Great Lakes remain unprotected under new agreement

TORONTO – The second draft of the Great Lakes Annex Implementing Agreement continues to threaten the health of the Great Lakes and significantly weakens Canadian sovereignty over these shared waters.

“This Agreement seriously jeopardizes Canada’s ability to protect the Great Lakes,” says trade lawyer Steven Shrybman. ”Neither Canada nor the provinces would be able to veto diversions, regardless of their duration, scale, or impact on the waters of this shared ecosystem.”

“As we’ve seen with Devils Lake and now with the Great Lakes, the federal government is totally losing control over its shared waters with the United States. Increasingly, the federal government's lack of leadership on these issues is allowing the US to make unilateral decisions on international problems and the provinces to enter into piecemeal agreements with US states. This is completely unacceptable,” says Eduardo Sousa of the Council of Canadians. “The federal government must take responsibility for protecting Canada’s waters.”

The second draft poses serious threats to the health of the Great Lakes. Despite their "no diversions” proclamation, the Agreements allow for exceptions, notably the Chicago Diversion, the largest withdrawal from the Great Lakes. Illinois' desire to substantially increase its Chicago diversion within the next few years is extremely problematic given the uncertainty around the sustainability of current uses of the Great Lakes.

“The Chicago diversion is the elephant in the room here. These agreements make special allowances for the biggest diversion to go on completely unchecked,” says Sousa. “If we’re going to protect the Great Lakes, this diversion must be included in the overall management plan and be subject to restrictions under the Annex.”

Also problematic are exclusion clauses that allow diversions to “straddling communities,” or counties that have a portion of their territory within the Basin.

“Communities or counties that ‘straddle’ the Great Lakes basin are allowed the same legal right to Great Lakes waters as those within it. This agreement erases the ecological boundary that defines the Great Lakes and substitutes a political one. But political boundaries are relative, and entirely open to redefinition,” says Shrybman. “Moreover, under NAFTA, discriminating between one investor and another because of the jurisdiction in which it resides is simply not permitted. For this reason, a NAFTA tribunal may see little difference between straddling communities, straddling states, or straddling countries, and find that companies located elsewhere in the US are unfairly discriminated against.”

Public consultations will be held in cities over a sixty-day period commencing June 30. The short timeframe and timing of the consultations will mean the voices of concerned citizens will not be heard. The Council of Canadians will make a formal request to the Council of Great Lakes Governors to extend the consultation process to allow for more meaningful debate and public participation.

Canadians are urged to contact the Council of Great Lakes Governors and their local MPs to express their concerns about the second draft Agreements. Concerned citizens can also visit to Council of Canadians’ web site to download a card demanding that the federal government protect Canada’s waters.

-30-