Friday, April 27, 2007

All your water are belong to us #2

Go read the post below this one first. Go on - I'll wait.
OK - Update :

Northumberland Local News April 27 2007 :
Canada has "no intentions" of entering into bulk water export negotiations, the Hon. Peter MacKay said Thursday in Ottawa Thursday. Canada's government is not participating at today's North American Future 2025 Project roundtable in Calgary, nor is Canada providing any funding for the meeting, a statement by Northumberland-Quinte West MP Rick Norlock says.

"On the issue of bulk water export, the government has no intention of entering into any negotiations behind closed doors, or otherwise, regarding the matter of bulk water exports," Mr. MacKay is quoted as saying.
"Suggesting we would even discuss bulk water exports is totally false," Mr. Norlock said. "Canada's government is committed to protecting water in its natural state and to preserving the integrity of ecosystems, and will continue to do so."

Ok, good. That's pretty unequivocable, wouldn't you say?
So then why does Page 2 of the North American Future 2025 Project read :

"Each of the roundtables will convene a combination of practitioners (from each respective administration and legislature); stakeholders (from the private sector and conceivably even labor unions); and highly specialized academics and analysts from Canada, the United States, and Mexico."
"The North American Future 2025 project will also examine relevant future-looking work dealing with each of the six topics on which the three governments have agreed -- namely labor mobility, energy, the environment, security, competitiveness, and border infrastructure and logistics.
The final deliverable will be a report on options and policy recommendations on the future of North American integration that will be presented in September 2007 to the executive and legislative branches of the three governments of North America."
"The CSIS North American Project will convene pertinent government officials from Canada, the United States, and Mexico, along with selected nongovernmental experts....."

And so on for another 20 pages.
Here's Page 16 :

"Project Timeline - July 1, 2006 - Sept 30, 2007
Planning Phase - July 2006 - January 2007
~ Meet with U.S., Canadian, and Mexican government officials to identify government participants for each of the roundtable meetings."

There are seven such roundtables listed, with #6 and #7 being yesterday and today.

So what did Mr MacKay mean when he said that no Canadian government officials were at today's meetings?
What about all the other days?
Are any Canadian government officials going to be at this one in July?

Page 17 : "Review Phase - June 12, 2007 - July 17, 2007
~ July 2 - July 8 : Review of edited report by U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments."

Because even if Mr MacKay is adamant about not selling off and/or diverting Canadian water to the States, if Canadian government officials are participants in this, there's enough else damning information in the North American Future 2050 Program, that I'd still be worried.
Go read the damn thing for yourself.
Take special note of the C.V.s of the U.S. participants, and the Canadian too, at the end.

I'm going for a nap now but I'll be back.
And if anyone hears anything in the meantime, let me know.

UPDATE : And I got nothin' - yet.
Although it is interesting, as noted in comments, that although the Conference Board of Canada have criticized the idea of bulk water exports in the past and have stated that their participation and logo on the North American Future 2025 Project does not signify compliance with all NAF2025Project's opinions, the Conference Board was an architect and booster of that other great SPP initiative : TILMA


West End Bob said...

Oh great, Alison . . . I went and read most of "the damn thing".

Doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Perhaps a stroll to Olympia Pizza for a pizza and pale lager will calm my nerves . . . .

Anonymous said...

So Canada is being represented at these talks by the Conference Board of Canada? That's just great.
They're the ones who did the study that led to TILMA.

I note from one of your links below that Maud Barlow was issued an invitation after word of her protest came out but she declined.
Do you know why?

It was the controversial Conference Board of Canada study that led to the signing of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) in Alberta and British Columbia

Alison said...

Ian : I don't know. Can only surmise that she felt it would compromise both her opposition to the Project - she did have a protest going on - and also her position that the proceedings should be open, and not just by invitation.

Blog Archive