Updated. Please see below.
The Conservative government announced recently that it intended to table legislation that would strengthen a ban on bulk water exports. As I recall, that announcement didn't make it clear that the legislation was actually quite narrow in scope and that some bulk water exports would remain perfectly acceptable.
A federal government plan to strengthen a ban on bulk water exports is undermined by a loophole allowing significant water removal for exports of bottled water, critics said yesterday.
..."Canada will continue to export water in bulk, just in small individual containers instead of giant containers," said Joe Cressy of the Polaris Institute, a research and advocacy organization that is campaigning against bottled water. "The bill is a first step but it doesn't go far enough."
The new legislation is intended to thwart the diversion of river water south to the U.S. through such means as dams, aqueducts, canals and pipelines.
The Council of Canadians, reproduced at Straight Goods, weighs in:
"It is highly problematic that the Act narrows the definition of water removals and diversions to bulk removals of 50,000 litres or more and exempts water in manufactured goods including beverages," says Karunananthan. "Bill C-26 does not cover waters that are not boundary or transboundary waters."
"Bill C-26 does not apply to water resources in the North, which have been the subject of the most recent proposals by right-wing think tanks GWest, the Frontier Centre, and the Montreal Economic Institute," notes Barlow. "Therefore Bill C-26 is effectively not a ban on bulk water exports."
Always read the fine print. That's right up there with: watch what they do, not what they say.
H/t to JimBobby on Twitter for the second link.
Update:
Fortunately, Alison took me at my word and read the fine print. As is so often the case with these Conservatives, the closer you look, the worse it gets.
Lawrence Cannon has said that bulk exports would be allowed in the case of fighting forest fires or other disasters faced by the US. Other disasters? Like what? Drought?
At least it's a start on having federal oversight over provincial flirting with the outright commodification of water.
Glen Keely(sp) and the private secretary of Simon Reisman(producer of NAFTA wording) both stated that bulk water export to the US from Canada is in NAFTA and the re-routing of waterways is also there to force Canada to export water to the US. I cannot remember the secretary's name but she was destroyed by the attacks on her. The government tried to force her into a mental hospital, she lost her job and anything else they could do to her to destroy her credibility.
We know words mean nothing in politics. We know that we are here to provide the US with everything they demand. What they say and what they mean are worlds apart. Read what George Orwell had to say
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
This is a prime example of a government passing an useless or sometimes harmful piece of legislation in response to an issue and declaring the problem solved. The MSM will then get on board shouting, HURRAY,HURRAY, and the public, safely nestled in their cocoons will breathe a sigh of relief, and go back to sleep.
Then as time passes we invariably learn that not only did we not resolve the issue, but most often have made it worse than it would otherwise have been. Of course by then it is usually too late.
Which is the whole point of the legislation in the first place
Shit. No it isn't necessarily "a start on having federal oversight over provincial flirting with the outright commodification of water".
Scedule 3 is a long list of over 160 waters covered in the Act, including the Columbia River and Lake Champlain.
New clause :
21.01 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, on the Minister’s recommendation, amend Schedule 3 by adding, deleting or amending the name of any transboundary waters.
(2) Before recommending that Schedule 3 be amended, the Minister is to consult with the appropriate Minister of the province where the transboundary waters are located.
As it happens, I had just finished reading the latest at your blog when the email notification of your comment came in. I've updated my post to point to yours.
Thanks Pogge, although you're always welcome to lift the gist and put it on the end of your own post.
Correction : That should be 82 waterways. Yup, I added the French and English spellings together. Gosh, I remember thinking at the time, half these waterways seem to be in Quebec.