant stimulus package. The other two factors that precipitated all this — party funding and the public service’s right to strike — have already been taken off the table.

“This ranking should be a wake-up call to all who care about the St. Lawrence River and the diversity of its plants, wildlife and fish. We must change the rules by which decisions are made as to how much water is allowed to flow through the hydro dam at Cornwall-Massena,” said John Jackson of Great Lakes United.

American Rivers points to the Moses-Saunders Dam near Cornwall, Ontario and Massena, New York as a key threat to the River. Built nearly 50 years ago, environmental considerations were not part of the planning process. As a result, the plan does not allow for the natural variability essential for a healthy river, but instead significantly limits the range of water level fluctuations.

“The environment of the St. Lawrence River is a vital part of the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem, but so often is treated as an afterthought in water management plans,” said Jackson.

The International Joint Commission is currently reviewing the management plan for the dam and the way it will control river flow. Earlier this spring, the IJC recommended an option that would essentially maintain the status quo that has prevailed for the past half century.

Many environmental and conservation organizations within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River region point to a different option – Plan B+ – as a better solution from the IJC’s recommendation. Proponents argue that this plan provides the best balance between the environment, navigation, and hydro power needs.

“Plan B+ is the only plan that will deliver a healthy Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River,” said Jennifer Caddick of Save The River. “It delivers environmental benefits by allowing the natural variability necessary for healthy wetlands, which has been lacking in the last 50 years of water levels management.”

On April 23 the government of Ontario announced their support of Plan B+. Natural Resources Minister Donna Cansfield said that the Ontario government believes that plan B+ “takes steps toward emulating the natural flow pattern of water flow and level variability that existed before the dam was built in the 1950s.” She also stated that they felt that Plan B+ better balances the needs of the other interests with the needs of the natural system than does the proposal put forward by the IJC.

The International Joint Commission is currently undergoing public consultation on their proposed plan. The consultation period ends on July 11.

Since the dam’s completion in 1958, the ecosystem of the St. Lawrence River has suffered substantial losses to its globally significant biodiversity due to unnatural and damaging water levels regulation. Water levels have been artificially constrained causing a loss of biodiversity in coastal wetlands and significant impacts to many fish species and nesting water birds.

The St. Lawrence River is vital to the high quality of life enjoyed by those who live along its banks and it is home to a rich diversity of fish and wildlife species. Yet, so long as an antiquated management plan remains in place, the vibrance of this ecosystem will continue to fade, with serious consequences for the people and animals who depend on the river.

Commissioner Ron Thompson gives the federal government poor marks in many areas, several directly affecting the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.

“Progress in nine areas is unsatisfactory largely because the government did not follow through on its own commitments to strengthen protection of the environment,” Thompson stated during a press conference in Ottawa.

Of the topics of most direct import to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River, the Commissioner concluded that progress had been “unsatisfactory” on protection of species at risk, control of aquatic invasive species, and restoration of the most heavily polluted areas in the Great Lakes. He concluded that progress had been “satisfactory” on chemicals management.
The main recurring themes around the failure of the Federal government were: a failure to conduct adequate environmental assessments when developing policies and programs; a lack of commitment at the senior levels of government; and lack of resources dedicated to environmental protection.

Protection of Species at Risk

Progress here was determined to be unsatisfactory because of the federal government’s failure to develop a comprehensive inventory of species at risk, failure to complete recovery strategies for species at risk (only 55 of the necessary 228 plans were completed), and failure to identify critical habitat.

Control of Aquatic Invasive Species

The Commissioner found that the federal government’s progress was “unsatisfactory” on this threat, which can “fundamentally change the environment they occupy and, by extension, affect its economic value in terms of beneficial uses.” He found that the rate at which new alien species are becoming established in Canada exceeds the rate at which the Department is assessing risks, that Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not have mechanisms in place for early detection and rapid response to new invasive species, and failure to monitor and report on compliance with federal legislation on ballast water.

Areas of Concern in Great Lakes Basin

The Commissioner also found that progress was “unsatisfactory” in cleaning up these toxic hotspots. The main problems identified by the Commissioner were: failure to clarify who is responsible for carrying out and paying for each remedial action and failure to set timelines for remedial actions. He identified two high-cost types of problems as of greatest concern in the government’s failure to make progress: contaminated sediments, and overloaded municipal wastewater systems.

Chemicals Management

The Commissioner found progress on chemical management to be “satisfactory” primarily because of progress in conducting risk assessments under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Resources in Environment Canada and Health Canada were adjusted to assist in review of 4,300 substances.

In early February, the Center for Public Integrity released a government report on public health conditions and exposure to toxics in the U.S. toxic hotspots. This report had been blocked from release for seven months because, according to the Center for Public Integrity, the U.S. government thought it was “too hot for the public to handle.” Almost ten years earlier similar reports were hidden from the Canadian public for eleven months for similar reasons.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) report found that there were “over 15,000 instances where contaminants of concern were found at levels above health-screening values in a variety of media (i.e., water, air, and soil).”

The report concludes, “While no causal inferences or associations are made in this report, of the 26 AOCs [Areas of Concern], elevated rates were observed for infant mortality in 21 AOCs, low birth weight in 6 AOCs, and premature births in 4 AOCs. Elevated cancer mortality was also seen for breast cancer in 17 AOCs, colon cancer in 16 AOCs, and lung cancer in 12 AOCs.”

The report also found that over nine million people live in the AOC areas where these toxic releases are occurring. They estimated that almost a quarter million “vulnerable populations” live within one mile of hazardous waste sites in these communities. ATSDR defines children less than six years old, reproductive-age women, and older adults as the vulnerable.

Upon the request of the International Joint Commission in 2001, the ATSDR put together this report on the public health implications of hazardous substances found in the twenty-six AOCs on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes. For each of these AOCs, the ATSDR gathered data on public health assessments for hazardous waste sites, on releases of hazardous materials as reported in the Toxics Release Inventory and as allowed under discharge permits, and on health incidences as reported by county health departments.

This data was summarized in a 400-page report entitled Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern. After extensive review by outside experts, the report was scheduled for release in July 2007, but at the last minute the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention withheld the report. Dr. Christopher De Rosa, then director of the agency’s toxicology and environmental health division, pressed for the immediate release of the report stating that the delay would give “the appearance of censorship of science and distribution of factual information regarding the health status of vulnerable communities.” Dr. De Rosa has subsequently been demoted. Seven months later the Center for Public Integrity managed to obtain a copy of the report and released it.

Déjà Vu

Almost ten years ago a similar burying of public health information in toxic hotspots occurred on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. Health Canada’s Great Lakes Health Effects Program prepared an analysis of health statistics for each of the Canadian AOCs that “may be linked to exposure to environmental contaminants.” This statement was in the introduction of the report for each of the seventeen AOCs. While not directly making a cause and effect link, each report stated what kinds of chemicals are known to result in each kind of health problem. For example, in seven of the Ontario AOCs, they found early labour or threatened pregnancy. They noted that this may be affected by PCBs and DDT body burden.

The Health Canada reports were all printed and ready for release by November 1998. The government, however, withheld them and they weren’t released until almost a year later in October 1999. This was only because the government was forced to after community activists gained access to them and gave them to a news reporter. The Health Canada release was brief, however, and they were quickly removed from their website and buried again. Shortly thereafter, Health Canada closed down its ground-breaking Great Lakes Health Effects Program.

The human health aspect in Great Lakes toxic hotspots has always been a controversial aspect of the remedial action planning process, which is usually dealt with by simply not acknowledging it. It is important, however, that, despite the difficulty of making direct cause-effect linkages, the public be given access to data such as that in the U.S. and Canadian studies. The fear that it will create unreasonable responses by the public is an insult to those who are working so hard to clean up and protect their communities. Instead they should be given as much information as possible so they can make informed decisions about what further explorations and clean-up actions are needed.