What others have said >

Montréal, Quebec, October 17, 2005

Key points presented at the public meeting

• For those of us living on the shores of the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes, part of our basic awareness must be to realize that when the water is in danger, we ourselves are in danger. We must develop a "culture of water."
  
  
• More notice is needed to prepare for the public meeting, as Quebecers are less familiar with the Agreement than those living in the Great Lakes basin.
  
  
• Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement must again become the mechanism for integrating Great Lakes issues and driving binational objectives. It was a pioneering Agreement, but has lost that quality in recent years. More binational collaboration is needed.
  
  
• A stronger preventative approach is needed. Identify threats to chemical, physical and biological integrity of the ecosystem and prevent them.
  
  
• The Agreement should contain timelines and deadlines against which progress is assessed.
  
  
• There should be citizen observers when the Agreement is reviewed following the precedent set in 1987.
  
  
• The Agreement should genuinely address the entire Great Lakes basin ecosystem, including the entire St. Lawrence River. Threats from outside the system, such as the warming of the planet, should be included.
  
  
• The problem of excessive algae, particularly in the Lake St. Louis portion of the St. Lawrence River, should be addressed.
  
  
• We are concerned about factors that reduce the supply of water, such as climate change. As the quantity of the water decreases, the concentration of contaminants will increase, particularly in the St. Lawrence River.
  
  
• The public depends on being consulted by the IJC on Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River issues. More public consultation is needed on everything concerning these waters.
  
  
• Activities on the shores, such as removal of trees, draining and filling of wetlands, pig farming and pumping of the highland lakes into the river, have contributed to elevated levels of phosphorus, phosphates and nitrates. Cynano-bacteria are being found in the St. Lawrence River for the first time.
  
  
• Projects, such as the Seaway expansion and diversion of water to the American southwest, threaten the St. Lawrence River. The U.S. Congress will decide who will get our water.
  
  
• The federal government must also participate in funding water treatment along the St. Lawrence River. Our infrastructure is outdated and inadequate.
  
  
• How can the Agreement be used to prevent diversions from one polluted watercourse to another? Diversions must be considered in the Agreement review.
  
  
• Citizens want to be able to safely bathe in the waters on the St. Lawrence and throughout the Great Lakes.
  
  
• The Boundary Waters Treaty and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement need to play a more prominent role in United States-Canada affairs, as was evidenced by the Devils Lake issue. The public needs to be more involved in this work.
  
  
• The claim brought by some Texan ranchers for tributary waters of the Rio Grande against Mexico shows that the North American Free Trade Agreement may override other domestic and international authorities.
  
  
• More information needs to be available in French from Great Lakes organizations. The IJC is one of the few Great Lakes organizations that makes French-language information available.
  
  
• The Agreement should take an approach similar to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point approach. In addressing environmental, aesthetic and health problems, one can typically target the 20 percent of the issue that causes 80 percent of the impacts.

Last update: