jdobbin Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 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. I haven't argued that they are greedy. I don't know that the Dion said they are greedy. I don't know that Dion has raised the issue of lumber up in this discussion either. The only person I have seen mention it is you. I have argued that water is much more than a beverage. It is covered under international agreements that pre-date free trade agreements by decades. My argument is that bulk sales of water will contribute to problems with water flow and levels if it is diverted. In much the same way the water doesn't flow into Mexcio the way it used to, bulk water diversion could do the same thing to water levels in the east and north. I have no idea if Dion has found reliable information that there are talks going about bulk water sales. Do you think it is a good idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drea Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 I think it would work only if there were a cap on the amount to be sold/shipped. Once the cap is reached the deal must be renegotiated. And only if the sale does not have any effect on the amount of water accessible to Canadians. In this instance (water) we must look after ourselves first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 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. ZING !!! That's going to leave a mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 ZING !!! That's going to leave a mark. Now I am confused, I thought we were discussing the ownership of our water. Boy you are good at strawmen arguments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 I think it would work only if there were a cap on the amount to be sold/shipped. Once the cap is reached the deal must be renegotiated. And only if the sale does not have any effect on the amount of water accessible to Canadians. In this instance (water) we must look after ourselves first. Drea its a waste of time to try to discuss anything with bush/cheney and canuckestan is from freedominion They do not want to discuss they only want to shut up this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 After reading through this thread and googling the issue a bit, I have to say I'm sure glad I don't need Canada's water! I'm serious about that. Canada is presented as this 'we care about everyone' nation as 30 million people sit on more than 20% of the world's fresh water supply and I'm sure not feeling the love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
margrace Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 After reading through this thread and googling the issue a bit, I have to say I'm sure glad I don't need Canada's water! I'm serious about that. Canada is presented as this 'we care about everyone' nation as 30 million people sit on more than 20% of the world's fresh water supply and I'm sure not feeling the love. American woman, I hope you do not think that of all Canadians. Yes we have a lot of water and yes we should share, but as any country will tell you including your own. It is the duty of this generation to protect the next. What we are trying to say is that we, as Canadian citizens, want to be sure we get a fair deal for our children and our future generations. We do not want any companies coming here and telling us that we cannot use our own resources. I think a lot of us need to know more about Africa and India and water. There are some pretty sad stories coming back to us of women having to walk many miles for water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcinmoka Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 (edited) After reading through this thread and googling the issue a bit, I have to say I'm sure glad I don't need Canada's water! Not yet. Canada is presented as this 'we care about everyone' nation as 30 million people sit on more than 20% of the world's fresh water supply and I'm sure not feeling the love But just as all other nations, we must do whats in our best interest, which is neither a. hoarding it, as at far left propose nor b. offering to give it all away as the short sighted righty libertarians suggest. If we think long term and develop viable sovereign control mechanisms, and the market (a.k.a Americans) provide us with a good price, as with other commodities, why not sell it to supplement our income. It costs little to "produce", and being human, demand does not seem too elastic. Having said that, viva suburbia. Viva heavily subsidized mid western corn producers. Viva absurd notions that corn ethanol is a good thing. And remember, one can never have too many golf courses. I just hope we make use of our resource wealth (long term investments) more in the fashion of Norway than the Middle East. Edited August 19, 2007 by marcinmoka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 If we think long term and develop viable sovereign control mechanisms, and the market (a.k.a Americans) provide us with a good price, as with other commodities, why not sell it to supplement our income. It costs little to "produce", and being human, demand does not seem too elastic. Correct...we have already established what you are...we're just haggling over the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcinmoka Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Correct...we have already established what you are...we're just haggling over the price. What I am? Anyhow, I'm just trying to re-assure American Woman. We (Canadians) are far more sensible than certain elements on this board would have on believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 (edited) 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? Here's the thing. Yes, Canada has a lot of water, but a good portion of it is in the Great Lakes. So if we utterly fail to honor any agreement that doesn't suit us, we'll just start using that water any way we please. No need to attack Canada to get water that we can easily access. No need to even negotiate or pay for it. After all, that's what we do, right? End of problem. So no need to worry about an attack-- at least not from us. So what if some other nation were to decide to go to war over your water resources? The United States would come to your aid. That's a given. Edited August 19, 2007 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Anyhow, I'm just trying to re-assure American Woman. We (Canadians) are far more sensible than certain elements on this board would have on believe. I agree....Canada has taken so much American capital investment over the past 40 years that it's pretty damn hard to get rid of 'em now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 (edited) What I am? Anyhow, I'm just trying to re-assure American Woman. We (Canadians) are far more sensible than certain elements on this board would have on believe. I like Canada and Canadians a lot, marcinmoka; but I must say I'm surprised by a lot of the reactions to the water issue. I do know without a doubt that you're a nation of really good people, but I am glad I'll never need your water. Edited August 19, 2007 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Here's the thing. Yes, Canada has a lot of water, but a good portion of it is in the Great Lakes. So if we utterly fail to honor any agreement that doesn't suit us, we'll just start using that water any way we please. No need to attack Canada to get water that we can easily access. No need to even negotiate or pay for it. After all, that's what we do, right? End of problem. So no need to worry about an attack-- at least not from us. So what if some other nation were to decide to go to war over your water resources? The United States would come to your aid. That's a given. Most of the northern states are allied with Canadian provinces on the Great Lakes issue. No one in the region feels comfortable with a pipeline that goes from the lakes to say, Nevada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Correct...we have already established what you are...we're just haggling over the price.No we are not. The issue is the rules of trade which very few Canadians want to apply to water. For example, it is not in Canada's interest to enter into any long term contracts for bulk water sales because we cannot predict what the climate will be like 20 years from now. However, no business would invest the billions required for water diversion without a long term contract. This impass makes bulk water sales economically impossible. Edited August 20, 2007 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Most of the northern states are allied with Canadian provinces on the Great Lakes issue. No one in the region feels comfortable with a pipeline that goes from the lakes to say, Nevada. True, but they are aligned with sending nuclear waste to Nevada, much of which started life in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 So if we utterly fail to honor any agreement that doesn't suit us, we'll just start using that water any way we please. No need to attack Canada to get water that we can easily access. No need to even negotiate or pay for it. After all, that's what we do, right? End of problem. No, you will just be sharing whatever problems that arise out of taking too much water from the lakes as you already do with anything that effects the Great Lakes in a negative manner. I agree....Canada has taken so much American capital investment over the past 40 years that it's pretty damn hard to get rid of 'em now. I wasn't aware it was charity but even more reason to be very careful when it comes to the possibility of giving up control of our water resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 I wasn't aware it was charity but even more reason to be very careful when it comes to the possibility of giving up control of our water resources. It may as well have been charity. Even today, Canada simply does not have enough domestic capital to sustain key sectors. Canada has openly engaged foreign investment as a matter of national policy, essentially selling everything including its soul. Why draw the line at water? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 It may as well have been charity. Even today, Canada simply does not have enough domestic capital to sustain key sectors. Canada has openly engaged foreign investment as a matter of national policy, essentially selling everything including its soul. Why draw the line at water? Sure you aren't talking about the US lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Toronto StarWhy 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. Isn't anti-Americanism that walks the walk but doesn't talk the talk a sport in Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Sure you aren't talking about the US lately? Even if I were, it wouldn't go back to WW2. I understand Canuck style anti-Americanism...that's the version where they still want the Yankee dollars and markets. Strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Isn't anti-Americanism that walks the walk but doesn't talk the talk a sport in Canada? Yes...you have described the situation splendidly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_bold&cold Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 The fact taht we share the Great Lakes with the USA, means that we can not stop the USA from building pipelines to these lakes and using the water in any way they see fit. The only way Canada can take control of its freshwater resources is to dam the rivers that flow into the great lakes. That would be very costly but doable. Of course this could reek havoc on shipping in the Great Lakes and yes it would need for Canada to make other plans for internal transport of large amounts of cargo etc. The Steel mills of the USA would have large problems with getting iron ore and many other things because the lake levels would be so low that shiiping would not be possible. I already said that the USA can dig to levels where fresh water is found and that way quench their thirst or desalination of the oceans waters to supply jusut about any need they may have. It is just so much easier to take water from out of the Great lake system then invest in the other methods. So if Canada was to take control of its fresh water supply, it had better be just for Canada's own use, as the price of freshwater can only go as high as the costs of desalination etc.. Anything beyond that would be just plain stupid. So it comes down to this: does Canada want to sell water today, so it can build necessary dams to control the flow, or do we invest in the control now and forget about the sales until later. I personally do not trust the USA in any agreements they make, as we already have seen then break them any time they feel like it. So I would be willing to suffer the costs of dams and control now, over deals that may be used to circumvent water sales later. Or I would say that only one year agreements should be signed until we can get firm control of the water supply. I do ot see Dion as the one who should lead in these talks, and I am not so sure that I trust Harper completely with them either, but better him then the rest. I really do not think the USA will ever use military might as a tool in this as Russia would be here in the drop of a hat backing Canada up, before you could say boo. Canada is on the right course now ascerting its soveirgnty over our lands and resources and it is about time. If the other parties can not get on line with this, then lets have an election and make this the platforms to run on. I do get tired of seeing our government play toothless games because their is not enough backing to get the things done that need doing. It is time Canadians used ourt power of the people to ste the course and hold the leaders to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 I really do not think the USA will ever use military might as a tool in this as Russia would be here in the drop of a hat backing Canada up, before you could say boo. Oh really? And how exactly would Russia do it? Ski over the North Pole? The US uses "military might" as a tool all the time and Russia can't do dick about it right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Yes...you have described the situation splendidly. Isn't anti-Americanism that walks the walk but doesn't talk the talk a sport in Canada? Thanks. I don't know much about Canada and don't know when my ignorance shows.Thank you again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.