In 1946 the Governments of Canada and the United States referred the complex problem of the pollution of boundary waters to the International Joint Commission¹⁶⁷ and in October, 1950, the Commission presented to both governments a detailed report of its findings concerning the pollution in:

(1) The St. Marys River;

(2) The St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River; and

(3) The Niagara River.

The Commission found that the boundary waters and tributaries leading to the boundary waters were being polluted on each side of the boundary to an extent injurious to health and property, contrary to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Eighteen Canadian and forty-three United States municipalities were mentioned in the report as causing such pollution of boundary waters. The principal Ontario municipalities were: Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia, Chatham, Windsor, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls and Welland. The main causes of water pollution were domestic sewage and industrial waste, and it was considered by the Commission that those responsible for the pollution, i.e., municipalities, industries, vessel owners, etc., should bear the cost of the necessary remedial measures. At 1950 prices, it was estimated that proper treatment measures for the eighteen Canadian municipalities would cost $25,000,000, while Canadian industries in the areas under reference would need to expend $3,450,000. On the United States side, proper treatment installations for United States municipalities and industries would cost $76,500,000 and $22,650,000 respectively.

2. The International Joint Commission report recommended that certain Objectives for Boundary Waters Quality Control be adopted by the two governments to keep the waters in a satisfactory condition, that the remedial measures necessary to maintain this satisfactory condition be put into effect and, finally, that the International Joint Commission be authorized by the two governments to maintain supervision of boundary waters pollution. The United States Government approved the report and the recommendations in December of 1950, while the Canadian Government, following approval by the Cabinet in October, 1951, took the same action in November, 1951.¹⁶⁸

3. In March, 1952, the International Joint Commission established two Technical Advisory Boards on the Pollution of Boundary Waters. Since this date, these boards in their periodical reports have found that industries in Canada have made considerable progress in abating water pollution, but that industries on the United States side continue to be delinquent although, as far as is known, not in such a manner as to have a dangerous effect on health. The Canadian municipalities named in the report, however, have made little progress. Representatives of the State of Michigan, appearing before the International Joint Commission in April, 1954, criticized Ontario municipalities (in particular Sarnia, Windsor and Sault Ste. Marie) for their failure to take definite steps to prevent boundary waters pollution. On July 14 of the same year the United States Government protested the dumping of raw sewage into boundary waters and specifically mentioned the three municipalities referred to above.

4. General McNaughton, Chairman of the Canadian Section of the International Joint Commission, wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on September 23, 1954, and reported that Ontario municipalities were making little, if any, progress towards the solution of this very serious problem. He requested that the Canadian Government bring the gravity of the situation, with its possible breach of the Treaty, to the attention of the Government of Ontario. The Prime Minister wrote to Premier Frost in November, 1954, expressing his belief that the abatement of boundary waters pollution was a concern of the province and of the municipalities.¹⁶⁹ In his reply, Premier Frost stated that the problem was extremely complex and, although Ontario would do what was feasible, some form of federal-provincial fiscal arrangement would be necessary.¹⁷⁰ However, in his reply of March 24, 1955, to this letter, the Prime Minister rejected this proposal by stating that the abatement of pollution of boundary waters cannot usefully be considered within the context of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.¹⁷¹ On the credit side of the ledger, it should be noted that the Minister of Health of Ontario stated in July, 1954, that all municipalities in Ontario would be required to have final engineering plans for sewage treatment plants ready for the letting of contracts by July 1, 1957.

5. The most recent protest from the United States was made at the International Joint Commission meeting in October, 1955. Representatives from the State of Michigan, supported by the United States Section of the International Joint Commission, claimed that Michigan municipalities could not continue their efforts to abate boundary waters pollution until assurances were received from the Canadian municipalities that they will also undertake measures to stop the pollution which they were causing. Unless some solution is reached, this problem will presumably be discussed in future semi-annual meetings of the Commission.

6. Although the report of 1950 stated that the Canadian and United States municipalities were actually polluting boundary waters to the injury of health and property to the United States and Canadian sides of the boundary (and therefore contrary to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909), it might be difficult to prove in a particular case before a court of law that a discharge of sewage originating in Canada does in fact cause injury to health or property on the United States side. However, by accepting the recommendations and objectives of the International Joint Commission report of 1950, it seems that Canada has assumed at least a moral obligation to see that appropriate steps are taken to abate the pollution of boundary waters by municipalities, particularly in the light of the progress made in Michigan.

7. The Secretary of State for External Affairs submits this memorandum for information only. No recommendations are submitted pending the outcome of a study by the Advisory Committee on Water Use Policy on the general question of pollution of waters throughout Canada.¹⁷²

L.B. PEARSON