From: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Subject: great lakes region1/3
Reply-To: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 2 Jan 93 19:08:15 EST

 Greetings all Great Lakes-ers (Lakesians ? ). All the best for 1993.

 I guess I've got enough responses to warrant a posting on the subject
 that I broached in this newsgroup last month. So, here I go:
-------------------------------------------------------------
UG>From: Chuck.Cole@f78.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Chuck Cole)

 (Chuck says: )

UG>This is NOT the proper forum for a sophomoric political discussion.
UG>I'd bet that the Chamber of Commerce of Gary Indiana would be very
UG>receptive to your goals and would sponsor a forward-looking
UG>newsgroup to deal with these issues.

 SH -  A very interesting proposal Chuck. Perhaps someone reading this
 newsgroup would be so kind/inspired, as to try to arrange such a
 newsgroup. I would not have the faintest idea where or how to do so.

 Much as I wish it, I'll never be sophomore age again. I'm 42, a
 member of the Ontario Institute of Quantity Surveyors, I used to have
 a well paying job as a computerized Mechanical Contracting Estimator,
 which I lost in the depression brought on IMHO by the FTA, which I
 fought against as a member of the Council of Canadians, and
 book-keeper for the Toronto Chapter 1987-89. Now Great Lakers on the
 U.S. side are losing their jobs to Mexico too. The NAFTA is here!.

 I've gotten 4 replies ( 1 private ) including yours, which
 indicate so far, a 3-1 vote in favour of the discussion - for now.

 I've seen many subjects bandied about here, which do have political
 ramafications, obviously not just within Canada or the U.S.
 exclusively, but by the very fact that the Lakes are within the
 boundaries of both countries, practically any discussion dealing with
 water in these big holes has political aspects.
 For example - zebra mussels - because they apparantly were flushed
 from a European freighter, concerned Ontarians, and the Provincial
 government have demanded that the Federal government in Ottawa bears
 responsibility to do something about them. It has also included
 municpal gov'ts seriously affected  - 3 levels of Canadian gov'ts.
 Including many offices, all of which have overlapping jurisdictions.
 Some include: Fisheries & Oceans; Energy Mines & Resources;
 Environment Canada; Canadian Parks Service; Indian & Northern
 Affairs; External Affairs Canada; Intergovernmental Committee's;
 Royal Commisions; and dare I say - Employment & Immigration Canada
 ( because the zebra mussels lack proper visitors visas, landed
 immigrant or refugee status <g> ) PLUS Provincial ministries.

 PLUS - State and Federal gov'ts of the U.S.
 PLUS - Canada/U.S. Lakes management institutions.

 And all of the above bureaucracy applies similarly to other issues.
 Which basically result in nothing much being done.

 Then there's the other 'biggest' issue - the Lakes water itself,
 slated for shipment south to warmer climes with year-round crops.

 Since there's no other existing newsgroup that is dedicated to the
 needs of the Great Lakes Regions as of yet, this one must do for now.
----------------------------------------------
     Original message from: MICHAEL STEMPER
MS> Message-ID: <31333@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>

MS>Let's secede! We'll take all of the states that border on the Great
MS>Lakes, along with Ontario, and form our own country!
MS>What should we call our new nation, under water?

 Hi Michael, I got a chuckle from parts of your message, thanks.
 I'm unsure whether you are serious or not, or just teasing for some
 laughs. We certainly need to keep our sense of humour in this.
 While also seriously contemplating the very real re-structuring that
 is going on, not just outside of N.A. but right here in N.A. too.
 I don't believe new nation-states are the solution-nor possible.
 More on this in my next posting.

MS>The next time sombody from Texas or Arizona proposes building a
MS>pipeline to use our lifeblood (the Lakes) to irrigate their desert,
MS>we can say "Let them drink oil." I like it! Or, we could offer them
MS>a trade: one gallon of water for one gallon of oil. See who runs
MS>out first.
MS>Other thoughts?

 You are, it appears, very much aware of one of the biggest issue
 confronting G.L.ers. That of the very real intent of cross-basin
 water transfers on a grand continental scale. Because of the
 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and now with Mexico in NAFTA.
 Water - contrary to claims by our governments IS in the agreements,
 as an exportable commodity, and not just in bottles either, as the
 GATT definition includes exporting thru pipelines. However, bottled
 exporting is already a huge business, by the tanker-load. A prelude
 to the near future. As things are shaping up, we cannot do anything
 about it. Even if it is unpreventable, should we not at least as a
 self-sustainable geo-economic region, have a central role in it ?
 The Great Lakes define our Region - we should be in charge of them.
---
  ACCESS/MAIL 1.00 #0274  Who can say what's around the corner?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.great-lakes