[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 24, 1996

.1530

[Translation]

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The purpose of our meeting is to hear from representatives of the International Joint Commission with respect to the water levels of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.

[English]

In a way it's a unique opportunity because two standing committees are coming together, namely the committee on transport, chaired by my distinguished colleague, Andy Mitchell, and the committee on the environment and sustainable development. I'm sorry. It is actually the committee on natural resources and not transport. The transport committee is likely to be represented, but at a later hour this afternoon, I'm told.

The occasion is rather unique, because to have the distinguished representatives from the International Joint Commission on the Hill is not a frequent event. If it is an infrequent event, it is because we do not make time in our schedules to hear them. Therefore, we will perhaps do our best in future to consolidate the acquaintances we will make today and develop the bonds with the commission all of us who are cleaning the Great Lakes would like to have.

Before introducing the members of the commission present in this room, my colleague Andy Mitchell will make an intervention. Then I will leave it to Mr. Lincoln, the member for Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis, to introduce our witnesses because of his long acquaintance and knowledge of the commission and the issues related to the Great Lakes. So without any further delay, Mr. Mitchell, à vous la parole.

.1535

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Mitchell): Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia. On behalf of the members of the natural resources committee, I'd also like to extend our welcome to you and tell you how pleased we are to have this opportunity to see your presentation jointly with our colleagues from the environment committee. I'm looking forward to it, as I know my members are and as I'm sure Charles' members are. We look forward to our discussion with you and to exploring some of the issues in front of us.

Charles, thank you very much. Let's begin.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you very much. We will now give the floor to the honourable Mr. Lincoln, who will introduce our guests today.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): Mr. Chairmen, thank you very much for giving me the pleasure and the honour of introducing our three guests today.

For those of us who have been extremely interested in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence issues, we are very fortunate today to have people of the calibre of our guests to speak to us.

Tom Baldini, who is the co-chairman of the commission, representing the United States, has had a distinguished career in education and has also served as the chief assistant for our friend James Blanchard, Canada's former American ambassador, when Jim was Governor of Michigan.

As a citizen of Michigan, Tom has taken a very special interest, as Jim had over the years, in the issue of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence. We're extremely fortunate that at a critical time in the issue of water for our two countries, and at a critical time when the environment has become extremely sensitive politically, we have been able to count on Tom's contribution and participation.

In regard to the Canadian side, we have Adèle Hurley, who is, I think, the first woman to chair the commission, for either side.

Adèle became the chairman representing the Canadian side some months ago. I don't need to tell those of you who have for a long time been interested in environmental matters about her tremendous contribution, especially in the fight against acid rain, when as a very young person she almost became Canada's ``ambassador'' in the fight against acid rain before the U.S. Congress. Several years ago she went to Washington as a volunteer representing the acid rain coalition. She and Michael Perley carried on this tremendous battle, which ended up with the amendments to the Clean Air Act in the United States and an agreement between the United States and Canada on the fight against acid rain.

Adèle has been an advocate of sustainable development by working as a consultant to try to join the economy and the environment in a very practical way. I'm really delighted that we chose somebody with such tremendous environmental credentials to lead our side at the IJC.

With Adèle is

[Translation]

Pierre Béland, who's very well known to many of us here. Pierre is also an environmental advocate for all of us.

He initiated some extraordinary work to protect the St. Lawrence belugas where, for several years, his St. Lawrence National Institute of Ecotoxicology monitored whales in the river. He heightened public awareness of the problem through a St. Lawrence whale adoption program that he monitored through his Institute and its scientists.

.1540

He has just written a book about his adventure with the St. Lawrence belugas, a book which was launched last week. I would like to congratulate him on the book's publication, and we are very happy that Pierre has joined the International Joint Commission.

Mr. Chairman, we should consider ourselves fortunate to have with us three individuals of the stature of Thomas Baldini, Adèle Hurley and Pierre Béland.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you.

[English]

Ms Hurley, the floor is yours. Welcome to you, to Mr. Baldini and to Pierre Béland.

Ms Adèle M. Hurley (Chair, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission): Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

Honourable Chairman and distinguished members of our parliamentary committees,

[Translation]

I'm very pleased to be here today and to have this opportunity to tell you about the ongoing work done by the International Joint Commission with respect to the regulation of the Lake Ontario andSt. Lawrence River system.

[English]

But first, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize your personal commitment and accomplishments over many years in the area of environmental protection.

Your role in environmental policy-making, as a former Minister of the Environment and now as chair of the Standing Committee of Environment and Sustainable Development, is well known. Your leadership and the work of the members of the committee and staff in your report to Parliament entitled, ``It's About Our Health!'', is a timely reminder to government that a society that wishes to promote a healthy economy must do so in a context of protecting the health of its citizens and its natural resources as well.

I would like to acknowledge another environmental pioneer, at the provincial and the national levels, Mr. Clifford Lincoln. As well as being a former Minister of the Environment in the province of Quebec, Mr. Lincoln served for one year as president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. During his mandate, the National Task Force on Environment and Economy was created. He is well known for his tireless efforts on behalf of Great Lakes protection and, I might add, for his support for the International Joint Commission.

I am also very pleased to have Mr. Andy Mitchell present, chair of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

The International Joint Commission was established and named by the Boundary Waters Treaty in 1909, a treaty that set out the principles and mechanisms to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters and to settle other questions along the common boundary between Canada and the United States. Thus, the International Joint Commission has some 80 years of continuous experience in helping to resolve transboundary environmental issues.

The 1909 treaty also established the legal framework for the use and management of transboundary waters by the two countries, which will be explained in more detail during this briefing.

For the past 25 years, the commission has had continuing responsibilities to the governments of Canada and the United States to monitor and report on the conditions and programs pertinent to Great Lakes water quality pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The commission's work under this agreement is extensive. However, I wish to point out that we are not here today to address matters related to that agreement.

Let me share with you a few key points about the International Joint Commission. The commission is a permanent unitary body, independent of the policies of the two national governments. As an established organization, the IJC provides a mechanism and an accumulated body of knowledge that are available instantly to assist governments in preventing and resolving issues that may arise along the boundary.

The commission is made up of six members. Three are appointed by each government. Commissioners serve collegially, not as representatives of their governments. Decisions are made by consensus. Bi-national teams of experts are gathered for specific tasks, are drawn from various government and non-government organizations, and serve in their professional capacities.

This important process has resulted in a large and ever-growing cadre of experts who know and respect each other and who stand ready to tackle problems. Recommendations from this process tend to be creative and can form the basis for governments to modify policies that may otherwise seem fixed for a variety of reasons.

.1545

A factor that has been crucial in the IJC's ability to influence governments is direct public involvement. Few people realize the commission was one of the first bodies with a strong mandate and procedural rules requiring public consultation.

As indicated, this commission has responsibilities for the regulation of water levels and flows in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River system that came about when hydro power and navigation projects in the St. Lawrence River were planned and built by the governments of Canada and the United States in the 1950s. Thus, since 1960 the outflows of Lake Ontario have been regulated following completion of the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project.

The purpose of the briefing today is to discuss efforts to minimize the occurrence of harmful water levels and flows in the system, as well as the principal considerations related to water regulation, including the physical features of the system, the legal framework and the risks to various interests. We also wish to describe initiatives to investigate possible improvements to regulation.

[Translation]

We could not do all of this work without the expertise provided by the members of the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control. This board is a bi-national organization that reports to the Commission and provides advice on issues related to Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River water levels as well as monitoring and navigation operations on the St. Lawrence River all the way up to Montreal. This board must bear in mind the various interests that exist within the system while at the same time trying to meet requirements of these interests.

[English]

To regulate these waters is not an easy task. We will do our best today to explain to you how we manage this complex system.

Let me now introduce two of my fellow commissioners, who are present today. Tom Baldini has been chair of the United States' section of the International Joint Commission since 1994. He comes from Michigan, which has the distinction of bordering four of the five Great Lakes.

He has been deeply involved in Great Lakes issues for most of his life and was involved in the negotiation of the Great Lakes charter and the Great Lakes toxic substance control agreement for the State of Michigan. He is someone without whose help in the past six months, as I was learning my way into the commission, I could not have coped.

Canadian Commissioner, Pierre Béland, from Montreal, is a research scientist who has been involved in environmental issues for most of his professional life. He is currently the president and science director of the St. Lawrence National Institute of Ecotoxicology. As Mr. Lincoln pointed out, his research on beluga whales has helped bring international attention to the problems of toxics in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. He is also the author, as you heard, of a recently published book on the subject entitled Beluga: A Farewell to Whales.

[Translation]

This book is also available in French and is entitled Les bélugas ou l'adieu aux baleines.

[English]

Also present are staff from both of our commission section offices. From the Canadian section, we have Dr. Murray Clamen, engineering advisor; Marie Terrien, our public affairs adviser; and Michael Vechsler, our legal adviser. From the United States' section staff in Washington, we have Lisa Bourget, who is an engineering adviser.

From the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control, we have Mr. Ed Eryuzlu of the Canadian Coast Guard. He also acts as the secretary for the Canadian section of the St. Lawrence board. From Environment Canada's Great Lakes-St. Lawrence regulation office in Cornwall, we have David Fay. This office provides technical support to the St. Lawrence board.

The format of the briefing will be a series of short presentations using slides, copies of which, I believe, have just been handed out to you for ease of reference. The briefing will last approximately an hour, following which we will be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

.1550

Because we know you have busy schedules, we will keep our answers brief and try to keep our question and answer period to 15 minutes, although you may wish to extend this time. We would appreciate it if we could have our questions at the end of the session, as you may find several of the questions will be answered during the briefing.

[Translation]

I would like to now turn the floor over to Murray Clamen, who will explain the physical features of the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River system.

[English]

Mr. Murray Clamen (Engineering Adviser, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission): Merci. It's important to recognize that Lake Ontario, which is at the downstream end of the Great Lakes system, is in fact part of the enormous Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway system.

This slide shows you the upstream lake, Lake Superior, which flows through the St. Marys River down into Lakes Michigan and Huron, through the St. Clair and Detroit River system into Lake Erie. Excuse me, I'm sorry. The outlet of Lake Erie, which is the Niagara River, then flows into Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario's outlet river to the Atlantic Ocean is, of course, the St. Lawrence River.

In addition to the supplies to Lake Ontario through the Niagara River, which encompass approximately 80% to 85% of those supplies, we also have to be aware of the local supplies to the basin. In certain years those local supplies can equal or even exceed those supplies from the Niagara River.

I would like to point out some of the features of the project we're discussing today. The hydroelectric dam that has been built at Cornwall-Massena, called the Moses-Saunders hydroelectric project, provides hydroelectricity to both Canada and the United States.

I also want to mention the extensive dredging that took place during construction of the project, which made it possible to release more water from Lake Ontario than was previously possible. I should also note that the project provides the ability to smooth but not eliminate water level fluctuations, both on the lake and in the river.

Another important feature to note is the Ottawa River and its drainage basin. That basin is very nearly equal to that of Lake Ontario, but the control structures on it are not such that you can have much regulation in the basin. The operation of the dam at Moses-Saunders must in fact take into account the effects not only of the St. Lawrence River flows downstream but also flows that come from the Ottawa River, particularly during the spring freshet such as we are experiencing right now.

Another important feature is wind. It's important to recognize that even though water levels on Lake Ontario and in the St. Lawrence River, as far downstream as Montreal, can be average or below average, wind can have an impact on the water levels at any particular location. For example, it's possible to impact water levels on Lake Ontario by as much as two or three feet during severe wind events.

Another important feature of the project is operation of it during the winter. From approximately December through to April of the following year, water flows must be carefully regulated to allow for formation of a smooth ice cover. A smooth ice cover is essential to allow flows that will permit hydro power generation and will not cause ice jams that could impact on flooding of riparians, both upstream and downstream of the project. Without such a smooth ice cover, we would find it very difficult to operate the project effectively.

The project allows for greater control of fluctuations in water levels than was the case previously. This slide shows three different types of fluctuations. The overall fluctuation prior to construction of the project was approximately six and a half feet. With construction of the project, it's now possible to regulate the lake to within a four-foot range, although in times of extreme supplies we do go outside that range.

The seasonal variation is approximately 2.3 feet with regulation. This is a little larger than what would have been the case without regulation, but that's primarily because during the last 35 years supplies have been greater than those that were experienced previously.

.1555

Again I want to emphasize that the channel was dredged to the absolute minimum required for navigation at the time the project was built and that this now is a very important feature that constrains the range of outflows from Lake Ontario.

This slide shows two different types of periods during which regulation of Lake Ontario has provided benefits to upstream people on both sides of the border without any detriment to those who are living downstream.

The upper graph shows a dry period during which, in the 1960s, it was possible to raise the water level from that which would have occurred without the project, the upper red line being that which occurred with regulation and the lower dash blue line being that which would have occurred had the project not been built. You can see in this general area that we've increased the water level by approximately 1.8 feet.

In the bottom graph, we're talking about a period during which the water levels were high, and again the lower red line is that which occurred with regulation. The upper line is what we call pre-project or what would have occurred without regulation. In this case, damaging high water levels during the 1980s were reduced by approximately three feet because of the excess capacity created by dredging and the operation of the power project.

It's also important to acknowledge the seasonal fluctuations on all the Great Lakes. This shows the atypical seasonal fluctuation for Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. You can see that there is a shift here from that seasonal fluctuation up on the upper lakes that occurs closer to the fall, and on Lake Ontario it occurs in June. It's roughly the same on Lake Erie. The magnitude of that seasonal fluctuation is approximately 1.6 feet.

Although the lakes do fluctuate and we know their pattern, it is unlikely that water levels will follow exactly this pattern in any one year. While the project can reduce the impacts, greater than normal supplies to the system typically mean higher lake levels, and smaller than normal supplies typically mean lower lake levels.

I would like now to turn the presentation over to Michael Vechsler, who will summarize some of the legal aspects of the system.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): There's one technical question on the graph that we will allow, as long as it is a very brief one.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): It's just that I read about the Great Lakes average seasonal cycle from 1900 to 1985. That must include many natural years and a few artificial years. As we're in an artificial regime now, wouldn't you normally just put in the artificial years?

Mr. Clamen: The seasonal fluctuations on the lakes take into account whatever controls there are. Lake Superior is in fact a regulated lake, as is Lake Ontario. Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie, however, have no artificial controls, so they're natural.

Mr. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Michael Vechsler (Legal Adviser, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission): Thank you. As you've heard, the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty was designed to prevent disputes and to resolve questions and differences that arise between the two countries. The Canada-United States International Joint Commission was established as a key to implementing the treaty.

There are two elements of the Boundary Waters Treaty that are directly relevant to the regulation of outflows from Lake Ontario that take place at the Cornwall-Massena power stations. First, the treaty provides that any use, obstruction, or diversion of boundary waters that affect levels or flows on the other side of the border require international approval either by the commission or by the two governments. Secondly, the two governments can refer issues to the commission for international study.

In fact, both of these procedures have been used in connection with the regulation process in the St. Lawrence. An international quasi-judicial approval process was put in place and international studies were undertaken to review the regulatory regime that was created.

In 1952 the Canadian and United States governments asked the International Joint Commission to approve the power projects. The commission's decisions in such cases have to be based on rules or principles that are set out in the treaty. One of the commission's most important jobs is to require that suitable and adequate provision is made for the protection and indemnification of all interests that can be affected.

.1600

So when the commission approved the government's 1952 applications for Cornwall and Massena, it did so subject to several conditions that have to be followed by Ontario Hydro and the New York Power Authority. These include that the project be operated in a way that's consistent with the order of precedence in the treaty, which gives first place to domestic and sanitary uses, followed by navigation, and then power and irrigation. There's also a requirement to safeguard, as far as possible, all the rights and interests upstream on Lake Ontario and up above the power project on the St. Lawrence River. In addition, there's an obligation to safeguard the rights of those developing power downstream from Cornwall, and the Lake Ontario outflows have to be conducted in accordance with a specified plan of regulation. There's a call for an international board of control to supervise the regulatory process.

Several years later the commission finished international studies it had been asked to undertake by the governments on how to achieve more beneficial levels on Lake Ontario. Based on these studies the commission proposed amendments to its 1952 order and introduced new regulation criteria. The commission undertook extensive public hearings and obtained the approval of governments before actually instituting these criteria. Once it had done so, it made the changes to the order.

However, I think it's interesting to note that in the order there are no conditions or criteria that specifically address either environmental issues or recreational boating. The 1956 revisions did include criteria for maintaining the minimum level of Montreal harbour, for providing the maximum dependable flow for power, for reducing extreme fluctuations on Lake Ontario, and for taking emergency action in the event of extreme high or low water levels. There's also provision for the project to be operated so as to provide navigation and shoreline interests downstream with no less protection than they would have received before the project was built, when, as you've heard, not as much water could flow through the Cornwall-Massena section of the river.

The International St. Lawrence River Board of Control, established and appointed by the commission, plays an important role in overseeing the operation of the project and in implementing provisions of the order. The board consists of ten members, half from Canada, half from the United States. They serve in their personal and professional capacities and must act by consensus. The board determines the flows from Lake Ontario that should be allowed to pass through the power stations to meet the requirements of the commission's order.

I'd now like to introduce David Fay of Environment Canada, who works in the St. Lawrence board's regulation representative's office, and who will speak about how the system operates.

Mr. David Fay (Regulation Representative, International St. Lawrence Board of Control): The amount of water released through the dams is done in accordance, as Michael said, with the IJC's orders of approval. Most often the flow prescribed by the regulation plan - that's plan 1958-D - is released. However, the St. Lawrence River board of control can direct that flows deviate from those specified by the plan to accommodate one or more interests, but only if these deviations will not harm other interests. The board must be unanimous in its decision in these cases.

The board meets several times per year and gives the regulation representatives broad direction on how to regulate the outflows in the particular situation they happen to be in. The operations advisory group, or OAG, meets at least weekly with the regulation representatives of the board to arrive at a recommended flow through the dams for the coming week. The OAG has members from the operating entities: Ontario Hydro, the New York Power Authority, Hydro-Quebec, the seaway authority, and the Canadian Coast Guard. The regulation representatives provide information on the water condition and the flow specified by the regulation plan, plan 1958-D, and relay any direction coming from the board to the OAG.

With this information, the OAG recommends a flow for the coming week to the board's regulation representatives. Normally everyone is in agreement, and upon formal confirmation by the coast guard for Canada, the Ontario and New York power entities are directed to release the prescribed float. Under unusual conditions, such as a disagreement among OAG members or a disagreement between the OAG and the regulation representatives of the board, the regulation representatives must consult the board. If the board cannot reach unanimous consensus, then it must contact the commission here for resolution.

.1605

In reaching a decision, a number of factors are considered. These include water levels and water supplies to Lake Ontario and the entire St. Lawrence River from Kingston to Lac St-Pierre. We closely monitor water supplies to the system and use this in our short-term decision-making. Unfortunately, we cannot forecast future water supplies very well because they depend so heavily on what the precipitation will be in the coming days and weeks, and we cannot yet forecast precipitation very accurately for very long.

I should point out that the regulation plan has constraints. We must stay within the regulation criteria set out in the orders of approval. We can't exceed maximum or minimum water levels upstream and downstream. We must limit the flows within a certain range of maximums and minimums. In the winter we have to manage flows to avoid ice jams. We have to prepare for possible high spring supplies, but at the same time we have to be wary; we might have to save some water for dry summers.

This covers our decision-making process. I'd now like to discuss what happens in theSt. Lawrence River as flows are changed. It explains what happens to sometimes cause concern among your constituents.

If the flow at Moses-Saunders Dam were completely stopped, the level upstream of the dam would be the same as Lake Ontario's. The more the flow is increased, the greater the difference in water levels from Lake Ontario to the dam. In other words, the river slope changes as the flow changes. Thus, low flows create higher levels just upstream of the dam, while high flows create lower water levels in this area. Downstream of the dam, in the St. Lawrence River in the Montreal area, higher flows at Moses-Saunders Dam create higher levels, and lower flows cause lower levels.

Sometimes concerns in one area of the lake or river will limit what can be done for another area. For example, when Lake Ontario is high, releasing larger amounts of water could help lower it, but it would lower levels in the river just upstream of the dam and increase levels in the Montreal area, which is sometimes a concern to local residents. Conversely, when Lake Ontario is low, reducing the flow could help raise it but could cause flooding just upstream of the dam and low levels in the Montreal area.

Ottawa River outflows and those of other local tributaries must also be considered when dealing with downstream levels. When making flow decisions, the effects of levels from Lake Ontario all the way downstream to Lac St-Pierre must be considered.

Although regulation can influence water levels, we cannot completely control them. Floods and droughts will still occur even in a regulated system. Nature is still the dominant force in this system, too.

I'm getting ahead of myself here. I'll back up to where we should have been.

Operating the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River system is really an art. With the help of a regulation plan, we are trying to balance the level and flow requirements of many different interests in the system. Lisa Bourget, the engineering adviser of IJC from Washington, will now talk to you a little bit about some of these interests in more detail.

Ms Lisa Bourget (Engineering Adviser, United States Section, International Joint Commission): Changes in water levels and flows on both the lake and the river can affect a number of different interests. Sometimes these interests are in agreement with one another, but unfortunately they're often not. We consider these interests as falling generally into the five categories shown here: riparians, hydro power, navigation, recreational boaters, and the environment.

The riparians are not a unified interest. Their interest depends on where they're located geographically in the system and therefore is truly site-specific. They are very much interested in a very narrow range of fluctuations in water levels. Too much water can mean flood problems and erosion, and too little water can mean there are problems with access to the water.

.1610

The Moses-Saunders hydroelectric plant generally uses all of the prescribed flows for generating electricity. Their interest is primarily in generating electricity in the most efficient means possible.

They're also very concerned with flow releases in the early winter. Their interest is to build a stable ice cover, as was mentioned earlier. This will then allow greater flexibility later in the winter season.

The outflow regulation from the Moses-Saunders plant affects not only it but also two major hydro power plants downstream, near Montreal.

Navigation requires sufficiently deep water throughout the St. Lawrence Seaway during the entirety of the navigation season for shipping. Again, however, too much water can be a problem. High-water velocities and crosscurrents can make shipping dangerous. In the early winter, when the hydro power interest is trying to maintain a stable ice cover, this can occasionally cause a conflict with navigation interests who are trying to move through the system, and who can possibly disrupt the ice.

The first three interests I've just discussed are mentioned specifically in the orders of approval. The next two interests are not. However, they are considered by the board in their deliberations. These two interests have really evolved substantially since the original orders were written.

Recreational boaters are looking for an expanded season. They now start in mid-May and can continue until after Labour Day. Like the riparians, they are not a unified interest, and their interest is dependent on where they are located in the system.

As a matter of fact, one person who has a floating dock may see no problem while his neighbour next door with a fixed dock may see a problem, even for the same water level. The recreational interests are concerned primarily with making sure there is sufficient water for water access and for boating throughout their season.

As with riparians and recreational interests, the environment is incredibly diverse. Water levels and flows can impact both flora and fauna. While the riparians may be interested in a small regulation ban and limited changes in water levels, occasional flooding and drying can actually help replenish wetlands and support species diversity. So again, that's a conflict there.

I would like to turn this back over to Dr. Clamen, who is going to discuss current initiatives.

Mr. Clamen: I would like to bring to the attention of the two parliamentary committees here two initiatives that the commission is currently undertaking to investigate possibilities of improving the regulation you just heard about.

These actions stem from an eight-year study undertaken from 1986 to 1994, which we refer to as the ``levels reference study''. It began due to high water-level conditions on most of the Great Lakes.

The two initiatives are to consider: (1) whether changes and improvements can be made to the current regulation plan, which is plan 1958-D; and (2) whether in the current orders of approval, which you've heard about from a legal point of view, we can make appropriate provision for all interests, upstream and downstream. As you heard in that presentation, the environment and recreational boaters are not currently considered within the criteria for the commission's orders.

The regulation plan study is currently being evaluated by our St. Lawrence board for a three-year trial period. That period will end early in 1997. The board will advise the commission of the results. We will determine at that time what further action is required.

Plan 58-D, as we call it, is the plan that has been in effect for approximately 30 years. It is used by the board to make best available decisions on a weekly basis. It considers certain constraints and specifies a flow based on long-term average conditions and anticipated supplies to the system.

.1615

Plan 35-P is one of the alternative regulation plans and is similar in nature to plan 1958-D, but it does in fact incorporate the additional 30 years of data and experience obtained since the project was built and it incorporates that into the regulation model.

The other alternative plan, which we call IS-4 - for interest satisfaction - is essentially a new approach that evaluates how desirable various water levels or flows are to each of the different interests that you've heard about along the lake and the river. The plan then operates by selecting the flow within certain limitations and constraints that would give the highest combined desirability score for all the various interests. I emphasize the word ``combined'' because it's a kind of optimization feature of the plan.

In talking about the second initiative, which we call our criteria review - those criteria being in the commission's orders of approval - I'd like to mention that our St. Lawrence board of control was asked to prepare a scope of works that would give an indication of the kinds of studies necessary to answer whether or not additional improvements can be made to the order and whether those interests that we mentioned can be provided for.

The board held five public meetings in river and lake communities in 1995 on both sides of the border during the summer and fall to provide information on how the flows are regulated in the system and to obtain input in drafting the scope of work.

The board of control has considered that input and finalized its advice to the commission. We at the commission received the board's scope of work in Washington last week during our executive session and are currently reviewing it.

I would like to now turn the presentation over to Commissioner Béland to summarize some of the key aspects of the briefing.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Béland (Commissioner, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, with your permission I would like to summarize the presentation, not by going over each of the facts, but by putting them in the context as seen by the Commission, which must work with people who live on both sides of the system and who are the people that you represent.

First of all, we must understand that the Ontario - St. Lawrence system is bi-national, involving two countries, eight states and two provinces that each have their own administrations and legislation. This system has complicated physical features that we cannot change and it must meet the requirements of the varied interests of a population that has grown considerably since theSt. Lawrence was developed. Furthermore, these interests have changed. All of these factors determine how we control the flow of the dam at Moses-Saunders.

I would now like to give you a small idea of the complexity of the system by telling you that, for people who live in Rochester, in the state of New York, this system is relatively simple. We're talking about a lake here. However, for someone living in Montreal, this system includes Lake Ontario upstream, the St. Lawrence River and the Ottawa River. Montreal's perception of how we should managing the system is therefore very different.

It is in this context that the Commission manages the system, attempting to meet the requirements of these people who live along the waterways of this system and who all have diversified interests. The Commission does this by implementing a plan that was drafted in the 1950s and which considered only three interests, as we saw earlier today: navigation, hydroelectric development and riparian interests.

Since this time, two other areas of interest have developed considerably: recreational boating and the concept that we now have of the environment, a concept that did not exist at that time and which is making people say that, if people had viewed the environment back then as they do today, we would probably never succeeded in building the system that we are trying to regulate today.

During meetings that we had with these people, particularly last year - we had five public meetings in various places along the basin - we observed that people were more willing to accept a disaster if they felt that it had been caused by nature and considerably less able to accept a much less serious disturbance if they felt that this disturbance had been caused by somebody somewhere.

.1620

Perception leads to emotions and the analysis of the fact leads to understanding, but it is pointless to try and fight these emotions with facts.

In working with the people that you represent, we must try to educate them, namely, we hold meetings to try to explain to the people how the system operates as well as what we can and cannot do.

During these meetings, we deal with, at one end of the system, a recreational boat owner from the city of Rochester who has certain requirements that must be met when he wants to put his boat into a marina or, at the other end of the system, we must deal with a commercial fisherman catching pike in Lac Saint-Pierre. At first glance, these people appear to have completely diverging interests. Our task is to try to make these people understand that they must share the water just as they must share geographic space.

At this point, I would like to turn the floor back over to the President of the Canadian Section, Ms Hurley.

[English]

Ms Hurley: Thank you, Pierre.

I just want to thank the members for bearing with us through what were obviously some fairly technical sections with respect to the material that was presented. I also want to suggest that any follow-up to today's meeting and material might be handled best by Dr. Murray Clamen of our commission's Ottawa office.

Thank you.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you. I was wondering whether Mr. Baldini would like to say a few words. We would certainly welcome his comments.

Mr. Thomas L. Baldini (Chair, United States Section, International Joint Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss this water system. The longer I serve on the IJC the more I become aware of the uniqueness of the Great Lakes, this huge water system that our two countries are entrusted with. Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence are one part of that system, the part we're here to discuss with you today.

What I have found interesting in the last several years is that we are finding two issues on theSt. Lawrence - environment and recreational boating - that were never put in the original terms of reference by the two governments, and they are issues that come up all across the boundary.

On the St. Croix and on the Rainy and Namakan lakes in Minnesota, and even in the river systems that we regulate out west, we are now finding that the people who are moving into these areas are staying and becoming permanent residents. For example, on the Rainy and Namakan lakes we found that years ago people would build a cottage and go there for June, July and August and that was it. They now build the cottage and leave in January, February or March to go south, but now they live there.

We find that they are putting greater demands on governments both in the provinces and the states, hoping that we will solve some of their problems. This water system, the one we are regulating here, is huge. It is immense and it impacts the lives of millions of people. I'm quite sure that you, as political leaders, hear from constituents who feel that it either is or is not working to their satisfaction.

I come from Marquette, Michigan, on the shores of Lake Superior. It's a very big lake that we just sort of accept when it decides to get a little wild in the spring or the fall. It is immense and has a tremendous impact on the rest of the system.

I notice a committee member here who I've met in Thunder Bay who is also from Lake Superior.

We take this responsibility very seriously in our international boards, and the public members we have working with us take this very seriously. But as Commissioner Béland said, very often people think that we have magical abilities and that if you let water out at the Moses-Saunders Dam the entire lake immediately falls one foot in that hour. Obviously it doesn't happen, but we can understand and appreciate that what the people are concerned about are their boats, their homes and the environment, or whatever it may be. So we appreciate the opportunity to be here to talk about these issues and to continue working on them.

Thank you.

.1625

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Mr. Baldini.

There are a number of people already listed to ask questions. I'm sure we'll have a good session. Colleagues, I invite you to ask short, crisp questions so as to permit others to have their say.

[Translation]

Mr. Asselin.

Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): I would like to congratulate the members of the Commission for the excellent work that they do. I'm convinced that your commission is most reassuring for those people who use the Seaway or who have access to the Saint Lawrence River or to Lake Ontario.

We learned that you meet at least once a week. I would like to know how many times a year you have to intervene in order to regulate the water levels, primarily on the Saint Lawrence River. Recently the Quebec newspapers reported that the water levels on the Saint-Lawrence River had reached a critical level for the second year in a row because of the rising waters.

Environment Canada and other agencies must surely be aware of this concern, because short-term steps had to be taken in order to protect wildlife and flora. It appears that it is a problem.

I would like to know what decisions were made, what action was taken and whether the current water level situation of the Saint Lawrence River is continuing to deteriorate. We must also concern ourselves with the possibility of flooding in the Saint Lawrence River region.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Madam.

[English]

Ms Hurley: First of all, the reference to the meetings once a week...that was not the commission. The commission actually meets twice semi-annually and has executive meetings that occur about every two months. But the St. Lawrence board of control that reports to us meets more frequently, depending upon exactly these kinds of issues that you're raising today.

I wonder if we could answer your question in two parts. I would like someone from the board, perhaps David Fay, or perhaps Ed, to come forward to respond to the question. Commissioner Béland would also like to comment on the newspaper article that I believe you are referring to. We are familiar with it.

[Translation]

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Mr. Eryuzlu, please.

[English]

Mr. Numan E. Eryuzlu (Secretary, St. Lawrence River Board of Control): I'm Ed Eryuzlu, the secretary for the Canadian section of the St. Lawrence River board. I will first try to address the question that relates to what was in these articles.

[Translation]

When the articles were written, the water had not yet arrived, but today I can tell you that this started two days ago. It's not too late; this is the normal time. Usually we have two rises, the first rise takes place in the last week of April, and this is what is happening right now, and a second rise occurs at the beginning of May, so we're not at that point. I can therefore tell you that nothing abnormal is occurring.

Today, the levels in Montreal are more than two meters above the chart datum. So everything is happening normally.

I don't know if this answers your question.

Mr. Asselin: What action would have been taken to protect wild-life and flora if the waters had not arrived? We know that it has rained over the past few days and this has improved the situation of the wildlife and flora on the Saint Lawrence River. If we were to experience a summer drought, what would be done at that time to regulate the Saint Lawrence River waters?

.1630

Mr. Eryuzlu: Are you referring to last year or this year?

Mr. Asselin: It doesn't matter, because I would imagine that you don't have one policy for one year and another for another year. Your policy must be the same at anytime.

Mr. Eryuzlu: May I add that the Board is well aware of the situation and that it has authorized us to refrain from cutting the flow if the freshet were not to arrive?

[English]

I'm going to switch to English, if I may.

We're quite aware that there might be a delay or that the waters might not arrive in time or in as large a quantity as is required for the fish. Therefore, just about a week ago, the board authorized us to not reduce the flows if there is such a concern.

However, as I just said, for the last three days or so, because of the weather and because of the warming, we now have the normal freshet - that's what we call it - and the levels have increased. As a matter of fact, now there's some concern that they may be too high for Lake St. Louis, but, again, there's no crisis.

[Translation]

Mr. Béland: I can only confirm what Mr. Eryuzlu said, perhaps using other words. The Board of Control follows the plan established back in 1958, which we refer to as 1958-D. This plan allows for certain variations.

For instance, before the period which you were referring to, sometime in mid-April, we had already remove three centimetres of water from Lake Ontario, so that we would have a certain quantity of water lower down. However, when there is very little rainfall and no rainfalls for a very long period, there is very little we can do except hope for rain.

This is a type of answer that the Board of Control will provide if there is indeed very little rainfall, as was the case last fall: we add a bit more water than what is normally called for in the plan. However, there are limitations that we cannot exceed.

During the winter, we take water from Lake Ontario when we forecast plentiful spring rainfall or when we forecast that the snow-melt will add a great deal of water. However, if there is no snow in the winter, we will have taken precautions for something that did not occur and we cannot repair what we have done. We have to wait for the rain.

Consequently, the physical features of the system are what will, in the long-run, determine what will happen. We try to improve things, but we cannot always do so.

Fortunately, the freshet arrived since those first newspaper articles appeared. Now everything is going well. When I took the train from Montreal today, I noticed that there is a high flow in Ottawa River. It would take too long to explain all of the features of the system, but you must understand that when the Ottawa River is flowing high, there's no point in sending water by the St. Lawrence River because the current of the Ottawa River virtually stops the level of water from the St. Lawrence River.

[English]

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Monsieur Béland and Madam Hurley, is that the conclusion of the reply? Can we move to the next question? The list is getting longer.

We have Mr. Finlay, followed by Mr. Thalheimer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lincoln and MadamKraft Sloan, and then the chair, if no one else indicates the wish to participate in the first round. Then we will have a quick second round for those who have any additional questions.

Mr. Finlay, please.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It's been a most interesting presentation. I have a couple of questions.

My general understanding, according to the material you have provided us, is that what we have done is to reduce the fluctuation of flow, under normal circumstances, and that should of course be what we wanted to do.

You mentioned that the environment and recreational boating were not considered originally. I think Mr. Clamen said that the dredging was done to the minimum depth for navigation. That's something I wrote down when he was explaining that. Was that to save money? I wonder what the reason was.

.1635

Mr. Béland, you said that the concept of the environment had not been thought of then and you would never have built this type of system if you had had the environment and boating in mind. What did you mean by that?

Mr. Béland: Let me answer the second question first.

Because of the way in which we now have to consider environmental aspects, have hearings, consider all the requirements of fish, of wildlife, of aquatic birds, some people are saying that if we were to start on a project like that now it would take decades to have it accepted, because of the complexity of environmental issues.

I simply wanted to emphasize how difficult it is to allow for environmental aspects once a system is built.

Mr. Vechsler: I should add that your understanding is correct: reducing the fluctuations on Lake Ontario is one of the objectives of the project.

In terms of dredging, I was referring to the dredging that took place both upstream of the project and downstream. This was to provide for essentially two things. By increasing the outflow capacity of the river, you then have a greater outflow from Lake Ontario that you can put down the river than you had previously. Second, that was what was necessary for commercial navigation at the time when the seaway was built.

The project was designed with a certain amount of dredging in mind, bearing in mind the size of the ships that were going to use the system.

Also, dredging is enormously expensive. The cost was prohibitive and had to be taken into account in the design of the project.

Mr. Finlay: You mentioned the educational component and the effort you put into having these people understand what is going on. Would I be right in saying that because we, the authority or the board or man, as you rightly pointed out, had some hand in this, likely we're getting blamed a little bit for effects and things that would be even more extreme under natural conditions?

Maybe that's something we have to understand.

Mr. Béland: Yes. This is why I said that people often are more willing to accept things that are seen as being natural than to accept things that are being done by people. Now that we have modified the system, we have to live with it and we have the onus of explaining what's happening, whereas if we had not touched the system, we would say, ``Well, it's not raining this year''. It's as simple as that.

Now it's more complex because we have made it more simple.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you. Mr. Thalheimer, please.

Mr. Thalheimer (Timmins - Chapleau): I want to understand the topography. All the lakes, the four lakes, drain into Lake Ontario and out the St. Lawrence. That is the whole catchment area. There's the Ottawa River, and so on, but the basic four lakes drain into Lake Ontario, up theSt. Lawrence, and out to the Atlantic.

Are all the controls on the St. Lawrence? Are there other controls? Are the only area controls those beyond Lake Ontario?

Mr. Vechsler: Two lakes have man-made controls: at the outlet of Lake Superior as well as at the outlet of Lake Ontario.

Mr. Thalheimer: You've got a control up at Lake Superior?

Mr. Vechsler: Yes. At the head of the St. Marys River there's another set of works that were approved by this commission back in 1914. There's another board of control, called the Lake Superior Board of Control.

Mr. Thalheimer: That controls that?

Mr. Vechsler: It monitors the operation of that particular project, yes.

Mr. Thalheimer: That's why you call yourself the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence joint board. Is that right? Then you've got one up at St. Marys?

Mr. Vechsler: We actually have about 20 boards of control across the country from the west coast to the east coast.

Ms Hurley: You're hearing from just one today.

Mr. Thalheimer: The Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River one.

Mr. Vechsler: That's right.

.1640

Mr. Thalheimer: But that necessarily controls all the Great Lakes and all the catchment area shown on the map here.

Mr. Veschler: The purpose of that was just to show the size of the entire Great Lakes system, recognizing that Lake Ontario is the downstream end that receives supplies from the upstream. The only other control point, if you will, is on the furthest upstream lake, Lake Superior.

Mr. Thalheimer: So the St. Lawrence River is the crucial one, really, because that's where the controls can really take effect or be damaging or otherwise.

Mr. Veschler: Certainly, the St. Lawrence River has to accommodate all the water that's coming from the upstream part of the system.

Mr. Thalheimer: When you say the environment wasn't considered when this was constructed in the 1950s, are you suggesting there is environmental damage that cannot be somehow repaired or is not controllable or repairable?

Mr. Veschler: I could try to answer that, if I might.

People were aware of environmental issues when the project was being built. They are becoming more paramount now, and more obvious. And the impacts of regulation are more obvious now than they were then.

We're not implying that there's any damage done. It's simply a question of acknowledging impacts on the environment and recreational boating. We're much more aware of them now than people were at the time the project was built.

Mr. Thalheimer: Are the environmental problems only in relation to boating, or does it include other environmental impacts?

Mr. Veschler: It relates to the environment as it relates to flora and fauna in the system, both upstream and downstream; spawning conditions for fish; and various wetlands conditions, both upstream and downstream. Recreational boating is a separate issue that deals with pleasure boating, both upstream and downstream, on Lac Saint-Louis.

Mr. Thalheimer: That all concerns the level, obviously.

Mr. Veschler: There's a very important relationship between those activities and water levels and flows in the system, both upstream in the river as it comes downstream into Lac Saint-Louis, and beyond into the Montreal area.

Mr. Thalheimer: Are you able to manage that in accordance with the regulations that are imposed, I suppose, by various states and governments?

Mr. Veschler: Right now, we have an order of approval that provides for levels and flows for the primary interest that we mentioned. To the extent possible, the board has the authority to deviate from that plan to satisfy certain needs of recreational boaters and environmental interests without harming any of the established interests. Both of the initiatives that we're undertaking now are an attempt to see whether we can incorporate, in a more codified way, the needs of those interests in the orders of approval that were not put in there when the project was originally approved by the commission in the 1950s.

I don't know if there's someone from the board, or anybody else, who would like to amplify on that.

Mr. Baldini: Let me just comment on that. If you recall one of the earlier slides, the system fluctuated by about six to six and a half feet prior to the construction of the seaway. That fluctuation is now within a four-foot range.

If you think about a foot of water and how far back a foot of water would extend on a regular beach or shoreline, the concern of some of the environmentalists is that fish habitat, the wetlands.... As one environmentalist said to me, some of the wetlands are now dry lands. So they're concerned about that.

If you recall, just recently they let all the water out of one of the dams when Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt was out west. They had that big flow, and part of the purpose was to clean out the river, but it was also to put some water back into system.

So some people are suggesting to us that we do something more with our fluctuations. Obviously, the problem there is you now have many riparians on the river and in the lake who would like us to keep that water level very stable. As a matter of fact, some would like us to get it within a two-foot range.

So there are these competing interests, and I'm not sure we're going to satisfy all of them. I think the board attempts to try to satisfy as many as they can, sometimes in different seasons. But I doubt we will ever satisfy all of them to the extent that everyone wants their own particular interests satisfied or taken care of.

Mr. Thalheimer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Mr. Thalheimer.

We now have Mr. Reed, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

.1645

The first thing I must do is congratulate the new chair of the Canadian section, Adèle Hurley. I can tell you from some experience that she brings to the position vision, tenacity, which has been well demonstrated over the years, and I might say objectivity as well. The people of Canada are very well served by her time there.

I congratulate you, Adèle.

I learned something here today that I didn't realize before. In 1986 there was an incredible period of high water, and it followed a period of low water, if I remember correctly, not having been able to get a boat across the mud up near Penetang. Unfortunately I got caught in the middle of political fur that flew between the state of Michigan and the province of Ontario, being the executive assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources at that time and having to confront the governor's executive assistant. Were you the executive assistant?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Reed: I expect it was that occasion that precipitated the study.

Mr. Baldini: Yes.

Mr. Reed: That obviously had a more realistic conclusion than the suppositions that were going on then.

At that time, reference was made to the Ogoki diversion. It seemed to me, from the information we had at the time, that the Ogoki diversion really was not a major contributor to the lake level - it was very small - but it did get blamed because it was in Ontario, I think, more than anything else.

Can you précis very quickly the conclusions that were reached by that study?

Mr. Clamen: I can provide a couple of points that might be of interest.

First of all, the Ogoki diversion is something over which this commission has no authority. It's operated by Ontario Hydro. That's important to recognize.

Second, at the time of the high water crisis, riparians and all users of the system were looking for any relief possible. This commission did quite a bit of relief in terms of storing water on Lake Superior and releasing it, and also in terms of the downstream operation of Lake Ontario.

We tried to facilitate a dialogue with those people who wanted to reverse the flow of water into the Great Lakes system through the Ogoki-Long Lac diversions and bring it back to the original, which was into the Hudson Bay drainage system. We set up consultations with Ontario Hydro and between people in the United States and Canada. Our authority wasn't there, but people who worked for us on our various boards and so on knew the people involved in the operation of that.

Unfortunately not a lot of relief could be provided, but to the best of my knowledge there was a serious attempt by Ontario Hydro to curtail as much flow into Lake Superior as was possible, while still maintaining some of the environmental impacts that would pertain to changing the nature of that diversion, recognizing that it had been in operation for quite a few years.

It wasn't just a simple matter of reverting it back to the way it used to be. That would have caused flooding in some other parts of the system.

I don't know if that addresses well enough the point you're asking about the Ogoki diversion.

Mr. Reed: What I'm trying to get at is the study really put some objectivity into the situation so we weren't dealing with pure politics when trouble arose subsequent to that.

Mr. Clamen: The 1986 study definitely was intended to do that. There was a lot of rhetoric around at that time as to what the International Joint Commission could do, given that it has jurisdiction over controls out of Lake Superior and Lake Ontario. There was concern about what both federal governments and the provincial and state governments could do to provide direct relief from flooding. Some other agencies, such as the seaway and Ontario Hydro and other agencies, were petitioned to do whatever they could.

Mr. Reed: I'm glad we ended up friends.

.1650

Does the IJC have anything to do with the water-taking treaty at Niagara?

Mr. Clamen: Actually, it doesn't directly. The treaty is a treaty between governments and is monitored by people who are appointed by both governments. We do, however, have a Niagara board of control. One of its responsibilities is to report on the diversions that take place from a body of water that we call the Chippewa-Grass Island Pool. The operation of that pool is conducted through a gated control structure over which the commission does have jurisdiction.

Mr. Reed: I see.

Mr. Clamen: But the treaty itself is a separate treaty between the governments of Canada and the United States.

Mr. Reed: All right. Thank you very much.

I have one final comment, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to put on the record. Concerns have been expressed by environmentalists about the magnitude of this project and so on. I remember watching it being built in 1957, and watching cemeteries being moved from that area, and seeing freighters going along the side of the hill way up in the air. It was quite spectacular. But as people who are concerned about the environment, I think we all must realize that nature, beyond the nature of man, has had even larger impacts on the face of the earth over time, when we have things like volcanoes, glaciers and earthquakes that have massive impacts over time.

So while this may seem like a large impact, I think it's always necessary to put it into the focus in which it belongs. Somehow or other the statement was made by some people that this project might not ever get built at this particular time. I believe that those people who believe that are making a mistake.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Professor.

Mr. Lincoln, followed by Madam Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Lincoln: I wanted to ask a question about shoreline protection and erosion of the shoreline. Just a few years ago I was on the west side of Lake Michigan with people from Wisconsin, and university people took us on a trip on the west side where we could actually see huge sections of coastline just falling to the lake as we watched. The water was extremely high. In Quebec we're been fighting for many years for shoreline protection against tremendous odds, because we are always in conflict with various interests.

I was wondering what the findings of the experts of the commission are in regard to shoreline erosion on the lakes. How substantial is it? Is it a topical thing that comes and goes with the water levels, or is it steady because of increased construction on the very shores of the lake? What are the findings? And can you tell me whether it's getting any better or any worse?

Mr. Clamen: As a long-term issue, shoreline erosion is not going to get better. The study found that it's exacerbated by high water levels and by winds. One of the things that this commission has always advocated, since the 1960s, is that people build more wisely closer to the shoreline. What we have found is that people who move into the shoreline during periods of low water level then advocate for shoreline protection during periods of average or higher water levels. This is not a sustainable type of activity.

We have tried to promote this as much as possible. We have asked governments in both countries to support this kind of policy. It's very difficult to enact, however, because people want to live as close as possible to the shoreline. There are very many publications and much advice available to people who have in fact legally built and want to try to protect their property as much as possible. Many of those kinds of brochures and self-help information pamphlets are available through agencies in the United States, like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and through state agencies in Canada at the federal level, through Environment Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard, and at the provincial level it used to be provided by the conservation authorities.

.1655

So there is a lot of information out there. The commission has tried to be as helpful as possible in at least letting people know about that. But as an overall policy I think we've been strong in advocating keeping away from the shoreline, especially shorelines that are very vulnerable to erosion and flooding.

Mr. Lincoln: I can appreciate how much information there is out there. I've seen a massive amount of it. The big problem is the conflicting interests: agriculture, residential - you've highlighted many of them - various municipalities and their zoning by-laws, and different concepts and different norms province to province and state to state, some regulated, some not.

I was wondering if there is a role for the IJC as a sort of convener. I think what has been missing all this time.... Certainly I tried it when I was environment minister in Quebec, with very limited success, because it was so hard to get the various partners together. Eventually we succeeded to some degree, but it was very hard.

But it's more than just a one-province or one-state problem. It's an overall problem of the system. I was wondering if there is a role for some kind of conference that would join all these various partners together to show the benefits of proper shoreline protection zoning and the harm caused by erosion, which is self-defeating for the people who are trying to be on the shoreline themselves but sometimes don't realize it because of lack of education. Somehow it's a case of so many interests being there, many of them being in conflict and not wanting to listen to the other. I was wondering if the IJC, with its prestige and the fact that it's such an objective body, with its tremendous amount of experience over the years, at some time in the future could find a role in there as a convener.

Mr. Baldini: One of the recommendations from the study was that the states, provinces, and governments consider some sort of set-back legislation on construction of property. That's very controversial. I notice the mayors of the Great Lakes are meeting in a couple of months, and one of the issues they would like to deal with and discuss with us is that recommendation, because it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on them back in their local communities for that.

I know in Michigan we have some set-back rules. The high water is not always the problem. It's the high waters with the wind that get you in trouble. I remember 1986, when people were screaming at us because they thought we were holding water on Lake Superior to protect all those people down in Lake Michigan. They thought we should just open it up and the lake would drop two feet.

I've seen friends of mine who have purchased property and built, they thought rather securely, back 100 feet to 200 feet on a sand dune on Lake Superior. After one storm they now have about 70 feet of frontage.

It's a very big lake. It's very mean at times, and it's very spirited. If you take that beach sand in your hand next time and you just let it go through your hand, it always seeks the same angle. So when the water starts eroding the shore, that beach sand, or that shore, will eventually seek the same angle and will eat away your front yard, or your property.

It is something I believe we should talk about, because it's very expensive for people. It causes great personal harm. It endangers many people and their lives and property.

It's one of the recommendations.... It's not an issue we probably have on our platter right now, but it is something I suspect we would be willing to talk about with the mayors. They've asked to talk to us about it. That's in Quebec City in June.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you very much. This has truly been a very informative session. You begin to understand.... I'd swear you guys were basically politicians with some of the complex interests you have to handle.

.1700

I too grew up on the shores of Lake Superior, and while it can be mean, it certainly is spirited. I'm particularly partial to Lake Superior, one of the most beautiful water bodies in the world. I also lived for a while in St. Catharines and could see the boats going along the canal in Welland, so I have had quite a connection to the Great Lakes system.

I have a number of questions, but I won't ask them all. One of the questions has to do with budget cuts in terms of both American and Canadian federal governments, and I don't know how some of your programs play out at the provincial level.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): I apologize for jumping in, but my understanding is that the meeting today on the request of the commission is on water levels -

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): - and not on budgets or other aspects. You may want to correct me on this aspect, Ms Hurley, before we go further.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I was just going to ask whether the budget cuts have affected your ability to do some of your work around water level management.

Mr. Baldini: I agree with you that we do, but there is beginning to develop.... As a matter of fact, last week the commissioners discussed this issue. We're being affected by other departments. I can speak more specifically about the U.S. We have the U.S. Geological Survey, and some of its funds for monitoring gauges across the boundary - all of our rivers - are being curtailed, reduced, cut back, whatever it may be. So it's beginning to have an impact on the St. Croix all the way across, and we see that as a real concern. We have written, and we will be expressing more concerns, to the government about that, because if we have that responsibility to regulate, we need data, and that's going to be very critical.

Perhaps you want to talk about the Canadian....

Ms Hurley: We have the same concerns, but we have yet to see cuts that have caused us to take a position on that. But we have been hearing from our boards and from some of our senior advisers that they are watching and that they're calling these things to our attention, but nothing I can think of.... Just let me check one thing.

Mr. Clamen: The only thing I would say is that, to my knowledge at the present time, budget cuts, wherever they may be occurring, have not had an impact on the way in which the commission conducts its business on this system. We have always asked our boards, regardless of where they come from, to let us know if that is the case, because being an international body, we would want to be aware of that regardless of where the cuts come from. But I think I can say very categorically, unless there's someone who wants to correct me, that at the present time our operation is secure in terms of getting advice from the board as we need it.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you. Then I have just one quick question on weed levels. As I read in some of your materials, the effect of flow fluctuations...amounts of weeds in the system and that sort of thing can affect that. I'm just wondering whether that has increased. Has the amount of weeds in the system increased, and, if so, what might be some of the causes?

Mr. Baldini: I'd have to turn to our scientist. That becomes a clean water issue. If we have certain nutrients or chemicals coming in, it sometimes stimulates the growth, as we had some years ago on Lake Erie. I don't believe the weeds have had an impact on our flows at all. Zebra mussels, maybe, but....

Ms Hurley: Zebra mussels maybe, but not weeds.

Mr. Fay: It's an interesting angle that the zebra mussels in the St. Clair and Detroit rivers are basically eating so much that the plant and the water clarity has improved remarkably and there's more aquatic vegetation growing. You see how everything is connected to everything.

Mrs Kraft Sloan: Exactly.

.1705

Mr. Fay: But to answer your question, we haven't noticed any impact or trend with changing weed growth in terms of our flow measurements in the St. Lawrence River.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you. Mr. Comuzzi, à vous la parole.

Mr. Comuzzi (Thunder Bay - Nipigon): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to seeMr. Baldini and his people again. I think the last time we saw them was at Lake Superior, when we were walking through some swampland or marshland.

I think I'll have to pass, Mr. Chairman. My question really doesn't have anything to do with water levels. I'll see Mr. Baldini after the meeting. My question would be off the topic. It has to do with the west coast and some of the problems we're having. I'll address those to him personally.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Mr. Comuzzi. The chair has a few questions, but before doing so, I would like to inquire whether Madame Cowling or Mr. Steckle have questions.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Yes, Mr. Chairman. With the collection of great minds here this afternoon, I'm just wondering whether there's a solution to the problem that has basically been part of my life, all of my life, because I live on the shores of Lake Huron. I think the chairperson this afternoon knows very well of what I speak. We also experience high water marks, and have many times over the last hundred years. In my short lifetime, I have experienced high water marks at least twice and maybe three times, most notably in 1986, of course, which we spoke about earlier this afternoon.

Is there anything that you can foresee in your mandate or in your ability to do something about that? Will we ever conceivably, even through diversion or whatever methods might be applied, be able to do something to effectively control high or low water marks, particularly on Lake Huron?

Mr. Baldini: In the study that was completed - and I think Murray probably can address this - there was some suggestion.... There is a group around the Great Lakes that would like the expenditure of vast sums of money - I think we're probably talking about billions - to build structures to try to control the flows. Murray, perhaps you can be much more specific.

Mr. Clamen: The study we were talking about before, which started in 1986 and was completed in 1994, in fact addressed that point very seriously. It really was a comprehensive effort that looked at the possibility of complete regulation of the Great Lakes system. We looked at that in terms of regulating all five lakes and in terms of regulating Superior and Ontario in conjunction with any of the individual lakes.

I have to tell you that after exhaustive effort and the expenditure of quite a bit of money, the best minds in the country could not come up with a system that will regulate it. It's feasible to do it as far as the engineering, but only at a significant cost and with impacts to the environment and the total interests involved that would be negative, that would be of detriment to all people in the system.

Recognizing that, there are still a number of things that can be done, but they are not as significant as physical controls. For example, there is an emergency management plan that was recommended by the commission and, in effect, forwarded by the commission to both governments. It takes into account some of the diversions and other activities in the basin over which we don't have control. I want to emphasize, though, that it does not have a significant effect for Lake Huron.

If those could all be enacted together, in cooperation, it's possible to reduce high water levels and increase low levels, but not by very much. To date, that's the only opportunity that exists, to my knowledge, for manipulating water levels and flows that would help, short of, of course, dealing with a site-specific problem that may exist for high and low water levels where you are. That may be done by shore protection measures in combination with neighbours, upstream and downstream, and so on and so forth. But I have to tell you that the study found no feasible, desirable way of regulating Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Mr. Steckle: I caution you with one word of advice before I finish. Please never come back with a recommendation that governments start paying for these kinds of costs, because governments can't do it. I was in a municipal government where we looked at these kinds of issues. In my particular case we lost almost 500 feet of shoreline in one particular place.

There's simply no way that government can ever afford to do this. Those people who choose to move close to the shoreline and to perhaps go against local government regulations may have to suffer the consequences of either losing property or paying the cost of doing remedial work in front of their property. In some cases, they did pay.

.1710

Please don't ever come back and advise or recommend that local, federal or provincial governments should expend those kinds of moneys. This becomes - and should become - and should remain very much a personal cost.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you, Mr. Steckle.

Before launching a second round, I have a few questions, if I may.

In your presentation this afternoon you spoke to us about the various interests and indicated that recreation and environment are not included in the order of approval, and you explained to us why they are not.

Would you indicate to us what would be required in political terms in order to include recreation and environment in your orders of approval, if I understood that term correctly?

Mr. Baldini: As I understand it from the past historical data, they were not included in the original reference from the two governments because in 1952, in that period, they were just not as significant as they are now.

As for your second question, it becomes, what can be done now? The two governments could charge us so that we would have to include those. The United States and Canada could get together and tell the IJC that they are giving the IJC a new reference or are amending that reference.

As we indicated earlier today, we are reviewing the work that we do on the St. Lawrence. We are specifically looking at those two factors, along with the other ones we are required to do, because we're very cognizant and very aware of those in terms of how we do a better job of regulating the system so that we can also have a positive impact on the environment.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Mr. Baldini, if you were a member of this committee and interested in including these two items, what steps would you adopt?

Mr. Baldini: I would probably say I would like to wait for a while, because we are in the middle of doing the study right now. We are very aware of it. We want to include those because we are hearing from individuals like you in both countries who are asking about the environment and about recreational boaters. As Dr. Clamen indicated, those are part of our ongoing study right now.

You may find that we may come back to you and ask that you include it at some point. In effect, we would ask both governments to assist us on that.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): When is that likely to be?

Ms Hurley: I don't know.

Mr. Baldini: The first review of the study is going to be completed in 1997.

Mr. Clamen: In terms of the regulation plan review that the board is undertaking, looking at those two alternative regulation plans, that's been under way now for a couple of years. That review will be completed in early 1997 and the board will file a report to the commission at that time.

I don't know if David or Ed Eryuzlu on behalf of the board might want to say anything other than that, but procedurally that's what we're looking at in terms of the timeframe.

Ms Hurley: The process, as I understand it, would be that if we were to include that request to the parties, the parties would consider, and if you agreed, would ask us to put in the amended order.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): It's perhaps not for me to comment, except to say that it is quite possible that there would be a considerable amount of political support for the inclusion of recreation and environment, if you were to recommend it. There are a number of reasons for it, which everybody knows and understands, but if you feel we should wait and then operate after your conclusions, that is what we will do.

That then leads me to another question, one about the political accountability. Is it correct to assume that at the federal level, the political accountability rests with the heads of Foreign Affairs in Canada and the State Department in Washington, in the eight states with the governors, and in the two provinces with the premiers, or is that wrong?

Mr. Baldini: One of the unique things about the International Joint Commission is that it's one of the few organizations in the world that has a level of sovereignty.

.1715

My budget comes under the State Department, but I am appointed by the President, and I serve at his pleasure. I do not consult with the State Department prior to going to meetings for instructions as to how I should proceed on issues. The unique thing about the commission - and it's probably why we are unique - is that we serve as six individuals. Obviously, we're cognizant of what our countries are interested in, but -

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Mr. Baldini, you didn't answer my question well. When you turn to governments to get certain things done, to whom do you turn?

Mr. Baldini: We communicate directly with the Office of the Secretary of State in the U.S. and with the Department of Foreign Affairs here in Canada.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): And in the eight states and two provinces?

Mr. Baldini: If they are involved in a particular issue, then we would go to the respective governmental leaders in that situation. With this reference, we would go to the two governments, because it was their original agreement back in the 1950s.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you.

Before we start the second round, perhaps I could ask a couple of quick questions of probably Dr. Clamen.

Is there a way for you to indicate what is the ratio between precipitation and evaporation in the Great Lakes basin? Is there one, and how does it look?

Mr. Clamen: I'm going to ask David Fay, who does a lot of that work for us in the Great Lakes office, to answer that.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): The second question - before you leave the table, in case you may be able to answer it - is whether you think it would be of interest for us to know whether there's any impact on the level of water in the Great Lakes resulting from the melting of the ice caps, resulting in turn from climate warming.

Mr. Clamen: From the melting of the ice caps.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Yes. Meteorologists are informing us that there is a trend in climate warming that has an impact on the temperature of both ice caps. That melting, apparently, leads to changes in water temperature in the Atlantic and in the Pacific and may lead to rising water levels.

Are those water levels in the oceans having an impact on the water levels in the Great Lakes?

Mr. Clamen: I'm not aware of any studies that draw a relationship between what you've mentioned about ice caps melting in the oceans, but I'm aware of many studies that are drawing connections between climate change and Great Lakes water levels. Those studies, in an overall sense, taking into account precipitation, evaporation and so on, tend to show right now that there will be an overall decrease in Great Lakes water levels over time as a result of climate change. This is taking into account certain very basic assumptions about a doubling of carbon dioxide levels and so on.

In a very general way, that's an answer to your question about climate change, but, no, I'm not aware of any resulting effect from the ice caps.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Would you have a table for the members of this committee?

Mr. Clamen: Yes, one can be provided. I don't have it with me, but I can make one available that summarizes, in a sense, some of the overall water level declines. This would probably be a combination of several predictions that have been made by climatologists over the past couple of years.

There is a major international study going on right now - not under the aegis of this commission - called the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin project. It's a five-year effort to look at adaptation strategies, if you will, by both countries. It's headed up by Environment Canada and, in the United States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But that is not an IJC exercise. From that should come a lot more definitive answers about the question you're asking.

David, do you have any information at all regarding precipitation?

Mr. Fay: No.

Mr. Clamen: We don't have that with us, but we'd be happy to provide that to the members of the committee. As I understand it, you were asking about relative amounts of precipitation and evaporation on Lake Ontario specifically, or the Great Lakes basin as a whole - or both.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): The basin as a whole.

Mr. Clamen: I know we have that information. We'll have to provide it subsequently.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you.

Second round, please, Mr. Finlay.

.1720

Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask one other thing. Someone asked the question about the Niagara treaty, about water from the Great Lakes there. There's also water withdrawn from Lake Michigan and Chicago, and eventually - a little anyway - that finds its way into the Mississippi system. I know Lake Michigan sits entirely within the boundaries of the United States; however, it is an integral part of the Great Lakes system.

What's the relationship there between the amount of water that can be taken out at Chicago? Does IJC have any control or input to that, or is it an international treaty? What is the situation?

Mr. Baldini: We have no control over that issue. As you've indicated, it's a lake within the confines of the U.S. However, as a little update, it is one of the few issues in which the United States Supreme Court has maintained jurisdiction, over the diversion of water out of Chicago.

The State of Michigan is going back into federal court because the State of Michigan believes Chicago is diverting more water than they are entitled to. As I understand - and I'm prepared to stand corrected on this - they decided that over a twenty-year period Chicago could take x amount of water, and the agreement was that if one year you took x plus and the next year you took x minus, that was fine. I believe some people are now saying that they've been doing x plus plus plus and that there's no way they could take that many minuses and survive at the end of the period.

Michigan is back into court, I understand, challenging what Chicago is diverting. But I don't have a status report on that.

Mr. Finlay: Thank you.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): We'll go to Madam Kraft Sloan for an announcement, followed by the chair with one question, unless -

Mr. Clifford Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln: I would like to put a question to you in relation to what the standing committee - or both, actually, because there are two committees here - could do in relation to the IJC.

I think I'm right in saying it's been quite some time since the IJC appeared in front of the committee of the House. I wonder in what way you feel the committee can help you pursue certain recommendations or policies in regard to levels, or especially clean water and water quality, when your reports come out. What do you feel we could do to advance your agenda on the political scene?

I don't know if Mr. Baldini can tell us, for instance, what kind of relationship the IJC has in regard to the committees of Congress, if any. Have you had an ongoing relationship with the committees of Congress? If so, what type has it been, and is there anything you view as being worthwhile from your standpoint in the work of these committees here and what we could do to help you?

Mr. Baldini: Our relationships with committees of Congress are.... Let me put it this way. We work more closely with different departments, such as EPA, the Geological Survey, with those different cabinet divisions. I go to Congress obviously for budget, and once a year I go to the House for that purpose. We have many people in both houses who are very supportive of the Great Lakes, especially in the Senate where the Great Lakes senators have had a long-standing affinity for the Great Lakes. Some of the governors of the Great Lakes are probably not as supportive of Great Lakes issues as some of the previous governors were, and I'll leave that at that.

But I believe it has been a tremendous investment. I got on the IJC. I was familiar with it because I was then working with Governor Blanchard. The IJC is a part of our life in the Great Lakes.

It is a fascinating organization. When you think of what the two countries have done to put together this organization...I go back and look at 1909 and here are two countries talking about water quality, not just water quantity. It's a pretty daring, risky thing, and turning over some of the jurisdiction for that to a commission of six individuals who have some sovereignty.... I'm not so sure we'd be able to negotiate that between two countries today, even though the relationship between the two countries is a very good relationship and very friendly.

.1725

I believe we have made progress on cleaning up the Great Lakes. Next year is the 25th anniversary of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, signed by Prime Minister Trudeau and President Nixon. As a matter of fact, last week we had a discussion about that. We plan to recognize that event next year, and we're already beginning to plan it.

We think it's significant. The Great Lakes are cleaner, and we believe the Great Lakes are cleaner because the two governments really had the courage and the guts and the willingness to step up to those issues to establish what should be done with the Great Lakes.

I gave a speech recently to a group of college students and I entitled it ``The Gold of the Next Century''. I believe the gold of the next century is going to be clean water. We are sitting on one of the great resources of the world, the Great Lakes.

There's a great example...and let me ask my colleagues' forgiveness, because I've used it in the past. If you took all the water in the world and you put it into a gallon, the amount of fresh water would be a tablespoon. When you begin to think about it in that context, it's a very, very precious commodity.

We as commissioners have been talking about how we should maybe begin looking - it's not within our purview, but sometimes we stray - at the water needs of both countries for the next century. We have here in the east.... Sometimes when I walk out of my home.... I have this huge lake in front of me; a gigantic lake. But I go out west, and as we all know, there is a real demand for water. I believe we're going to have great pressure put upon the Great Lakes.

I'm going to tell a story about my mother, an Italian immigrant, who is still not sure what her son is doing. She thinks he should get a permanent job. She asked, what is the new job you're going to get? I told her. She said, I don't know; I'm not so sure I understand; all I know is you had better not let them take that water.

I thought that was a most interesting comment, because she pays attention to some politics, but that issue has resonated with her. I found that interesting.

I think the clean water issue, the quantity of water, and the quality of the water, will put great demand and pressure on our two countries. Also, what we are discovering across the boundary is that the needs and demands by the people are changing. Whether it's on the St. Croix, the St. Lawrence, the Osoyoos, or the Kootenay, we're having a lot more pressure put on us to come in and do things differently from how we did ten, twenty, forty, or fifty years ago. We're beginning to feel it. I think what's happening is people are changing up there. They have new demands, and we're beginning to feel and sense that.

I really do say the gold of the next century is going to be that clean water, and we're sitting on the most precious part of it around the world.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Mr. Baldini, perhaps you or any commissioner could tell us when these two committees could meet with you to discuss water quality.

Mr. Baldini: We stand ready to meet with you whenever you would like to talk about water quality. I'm not sure you want to listen to me go on about water quality, but we're prepared to meet with you.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): This meeting was set up on your suggestion to discuss water quantity, so I assume that this was the purpose for today. It was extremely informative. Now we are inevitably knocking at the door of the next topic, and that is quality. It would be helpful for us to know if and when you would be ready to have a meeting on that subject.

.1730

Ms Hurley: I think we should get back to you and arrange a time. We should discuss that with our commissioners who are not here today. Obviously, there are three who are not here.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): All right. You will let us know.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On May 13 and 14 the subcommittee attached to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is going to be hosting a televised forum in this room. We're going to look at the issue of sustainable development jobs in environment in three different areas: energy conservation, pollution prevention, and waste management. We're going to take a look at specific examples in each of those areas where communities, small business, and industry have had some successful initiatives and projects. That will happen on the Tuesday. The day before that, May 13, we will be conducting a round table on sustainable development.

I'm making my announcement here at this joint sitting of the two committees, inviting the natural resources committee to come out to the forum. Along with members of Parliament, we will have representatives from industry, community groups, NGOs, academics, and school children as well. There will be a number of booths set up from the different departments of government that have initiatives in these areas, as well as some of the industry and community groups.

I've just received an okay from the Speaker. He's going to be hosting an informal reception on the Monday night. There will be another reception on the Tuesday night as well. The idea is to help members understand some of these issues, as well as to do some networking with people who are working on these kinds of things.

I just wanted to pass that along. Thank you.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): Thank you.

In addition to that, there's a small footnote for the members of the environment committee that tomorrow we meet at 151 Sparks Street in room 701 at 9 a.m.

On behalf of my colleagues in this room and also those who will follow the proceedings through other means, let me thank you all - Madam Hurley, Mr. Baldini, Mr. Béland and, of course, your staff - for your appearance here today. We have certainly learned considerably from your presentation. You put on the table some very interesting concepts and potential policy questions.

Some of us look forward to next year, when you will produce your study or your review with specific recommendations as they may affect recreation and the environment as interests to be included. We look forward to meeting on water quality at a mutually convenient time.

We wish you well and we thank you for the good work you are doing on behalf of the Canadian and the American public.

Ms Hurley: Thank you.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Caccia): This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page