Between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie there is a precipitous plunge in height. Niagara Falls lives at that intersection, so you can envision in your mind’s eye how much vertical drop there is. For shipping to make it from the Midwest to the Atlantic, to get wheat and corn and soybeans from farmers to market, to get finished production goods from Midwest factories to the open seas, you need to get around that drop. How to do that? A thing called The Welland Canal which is a series of locks which, as it turns out, are entirely within the boundary of Canada, is owned by Canada, is run by Canadians.
Going through the Panama Canal takes 3 locks to get to the new height. The Welland Canal takes 8. It’s a really big deal.
So yes, Canada could, if it chose, simply decide to “charge admission” to use the locks and the US would have no recourse, as we have no other way to traverse that section of the route. Oh, I suppose we could go over the American side of the Falls, but I think that’s been tried once or twice over the years with less than good results.
Strait of Hormuz? Who knew? Vulnerable bases all across the Middle East now in ashes? Who knew?
I just read the above that IMO didn’t sound right and prompted me to ask Google AI:
What treaty between Canada and the U.S. addresses and regulates navigation in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence waterway and tolls imposed for passage through Canada-owned and U.S. owned canals?
The foundational treaty that governs equal navigation rights and regulates the charging of tolls for canals connecting boundary waters between the United States and Canada is the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.[1]
Key Provisions of the Treaty
Equal Navigation: Article I establishes that navigation in all navigable boundary waters and connecting canals shall forever continue free and open for commerce to the inhabitants and ships of both countries on terms of complete equality. [1]
Regulation of Tolls: The treaty allows either country to adopt rules and regulations for canals within its own territory and to charge tolls for their use. [1]
Non-Discrimination: Any rules, regulations, or tolls imposed by either Canada or the United States must apply equally and without discrimination to the citizens, inhabitants, and vessels of both nations.
================
I then asked AI: Detail how specific entities like the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation and the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation currently implement joint tolls. Also explore the specific tariff structures or recent updates.
Under international agreement, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada and the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (GLS) of the United States jointly publish and administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls. [1]
Together, they coordinate a unified, binational tolling system that regulates fees across different sections of the waterway.
How the Entities Implement Joint Tolls
While the toll framework is integrated to minimize friction for commercial shipping, administration is legally divided by national jurisdictions: [1, 2]
The SLSMC (Canada): A not-for-profit corporation that manages the Canadian portion of the Seaway, including the Welland Canal and the Canadian locks in the Montreal-Lake Ontario (MLO) section. [1]
The GLS (U.S.): A federal agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that operates and maintains the U.S. portion, including the Snell and Eisenhower locks near Massena, New York. [1, 2]
The Joint Mechanism:
The two entities continuously align their pricing. Whenever the SLSMC modifies its fees in Canada, the GLS formally updates its federal regulations (under 33 CFR Part 402) to reflect those changes in the unified tariff system. This ensures that carriers receive a single, transparent schedule of fees rather than navigating disparate national systems. [1, 2]
Specific Tariff Structures
Tolls for commercial ships are not charged at a flat rate. They are calculated using a multi-tiered formula based on the ship’s physical size and the specific cargo it carries: [1]
Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT) Charge: A fixed fee assessed per registered gross ton of the vessel. It applies whether the ship is fully loaded or traveling in ballast (empty). [1, 2]
Cargo Weight Tolls: A variable fee charged per metric ton of actual cargo. The pricing depends heavily on the commodity type (e.g., bulk cargo, grain, general cargo, or steel). []
Operational Surcharges: Additional fees applied for Wharfage (using the docks) and Storage if cargo remains at the facilities. [1, 2]
Fee Type (2026 Sample Selects)
Montreal-Lake Ontario (MLO)
Welland Canal
Unit / Target
Vessel Charge (Loaded/Ballast)
$0.1344
$0.2150
Per GRT
Passenger Ship Charge
$0.4032
$0.6450
Per GRT
Bulk Cargo Toll
$1.3933
$0.9510
Per Metric Ton
Grain Cargo Toll
$0.8560
$0.9510
Per Metric Ton
Recent Tariff Updates (2026)
2.5% General Tariff Increase: For the 2026 navigation season, the SLSMC and GLS implemented a 2.5% increase on tolls, wharfage, and storage charges to account for ongoing maintenance and operational costs. This followed a 3.5% increase enacted for the 2025 season. [1, 2, 3]
Business Incentive Programs: To promote environmental and economic efficiency, the joint framework continues to utilize incentive programs. This includes volume discounts for carriers introducing “new business” (novel commodity/origin/destination combinations) and incentives for containerized cargo.
====================
I then asked Google AI: Given Non-Discrimination: Any rules, regulations, or tolls imposed by either Canada or the United States must apply equally and without discrimination to the citizens, inhabitants, and vessels of both nations, is it correct that Canada cannot unilaterally raise tolls on vessels carrying U.S. products and unilaterally deny passage through any Canadian canals?
Yes, your understanding is entirely correct. Under the terms of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, Canada is legally forbidden from unilaterally raising tolls specifically on vessels carrying U.S. products or unilaterally denying them passage. [1, 2]
The treaty explicitly prohibits these actions through two core mechanisms in Article I: [1]
1. The Ban on Discriminatory Tolls
The treaty explicitly permits Canada and the U.S. to “adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory and may charge tolls for the use thereof.” However, it firmly ties this right to a strict non-discrimination mandate: [1]
All tolls and rules “shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the High Contracting Parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both”. [1]
Canada has the sovereign right to adjust tolls, but any increase must apply equally to Canadian-flagged ships, Canadian goods, and international ships alike. [1, 2]
Raising tolls exclusively on ships carrying U.S. products would be a direct violation of the requirement to place both nations on “terms of equality.” [1]
2. The Guarantee of Free and Open Navigation
The treaty states that navigation in all boundary waters and connecting canals “shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce” to both countries. [1]
While Canada retains territorial jurisdiction over canals physically located within its borders (like the Welland Canal), its domestic laws cannot override its treaty obligations. [1, 2]
Canada cannot arbitrarily block, suspend, or deny passage to U.S. vessels as a tool of political or economic leverage, as doing so would violate the foundational guarantee of free commerce. [1, 2]
Real-World Precedent & Implementation
This binational legal framework is why recent geopolitical and trade tensions over the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway are heavily scrutinized by international law experts. Any attempt by either nation to block shipping lanes or manipulate toll structures to target the other would result in an immediate breach of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. [1, 2, 3]
==============
I asked AI to explore the dispute resolution process available through the International Joint Commission (IJC) if one country alleges a treaty violation?How emergency closures (such as labor strikes, severe weather, or environmental accidents) are handled without violating the treaty
The International Joint Commission (IJC) handles treaty violations through structured diplomatic and investigative channels. Because the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 is designed to prevent conflict as much as resolve it, the dispute resolution process relies heavily on fact-finding, while temporary emergency closures are legally carved out to protect safety without violating the treaty. [1, 2]
The IJC Dispute Resolution Process
If Canada or the United States alleges a treaty violation (such as discriminatory toll adjustments or an arbitrary block on navigation), the issue is escalated through specific provisions of the treaty: [1, 2]
1. The Fact-Finding Reference (Article IX)
Most disputes are addressed under Article IX of the treaty. [1, 2]
The Process: Either government (or both jointly) can submit a “Reference” to the IJC asking them to investigate the alleged violation. [1]
The Investigation: The IJC appoints an impartial, binational board of technical experts to examine the facts. They hold public hearings and conduct objective analyses. [1]
The Outcome: The IJC issues a formal report and recommendations to both federal governments. Crucially, Article IX reports are not legally binding. They act as an authoritative, neutral framework to force a diplomatic resolution. [1, 3, 4]
2. Binding Arbitration (Article X)
If diplomacy completely breaks down, Article X provides a mechanism for binding arbitration. [1, 2]
The Process: The countries can mutually agree to submit the dispute to the IJC for a final, legally binding decision.
The Catch: This requires the consent of both nations—including the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Because of this high political hurdle, Article X has never been officially used to resolve a dispute in the history of the treaty. Instead, the countries typically pivot to independent international tribunals or direct bilateral agreements when binding arbitration is required. [1, 2, 3, 4]
————————
How Emergency Closures Avoid Treaty Violations
The treaty guarantees that the waterway shall remain “forever free and open” for commerce, but it does notforce the infrastructure to operate under unsafe or impossible conditions. Emergency closures are legally managed through the following mechanisms:
The Principle of Force Majeure: Under international law, events completely outside a government’s control—such as severe weather (e.g., winter ice blocks) or unexpected environmental accidents (e.g., an oil spill)—do not constitute a treaty violation. Temporary closures to clear a hazard or protect human life are viewed as necessary operational safety protocols, not a deliberate denial of navigation rights.
Labor Strikes: When labor disputes shut down canals (such as the Canadian Seaway strike), it does not violate the treaty because the disruption is caused by a domestic labor dispute rather than a discriminatory government policy. The closure affects all vessels and cargo equally regardless of nationality, preserving the treaty’s foundational requirement for equal treatment.
Domestic Police Powers & Regulation: Article I explicitly allows each country to “adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory.” These rules cover mandatory maintenance shutdowns, maritime safety, and emergency response. So long as the regulations are enacted for legitimate public safety and apply equally to both Canadian and American vessels, temporary halts are fully compliant with the treaty.
Ending this post just in time to watch USC Trojans football season opener.