babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » in cahoots   » We need to know Conservative position on bulk water exports

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: We need to know Conservative position on bulk water exports
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 January 2006 10:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Conservative MP James Lunney favours bulk exports of Canadian water. "I think there are big opportunities selling water, whether bulk or bottled," the MP for Nanaimo-Alberni told constituents on December 12, 2005. "If we were to capture some of the water and bottle it... I suspect the effects on the environment would not be that significant," he added. Despite widespread outrage by concerned citizens and environmental groups, the Conservative Party has remained silent on the issue of bulk water exports.

Council of Canadians


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 19 January 2006 11:21 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, I can't believe this hasn't been talked about. The Conservative environment policy seems non existent. Albertans are too busy making money at the moment to notice we have one.

I know Harper doesn't want to sign onto Kyoto, they whisper about privatizing water.

That our polar bears are drowning, and northern canada is suffering and they have no policy is alarming.I keep thinking about Bush being a uniter and not a divider..and all the promises.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 19 January 2006 11:36 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post
What is there to know? Of course they favour selling water. They are a neo-liberal party. Why would their position on water be any different than say, coal or oil?
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 20 January 2006 12:25 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
In the case of the Sun Belt Water Company, Sun Belt applied to export water from British Columbia. The Government of Canada denied their application under legislation enacted under intense pressure from the Council of Canadians, a non-governmental organization (NGO), to prohibit bulk-water sales. Sun Belt sued Canada and the Province of British Columbia for $600 million.

http://www.waterbank.com/Newsletters/nws18.html


View SunBelt Water's letter to PMPM and court docs here.

http://www.sunbeltwater.com/docs.shtml

Fortune Magazine notes that "water will be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th." Who owns water and how much they are able to charge for it will become the question of the century. The privatization of water is already a $ 400-billion-a-year business. Multinational corporations hope to increase profits from water commodification even further by using international trade and investment agreements to control its flow and supply. One Canadian water company, Global Water Corp., puts it best: "Water has moved from being an endless commodity that may be taken for granted to a rationed necessity that may be taken by force."

Maude Barlow is on the case.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/special/2002/0305water.htm

As far as I know,water is a provincial resource under sec92 CA,while international trade is a federal responsibility.There is a tacit agreement at present not to export water in bulk because once one export permit is approved,NAFTA requires US companies to be allowed equal access to Canadian water.

NAFTA is a poor policy for Canada.It was badly negotiated. Canada has the resources,both natural and human to go its own way and I personally will be most pleased and proud if we become more independent of US influence and bully tactics.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 January 2006 04:54 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a list of corporate parasites lobbying our weak and ineffective politicians across Canada to hand them the family jewels and silverware.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 20 January 2006 02:03 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
Good source, Fidel.

Some quotes from other sources:

As Sun Belt's CEO Jack Lindsay explained, "Because of NAFTA, we are now stakeholders in the national water policy in Canada.
"http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/special/2002/0305water.htm

This agreements comes amid recognition from the International Joint Commission that trade law permits nations to protect their natural resources but that they cannot use environmental legislation to deliberately hamper trade
http://www.waterbank.com/Newsletters/nws18.html

While these expansive investor rights currently are included only in NAFTA, plans are underway to incorporate similar provisions in the FTAA. FTAA is a proposed NAFTA expansion to all 34 countries of the Western Hemisphere (but for Cuba). The Bush administration has signaled that it wants the controversial fast-track trade negotiating authority in order to negotiate the FTAA. Once Congress delegates its trade negotiating authority to the president via fast track, it limits its own role to a single up-or-down vote on trade agreements' implementing legislation, which cannot be amended.

Canada, which has been badly burned in a series of Chapter 11 cases, is no longer a believer. Canadian Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew has declared that Canada will not sign FTAA if investor-to-state enforcement of broad regulatory takings rights are included, and Canada has called for a review of Chapter 11 within NAFTA
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01april/corp1.html

Not only water,but medicare and education are under the same threat from Ch11 NAFTA Investor Relations.


While not belittling the threat social issues face from a CPC government,the threat faced by Canada's social programs and resources from attack by corporations is much greater.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 20 January 2006 02:10 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the CBC, Harper spoke last night of one of the major responsibilites of the federal government being to 'eliminate any barriers to open trade'. Perhaps that's as honest a statement on this subject as we can expect from him.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 21 January 2006 05:28 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And didn't he say he wanted to revisit NAFTA? Little did folks realize that he wanted to expand it even further to give away everything!
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 21 January 2006 06:13 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aside from some watercourses that cross the border already, could somebody point out how taking Canada's water is logistically possible at a profitable level?

Every hairbrained proposed threat that I have seen from draining our Northern lakes to stealing the icecaps would cost more than desalinization plants along the American coast.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 21 January 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
I know someone you could ask about water and its profitability. T Boone Pickens, the Texan oil zillionaire has been buying up water rights. So he must be onto something.


Have you driven through the San Joachim valley in California recently? Without water, someplaces are just not viable, the desert is not called a desert without reason.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 21 January 2006 09:30 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by eaucanada:
I know someone you could ask about water and its profitability. T Boone Pickens, the Texan oil zillionaire has been buying up water rights. So he must be onto something.


Have you driven through the San Joachim valley in California recently? Without water, someplaces are just not viable, the desert is not called a desert without reason.


I am not denying that there are water shortages in some regions.

What I am asking for, is for somebody to present to me a feasible plan which could take Canada's water in any meaningful way.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 21 January 2006 09:54 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Water diversions; pushing rivers to run a different way. There are already tensions over some rivers that run through both countries. Link here.
quote:
...Schindler, the U of A's Killam Memorial Professor of water ecology, says Canada has plenty of fresh water, but not where its population is concentrated. Getting water to the bulk of Canada's population means diverting it from the north to the south. A plan hatched in 1965 to divert water from northern to southern Alberta has been revived. Such schemes make no economic sense "unless you're a farmer in (Alberta Environment Minister) Lorne Taylor's riding," said Schindler, who was awarded this year's Natural Sciences Engineering Research Council's Gerhard Herzberg Gold Medal--Canada's highest honour for researchers.

"They seem determined to ram this through," Schindler said of the province's stance on the water diversion scheme. And although some farmers would benefit from the plan, Schindler suspects most farmers are angry about the state of water management in the province: intensive livestock operations, oil and gas and forestry companies have all had profound impacts on the environment...


The Alberta government has had water diversion schemes in its files for decades.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 21 January 2006 10:05 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Water diversions; pushing rivers to run a different way. There are already tensions over some rivers that run through both countries.

And as I said in my original question, I am aware of rivers that cross our international borders and the issues that have been happening regarding them for the last 100 years. They are important and no doubt issues will continue about them.

Aside from them though, how are the Americans going to take our water?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 21 January 2006 10:11 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Water diversions. If the Alberta government decides to divert water from northern Alberta to southern Alberta, what is to stop it from send the water across the border?
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 21 January 2006 10:17 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Water diversions. If the Alberta government decides to divert water from northern Alberta to southern Alberta, what is to stop it from send the water across the border?


The Panama canal was one of the biggest engineering feats of mankind. That canal is less than 80kms long and moves the amount of a very small river.

To move water from Northern Alberta to Southern Alberta would cost trillions.

Could somebody point out a plan that would cost less than desalinization plants?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 21 January 2006 10:20 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nonsense; if you read my link you would see that Alberta has a plan now, and you can be sure it doesn't cost trillions.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 21 January 2006 10:25 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am familiar with the plan to dam the South Saskatchewan which would cost billions to irrigate the South in Saskatchewan and Alberta. That one is still not even close to getting to the preliminary planning stages.

Do you have something better than vague references by the COC in a University Paper?

Could you give me some costing?

It would cost trillions.

The Alliance pipeline which moves gas costed billions and could move the equivelent of a small creek in water. It would take billions more in compressor stations to push water through it.

Contrary to what some seem to want to think, water is terribly difficult and expensive to move in quantities.

Have a look. Work out some of the logistics. It simply isnt an issue.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 21 January 2006 10:56 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
The issue is not the physical movement of water as it the fact that under chapter 11 Investor relations of NAFTA,responsible authorities in Canada can be constrained from making decisions in the best interests of Canadians if that decision could affect the commercial interests of American corporations.

The links I posted above illuminate the situation Canada faces not only with water but also medicare and education among others.

The commodification of public resources and services by WTO and the limitations government placed upon itself by signing NAFTA severely limits its ability to respond.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 21 January 2006 10:58 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Link here, Dec 2002
quote:
... Eight years ago, a colleague of mine, a lawyer in Alberta, was told by an executive with one of the large pipeline construction companies that they were laying two parallel pipelines.

"What for?" she asked.

"One for natural gas and one for water," was the prompt reply...

... A few days before the G-8 Summit in Genoa, U.S. President George W. Bush finally said he wanted to talk about water. "I look forward to discussing this with the Prime Minister," he said, adding he would be open to "any discussions" about a possible continental water pact--along the lines of the talks now under way between Canada, the United States and Mexico on energy--to pipe Canadian water to the parched American southwest...



From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 21 January 2006 11:09 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cartman:
What is there to know? Of course they favour selling water. They are a neo-liberal party. Why would their position on water be any different than say, coal or oil?

I have to agree. With the possibility of a CPC government I suggest everyone start looking into how to get a export restriction certificate written up for their mothers, let alone water.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 21 January 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:

I have to agree. With the possibility of a CPC government I suggest everyone start looking into how to get a export restriction certificate written up for their mothers, let alone water.


So it comes to fear mongering to the point of people fearing for their mothers being exported before I could get somebody to give me a logistically possible route for our water to be taken.

I figured as much.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 21 January 2006 11:36 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Try doing your own research.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 21 January 2006 11:48 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Eric Reguly in Saturday's Globe:
quote:
Were bulk water exports (as opposed to bottled water exports) excluded from NAFTA's investment and services provision? The answer is not clear. NAFTA's Canadian negotiators say they were. But there is no shortage of trade lawyers who say the opposite, that once you start shipping water across the border the government would be powerless to stop you. Or, if it did, it would have to compensate you for the lost income. This is the basis for Sun Belt Water's $10.5-billion (U.S.) lawsuit against the federal government. The California company argues that British Columbia's cancellation of a water export permit in the 1990s violated NAFTA's investment provisions.

What's wrong with exporting water? A lot. Take Mr. Cellucci's remark that water is a "renewable" resource. Trees are renewable; cut them down and they grow back. Fish stocks are renewable (though, as the depleted cod fishery proved, you can harvest them to the point of no return).



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 21 January 2006 11:54 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

So it comes to fear mongering to the point of people fearing for their mothers being exported before I could get somebody to give me a logistically possible route for our water to be taken.

I figured as much.



I have offered links in support of my views above. You have no interest in debating the issue,you are here to be disruptive.

To ignore debate and provoke others makes you a troll.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
mytiturk
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6970

posted 22 January 2006 11:15 PM      Profile for mytiturk   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I think that the best way to avoid caving in to the U.S. (on water, on terrorism, on oil, on Star-Wars) is to continue indefinitely with a minority government.

WHOEVER gets a majority will surely cave in to U.S. pressure on more than one issue. We frequently do.

Under the present scary, corporation-driven circumstances a complicated parliament, with a dollop here and there of executive paralysis, is the only defense.

I would prefer a Liberal minority. A Harper minority contains its own set of potential horrors. For example, under a Conservative-Bloc minority government, which appears likely, we might see the demise of the CBC, and hence intelligence on the air-waves, as we know it. The Bloc is deafeningly silent about the CBC and Harper is closely tied to the NCC, which has privatization of the CBC as one of its goals.

After watching Harper with Peter Mansbridge on "It's Your Turn" I am so disappointed with the easy ride he had (they should have not allowed him such a tame set of pre-approved questions) that I begin to suspect the demise has already got quite a head of steam. I hope that I, in Mansbridge's position, would have had the courage to refuse to do it or resign. It was little more than an anointing. Shame!

We live in sad times.


From: Brampton | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
c-legs
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11742

posted 28 January 2006 12:57 PM      Profile for c-legs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
just for clarity...he hasn't actually said under direct questioning what is policy ishttp://www.pqbnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=50&cat=23&id=579842&more=
From: calgary way west | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 28 January 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
c-legs, please edit your post for sidescroll. You can use the url button on the bottom of the reply page. Thanks!
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca