|
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
1999 GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY FORUM
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
SEPTEMBER 24-26, 1999
LIGHTLY EDITED, VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT
SUNDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 26
PUBLIC HEARING
Manfred Gershlin, Chair, Bay of Quinte Public Advisory Committee, Ontario
This coming weekend we are having the Public Advisory Committees for the Canadian RAPs
meeting in Toronto. One of the speculations and concerns has been about the rumours going
around that there is a possibility of making considerable changes to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement. Many of us in the public advisory committees, for us, the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement and particularly Annex 2 has been practically the Bible. In that whole
process we refer to it practically daily. I had thought that coming here, there would be some sort
of indication of what is really going to happen. Is there really going to be a change to the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement? What can the IJC, who is the guardian of that Agreement, tell
the concerned public in Canada and, I'm quite sure, the United States as well, of what is going to
be happening there? We feel that having relied on that document for 14-15 years, and having
gotten to know it, and built a lot of our programs around it and developed a lot of faith in that,
how can we be sure that what we have come to appreciate about that Agreement is not going to
be compromised and is going to ensure that the integrity of this Agreement is maintained and
that, I would say, probably hundreds of thousands of people around the basin who rely on that
are not going to be disappointed. It's a major concern, and yet, having come here this week, I
have not heard anything mentioned except there was a short reference made by the gentleman
from EPA, who said in his remarks yesterday, thought that the Agreement had become confusing
and was no longer relevant as it had been, that it wasn't as effective. But then, when he took his
remarks into another area, but it seems he said enough to continue to make us concerned and feel
worried about what's going to happen, and when at the same time, it isn't being presented on the
agenda as a major, major issue, if indeed that is going to happen, you leave in the minds of an
awful lot of people that there is a hidden agenda somewhere.
Commissioner Murphy
If I can respond to you on that ...
Mr. Gershlin
Can I finish? Before I leave today and go back to Toronto to talk to the representatives of the
public advisory committees at our meeting, that will be one of the questions that I will be asked,
What's happening there? You were at the Great Lakes, at the IJC meeting. What did you learn
about it? And I'll say that the rumours are there but nobody seems to be talking about it. It's a
negative impression, fully recognizing you can always have an ideal situation but if, indeed,
there is a debate taking place somewhere or if there is a possibility of opening up the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, I would hope that the IJC would find a way of conveying that to the
concerned public around the Great Lakes, and assure us that there is going to be a debate where
we will have some sort of real, valuable input. I think that the public is the real guardian of that
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We have put so effort into ensuring its integrity for 15
years or so. What I would like to leave you with is the idea that there are an awful lot of people
in the Great Lakes that are worried about it and, hopefully, you are able to say something to us
about it in the near future. Thank you.
Commissioner Murphy
I am sorry for interupting you. I thought you were finished. As far as I know, we made a
recommendation that the Agreement not be reopened. I heard Mr. Mills speak and I didn't take
his remarks the way you did. I do believe he said there is to be some updating of annexes
because there are certain things that have been spent in them. That's all I know about it. If you
feel that we haven't given you the information, we don't have the information to give you, we'll
have to take into consideration the remarks made by him and discuss it amongst ourselves. I
don't think there is anything that we can give you that would cause you to have any alarm, nor
can I give you any assurances that we won't do anything. We may very well do things, but I
can't say something right now to you because we haven't had the opportunity to consider it.
Commissioner Chamberlin
May I just add that I agree with everything that Commissioner Murphy has said but the
prominence of concern about this issue at this meeting leaves me to think that there will further
discussion at the Commission level about what we might say to government in this regard, but to
emphasize that, we did recommend to governments that the Agreement not be reopened.
|