said by darkeans:
i guess we can hang a for sale on all of our natural resources. thank U mr. paul martin. U may sell canada out but never alberta.!
Considering it was the Conservatives who brought in NAFTA, with it's clauses covering the sale of natural resources as commodities, I find this comment highly amusing. Especially since we have the US trying desperately to force Canada into selling water commercially, since once we do, they'll effectively have permanent access to our fresh-water resources:
From:
Arizona Water Resource Magazine NAFTA governs trade in goods between Canada and the United States. Goods are defined as "domestic products, as these are understood in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or such goods as the Parties may agree..." The definition covers most commercial goods and natural resource commodities such as lumber or food, but whether it includes fresh water in situ is unclear.
If fresh water is in fact a commodity as defined by NAFTA the treaty includes three conditions impacting international trade in water. One condition would require that signatory countries accord businesses and investors from the other signatory countries the same preferential treatment they accord their own businesses and investors for both goods and services. For example, Canada cannot favor Canadian water exporters over water exporters from other NAFTA member states.
Also, Chapter II of NAFTA allows corporations of a signatory country to sue the government of either of the other two signatories if that government takes an action to "expropriate" that company's profits...
Further, Article 309 of NAFTA states that, if shortages occur, exports of any good are to be reduced proportionally across signatory countries. For example if Canada were exporting water in bulk and experienced drought or other water shortages, it could not then reduce the amount of its water exports and continue undiminished deliveries to its domestic customers. Instead both domestic and foreign customers would have to proportionally share reduced deliveries.
The above conditions in effect establish the principle that water once traded as a good must continue to be traded...
Note from the above article that NAFTA provisions, which "...covers most commercial goods and natural resource commodities such as lumber or food..." also includes non-renewable natural resources such as oil or gas. Thus, having once sold oil, gas, minerals, etc., Canada cannot decide that it's in it's own best interests to reduce exports if we encounter shortages here... instead, we'd have to cut equally the amount produced for the domestic market, while still being forced to export a reduced amount. So, in order to cut exports 20%, NAFTA says we'd have to reduce production for domestic markets by an equal 20%. Just the solution in case of shortages, eh?
Sounds to me like the Conservative party of 1992 already sold Canada's resources. And since NAFTA covers oil, gas, coal, etc., which Alberta has in such amounts, I'd have to say that they sold out Alberta too.
Oddly enough, it's the Liberals who've been fighting against seeing water resources used as a commodity:
Environment Canada's Bulk Water Removal and Water Export page.
