Monday, August 20, 2007

Conservatives Not Being Open? Phfttt!

On The Conservative Party's website Stephane Dion is attacked for alleging that the Harper government is in talks with the United States concerning exporting bulk water to certain states. The website along with various Conservative blogs, all receiving the same email, call Dion a Conspiracy Theorist. It was brought forth that Stephane Dion had little evidence, and Dion recognizes the difficulty in providing evidence of official communications versus unofficial.

This whole story though I believe is still not finished, indeed the Conservatives in responding to the accusation have, in my opinion, provided stronger grounds for at least a deeper investigation.

In this news article detailing the events as the unfurled, and amonst the various quotes from Conservatives, not once does the Conservative Party ever deny the negotiation of bulk water to the United States. The only comment that could be constued as something similar to that effect is:
Asked on Thursday by reporters whether there are discussions under way on the contentious issue, a senior government official flatly denied that it was on the agenda or would be discussed at the three-way talks at Montebello, Que., involving Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
This paragraph, though perhaps informative, does nothing more then say that bulk water trade is not on the current agenda and will not be discussed at the summit. It does not say that Harper never negotiated with the Americans for future trade on Bulk Water; in fact the language that is used by the Conservatives is quite careful.

Which brings back up the Conservative website; this too walks the fine line of not out-right denying bulk water trade but attacking Dion for making such an allegation:
The Conservative Party and its legacy parties have a strong record of opposition to negotiating bulk water exports from Canada. The International Boundary Waters Treaty Act prohibits bulk removals from boundary basins. And our Government has repeatedly made clear the fact bulk water exports are not on the agenda as Prime Minister Stephen Harper hosts the North American Leaders Summit in Montebello next week.
Just because the Conservative Party and it's legacy parties (Note: Legacy parties is the worst euphemism since nice personality) have had a history, does not mean the present and future will be like the past, an example being Income Trusts. Further why refer to history? Why not just openly say the Conservative Party is against such trade? Then the website concludes such negotiations are not being held at the summit; I would think this is rather obvious as such trade issues will be between three nations, US, Canada, and Mexico, and not just two, US and Canada.

If anyone believes no negotiations on bulk water trade ever occurred between the Harper government and President Bush, could you please provide one statement from a senior Conservative that says so?



Blogger kitt said...

Whoever believes that the concerns about our fresh water are bogus or a ‘conspiracy theory’ may wish to read this.

It’s a report from the Conference Board of Canada and the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. It’s a previously ’secret’ document that has been obtained by the Council of Canadians. I’ll quote the reports summary:

“The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) proposes to conduct a research project that will examine the future strategic issues facing North America projecting out to
the year 2025. The results of the study will enable policymakers to make sound, strategic, long-range policy decisions about North America, with an emphasis on regional integration. Specifically, the project will focus on a detailed examination of future scenarios, which are based on current trends, and involve six areas of critical importance to the trilateral
relationship: labor mobility, energy, the environment, security, competitiveness, and border
infrastructure and logistics.

While I urge everyone to read the entire document, let’s have a quick look at Page 6 (emphasis mine):

“Fresh Water: Fresh water is running out in many regions of the world—be it the water in rivers, lakes, basins, aquifers, or watersheds. Therefore, communities throughout the world will be seeking alternative water sources, and North America will by no means be exempt from this looming problem. North America, and particularly the United States and Mexico, will experience water scarcity as a result of
arid climates coupled with growing populations and increased water consumption.

Juxtaposed to the relative scarcity of water in the United States and Mexico, Canada possesses about 20 percent of the earth’s fresh water. Cognizant that water will become a strategic resource, Canada’s federal and provincial governments have undertaken measures to protect the nation’s water supply. This task is particularly challenging, given that Canada and the United State share many basins along their border, such as the Great Lakes as well as multiple rivers. Because water availability, quality, and allocation are likely to undergo profound changes between 2006 and
2025, policymakers will benefit from a more proactive approach to exploring
different creative solutions beyond the current transboundary water management
agreements that the United States has reached with both Mexico and Canada. One
such option could be regional agreements between Canada, the United States, and Mexico on issues such as water consumption, water transfers, artificial diversions of fresh water, water conservation technologies for agricultural irrigation, and urban

Got it now? Regional agreements between Canada, the United States, and Mexico on issues such as water consumption, water transfers, artificial diversions of fresh water

‘Water transfers’
‘Artificial diversions of fresh water’

Who has the water? Who needs/wants it?
( from the Turner Report

4:10 PM  
Blogger wilson said...

If Dion has proof there were secret meetings, why doesn't he produce it?

Why would Dion give up the chance to prove Harper a liar?

If Dion doesn't produce proof , he will end up looking like the liar.

6:59 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Wilson: Or Stephen Harper could actually deny that no negotiations have ever taken place, which he carefully does not do.

10:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home