The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Are Great Lakes Funding Cuts a Cause for Concern?

Episode Date: April 23, 2025

Longstanding co-operation between the U.S. and Canada in keeping the Great Lakes safe, clean and healthy is at risk as a result of budget and staffing cuts to federal agencies south of the border. A look at the future of lake research and stewardship between the nations, and the threats that have arisen to them as U.S. support dwindles.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Renew your 2.0 TVO with more thought-provoking documentaries, insightful current affairs coverage, and fun programs and learning experiences for kids. Regular contributions from people like you help us make a difference in the lives of Ontarians of all ages. Visit tvo.me slash 2025 donate to renew your support or make a first-time donation and continue to discover your 2.TVO. He was like a father figure to me. Unfortunately, found myself in a very vulnerable position. This is a story about a psychiatrist in Toronto accused of abusing two of his patients, which he denies.

It's also a story about a system that is supposed to protect patients. From TVO Podcasts, I'm Krisha Collier. And this is The Oath. Subscribe today, wherever you listen. For more than 50 years, Canada and the U.S. have made significant progress in fighting invasive species, reducing pollution, and predicting storms as part of the binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. But that cooperation has been under a cloud since the Trump administration cut jobs and

budgets at federal agencies responsible for this shared resource. So what is the future of bi-national cooperation in the Great Lakes? Let's ask. Gail Krantzberg, Professor Emeritus at the Walter G. Booth School of Engineering Practice and Technology at McMaster University and Canadian Principal Lead of the Global Center

for Climate Change and Transboundary Waters. Mike McKay, he's Director of the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research and professor in the School of the Environment at the University of Windsor. And Jérôme Marti, a professor at the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa and executive director of the International Association

for Great Lakes Research. And we are very happy to have three such smart people who know the Great Lakes so well with us for our program tonight here on TVO and Gail to you first. Want to find a little background out about the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement signed in 1972, the United States Congress and the Canadian Parliament. Why was the agreement necessary in the first place? Back in the 60s actually, there were very serious problems going on in Lake Erie. Massive fish kills, massive growth of algae, and when they died they robbed the water of oxygen.

Fish were dying. And the governments didn't know why. And they asked the International Joint Commission to please look into it. And they looked into it and through some of the work done at actually the experimental lakes area in Canada they figured out it was phosphorus. So the IJC said to the governments you've got a problem with phosphorus and the government said well we better do something about that and we will sign a Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to control phosphorus to control nutrient enrichment and to bring the lakes back

to health. And Jerome what would you point to, to suggest to everybody watching and listening that it's a good thing we signed that agreement, because look what we've got in the meantime. It's a very good thing because there were many progresses made to restore areas that were highly polluted. We still have problems in the Great Lakes. The health of the Great Lakes varies from very good in Lake Superior to quite bad in Lake Area. There's still a super fund dedicated to Lake Area.

Progresses in the Great Lakes take a long time because these systems are large. They take special resources that do not apply for smaller lakes when they need to be restored. Mike, has it been an unambiguous success having this agreement in place? I think so. I think the Great Lakes are really held up around the world as being a success story. This binational cooperation we've

had between Canada and the US.S. over the past 50 plus years to ensure that the lakes remain swimmable, drinkable, fishable. Gail, has anybody on either side of the border, over the intervening years, since this was for more than 50 years ago, this agreement, have they said, you know, it's not really working, we don't really need this agreement, let's not bother? Not to my knowledge. In fact, there's a provision in the agreement to review its effectiveness every period of time,

set period of time. And the governments have done that in consultation with others and said, you know, there's more that we should be doing. We should be looking at persistent toxic substances. Most recently, we should be looking at climate change and how we make communities more resilient to climate change. So there's always an interest to increase the knowledge we should be looking at climate change and how we make communities more resilient to climate change.

So there's always an interest to increase the knowledge. We have new science, we need new programs, and the cooperation has been exceptional. And people who run under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement have a passion for the excellence of the Great Lakes. And so there's never been a question, meh, maybe we don't need it. Jérôme, do you agree with that, that on both sides of the border, people have concluded this is something we need? The Great Lakes Protection polls at over 90% of the populations as a priority.

I think it speaks to the work that has been done in a binational way. The agreement is flexible. There are these times where revisions are allowed. We've added things to the agreements. We're looking into microplastics. That's one of the upcoming stressors that scientists are investigating at the moment. So I do think it has worked very well. In fact, it is seen as a model worldwide

on how binational questions can be advanced together. In which case, Mike, I'd like to know how last month, when hundreds of people were laid off at the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service, fired by the Trump administration. I'd like to know how you reacted when you heard that news. It was distressing.

Many of those people were our colleagues, our friends. Living in a place like Windsor, where we see Detroit right across the river, we engaged with our US colleagues daily, if weekly if not daily and to see many of them losing jobs. So it's a concern moving forward. I understand you are sad when a colleague loses a job but were those people all doing work that needed doing? Well, I mean this is what the US is going through a phase now where they are examining efficiency in their organizations. And I'm not to judge whether they are doing what needs to be done.

But we look at a lot of programs that are potentially at risk moving forward because some of those very people have now lost their jobs. Gail, that's what I want to find out. I mean, obviously, you say they're going through a phase. It feels like a little more than a phase right now. But anyway, America is going through something right now where they're laying off thousands upon thousands of public servants.

Most of the time, they say these people are not needed and we can get on without them. The people who are losing their jobs at these two organizations, do they have a function that now something will be lost if they're not working anymore? So I'd like to point to NOAA and the... NOAA is the acronym for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. I left that to you to say. And I didn't say it well. So thank you. They do an enormous amount of monitoring, surveillance, modeling and so on.

And there's an efficiency there. Instead of Canada doing everything that NOAA is doing, Canada does their thing, NOAA does their thing, and they share data and information, which all of a sudden is not available. This kind of information is necessary for weather forecasting, it's necessary for safe transportation, marine transportation, let alone predicting harmful algal blooms that could cause poisons in our drinking water.

All of that is absolutely necessary to understand the lakes and therefore to manage the lakes. And with those people being fired and that function going away, we're going to have a gap in information and we will not be able to manage the lakes. And with those people being fired and that function going away, we're going to have a gap in information and we will not be able to manage the lakes as efficiently and as well, and to protect the people and the economy of the region

as had they been kept on board to do the work they do. Sherem, follow up on that if you would. What is being lost with the loss of these jobs? We're losing the ability to ring an alarm when it's needed. If we look at the management of the Great Lakes and look at those who need the information the most, I think municipalities are pretty high up on the list. They don't have the capability, the infrastructure

to do all the things they need to know to keep the people safe. If we have a bloom of algae in Lake Erie and we will have a bloom of algae next summer, it is guaranteed. And if we are not able to detect when that bloom becomes toxic, there is a risk for people who are taking that water for drinking water purposes. 2014, the city of Toledo, half a million people lost access to drinking water for two weeks. It has happened.

We know, scientists often project, say, this may happen or may not. This has happened. And if we don't have the ability to report the science that tells this water is now dangerous, then I think we're going to see some significant problems. And Mike for those people in the administration who say you guys are just fighting to hang on to your turf and your jobs we can get along without these people, what's the response? Well as Gail and Drone mentioned these programs are programs we rely on. As was mentioned the Hartle Blom's again Windsor, we have Lake St. Clair,

Western Lake Erie in proximity. Those are poster children for harmful algal blooms in the Great Lakes. You wanna see the poster? We got a picture of this here. We got an aerial shot here. I'm gonna have to describe this for those listening on podcasts,

but for those watching on television, you can see this. This is an aerial photo of algal bloom in Lake Erie, taken by the Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. This is the summer of 2019. Now, if you look at the bottom middle of that picture, you can see a vertical line, and that's a freighter. Now, freighters are pretty big, and look at the size of that algal bloom around that frie-

I mean, it's massive. It's absolutely massive. It just completely engulfs the entire freighter here. So just pick up on the story there, Mike. Why is that of concern? Well, these blooms produce toxins. These toxins are effectively removed by our municipal water utilities, but that comes at expense. So we become reliant on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration for their monitoring, for their remote sensing, their forecasting to tell us where those blooms are going to move in the lakes to provide that early alert to municipalities about a bloom encroaching upon their water intake and whether they have to ramp up treatment operations which again is provide that early alert to municipalities about a bloom encroaching upon their water intake and whether they have to ramp up treatment operations, which again is costly. So it's really in the end, it's saving money by having these early alerts. And that is going to be at risk. There was an old muffler commercial on TV, says you can pay me now or you can pay me later.

Better to pay it now. Exactly. A lot less expensive too. Less expensive to pay now than later when you're trying to clean everything up. There's another term here I've seen. Cyanobacteria blooms. What are they? That's the harmful algal blooms.

The harmful algae is actually a misnomer. Cyanobacteria are a bacteria like microcystin, cystis. It's a bacteria that photosynthesizes. So, you know, plants photosynthesize the green stuff. So it's a bacteria that photosynthesizes. So, you know, plants photosynthesize the green stuff. So it's a bacteria that photosynthesizes. It looks like an algae. It's actually a bacteria that puts out the kinds of poisons that these two gentlemen have been talking about.

So those are poisons that, in fact, if, let alone drinking water, if you were down on the beach, when you had that picture up of that algal bloom, and your dog went in and took a drink, you could kill them. Yep. Just drinking that water could kill the dog. Just drinking that water, if it was cyanobacteria, yeah.

Okay, let's continue on here. What are some of the projects managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, important to the health of the Great Lakes, that are now in jeopardy because of the Trump cuts? If we go back to the history of the Great Lakes, until 2006, it was the body of freshwater on Earth with the highest rate of invasion.

Invasive species, about 180 species recorded about until 2006. And we have managed these species, one in particular, the sea lamprey, which is a very fierce carnivorous fish who has disseminated the fisheries in several of the Great Lakes. And we've been able to manage a species by applying a chemical, a chemical that kills the larvae, the larvae of sea lamprey. One female sea lamprey is able to produce about 100,000 larvae. So in the spring is a critical time.

We have biologists going out to apply this lamprey seed. And as we heard a little bit earlier a couple of months ago, people whose responsibility is to apply that chemicals got laid off. And that created a wave of concerns for those managing invasive species throughout the Great Lakes. This is the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission's

on the US side and the Department of Fisheries and Ocean on the Canadian side that are involved with that control. And the worry is that if we miss the spring, because we need to apply this at a very critical, specific moment in time, then the sealant break will bounce back very quickly. Things are very fluid. These people were rehired. But it does show that things are changing very fast. We don't know if these people are going to be fired again.

Well, we're in the spring right now. Have we missed the window or it's okay? The work is ongoing at the moment, at the last minute. But it has been very challenging for these people to be effective doing their work. But I think that's also an example where there's been pushback, an effective pushback. That was a case where those employees were terminated.

A Republican congressman from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan pushed back and said, this is going to affect our recreational fishery. We can't have this. And a grassroots campaign gained momentum. And in that case, they identified, well, that was a mistake. We have to bring those folks back.

Will this happen across the board? I don't know. That was going to be my next question. But what are you hearing from your American colleagues as to whether or not they can push back and get more jobs restored or perhaps stave off future cuts to come? Well, there's precedent for what we're seeing now. In previous, we call this the skinny budget, that first budget that comes out before it actually goes to Congress for appropriations. The Great Lakes restoration initiative has

been has been zeroed out in previous budgets. The Sea Grant college program has been zeroed out in previous budgets. The Great Lakes it's it's I'm always impressed I worked in the US for 30 years. I worked in Ohio very conservative district, but when it came to the Great Lakes, the representatives were very supportive. You either recognize the Great Lakes as being important for ecosystem services, for clean drinking water, for fishing. You might recognize the Great Lakes as important for driving our economy. Regardless, both sides of the aisle find the Great Lakes

important. So I'm expecting there would be pushback. I'm expecting that what we're seeing, that the stories that were leaked last week about these massive cuts, which are again crazy, I expect there would be pushback and that there will be some reconciliation. We've seen it in the past. This is too important of a resource to lose. Gail, can I get you on the politics of all this? Because whether you're... I just want to follow up on this point that Mike has made. There are precious few issues in North America today where you think there's sort of 90-10

support, right? There's a lot of 50-50 issues these days. Wouldn't the health and future of the Great Lakes, wouldn't you think that would be an issue that people on both sides of the political aisle can get around? Yeah, you're absolutely right, just to build on what Mike said. You know, when the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative was going to be killed, you actually covered this, the governors, it didn't matter what, whether they were Republican or Democrat, they said, no way, those are jobs, that's our economy, that's our wealth.

This is supposed to be about safety, efficiency. That's what the political agenda is. The politics of this is the Great Lakes are like a six trillion dollar economy, possibly the third largest economy in the world if it was its own nation, because of the water. And so political parties don't matter. It's the economy of the region that depends on the waters of the Great Lakes that's important and the governors and the premiers will fight for that. And I think I can't imagine that we'd have partisan politics even in Canada around that.

This is the economy, like 50% of the GDP in Canada is built on the waters of the Great Lakes. So it is clearly a national significance, an international significance, a transnational significance. And those people who live here understand the value of maintaining its integrity and will fight hard. I believe, I mean, I don't have evidence, but clearly logic says they will fight hard to protect the waters for the wealth and health of the people. We started this conversation talking about Lake Erie and the phosphorus problems that were in the lake more than 50 years ago. And I'm going to ask our director Sheldon Osmond to bring up another graphic now. And this one shows the relative health of the Great Lakes. And again, for those listening on podcast,

we're looking at the five Great Lakes right now. There are some that are colored blue, like Lake Superior, which means it's in relatively good shape. There are a couple that are in red. And as you might imagine, red means danger, danger, Will Robinson here. Lake Ontario and Lake Erie have got way too much red in them at the moment. Now, Jérôme, take us through this map

and sort of explain to us, why is Lake Superior blue? Why are Ontario and Erie very red? Well, the differences in colors is really a function of how many people are in the lakes, are around the lakes. We have most of the population around Lake Ontario, Lake Harrier. Lake Harrier has a lot of agriculture in the watershed, which provides the problem with phosphorus and in turn the blue-green algae. Lake Superior is the deepest of all the lakes. It has also the least people around it. So you do see

these gradients of colors. All the lakes, if you look at them carefully, you do realize that the problems are mostly in the near shore zone, so around the shores. And this is where we have most of the impacts of pollutions from legacy in the near shore zone, so around the shores. And this is where we have most of the impacts of pollutions from legacy sources, industrial activities, and agriculture. So this map needs to be updated as well. This is a couple of years old already.

We are monitoring stressors. And what I want to add to this is scientists used to study one stressor at a time. And the science of today is to say that we need to realize that 1 plus 1 is not equal to, in terms of level of stresses. And it's all that discipline of cumulative stress. What does it mean if we have several stresses

at the same time? And I think this is one of the key avenues where the science is going. And this is where we need everyone on board on all the Great Lakes to share their knowledge together so we have the understanding that we need to manage the lakes. Just so I understand that, one plus one does not equal two because as the stressors accumulate, the problems become exponentially difficult? They build on each other? Yeah, you could have one stressor

that has a certain level of severity, but if you add another substance, let's say two chemicals together, one chemical could have one effect, but if you have two chemicals together, then the effects on, let's say, the toxicity on a given species will be much larger. Am I right that all three of you are on the advisory board

of the International Joint Commission as it relates to the Great Lakes? Is that right? Yep. All three of you are on it. OK. So going forward, if we want to see maps, Mike, that are a lot less red and a lot more blue,

what's that going to take? Well it's going to require again binational, transnational cooperation because the lakes are obviously not just US Canada but include First Nations, Métis and tribal groups but this cooperation across jurisdictional boundaries. It's going to require you know teams working together it's going to require teams working together, it's going to require capacity on both sides of the border. Capacity means people. Capacity means people as well as infrastructure and that's actually an

area where Canada is starting to make ground and has a lot of room to grow. We had just last year a 2023 budget, an unprecedented appropriation of 420 million dollars by the Canadian government you spent over 10 years to help improve the health of the Great Lakes. Now I've only been back in Canada for six years but during that time seen nothing like that. And so this was, this is, you know, I'm optimistic for the future that Canada is moving in the right direction. Okay, you've talked Canada. Now you know what I want to ask about next. Four of the five Great Lakes we share, Michigan is entirely in the United States.

Given what you see politically happening in the United States right now, can any of what you've talked about be accomplished without American leadership and intervention? Some actions can be accomplished on one side of the border. We have these geographic places that are particularly degraded because of being industrial pasts. We can clean those up. We have federal funds.

We have provincial funds. We have federal funds, we have provincial funds, we have conservation authorities, we have educators. You're meaning just Canada. Canada, we can do some local things. But when you're talking about the health of a whole lake, that is a transnational water body. The water circulates on both sides of the border. So you do what you want on that graphic

that showed a red zone, some sort of near shore zone on Superior on Superior and clean that up but it doesn't matter because the water keeps going around and around around so to restore to better health to keep improving the quality of the Great Lakes it cannot be done just on one side of the border it does need the US participation it needs the US scientists it needs the US scientists, it needs the US interventions, it needs US programs, policies, legislation. It won't happen just Canada doing it alone. As much as Canada may make best efforts, it is my opinion that it is a transnational water body that has seven times the population density on

the US side, to Jerome's point about populations. And so with that kind of population density, you can only do so much on the Canadian side. You need the US scientists, federal scientists, state scientists, academics, industries, businesses, you need all hands on board. And a lot of those hands are disappearing. Having said that, Jerome, if America, which it clearly appears to be right now,

is going through a phase where they are very distrustful of people who do what you do, of bureaucracy in general, of public service in general, can Canada move to fill that void? I think Canada has to be ready to deal with a new set of relationships. Scientists are always open, I think, to collaborations. This is part of who we are. La raison d'être of science is always to share the knowledge. As Gail and Mike mentioned, it is impossible to take on all the work that is being done in the US.

Canada doesn't have the infrastructure. Doing field work in the Great Lakes is not small business. You need big vessels, you need big probes, equipment, the same equipment that we use in oceanography in the oceans. And when we think about efficiency, that's why the Great Lakes science is efficient. It's because we have been doing this together. It's not one side doing it together, doing it alone. If Canada was to do things alone, we would lose efficiency actually because we don't have the infrastructure. It would be too big of a task. And why should we have all the equipment on the one side? Sheldon, would you mind, can you bring up that map again that we just saw with the five Great Lakes on it

and with some in red, some in blue? There we go, thank you very much. Mike, I want you to take a look at that map and tell us what is the single most concerning geographic location in all of the Great Lakes? What spot would it be for you? For me it's easy. It's the Huron-Erie corridor, that region that stretches from Sarnia down to Amersburg. That includes the the two connecting channels, the St. Clair River, the Detroit River, and Lake St. Clair. That's where you have convergence of high population density, industrialization, this legacy of industrial activity, and highly agricultural. Multiple stressors, and we're always dealing with another challenge, another risk, and it's also an area that is inherently binational. You can see the

other side of the border from those locations and requires that cooperation to ensure that those areas you know can stay healthy. Let me check out of curiosity whether the two of you look at that same map and see a different area of chief concern. What about it? I defer to Mike on that observation. My chief concern is much more global. I see a proliferation of, for example, a particular contaminant that's everywhere. It may not show up as a red zone because of the way those maps are constructed, but we have microplastics everywhere and getting into our bodies and they don't belong there. You may say

well do we know that they're harming us? Should we actually be having plastics in our body? I don't think so. We have forever chemicals, as they're called, or polyfluorinated substances everywhere that don't disappear that are in all of the lakes. So I think there are problems in each one of the lakes that, for me, I can't pick a pet location. I get Mike's point, definitely, but I can't pick a pet location because I see certain problems that are pervasive everywhere.

And plastics are in the Great Lakes all five of them? Oh yes. Jérôme, which particular geographic location would you point to? I think it all depends on what lands we... what stressor, what is at risk. If you ask me the questions about the Great Lakes and oil, for example, this is a topic we've been hearing about during these elections. There is a project to replace a line, the Strait of Mackenac line, a pipeline there. And the pipeline has been in the news because it's not in very good shape.

There is a risk. We cannot afford to have a spill of oil in the Great Lakes. And so that, I think, is a hot spot. There are areas of legacy pollution in the Detroit area, certainly. Also, the port of Hamilton, which is Randall Reef, has been a remediation site for a number of years. But I'm going to bring this question also home with the St. Lawrence River. We always forget that all that water ends up in the St. Lawrence River.

Where we also have concerns with a lot of erosion these days, the impact of climate change are there. We're losing the winter in the Great Lakes and in the St. Lawrence River. And the whole system is changing and it's changing at a pace that is much faster than what we are monitoring today. Mike, I want to ask you, admittedly a speculative question but I think speculation based on genuine concern and fear. We have seen the current American president withdraw from international agreements, some of which

he himself has signed, right? He pulled the plug on whatever you want to call it, USMACA, KUSMA, the free trade agreement that he signed the first time he was president. What happens if he decides to withdraw from the Great Lakes water quality agreement? Well, it would be a disaster. Again though I look to the representatives from the Great Lakes states and I just I know there would be

pushback. I just they realize how important that these this resource is to the livelihood of people living in those communities. Are you hearing any rumors that that's in the works? Oh, you hear rumors, but you hear rumors about a lot of things. So nothing concrete that I've heard. Do you believe he'll do it? Do I believe he'll do it? No. Do I believe he'll talk about it? Maybe. But it's, who knows?

But again, no concrete evidence that that's happening. Gail, what would be the consequences of the American president unilaterally withdrawing from a Great Lakes water quality agreement that has been in place for more than half a century? It would be a political showdown. Between whom and whom? Between the governors, the premiers, and the president. And perhaps the prime minister.

I'm not going to speculate on what happens if the agreement goes away, because I think the consequence of him saying he's going to tear it up or pull away would be exactly as we heard with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The people of the region would say, no way, this resource is too important. Cooperation transnationally is what we've been doing for over 50 years.

It works and hands off. So I think it would be a political pushback. I don't even think it would go into legal channels. I think it would just be stopped. I can't imagine a future would go into legal channels. I think it would just be stopped. I can't imagine a future where there is no water quality agreement because it would just, the devastation to the place would be enormous.

And the political leaders wouldn't stand for that. This is not a president who has demonstrated a great deal of concern about the environment. This is the drill baby drill president. Are you hearing rumors that he might pull the plug on the Great Lakes water quality agreement? We've heard rumors. What I would argue is that the water quality agreements contributes to the three priorities that the Trump administration has put forward. The number one priority is about safer America and the water quality agreements does that by making

sure the water is safe to drink to fish to swim. Stronger America. The Great Lakes water quality agreements make sure that we have a good environment which supports a healthy economy. We also make the Great Lakes more resilient to the stressors that we see today including climate change. And the last one is about a more prosperous America. If you have a good environment, a healthy environment, you can support a healthy economy. So I think the point is to make is really to say that this is not going in disagreement with what the administration is putting forward, But we need to communicate this very carefully and in a very strong way so that this decision never happens.

And those points resonate everywhere, not just in America, but also in Canada. I mean, if we're trying to sell government investments on supporting the Great Lakes in Canada, make the same arguments. Safer, stronger, more prosperous. Just a couple of minutes to go here. I want to put one more issue on the table.

And that is, we have also heard out of the Trump administration that they are most interested in commoditizing the water that is the Great Lakes. Do we have, Gail, to you first, do we have laws or some kind of protection in place to prevent that from happening unilaterally? One of the pieces of legislation that we have is in the United States has a nice name, the Great Lakes Compact. Here it's called the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Sustainable Resources Act.

But in any event, it's passed into law in 2008, I believe. And it was because the province of Ontario back in that time earlier before 2008 gave approval to sell water from Lake Superior into tankers and send it overseas and the governor said whoa whoa wait a minute you're not selling Great Lakes water the Great Lakes remember is a swimming pool it's a glacial relic you you know, one percent more water goes into the Great Lakes each year by rain or snow, but you turn on the taps and it never comes back. So the compact prohibits water from being sold

or actually diverted away from the Great Lakes unless it's returned back. And it has some exceptions, but I don't want to get into too much detail about the exceptions. But you have to demonstrate that the only reason you're going to take water out of the Great Lakes is for humanitarian need, and that you could put that water back into the lakes, which means taking that water, selling it off, diverting it down to put out fire somewhere else is off the table by legislation.

Now, what does legislation mean under the Trump administration? We don't know. But again, I think the governors and premiers signed this because they said, you're not taking the water out of the Great Lakes. And I think that compact of the Resources Act will have that same political clout to prevent water from being taken away.

Mike, last word to you. The last 30 seconds on this. Are you satisfied that this water cannot be commoditized willy-nilly by the administration? As Gail mentioned, we have legislation in place already that addresses that. Will there be threats? I'm sure there will be. But it comes down to it comes down to the interests of the people in place the people living in these communities surrounding the Great Lakes Basins both US and Canada both sides of the aisle in the US across party lines in Canada all rallying around this important resource that's Mike McKay from University of Windsor. We also want to thank Gail Kranzberg

from McMaster University and Jérôme Marti, University of Ottawa. It's great to have you three with us here at TVO tonight to remind us about the significance, the absolute singular significance of these five bodies of water. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

Merci. Go Leafs. That too.