|
|
|
|
A. Background
The Ozone Annex to the 1991 Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement was signed by Canada and the U.S. in Washington on 7 December 2000. The Annex represents an important milestone in bilateral relations and a significant benefit to the health of millions of Canadians in eastern Canada.
The U.S. is the source of between 30% and as much as 90% of the high levels of ground-level ozone (a major component of smog) in southern and central Ontario, southern Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Scientific assessments conclude that ozone causes a range of adverse health effects in Canada, including premature mortality, increased hospital admissions, increased incidence of asthma attacks and other respiratory effects. The Ozone Annex is also reciprocal. Although the U.S. is a much larger source of ozone for Canada than vice versa, Canada (Ontario and Quebec) is responsible for transboundary flows of air pollution into New York State and New England.
The Annex is based on existing Canadian and U.S. domestic measures to reduce the emissions that result in the formation of ground-level ozone. The key benefit of the Annex will be that Canadian “downwind” communities will benefit to a degree no less favourable than U.S. “downwind” communities. The Annex will enshrine in a bilateral agreement strong, current U.S. programs aimed at reducing ozone flows.
The Ozone Annex, for the first time, defines a Pollutant Emission Management Area or transboundary ozone region. In Canada, the region is the area of Ontario and Quebec from which there can be or is transboundary pollution flow that contributes to ozone in the United States. Over 50% of Canada’s population lives in this region. In the U.S., the region includes all of the 18 states and the District of Columbia that are within 500 kilometres of the border with eastern Canada, and within which about 40% of the U.S.’s population resides.
In February 2001, the Canadian government announced a $120.2 million package of programs to implement the commitments in the Ozone Annex. These programs will reduce the ozone precursor emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), establish yearly public reporting of facility-level emissions of the pollutants that create smog, and report on air quality within 500 kilometres of the border with the United States.
The Ozone Annex focuses on eastern Canada. In terms of western Canada, population growth in the British Columbia-Washington State transboundary airshed is expected to result in more smog and other air quality problems. Officials from all governments in the British Columbia-Washington State region met in February 2000 to begin to discuss transboundary air pollution that exists now and is expected to grow worse with future population growth.
The Ozone Annex provides for the addition of new transboundary regions and could be used as the instrument through which a negotiated emission reduction agreement could be established. Other bilateral instruments and mechanisms also exist through which a negotiated agreement could be reached if governments agree.
B. Discussion
A Canadian delegate introduced the discussion by commenting that transborder air pollution irritants had largely been solved. It was noted that the Canada/United States Air Quality Agreement, using the Air Quality Agreement signed by the Atlantic Premiers and New England Governors as a model, was working well. Further to this the implementation of the Ozone Annex to the Canada/United States Air Quality Agreement will greatly reduce “business‑as‑usual” emissions. It was observed that the International Air Quality Advisory Board was “getting the job done” and that, in addition to this, the International Joint Commission was also working to help reduce transboundary air pollution.
An American delegate concurred. The delegate, however, drew a link to the previous discussion on trade corridors by mentioning that air pollution at the heavily used border crossings was very bad. The delegate remarked that there is a dramatic increase in childhood asthma cases in schools near the Peace Bridge border crossing.
In response to a question by a Canadian as to why there was an increase in pollution, an American noted that the Commission for Environmental Cooperation has studied the increase in truck traffic and concluded that the establishment of infrastructure has not kept pace with the increase in traffic. This has exacerbated air pollution, particularly at the heavily used border crossings.
A Canadian remarked that one of the main problems in air pollution now could be attributed to the lack of clean air technology in automobiles and trucks. It was also remarked that some have said that the border waits are back to normal after 11 September 2001, but those who have attempted to cross and live near the border dispute this assumption. Anecdotally, some felt that waiting lines had simply moved off the highway. A Canadian mentioned that Deputy Prime Minister Manley had had to cancel a planned crossing because of the unacceptable wait.
A Canadian delegate mentioned that part of the problem was also the less stringent sulphur standards in America and Canada than, for instance, the European Union. Another Canadian remarked that, while there had been progress in the petroleum industry, there was a further need for government intervention but that it was politically difficult. A Canadian delegate suggested that it was not just about gas but also machinery, in that cars were getting more abundant and larger.
A Canadian delegate remarked that there are about 150 million crossings per year along the Canada/U.S. border and that this magnitude made it imperative to do something to alleviate the pollution problem at border crossings. An American delegate suggested that the advantage of trucks was seen in just-in-time delivery and that made it difficult to decrease the number of trucks. It was suggested that perhaps people could be encouraged to move by rail while goods could maintain the just-in-time imperative by being moved by truck.
A. Background
Virtually every human activity affects water in some way such that the quality of waters along the border and in Canada can be seen as a barometer for the health of our environment as a whole. Recognizing this, Canada and the United States have increased efforts over the past 25 years to address water quality problems, an issue that consistently ranks as a top environmental concern in public opinion polls.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is a formal commitment by the governments of Canada and the United States to restore and protect the Great Lakes. First signed in 1972, the GLWQA was last updated in 1987 and it established the commitment to restore and enhance water quality in the Great Lakes system. Since 1972, amendments have been made to reflect new approaches and challenges (e.g. adoption of an ecosystem approach in 1978, identification of significantly degraded areas or Areas of Concern in 1987).
The eleventh Biennial Report of the International Joint Commission (IJC) on Great Lakes Water Quality, to be released in the summer of 2002, is expected to focus on three priority issues: indicators, contaminated sediments, and the introduction of aquatic nuisance species. The report will also provide a review of the parties’ implementation of the Annexes to the Agreement.
In the future, focussed efforts will be made on a number of key initiatives, including developing a Great Lakes strategy in the United States, implementing the next phase of the Great Lakes action plan in Canada, renewing the Canada-Ontario Agreement and additional emphasis on implementing remedial actions plans for areas of concern.
Another concern to Canadians is that of bulk water removals. In February 1999, Canada announced a three‑part strategy to prohibit the bulk removal of water out of all major Canadian water basins. As part of this strategy, amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act (IBWTA) were passed into law on 18 December 2001. The amendments prohibit the bulk removal of water from Canadian boundary waters, including the Great Lakes. To implement this legislation, regulations will be proposed that will provide an opportunity for public input and ensure effective and continued implementation.
In addition to this, the Minister of the Environment, in co‑operation with the provinces and territories, proposed a Canada‑wide accord to prohibit bulk water removals. Each level of government would take appropriate action within its jurisdiction. All provinces have put into place or are developing legislation or regulations that accomplish this goal.
Canada and the U.S. have also agreed to a joint reference to the IJC on consumptive uses, diversions and removals of Great Lakes waters, including for the purposes of export. The IJC’s final report (Protection of the Waters of the Great Lakes, February 2000) concluded that the Great Lakes require protection, especially in the light of the uncertainties, pressures and cumulative impacts from removals, consumption, population and economic growth, and climate change. Recommendations for action to protect the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin are directed by the IJC to all levels of government in Canada and the United States.
B. Discussion
A Canadian delegate introduced the topic of water quality and removals by acknowledging the good work of the IJC. While some problems, such as the Garrison water diversions, continue to be an issue there are few areas of irritation and ongoing problems are moving toward resolution. Credit for this positive state of relations was given to the IJC.
A Canadian asked if the drought in the northeastern United States might not create a desire for Canadian water and, if so, wondered what the Canadian government was doing to prevent such diversions. It was also suggested that the provincial governments have some jurisdiction over such decisions. An American asked if the jurisdiction was purely provincial. A Canadian delegate responded that it was a joint jurisdiction.
A Canadian pointed out that while natural resources were considered as under provincial jurisdiction, there were areas in which the federal government could act. It was observed that there are efforts to bring drinking water quality standards under enforceable federal law, for instance. Another Canadian delegate remarked that if there were a boundary issue regarding the water, this also would bring an issue under federal jurisdiction.
A Canadian delegate quoted from a Globe and Mail article (21 July 2001) that stated that Canada’s environment minister agreed that the United States could have as much Canadian water as it wanted as long as it came in a bottle with a straw. Another Canadian observed that changes had been made to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prevent bulk water removals.
A Canadian delegate mentioned, as an aside, that water diversion plans in Alberta had totally collapsed.
SPECIES AT RISK – CANADIAN LEGISLATION
A. Background
A key component of Canada’s National Strategy for the Protection of Species at Risk is Bill C-5, the proposed Species at Risk Act (SARA), which was introduced in the House of Commons on 2 February 2001. The Act takes the approach that conservation actions and incentives are the preferred way of protecting critical habitat. The proposed legislation incorporates opportunities for landowners to participate in species recovery and provides for incentives that support the conservation of species on their lands.
The legislation will also contain prohibitions against the killing or harming of listed, threatened and endangered species as well as the destruction of their residences. These prohibitions will apply automatically to all listed species under federal jurisdiction or on federal lands. For listed species on other lands, when not protected by complementary provincial or territorial legislation, prohibitions may be put in place under the federal legislation.
B. Discussion
A Canadian delegate introduced this topic with a brief discussion of the controversies surrounding Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act. Among these were the worries of landowners that if habitat were protected under the legislation they would not receive adequate compensation. It was also mentioned that some felt that the decision to protect a species at risk was too discretionary, the decision being left to Governor in Council with no time restriction. A third controversy was described in the so-called “safety-net” provisions, which give the power to the federal government to protect species on non-federal lands if it is decided that it is not protected by complimentary provincial or territorial legislation. Some feel that this is an unnecessary intrusion on provincial jurisdiction.
A Canadian delegate asked how it would be decided if provincial or territorial legislation was adequate. Another Canadian delegate suggested that it was very rare for the federal government to intrude in such a heavy-handed manner. A Canadian delegate suggested that some provincial legislation was better than the proposed federal legislation and that most provinces had their own laws. The Canadian delegate asked for a comparison with the American experience with their Endangered Species Act (ESA).
An American delegate responded by saying that in the United States the ESA was one of the most contentious issues and a point of friction that runs very deep. The American delegate then described the unjustified strength of the environmental lobby in the United States and how the ESA had been turned into a zoning law. The American delegate suggested that Canada should ensure that our proposed law should not be turned into a zoning law and that there should be peer review of the listing process involving non-scientists.
A Canadian delegate stressed that co-operation with resource users and landowners is necessary to avoid the “shoot-shovel-shut up” syndrome wherein landowners eradicate endangered species as a result of seeing them as a liability.
A. Background
Following rapid growth of the aquaculture industry in the late 1980s and associated social and environmental conflicts, in April 1995 the government of British Columbia placed a moratorium on new aquaculture licenses. Concurrently, the provincial government announced that British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Office would conduct a review of salmon farming. As a result, a provincial action plan was developed and a Salmon Aquaculture Review (SAR) was conducted. The SAR report, released in August 1997, made 49 recommendations to improve management of the aquaculture industry in British Columbia. The province announced the lifting of the moratorium in early 2002. The State of Alaska, which prohibits salmon aquaculture, believes that escaped Atlantic salmon pose a threat to their wild salmon fisheries and have protested the lifting of the moratorium.
B. Discussion
A Canadian delegate introduced the topic by suggesting that the Pacific Salmon Treaty, particularly after the 1999 agreement, seemed to be working overall. Regarding aquaculture, it was noted that salmon aquaculture uses Atlantic salmon on both coasts. The concerns of Alaska were described as being worry about escapes of the foreign Atlantic salmon in Pacific waters, and diseases such as infectious salmon anaemia spreading to wild stocks. Better cages were seen as a possible solution.
A Canadian delegate remarked that on the east coast the biggest impediment to the industry was the listing of Maine salmon under the United States’ Endangered Species Act. The listing, it was observed, was shutting down the aquaculture industry and, along with the disease problem, was creating chaos in the industry in Atlantic Canada.
An American delegate noted that regulatory action other than controlling aquaculture has served to protect wild salmon, such as the banning of drift nets that in the past had been 30 or 100 miles long. A Canadian delegate observed that much had been done regarding improvement of wild salmon stocks through endowment funds to improve habitat and to do improved stock assessments.
A Canadian delegate suggested that many of the problems commonly blamed on the aquaculture industry were not real. Environmental groups, it was suggested, were using old data regarding waste and antibiotic use that no longer apply to the industry in order to bolster their cause. While the escaped salmon problem was probably small, however, it was a very important issue. It was noted that some salmon were colonizing and might be able to out- compete wild salmon. Though there had been calls from Alaskan politicians to reopen the Pacific Salmon Treaty to add an Annex covering aquaculture, it was stated that there was no desire on the part of Canada to do so. The Canadian position was stated that aquaculture should be allowed but restricted.
An assistant to an American delegate was invited, in his absence, to give the delegate’s position. The assistant reiterated that the main worry was that of escaped Atlantic salmon in Pacific waters. Atlantic salmon, it was stressed, had been found in rivers that are very important to the wild salmon industry.
Delegates met in a closing plenary session, with a brief summary of the discussions that had occurred in each committee.
Delegates then discussed the International Joint Commission, established through the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. A Liberal Member of Parliament questioned whether this binational organization might receive an expanded mandate to resolve issues beyond water and air quality. In his view – a view supported by a Republican Representative – Canada and the United States should not have to go to the World Trade Organization in Geneva in order to resolve bilateral disputes.
The members of the Canadian delegation wish to acknowledge the contributions of the Executive Secretary of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group; the staff of the International and Inter-Parliamentary Affairs Directorate; and the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament. As in past years, the Association wishes to recognize the assistance provided by the staff of the U.S. General Relations Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Sally Walsh, Director, United States Senate Protocol Office for her invaluable assistance in ensuring that the 43rd Annual Meeting was a success.
Respectfully submitted,
|
Hon. Jerry Grafstein, Senator |
Joe Comuzzi, M.P. |
|
Co-Chair |
Co-Chair |