Canadian Conservatives poised to export bulk water!

cyberclark

Electoral Member
From June 16-2010:British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell joined his counterparts from Saskatchewan, Manitoba,Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut for the two-day conference at the Pan Pacific Hotel.

Followed by:

There were two news items in Alberta. Drumheller Alberta and Okotoks Alberta purchased water allotments. The first was from an unnamed party (insider) the other was from an Oil Company. The latter, cost Okotoks over a million dollars for rights to some 230,000 cubic meters of water annually.

Water allotments have never been sold in the past. The oil companies, towns and cities received them free of charge as did the unnamed insider. Why then the sale?

Bolstered by the Alberta Government the towns had to pay up. This adds many dollars to the resource and forces the price of water utilities way up. When it comes time to export, they will tell Albertans the cost is the same. Edmonton now has the highest water prices in the world (National Geographic April 2010).

Following the long standing Conservative dream of including water into NAFTA and changing bulk water to a commodity is fore front in their plans. The Conservative Association of Canada went before the Privy Council to argue that Water bulk export was included in NAFTA and were told it was not! They said they would wait for a better day. With Conservative Governments in across the map now seems like a good time to go for the gold!

If we export water under NAFTA rules (which are inherently unfair and biased towards the US), we must give the Americans first chance at the water and we cannot charge the Americans more money than we are now paying.


The higher they push the prices on Canadian water to Canadians, the higher the exporters can charge for the water going to the US. This is simply price fixing on a grand scale!

Under the new scheme, when it comes time to export, people will be paying more money for water than those people in California who are the targeted export market. Costs of the necessary pipelines to export will be added to Canadian water bills.

Harper is on side. The Canada Environment are running TV is carrying subtle advertisements in fill in spots saying “our water is our finest resource and it must be shared.”

This is a north American movement which has been kept away from the eyes of the public.

From the North:
GNWT seeks agreements with provinces to protect water
Yellowknife, N.W.T. - The NWT has developed a strategy to manage the territory's waters, but protecting rivers and lakes at home can't be done without the cooperation of neighbours from the South.

On the east coast quote:
“Fortunately, there is some hope that the wisdom of water sales may eventually triumph over emotionalism. Last spring the McCurdy Group, a Newfoundland company looking for permission to tanker 13 billion gallons a year from pristine Gisbourne Lake, received an unexpected endorsement from Newfoundland's Liberal Premier Roger Grimes. Mr. Grimes has promised to use the money the government gets from the deal to underwrite university tuition in Canada's poorest province. A better plan would be to auction the rights and use the proceeds for much-needed tax cuts. (A striking difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals)

The McCurdy Group is still waiting for an official go-ahead but thanks to Canadian law, the federal government can't stop the province from granting the permit. "We don't want to sell water in bulk," says Mr. Chretien, "But at the same time, we have to realize that we don't have absolute control of the water. We have control of navigable waters, but we don't have control of other types of water that are under the provincial jurisdiction." Ontario and British Columbia have already said "no" to companies that want to sell water by tanker but if Newfoundland has success in water marketing that might change.”

And in Calgary a quote from the Green Party (Still another Fuzzy named right wing party; this one trying to find an agenda.

* The case for selling Canadian water is being presented more forcefully in the media by SPP proponents, journalists, business strategists and investors seeking profits in this potentially lucrative market.
* Massive NAFTA Super-Corridors, complete with plans for water pipelines, are in the works.
* Bulk water exports were the focus of meetings of the North American Future 2025 Project. According to documents leaked by a Washington-based think tank, SPP meetings in Calgary on April 28, 2007 were to discuss "water consumption, water transfers and artificial diversions of bulk water" with the aim of "maximizing the policy impact.”

And the nail in the coffin from Alberta:
First consider the Peace River and GSL are navigable waters legislation changes would have to take place; that is Harper's job.

In the ‘80s the Alberta Government commissioned a fully engineered pipeline by Weatherford on moving water from the Peace River into Southern Alberta, using it to irrigate the pipeline corridor and export huge amounts into the American northern states.

This plan calls for an immense pipe line capable of moving two-thirds of the Peace River Flow through the pipe along with the assurances it will not harm the wild life. This same plan calls for 8 lift stations to move the water; each of them using the electrical power of a small city.

Further, this project was approved, only shelved, until the weather gets dry enough and the public can see the light or, the political opportunity, such as now arrives.

All this ties in with the new dam being proposed on the Peace announced by BC’s Gordon Campbell who at every opportunity is telling the world he is going to usher in a new way of looking after our water resource.

Between the existing dam on the Peace River and the proposed New Dam on the Peace River there will be created a large lake, sufficient to act as a sump to draw down the amount of water this pipeline is capable of, all year around.

There is capacity for a steady drain on the Great Slave Lake through this line.

If there is a shift away from the Conservatives or it comes to Canadian’s attention they are charged exploitative charges on their water service the whole scenario can change.

In Alberta, the Canada Malting Company and Dasani (Coke hold more water rights combined than does the City of Calgary who, own no aquifer rights at all.

The only way to break this up is to vote the various participants out of office!
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
I have a sneaking suspicion that Gordos selling off all our creeks in BC to corporations under the guise of Green IPPs is part of the sell off of our water for export. So far this clown has sold off somewhere around 600 of our water ways to foreign interests, water that we will never get back. He has broken the public trust and our inheritance. It is time to find out what parties are going to stop this sell out and get rid of these crooks like BCs SoCreds in liberal clothing and the Alberian conservatives.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
I have a sneaking suspicion that Gordos selling off all our creeks in BC to corporations under the guise of Green IPPs is part of the sell off of our water for export. So far this clown has sold off somewhere around 600 of our water ways to foreign interests, water that we will never get back. He has broken the public trust and our inheritance. It is time to find out what parties are going to stop this sell out and get rid of these crooks like BCs SoCreds in liberal clothing and the Alberian conservatives.

IPPs do not take any water out of a river. They run it through a generator and it goes back into the river. No loss. And according to the law they can't take water from a permit for power generation and use it for something else. Not sure about some of the interior rivers but none of the ones on the coast will be eligible for significant water exports because of the fresh water requirements to cut the salinity in the estuaries for fish habitat.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
IPPs do not take any water out of a river. They run it through a generator and it goes back into the river. No loss. And according to the law they can't take water from a permit for power generation and use it for something else. Not sure about some of the interior rivers but none of the ones on the coast will be eligible for significant water exports because of the fresh water requirements to cut the salinity in the estuaries for fish habitat.
Yes they do. They take water out for as long as the pipe is in the ground. In the case of Glacier Creek that is 23 km of fish spawning channel that will have between 5 and 10% of its flow left. That is not enough to maintain a fishery or any of the eco system that depends on the regular flow, bugs, trees, plants, animals. It has been the same with all the interior creeks I have studied. Building these things cause tremendous damage to the eco systems they are built in - roads, buried tunnels, dams, power lines and infrastructure. Just look at the ones that have been built to see how much damage has been done. Most dams in BC do not have all the turbines they are capable of running. They are not running to capacity. We don't need any more dams or nukes. This is a sell off plain and simple. Gordo and his friends will make a killing at our grand kids and the next 100 generations expense.
 

cyberclark

Electoral Member
Walter, I am not against exporting bulk water to the US. I am very much against using NAFTA as the vehicle to do this..

If you read my post :
If we export water under NAFTA rules (which are inherently unfair and biased towards the US), we must give the Americans first chance at the water and we cannot charge the Americans more money than we are now paying.

The higher prices are pushed on Canadian water to Canadians, the higher the exporters can charge for the water going to the US. This is simply price fixing on a grand scale!

Harper has enabled legislation on water that brings it all into one pail while at the same time throwing the export responsibility over to the Provinces.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island

Mostly it is a bunch of socialists that think the government should own everything and we all need permits to breathe. Like the ones that think B.C. Hydro should provide power for less than production cost. While I can't comment on what happens in other provinces I do know some of the rules in B.C.
1 Water usage is tied to a specific usage or property and is controlled by the comptroller of water.
2 when you sell a property that has water rights they generally go with the property for the simple fact that they can not be used for anything else without permission. There can be a monetary value put on the license but that is strictly between buyer and seller.(I did this)
3 few of the rivers on the coast are eligible for large volume bulk exports because Environment canada and DFO has limits on what can be removed without changing the salinity of the estuaries and destroying fish habitat.. Probably one of the few good things that DFO does.

Cyberclark: I believe you have it backwards. We cannot sell water to the US for LESS than the domestic price or it would be called DUMPING. At least that is what they tried to pull on the lumber industry.
 

cyberclark

Electoral Member
I spent 15 years as a secretary to a Conservative riding association in Alberta. I became sick to death with the extremes so I backed away.

I do not have it backwards. NAFTA allows for regional disparity in prices. That is a province could opt out of a price and sell for less to the locals. NAFTA does interest itself in commodities where a segment of a business is under pricing it would be dumping as you point out. Canada has managed to fend off a number of challenges while being successful in their complaints against US firms.

Also The Americans get first draw on a dwindling resource under NAFTA. If we are going dry at any one spot the US gets it and that is just bad when it comes to water.

Also, I have a major complaint with all water being combined. Around the world people are fighting to keep their ground water under their country's control. In Canada we are hell bent to export it! That is just BAD!

What I said remains true and on the mark! NAFTA is not the Vehicle to put our water into!
 

GreenFish66

House Member
Apr 16, 2008
2,717
10
38
www.myspace.com
Oil and water $$$ seems to be all a conservative Canada has to offer...Someday soon they will see that the light is green ....Hopefully sooner than too late...
 

barney

Electoral Member
Aug 1, 2007
336
9
18
Also The Americans get first draw on a dwindling resource under NAFTA. If we are going dry at any one spot the US gets it and that is just bad when it comes to water.

Also, I have a major complaint with all water being combined. Around the world people are fighting to keep their ground water under their country's control. In Canada we are hell bent to export it! That is just BAD!

What I said remains true and on the mark! NAFTA is not the Vehicle to put our water into!

Bulk transfer of Canadian water to the US has been on the table for a very long time. The reason why there's fear around this concerning NAFTA is that under the free trade law, Canadians would have to pay the same prices for water as Americans. The fear is that once in place, a deal would see large-scale consumption and demand by the US, thus driving up prices and there's nothing Canadians could do about it (in theory).

Obviously if Americans are running out of water, they have to get it from somewhere and we have a very small population. Canada is morally obliged to provide basic water needs both to the US and Mexico. Problem is, the US doesn't have a history of playing fair--their water sharing issues with Mexico clearly show that. Their domestic track record is just as bad. California's draining of one of the largest water reservoirs in the world is a good example.

The primary interests pushing for this are US industries, especially argi-business, and Canadian provincial governments looking for cash. The longer-term, underlying plan at the establishment level is to alter Canada's economy into a guaranteed resource supplier to the US, i.e. providing the US with cheap, exclusive access to resources which that country lacks. In this case, water.

However, limited water provided outside the NAFTA agreement, strictly for reasons of population necessity (i.e. drinking water and efficient domestic produce consumption), with all associated costs paid for in full by the US, would be reasonable.
 

cyberclark

Electoral Member
Bulk transfer of Canadian water to the US has been on the table for a very long time. The reason why there's fear around this concerning NAFTA is that under the free trade law, Canadians would have to pay the same prices for water as Americans. The fear is that once in place, a deal would see large-scale consumption and demand by the US, thus driving up prices and there's nothing Canadians could do about it (in theory).

Obviously if Americans are running out of water, they have to get it from somewhere and we have a very small population. Canada is morally obliged to provide basic water needs both to the US and Mexico. Problem is, the US doesn't have a history of playing fair--their water sharing issues with Mexico clearly show that. Their domestic track record is just as bad. California's draining of one of the largest water reservoirs in the world is a good example.

The primary interests pushing for this are US industries, especially argi-business, and Canadian provincial governments looking for cash. The longer-term, underlying plan at the establishment level is to alter Canada's economy into a guaranteed resource supplier to the US, i.e. providing the US with cheap, exclusive access to resources which that country lacks. In this case, water.

However, limited water provided outside the NAFTA agreement, strictly for reasons of population necessity (i.e. drinking water and efficient domestic produce consumption), with all associated costs paid for in full by the US, would be reasonable.
Nicely written and on the mark. Thanks.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
The US is drying up because of over use of water resources. If they get access to our water you can expect that within 50 years we will have a shortage too. Just look at Russia. They had the largest inland lake and inland fishery in the world. It is now dried up because of agricultural over use. We can expect the same thing to happen here if we do not manage our water properly, and exporting to a glutenous country like the US will cause shortages in the future no matter how much water we think we have. It is short sighted and stupid to sell it off for short term gains, but that seems to be the way we do business.
 

cyberclark

Electoral Member
I agree, zero provincial sales tax is the dumbest thing ever. They don't even know that the citizens want the government to have all the money.

Alberta Conservatives are running the Conservative dream. Harper would kill for a chance to pull it off too!

Alberta turned provincially owned electricity over to the cities. In turn they were told to charge what ever they wanted to pay their bills and, the Government cut spending and subsidies to these same cities. This Government has not increased spending since 1986 a fact well proven by Mr. Taft of the Liberal party and the University of Alberta.

The water in this province is privatized it is owned by insiders, cities and towns. Pipelines are being built by the Government and sold to private companies to manage. Alberta will not charge you directly for super high water charges they will however charge you an arm and a leg for the use of the pipelines. Your utilities are going to go sky high!



They have forced households to pick up the bills though their utilities. This is called "indirect taxation". They do not need a sales tax on top of this! Alberta is now the highest taxed state in north America!
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
If the Conservatives, do this it will spell the end of their party
for a long time in this country. Most people understand that
the water issue will be the main issue in the next few years
to come. Giving up our water resource will be a great great
disservice to Canada
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
If the Conservatives, do this it will spell the end of their party
for a long time in this country. Most people understand that
the water issue will be the main issue in the next few years
to come. Giving up our water resource will be a great great
disservice to Canada
You are the master of under statement.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Alberta turned provincially owned electricity over to the cities. In turn they were told to charge what ever they wanted to pay their bills and, the Government cut spending and subsidies to these same cities. This Government has not increased spending since 1986 a fact well proven by Mr. Taft of the Liberal party and the University of Alberta.


Enmax and Epcor are not "told" what to charge. Further, the provincial subsidies to the cities are well offset by the income generated by these utilities.

As far as Mr. Taft is concerned, there is a reason why the former leader of the provincial Libs retired in disgrace from public office... He has a nasty little habit of twisting reality into a form that is nothing short of a bastardization of the truth.

The general public saw this and handed the liberal party defeat after humiliating defeat... You're jumping on a dead-man's ship if you are backing anything related to Taft.


They have forced households to pick up the bills though their utilities. This is called "indirect taxation". They do not need a sales tax on top of this! Alberta is now the highest taxed state in north America!


.. So, you feel that paying fair market value for something is "indirect taxation"?

BTW - your suggesting that AB is the highest taxed jurisdiction is utter bullsh*t. (Registered) residents of New York city pay the highest combined taxes in NA (at least this was the case a couple of years back).