What Trump’s tinkering around with water at the Canadian border could be about

Article content

Undermining such agreements would hurt both countries by weakening a system that prevents one side from harming the other through water diversions, flooding, or pollution.

Article content

Riley Denoon, co-director of the International Waters Governance Research Initiative, also doesn’t think Canada-U.S. water co-ordination will be undone by Trump. 

Article content

While Trump’s comments can inflame public anxiety and nationalist reactions in Canada, Denoon said it’s unlikely to fundamentally derail U.S.-Canada water co-operation. 

Article content

“Ultimately, a lot of the co-operation on these water courses is really ingrained, and really sits a lot of the time at a local level,” he explained, noting how several different bodies have been created under the aegis of the BWT that create points of contact between the two countries. 

Article content

“These are co-operative mechanisms, which foster a lot of goodwill between the parties, especially at a local level.”

Article content

Still, the BWT’s power, Macfarlane explained, is mostly conditional on political goodwill.

Article content

Established in 1909, the BWT was an agreement between the United States and Great Britain acting on behalf of Canada to prevent and resolve disputes over water usage by the two countries and to address other transboundary water concerns. It established an institution called the International Joint Commission (IJC), a cooperative, technical, and advisory body of six commissioners — three from each country — that has operated ever since. 

Article content

Article content

Some think the IJC’s authority has been greatly diminished over time and that the original mandate did not equip it to handle today’s complex challenges.

Article content

Paisley called the IJC “anachronistic,” because it was designed a century ago, long before today’s environmentalism and the recognition of climate change. 

Article content

“It’s hard to design institutions a hundred-and-however-many years ago …  they had no idea about climate change,” he noted.

Article content

Also, the IJC generally works by consensus, meaning both countries have to ask it to investigate an issue concerning them both. That is great for binational co-operation, but it undermines the organization’s ability to take decisive action over urgent matters.

Article content

When asked to do so, the IJC investigates concerns over water matters and pollution, and it makes recommendations but has no authority to insist they are adopted. In recent years, both sides have been reportedly reluctant to send disputes to the IJC because they do not want rulings that would constrain economic activity, manufacturing, or agriculture.

Article content

A more muscular BWT, however, never would have been possible,  say those who know its history.

Article content

Article content

“I don’t think the problem’s with the treaty,” said Macfarlane. “It’s with governments — because you couldn’t have passed a treaty back in 1909 that had more teeth. It never would’ve been politically feasible. It would never have passed the U.S. Congress.”

Article content

So far, the IJC hasn’t gotten involved with Trump’s ending of the mining moratorium because it hasn’t been asked to, said Pierre Baril, a Canadian IJC commissioner and chair.

Article content

“If Canada and the U.S. ask us to dig into the mining situation, we will do it,” he said.

Article content

Baril declined to comment on Trump’s politics or treaty threats, stressing that the IJC does not weigh in on political decisions and operates independently of changing governments. He said the commission continues to function through regular co-operation and consensus, and he expressed confidence that both the IJC and the BWT remain strong and durable.

Article content

“We are quite immune,” he said. “We still operate independently, whenever the Liberals or Conservatives in Canada are in power or the Democrats or the Republicans are in power in Washington.”

Article content

In this case, Denoon said the BWT really becomes more relevant only if there is actual transboundary harm or a project with clear cross-border effects. So far, no mining has begun near the Boundary Waters watershed.