US Refuses our Lumber but wants our Water

[B. Max]

We can protect it by not selling it off to private enterprise. By making sure no (or very limited) logging activity occurs in the watershed.

That is ridiculous feel good nonsense, and nothing but a cover for the real agenda of just keeping it from the Americans because we hate the US which makes us Canadian.

[Canuck E Stan]

Anything rational to add to the topic there boys?

Got a problem with Canada protecting it's watersheds? Discuss it.

But you cannot, so you simply resort to what you know best -- insults. The debating technique of "insult 'em" does nothing for your position on the topic it only makes you look like idiots.

Drea,

Maybe you could remind everyone here how the your capital city of " Beautiful BC -- the Crowning Jewel of Canada" disposes of it's sewage waste.

[B. Max]

Drea,

Maybe you could remind everyone here how the your capital city of " Beautiful BC -- the Crowning Jewel of Canada" disposes of it's sewage waste.

YIKES!!!

[Drea]

That is ridiculous feel good nonsense, and nothing but a cover for the real agenda of just keeping it from the Americans because we hate the US which makes us Canadian.

No actually I was thinking of private investment from China.... but I don't want American corporations buying it up either.

What does my location have to do with the topic? I don't live in Victoria. Once again, you cannot debate the subject at hand so you resort to insulting my location on the map.

Ps, just in case you are geographically challenged. British Columbia is a province. It's pretty big. Victoria's sewage (and I agree that it needs to be fixed) does not enter into our watersheds so it has nothing to do with the topic of the fresh water supply.

People are funny! Is Ottawa like, the whole frozen Ontario? (oh wait it's TORONTO that thinks it's a province!).. duh LOL

One city does not a province make.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Drea

[B. Max]

No actually I was thinking of private investment from China.... but I don't want American corporations buying it up either.

China has nothing to do with it. It sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. At the root of it all is anti Americanism.

[Guest American Woman]

Why is that Dion (and Layton etc) are angry if the US wants to buy our water and yet Dion (and Layton etc) are also angry if the US refuses to buy our wood? It seems that whatever the Americans do, don't do, want to do - or refuse to do, the Americans are wrong.

Good point.

Reading through this thread, I can't believe some of the animosity towards the United States for wanting to buy water from Canada. Either sell it to us, or don't, but then don't be angry because we're not buying what you want us to buy. Furthermore, it seems some don't care if Americans go without water as long as Canadians have water. Sounds an awful lot like the I-don't-care-if-others-don't-have-healthcare-as-long-as-I-do attitude.

I'd be curious to know what the reaction would be if it were some other nation besides the U.S. wanting to buy water.

[B. Max]

Good point.

Reading through this thread, I can't believe some of the animosity towards the United States for wanting to buy water from Canada. Either sell it to us, or don't, but then don't be angry because we're not buying what you want us to buy. Furthermore, it seems some don't care if Americans go without water as long as Canadians have water. Sounds an awful lot like the I-don't-care-if-others-don't-have-healthcare-as-long-as-I-do attitude.

Peel back the maple leaf on the liberal parties flag and underneath you will find a hammer and sickle.

[old_bold&cold]

Canada can protect its freshwater supplies simply by building dams that alow the water to flow into the Great lakes. This would be the only way we can control it. The water that flows north to the artic watershed, would not need to be protected inthe same way, but yes our Great Lakes and the fact that the USA has no compulsion to even try and conserve, means we need to be able to turn off the tap here in Canada, if we are to have any control over our freshwater resources. It would also mean that the shipping on the great lakes would be affected hard, but maybe we need a large scale contruction project that would build a canal from James Bay to Sault Ste Marie. and also join to the Ottawa River etc This would give Canada control over its own shipping lanes and also give the nortern communities a great big boost. Another canal from Church Hill to lake Winnipeg would also help the west immensely and maybe do something to unite Canada for once. This would in my own thinking be the best way to spend and unite the country and ascert our soveirgnty over the transportation and supply of Canadian goods to and from our own cites, without having to share any of this with the USA. With this shift to middle northern Canada, we could then shift even more north to the artic regions and cap all of our claims to these lands, with little excuses from other lands.

Now do I think that Dion has the right idea? No, he is not even capable of any deep thinking, and I can not see anyone much less likely to be able to stand up and fight for Canada. He in my mind is nothing but a place holder, for the liberals. Because there are no real rising stars coming up in their ranks. Mind you, I also think Harper is very limited in his ability to do things, but at this time I would say he is the best of what we have to chose from. I will need to see him get more of a back bone before I can say that I agree with him more then disagree with him. Time will tell just where things will lead. One thing we all need to understand that even in the desert there is a water table beneath the surface. You only need to dig deep enough. I do think that in lieu of that, the USA can spend the money and find freshwater when and where needed. There was a time when a 100 ft well was at the limit of those drilling for water, but now you can find wells in excess of 500ft deep in the Gatineau hills around Ottawa, and not that costly to drill. Also the costs of desalination have dropped many fold within the last decade, and the world being 75% water.... well you can see where that is going. Canada cheap and free flowing freshwater is what is at the bone of contention. That to me is what and why we need to protect it, but not by agreements with the USA, as we all know they break agreements all the time and can not be trusted. So, yes Canada needs to dam the assets and make sure things are followed, by our neighbours to the south.

[Drea]

What are you on about BMax?

There is a thread about anti-Americanism but this isn't it.

I don't want to see any private corporation in control of our water supply. Whether that corporation be Canadian, American or Chinese.

No I don't want to horde all the water for us Canadians but I do want to make sure the supply is protected. IMO that means keeping it out of the hands of private corporations. If we do enter into an agreement to sell it I would hope that we would make sure our needs our met first.

If you own a farm and use the food to feed yourself, do you sell ALL your produce or do you keep what you need and sell the surplus?

Edited August 19, 2007 by Drea

[jdobbin]

Good point.

Reading through this thread, I can't believe some of the animosity towards the United States for wanting to buy water from Canada. Either sell it to us, or don't, but then don't be angry because we're not buying what you want us to buy. Furthermore, it seems some don't care if Americans go without water as long as Canadians have water. Sounds an awful lot like the I-don't-care-if-others-don't-have-healthcare-as-long-as-I-do attitude.

I'd be curious to know what the reaction would be if it were some other nation besides the U.S. wanting to buy water.

It isn't the U.S. I question in this. American companies are doing what they believe they can under the law. It is future Canadian law on bulk water sales that I question.

American states that border the Great Lakes are allied with Canadian provinces in the belief that that the Great Lakes should not be sold off for bulk sales somewhere else. They are not just a beverage but part of the transportation and recreation aspects of the economy. They supply the drinking water for the region but shipping billions of litres of water elsewhere or worse, piping it elsewhere threatens the lakes as a renewable resource.

[B. Max]

What are you on about BMax?

There is a thread about anti-Americanism but this isn't it.

I don't want to see any private corporation in control of our water supply. Whether that corporation be Canadian, American or Chinese.

No I don't want to horde all the water for us Canadians but I do want to make sure the supply is protected. IMO that means keeping it out of the hands of private corporations. If we do enter into an agreement to sell it I would hope that we would make sure our needs our met first.

If you own a farm and use the food to feed yourself, do you sell ALL your produce or do you keep what you need and sell the surplus?

Nice try Drea, but even the Americans here can see what this thread is about.

[Drea]

I understand.

If one does not want private enterprise one is automatically anti American. Ok. Whatever.

CN bought BC Rail and now there are derailments all over the place. Why? Money. Why is money more important than safety? Because CN is a private corporation now. Nothing matters to private enterprise but the bottom line.

[CLRV]

Canadian's ire over software lumber wasn't over the fact that we're dealing with Americans. It's the hose-job they were giving us on the deal. America invariably uses it's economic (and then it's military) might to sweeten all deals in their favour. Gee, d'ya think *that* might be at the centre of our hesitation to turn on the taps?

Or could it be that certain forward-thinking people have recognized that in the reality of climate change, potable water will be more precious than oil in the future? Any deal we make now to sell our water will be seen in a decade's time as about as perspecacious as the Indians selling Manhattan island for a song.

That's why Putin is sending his bombers to patrol the arctic again. That's why there are suddenly all these disputes about the resource rights to polar regions. Far from stopping climate change, there are those poised to profit by it. Wars will undoubtably result from this. Water rights will be way up on the list of things to fight about. Count on it.

Edited August 19, 2007 by CLRV

[B. Max]

I understand.

If one does not want private enterprise one is automatically anti American. Ok. Whatever.

CN bought BC Rail and now there are derailments all over the place. Why? Money. Why is money more important than safety? Because CN is a private corporation now. Nothing matters to private enterprise but the bottom line.

That's just plain silly. It costs a lot of money to pick up derailments so your arguement has no basis in reality. Your right though, the bottom line is important otherwise you are out of business. Something lefty government doesn't have to contend with because they just raid the pockets of the wealth creators for more.

[margrace]

That is ridiculous feel good nonsense, and nothing but a cover for the real agenda of just keeping it from the Americans because we hate the US which makes us Canadian.

That is the most nonsensical statement I have ever heard.

[margrace]

What are you on about BMax?

There is a thread about anti-Americanism but this isn't it.

I don't want to see any private corporation in control of our water supply. Whether that corporation be Canadian, American or Chinese.

No I don't want to horde all the water for us Canadians but I do want to make sure the supply is protected. IMO that means keeping it out of the hands of private corporations. If we do enter into an agreement to sell it I would hope that we would make sure our needs our met first.

If you own a farm and use the food to feed yourself, do you sell ALL your produce or do you keep what you need and sell the surplus?

I agree drea, it is our water and we need to control it completely, then we can be more able to let others use it. But I must say that as long as places like Scotsdale, Arizona exist it is pretty hard to be fair. I know, I am being anti American, no how many Canadians live there.

[Drea]

That's just plain silly. It costs a lot of money to pick up derailments so your arguement has no basis in reality.

As usual you are on about the wrong thing... I meant the money saved BEFORE the derailment. CN tries to save money by adding too many cars to trains (before they derail!). They attempt to have a larger bottom line by having more cars per train. This directly impacts the safety of the train. Too long a train and it derails.

and how is this antiAmerican? Hmmmmmmm?

[B. Max]

name='Drea' date='Aug 19 2007, 02:22 PM' post='244814']

As usual you are on about the wrong thing... I meant the money saved BEFORE the derailment. CN tries to save money by adding too many cars to trains (before they derail!). They attempt to have a larger bottom line by having more cars per train. This directly impacts the safety of the train. Too long a train and it derails.

It doesn't change anything. It still costs a lot of money to pick up drerailments. If the trains are to long, I don't know. I'm not an expert on train lenght. If it begins to cost more to pick them up than pull them, they will get shorter if that is the reason.

and how is this antiAmerican? Hmmmmmmm?

It's not, it's changing the subject.

[August1991]

Canadian's ire over software lumber wasn't over the fact that we're dealing with Americans. It's the hose-job they were giving us on the deal. America invariably uses it's economic (and then it's military) might to sweeten all deals in their favour. Gee, d'ya think *that* might be at the centre of our hesitation to turn on the taps?

Hose-job?

The US government wants to stop Canadian lumber imports into the US. They even imposed a countervailing duty to make Canadian lumber more expensive.

IOW, the US government is doing exactly in the case of lumber what Dion et al wants in the case of water.

If the US government imposed an import tariff on water imports from Canada, would that make Dion et al (and you) happy? And if so, why aren't you happy that the US government did exactly that in the case of lumber.

At least be consistent, unless your consistency is: whatever the US does, the US is wrong.

I agree drea, it is our water and we need to control it completely, then we can be more able to let others use it. But I must say that as long as places like Scotsdale, Arizona exist it is pretty hard to be fair. I know, I am being anti American, no how many Canadians live there.

Then why don't you say the same about our lumber?

When the US government made it expensive for Americans to buy Canadian lumber, all the Canadian nationalists were angry.

Edited August 19, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Hose-job?

The US government wants to stop Canadian lumber imports into the US. They even imposed a countervailing duty to make Canadian lumber more expensive.

IOW, the US government is doing exactly in the case of lumber what Dion et al wants in the case of water.

Can you explain what you mean here?

And you say it is only Dion who thinks this way?

[Guest American Woman]

Canadian's ire over software lumber wasn't over the fact that we're dealing with Americans. It's the hose-job they were giving us on the deal. America invariably uses it's economic (and then it's military) might to sweeten all deals in their favour. Gee, d'ya think *that* might be at the centre of our hesitation to turn on the taps?

Or could it be that certain forward-thinking people have recognized that in the reality of climate change, potable water will be more precious than oil in the future? Any deal we make now to sell our water will be seen in a decade's time as about as perspecacious as the Indians selling Manhattan island for a song.

That's why Putin is sending his bombers to patrol the arctic again. That's why there are suddenly all these disputes about the resource rights to polar regions. Far from stopping climate change, there are those poised to profit by it. Wars will undoubtably result from this. Water rights will be way up on the list of things to fight about. Count on it.

It's your water, so of course you could "turn it off" whenever you choose to, unless you've agreed to keep supplying it in a contract. I really don't think you have to worry about our resorting to "military might" over it, though, since we haven't done that over the lumber dispute.

But while you talk about America using it's economic might, you say Canada should hord it's water now so it can get more money off of us in the future. Is that somehow better than what you're accusing us of?

And speaking of 'turning off the tap,' it would be nice if Canada turned off the garbage coming into the States. Seems Canada isn't above resorting to economics rather than dealing with a problem the way it should be dealt with. Sure, some of our politicians were stupid/greedy enough to agree to the deal, but that doesn't absolve Canada of its part in it.

Btw. Water is already more expensive than oil; compare the price of a bottle of water to a gallon/litre of gas and gas is quite a bargain.

[August1991]

Can you explain what you mean here?

And you say it is only Dion who thinks this way?

What's to explain?

The US doesn't want our lumber. The US government has tried to prevent Canadian lumber entering the US. Many in Canada claimed that this proves that the US are greedy, thieving bast**rds.

Now, the US apparently wants to buy our water. Many in Canada say that the US are greedy, thieving bast**rds.

IOW, the US is greedy if it wants our water and it's also greedy if it doesn't want our lumber.

Btw. Water is already more expensive than oil; compare the price of a bottle of water to a gallon/litre of gas and gas is quite a bargain.

Table wine in France is cheaper than gasoline. Edited August 19, 2007 by August1991

[CLRV]

Hose-job?

The US government wants to stop Canadian lumber imports into the US. They even imposed a countervailing duty to make Canadian lumber more expensive.

Precisely. Blatant protectionist measures within the context of a "free trade agreement". Hose job.

America has this funny habit of signing agreements and then utterly failing to honour them the first time it becomes inconvenient. For a more recent example, see the Geneva Conventions. Or the disarmament treaties with the Russians (see my comments above about Putin's less than friendly stance these days).

If such important documents can be used as so much toilet paper by one US administration, why would anyone in their right mind want to deal with them on something as crucial as water? Soft lumber I can live without. Water?

[August1991]

Precisely. Blatant protectionist measures within the context of a "free trade agreement". Hose job.

So you criticize "blatant protectionist measures" when it comes to lumber and laud them when it comes to water.

What's the diff?

Edited August 19, 2007 by August1991

[CLRV]

What's the difference between wood and water?

Re-read my second-to-last sentence...