What others have said >

Toronto, Ontario, November 9, 2005

Key points presented at the public meeting

Welcome from Mayor Miller

• Vision of a "drinkable, swimmable, fishable" Toronto Harbour.
• The "Big Pipe" is a local threat to Great Lakes water quality and proposed U.S. water diversions are a threat to Great Lakes water quantity.
• The revised Agreement must accentuate action and accountability and recognize the key role of local/municipal governments in its implementation.

Public

• Nutrients - especially phosphorus - from large market garden developments are causing algal blooms in Lake Simcoe. Factory farms are producing huge nutrient loadings to the Great Lakes. We still need to address phosphorous loadings in Hamilton Harbour. The IJC brought about the removal of phosphorous from detergents; it should deal with other nutrients too.
  
  
• Aquaculture is a major concern with respect to Great Lakes water quality because of loadings of nutrients, pharmaceuticals and antibiotics. More than 30,000 fish (rainbow trout) are held in each open-net cage and thousands have escaped during storms. Aquaculture should have the same regulations as land-based CAFOs (see the 2005 Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario).
  
  
• Pharmaceuticals are a growing threat to Great Lakes water quality, especially those from factory farms.
  
  
• Twenty thousand new chemicals are being introduced to commerce and released every year but they are not being tested for their toxicity. The two governments need to get serious about zero discharge: the Parties have not lived up to their GLWQA commitments regarding chemical releases and their agencies disagree about the effects of Great Lakes pollutants - they even deny that there has been any injury related to chemical releases.
  
  
• Health care for brain-damaged children is a "budget-buster," so the linkage to toxic chemicals has not been made. Why aren't chemicals profiled like potential terrorists? Chemicals are exempt because of the powerful chemical industry lobby. In their 1964 Reference to the IJC, the Parties noted that there was injury to human health due to transboundary pollutants as illustrated by deformities in fish-eating birds. Health Canada's 1999 report described significant health effects among residents of the 17 Canadian AOCs that included thousands of excess deaths and 40,000 excess hospitalizations in the Windsor AOC alone. Both Minimata disease and cerebral palsy related to chemical releases are suspected in the AOCs; nevertheless, the IJC has consistently omitted reference to these and related issues in their reports. Why did Health Canada remove their 17 Canadian AOC Human Health assessment reports from their website? Why have these reports been ignored?
  
  
• Zero discharge must be implemented for mercury. Zero discharge needs to be the goal.
  
  
• Human heath and the precautionary principle have to be central to a revised GLWQA but powerful lobbies are likely to prevent this.
  
  
• Contaminated sediments are probably the biggest problem in the Great Lakes and they are not being remediated by the Parties: they continue to jeopardize our "freshwater seas" legacy. We still need to address contaminated sediments in the Hamilton Harbour RAP.
  
  
• Invasive species (zebra mussels, round goby, Asian carp) are a major concern in Lake Simcoe (they can enter from the Great Lakes via the Trent/Severn system). Importation of invasive species in NOBOBs and in ballast water must be stopped.
  
  
• The hydrological cycle is key to the GLWQA. All four types of water in the Basin -surface water, groundwater, atmospheric water and metabolic water - must be in equilibrium.
  
  
• Each Great Lake has its unique hydrogeological and meteorological features and both water quality and water quantity need to be included in a revised Agreement.
  
  
• Groundwater flows are a concern in the Lake Simcoe region because of their direct connection to the lake.
  
  
• Aquifers are being pumped dry and ponds have dried up: which regulatory body is responsible to correct this?
  
  
• Deposition of airborne contaminants to Georgian Bay needs to be researched.
  
  
• Ontario will have new source water protection legislation this spring but why aren't the Great Lakes included as source waters?
  
  
• Urban sprawl is rampant throughout the Greater Toronto Area and local governments always upsize infrastructure to encourage more of the same due to powerful developers and their financial resources. Planning needs to be done at the watershed level but local governments don't understand this and aren't equipped or have the resources to implement watershed plans.
  
  
• Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Master Plan is a real milestone in municipal involvement in Great Lakes water quality and is a model that should be followed.
  
  
• As much water flows in trenches alongside sewer and water pipes in the Greater Toronto Area as flows in the pipes themselves; this has to be fixed.
  
  
• The Annex 2001 process has spawned fears of a U.S.-only GLWQA; the revised GLWQA must remain binational in scope. The Annex 2001 process has lots of lessons for revising the GLWQA: regional politics often get in the way of making progress on Great Lakes water quality. Annex 2001 issues need to be part of a revised GLWQA.
  
  
• The Chicago diversion is a major issue that the IJC should proactively address.
  
  
• Water levels in Georgian bay are down 4 feet since 1999. There has been major habitat loss for fish/amphibians/swans. The IJC needs to address declining water levels: wetlands are the lungs of our water bodies but 70 per cent of Great Lakes wetlands are gone, and population growth is a continuing threat to them. We still need to address marshland habitat in the Hamilton Harbour RAP. Wetlands need to be included in a revised GLWQA.
  
  
• Lake Simcoe needs federal funding for remediation projects so it should be listed as an AOC by the IJC, under Annex 2.
  
  
• The GLWQA has been effective in helping restore beneficial uses in the AOCs.
  
  
• There should be more RAP implementation stages to show progress.
  
  
• The Parties must allocate resources to support RAPs.
  
  
• Parties have not lived up to their funding and program commitments in the Great Lakes and it is unlikely that the proposed $20 billion Great Lakes Collaboration will get any significant funding.
  
  
• The Parties are not recruiting young scientists to work on Great Lakes issues, which is a huge threat to any future progress under the GLWQA.
  
  
• It is appalling that after 33 years so little of the GLWQA has been implemented by the Governments.
  
  
• There is need to define implementation by the parties in a revised GLWQA.
  
  
• Infrastructure renewal in the GL region will be hugely expensive but, new, cost-effective technology needs to be considered and supported.
  
  
• The failure of the parties to implement the current agreement has resulted in fear that revising the GLWQA now will result in it being weakened; a new agreement will require accountability mechanisms to ensure and track implementation.
  
  
• Water ethics, governance and stewardship need to be included in a revised GLWQA.
  
  
• St. Lawrence River should be added to a revised Agreement.
  
  
• Existing GLWQA is a model of partnership between two countries but, it needs updating.
  
  
• We need a strong IJC to move the Agreement forward.
  
  
• Adding First Nation/Métis and a Public Advisory Board to the IJC structure would be a positive step.
  
  
• A revised GLWQA must be forward-looking and a document for the 21^st century - not just a compilation of Government programs.
  
  
• Articles 7 and 8 of the GLWQA are contradictory and vague and will need to be carefully re-worded.
  
  
• Sustainability should be part of a revised GLWQA.
  
  
• The primary principle of the GLWQA is that Great Lakes water be free of contaminants.
  
  
• The highest use, not just beneficial use, should be the goal.
  
  
• As a result of dirty Great Lakes water, generational and cultural skills cannot be passed on to younger First Nations generations; don't ignore cultural values in a revised GLWQA.
  
  
• The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 is the basis for the GLWQA so don't expand it into a vague, ill-defined ecosystem or sustainability agreement. The Parties have no responsibility for sustainability.
  
  
• The Water Quality Board co-chairs currently are Parties' representatives; this needs to change in a revised GLWQA.
  
  
• We need a much stronger revised Agreement to deal with all the issues raised tonight.

Last update: