Canada's water supplies up for grabs in closed-door talks

Harper government participating in corporate takeover of public resource

Maude Barlow
Edmonton Journal
April 26, 2007

Earlier this month, one of our biggest fears about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was confirmed. The leaked document of a prominent Washington-based think-tank obtained by the Council of Canadians revealed that government officials and business leaders from Canada, Mexico and the United States are scheduled to discuss bulk water exports in a closed-door meeting in Calgary on Friday. This would be part of a larger discussion on North American integration.

Titled the "North American Future 2025 Project," the initiative is led by the U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Conference Board of Canada and the Mexican Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economicas (CIDE).

The project envisions a joint security perimeter, a continental resource pact (read energy and water) and explicitly calls for trilateral co-ordination of energy policy -- all within the context of North American integration.

This is the latest round of private meetings taking place within the context of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Corporate lobby groups like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the U.S. Council of the Americas, and now think-tanks like CSIS, CIDE and the Conference Board of Canada, have been granted executive-level access to the integration process. No equivalent role has been granted to labour groups, civil society or even Parliament in Canada.

Most alarming is the fact that the April 27 roundtable on the "Future of the North American Environment" will discuss "water consumption, water transfers and artificial diversion of bulk water" with the aim of achieving "joint optimum utilization of the available water."

In response to the media coverage earlier this month, Environment Minister John Baird's office issued a statement claiming that Canada had restrictions in place to protect it from bulk water removal and diversions. His statement was full of holes.

Our legislation does not provide adequate protection against water diversions and bulk water exports. The provincial accords Baird referred to in his statement are voluntary and can be broken at any time. The so-called prohibition on bulk water exports contained in the 1909 International Boundary Waters Treaty Act (IBWTA) only applies to waters that are shared with the U.S. and does not apply to what the U.S. is really after -- water from Canada's north. Last October, the Global Water and Energy Strategy Team, another Washington-based group, put forward a proposal to export water from northern Manitoba to Texas through a pipeline. Nothing in Canada's existing legislation would prevent this type of scheme from being implemented.

Even the restrictions on shared waters outlined by the IBWTA are weak and have been ignored in the past, allowing for water diversions from the Great Lakes.

Canada does not, as the North American Future 2025 Project reports, hold 20 per cent of the world's fresh water. According to Environment Canada, we hold seven per cent of the world's freshwater supplies -- water that can be used without damaging the ecosystem or the overall water stock.

There is no spare water in the Great Lakes and the Prairies are already experiencing major water shortages.

Most of the rivers coveted by the U.S. flow north. Using them to supply the U.S. would require monumental feats of engineering that would inevitably lead to ecological devastation by reversing the natural flow of water. It would also lead to Canada losing complete control over its water. Under NAFTA, water is described as a "good." Since under the free trade deal, no party may adopt or maintain any prohibition or restriction on the exportation or sale for export of any good destined for the territory of another party, once Canada starts exporting fresh water to the U.S., we would not be able to turn off the tap.

I have been conveniently called anti-American for sounding the alarm over what is clearly the corporate takeover of a precious public resource.

It is not only that Canada would suffer from water scarcity through these ill-conceived projects. It is that the planet would suffer from such massive transfers of water. Displacing water from one place to another spreads desertification. We need to address drought through sustainable conservation strategies administered by the public sector.

The North American Future 2025 Project cannot be dismissed as the abstract musings of a group of intellectuals either.

We know from previous meetings of this nature that they have led to the development of policies. 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. This too happened without parliamentary or public debate.

After being exposed by the Council of Canadians, the organizers of the Future 2025 meeting scrambled to invite us to what would remain a "closed-door" session. The Council of Canadians has declined. This process is flawed and ideologically biased from the start. Parliament cannot be bypassed and bulk water exports should not be a topic of discussion at a closed-door meeting.

Maude Barlow is national chairwoman of the Council of Canadians and author of Too Close for Comfort: Canada's future within Fortress North America

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=04d565fc-af50-4a41-a336-7a238a23faec