----- Original Message -----
From: Sandra Finley
To: sabest1@sasktel.net
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 8:39 AM
Subject: Water: Macleans "figure out how to sell it to them" de

The disease is Public-Private-Partnerships.  As explained by Jane Jacobs,
corruption is a symptom of the disease  and we have corruption in epidemic
proportions.  The disease (P3's) is at the root of almost all of the issues
being fought by groups such as ours:  transgenics, globalization, water,
energy resources, democracy, intensive livestock operations, etc.

If we don't get rid of the idea that Public-Private-Partnerships are
acceptable in democratic government, we will not be able to protect the
water supply against exploitation.  It is a very large election issue.  This
is about water; it could as well be about seeds or other components of the

emotion and figure out how to sell it to them"  (sell water to the U.S.)



The front cover of the Nov 24 Edition of Maclean's magazine has a large
picture of George Bush drinking a glass of water, "America is thirsty".

The lead-in reads:
"They're already looking for ways to take our water. We should tone down the
emotion and figure out how to sell it to them."  Set this article by STEVE
MAICH (#4 below) into what is known about Canada today.

We have high levels of chronic corruption in Government.  But "corruption"
is NOT the issue; it is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE.  Corruption is the
consequence of the failure to keep the commercial and governing functions in
a society separated.  Public-Private-Partnerships ("P3's or PPP's) are the
problem. (Reference #5 below.)  Deal with P3's and we will bring down

Steve Maich advises us to start selling water to the U.S..  What we know
about a Government that embraces Public-Private-Partnerships is that the
commons is sold off, or sacked at the expense of the society in general.

The abolishment of PPP's is an Election issue.  If they are allowed to
continue, water WILL be sold the same as other natural resources - the rape
of the commons with all the benefits going to transnational corporations.

Steve Maich says that we should "sell, or see (Canada's) most vital resource
siphoned off from the south. (by the U.S.)".

From email Nov 11, "Water:  Thirsty Uncle looks north & Baltimore Sun, Lack
of Water hinders growth":   "It's not the crude: What the U.S. most needs is
our water. We must not let
it flow through our hands, says former Alberta premier PETER LOUGHEED

Friday, November 11, 2005 Page A19,
Globe & Mail
I (Lougheed) predict that the United States will be coming after our fresh
aggressively within three to five years. We must prepare, to ensure we
aren't trapped in an ill-advised response. It would be a major mistake for
Canada to handle this issue badly. With climate change and growing needs,
Canadians will need all the fresh water we can conserve, particularly in the
western provinces. ..."

The article in Macleans is extremely problematic.  Canadians need to clean
up their act vis-a-vis the environment and water in particular.

What's the answer, what's our response to the growing water shortage in the
U.S.? ... We have seen in the "developed nations" a large drop in the number
of children per family.  More young women choose not to have families.  Is
that part of the answer? ... a more even distribution of wealth and better
public education that enables people to achieve the potential with which
they have been endowed, in order to bring about a reversal in population
growth?  Some problem-solving that looks at the long-term?


Dear Editor;

RE:  Nov 24, Steve Maich, "America is thirsty
They're already looking for ways to take our water."

Steve's idea "We should tone down the emotion and figure out how to sell it
to them." is a recipe for more Government corruption and the theft of the
water supply in Canada.  Think it through:

Public-Private-Partnerships (P3's) are entrenched in Canadian Government,
started by the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney in the early 1980's and
continuing under the Liberals.  The corruption that accompanies them - a
system where the Regulator is a co-investor with the
Corporations-To-Be-Regulated leaves us with no effective regulation.  You
have only to study a few web-sites of the Government of Canada in order to
see the "client" relationship and mentality.  (P3's figure prominently in
Agriculture and in Health Canada in the sphere of biotechnology (e.g. the
contractural arrangement between Ag Canada and Monsanto to develop
herbicide-tolerant wheat).)

The Government of Canada suffers from chronic and high-level corruption.
The corruption is predictable:  Jane Jacobs' "Systems of Survival, the Moral
Foundations of Commerce and Politics" sets forth a framework for
understanding that the system of governance will succumb to corruption if we
fail to appreciate the functional roles of two separately evolved sets of
ethics, one for the commercial function in a society and the other for
governance (guardianship).

"Societies need both commercial and guardian work . the two types are prone
to corruption if they stray across either their functional or moral

The formation of Public Private Partnerships is not only "straying across"
the functional barriers, it is the having of intercourse between the two.
With corruption, people of power and influence sack "the commons" at the
expense of others in the society.  Democratic governance disappears.  Look
in Africa - the same process is at work here in Canada.  The Government does
not know that its responsibility is to citizens, not to corporate interests.
It does not know that its job is to protect the commons.

Jacobs says:  "The relationship between a regulator and the regulated. must
never become one in
which the regulator loses sight of the principle that it regulates only in
the public interest
and not in the interest of the regulated."

Steve Maich's prescription for selling water is to abandon our water supply
to corporate and "power" interests.  The entrenchment of the Public Private
Partnership system of governance in Canada ensures that it can be no other
way.  Oil and gas reserves, forests, and other natural resources are being
sold off in a fire sale; water is to be next on the auction block.

Thanks Steve, but I'll stay and fight for water.  No one has a "stake" in
the water supply - it belongs to us all and to other life forms.  If the
Government won't protect it, citizens will.  It's not up for sale or
exploitation.  There's nothing emotional about it - it's a matter of
recognizing the realities of our world.

Yours truly,
Sandra Finley
(contact info)


There are a number of web-sites where election issues can be raised.  The
Macleans article (below) scares me.  I will start a list of web-sites where
we can go to enter P3's as an Election issue and circulate it to everyone.

By the way, I have been in a quandary as to how I would vote in the 2006
Election.  Last time around I voted for the Green Party. I have heard two
interviews on CBC Radio that gave me reason for optismism and both were NDP
candidates:  one interview was with 70-year old Ed Schreyer, former Premier
of Manitoba and Governor General of Canada from 1979 to 1984.  I will try to
find a transcript of the interview; it was the most down-to-earth
straight-forward statement of the ills that beset Canada that I've heard
from a politician.  Schreyer wants those, the real issues, debated.  The
phenomenal depletion of natural resources was addressed.  Ed Schreyer is
running in Manitoba, Selkirk-Interlake.

The second interview was with Helen Yum who is running in Wascana against
Ralph Goodale.  Yum's Father died not too long after the family arrived in
Canada, leaving her Mother with young children.  They were on social
assistance.  From that humble beginning Helen earned a BA in Journalism from
the University of Regina and a law degree from the University of
Saskatchewan.  She is a now a lawyer, married and with one daughter.  She
has been employed in both the private sector and with the government of
Saskatchewan. As a journalist, she worked in rural Saskatchewan and in Hong
Kong.  (Information courtesy of CBC,
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/240/#HelenYum .)  Helen struck me as
another down-to-earth, sincere candidate who has the potential to make a
difference.  Her motivation is right, as is Schreyer's - the public

Ralph Goodale, Liberal Federal Minister of Finance has helped to move a lot
of Government money into the hands of the biotech companies.  (Reference:
page 49, "The Real Board of Directors, The Construction of Biotechnology
Policy in Canada, 1980 - 2002" by Devlin Kuyek.
(http://www.ramshorn.bc.ca/Real_BoD.pdf.)  To rid Canada of the menace of
Public-Private-Partnerships, I will try to work in the Wascana riding after
Christmas.  Unfortunately, locals know that Ralph sends a lot of money to
Saskatchewan.  "Goodale was first elected MP for the former riding of
Assiniboia in 1974. ("Electoral boundaries changed and the new riding is
Wascana). His most recent win, in 2004, was by 11,858 votes over
Conservative Doug Cryer. Goodale has held a number of cabinet portfolios,
including agriculture, natural resources, and public works and services. He
is currently finance minister." - info courtesy of the CBC.)  Yum has a huge
battle on her hands.

CBC has Election information at:


America is thirsty
They're already looking for ways to take our water. We should tone down the
emotion and figure out how to sell it to them.


On the border between Nevada and Arizona sits Lake Mead, the biggest
man-made reservoir in the United States, created when the Hoover Dam was
built in the 1930s. It is the shimmering oasis that makes urban life
possible in the middle of the bleached desert landscape of the Mojave. It's
also the epicentre of North America's burgeoning water crisis.

All around the 880 km of Mead's rocky shoreline, a bright white calcium
deposit, known to locals as the bathtub ring, marks a high water level that
is a quickly fading memory. Drought has dropped the surface of the lake 20 m
below the bathtub ring over the past five years. Boulder Beach, once a
popular day trip destination for nearby residents, is now about 300 m from
the water's edge. The boat launch and fuel pumps of what used to be a marina
are abandoned in the middle of what now looks like a parking lot. The marina
and its luxury yachts chased the water to a new location a couple of miles
down the road more than a year ago.

It would all seem funny if it weren't so scary. Lake Mead is the principal
source of drinking water for the Las Vegas valley -- the fastest growing
urban area in the United States. In all, more than three trillion gallons of
water have disappeared due to drought, evaporation and overuse in five
years, raising profound questions about the sustainability of growth in the
U.S. southwest. The Colorado River, which not only feeds Lake Mead but also
drives the turbines of the Hoover Dam, is a critical source of drinking
water and power for much of southern California and Arizona. And between
2000 and early 2005, its flow dropped by almost half.

Las Vegas has responded with some of the most aggressive water conservation
measures on the continent. Every drop of indoor water is treated and either
reused for irrigation or returned to the Colorado. Strict limits are placed
on all outdoor spraying, and the water authority pays homeowners US$1 per
square foot to pull up lawn grass and replace it with less thirsty desert
vegetation. All this helps, but it doesn't fix a thing. "This drought has
been a huge wake-up call," says Patricia Mulroy, head of the Southern Nevada
Water Authority. "But conservation alone cannot solve the problem. If we
continue to grow as we have, at some point we simply need more water in the
system." That's why Las Vegas is steaming ahead with a highly controversial
plan to build a US$2-billion, 400-km pipeline to transport groundwater from
the northern part of the state to slake the thirst of a city whose
population is expected to double over the next decade.

The problems facing Las Vegas are part of a developing crisis slowly
tightening its grip on much of the world. As the global population grows and
developing economies expand, the demand for safe, secure water will
accelerate just as it has in the fastest-growing pockets of the U.S. In
response, much of the world is embracing the need for large-scale water
trade and transport, just as Las Vegas has. Last year, Turkey and Israel
finalized a deal to ship 50 billion litres a year from the Manavgat River to
help supply Israel's growing population and agricultural needs. Several
countries, including Greece and Cyprus, already import water and more are
making plans and striking deals to ensure their farms and cities continue to
thrive. North America is no exception. Engineers agree that, if Nevada can
pipe water 400 km south, eventually it could pipe it all the way from the
Canadian border.

But Canada, the most water-rich nation on the planet, wants no part of this
new world. And that puts our priorities on a collision course with the needs
of our biggest trading partner and most essential ally. Already the White
House has mused about the need to open the Canada-U.S. border to water
exports, and dozens of communities are lining up to reform a 96-year-old
treaty that limits the amount drawn from the Great Lakes. This country is in
a position to provide a solution that would yield enormous economic and
humanitarian benefits for the entire continent, even the world. For now,
though, the forces aligned against trade in water are firmly in control. A
2002 survey by the Centre for Research and Information on Canada found that
69 per cent of Canadians are opposed to water exports, and Ottawa has
obediently bowed to public pressure, instituting a blanket ban on exports
from boundary waters three years ago. That was a politically savvy move at
the time, but the day may be coming when Canada will face an even starker
choice: sell, or see its most vital resource siphoned off from the south.

The first hint of water tension surfaced in 2001, when U.S. President George
W. Bush made an offhand comment that he'd like to begin discussions with
Ottawa about a framework for international trade in water to alleviate
shortages. Canadian reaction was swift, shrill and unequivocal: "We're
absolutely not going to export water, period," then-environment minister
David Anderson said. The issue quickly faded from the headlines, but not
from the public consciousness. Whether it's inherent distrust of
corporations, latent anti-Americanism, or simple fear of ecological
destruction, Canadians recoil at the very thought of treating water like oil
or natural gas, or any of the other commodities that form the bedrock of the
Canadian economy. In the words of Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the
Council of Canadians and the country's leading water crusader, "Water is
part of the Earth's heritage and must be preserved in the public domain for
all time. Instead of allowing this vital resource to become a commodity sold
to the highest bidder, we believe that access to clean water is a
fundamental human right."

But even if that's true, and water is not a commodity like any other, then
it's a right being denied to much of the world's population, even in rich
countries. All across the U.S., communities are drying out. Drought has cut
the flow of the Missouri River by a third, and intensive farming in the
Midwest has substantially drained the enormous Ogallala aquifer that
stretches from South Dakota to Texas. Even in northern climates like
Wisconsin and Illinois, residents are dealing with dry wells that have
failed to keep pace with soaring demand. When the U.S. government surveyed
the 50 states in 2003, more than two-thirds said they expect to face some
sort of water shortage within the next 10 years. The situation is even worse
in the developing world. The United Nations estimates that by 2025,
two-thirds of the world population, or almost 5.5 billion people, will face
chronic water shortages, and scientists expect global warming will only make
things worse.

In this context, Canada is a country of unbelievable water wealth. This
country boasts more than 20 per cent of the world's fresh water, and the
flow of rain, spring water and snowmelt that courses through our waterways
represents seven per cent of the planet's renewable water supply -- all to
satisfy the needs of just 0.5 per cent of the world's population. This
fundamental gap between global demand and Canada's ready supply has already
attracted several business consortiums over the past two decades with plans
to skim lake water for export. A couple even managed to garner the support
of provincial governments in Newfoundland and Ontario in the 1990s, but
those plans were quickly scuttled by public outcry and federal intervention.

But as the global water crisis deepens over the next two decades, this
country's intransigence will prove increasingly difficult to maintain.
Canada is offside even the UN's position on the matter. In 1997, the UN said
that international water markets and trade are likely the only way to
alleviate chronic shortages worldwide, while discouraging water waste in
areas where it's plentiful. But it's not just a humanitarian issue: there is
an enormous commercial opportunity and economic imperative at stake. If
Canada insists on opting out of international water trade, that decision
will almost surely do severe damage to the country's economy and standard of

Water is "liquid fuel for growth," says Robert Glennon, a professor of law
at the University of Arizona, and one of the world's leading authorities on
water policy. Just as human beings can't survive without moisture, economies
can die of thirst. And if the U.S. economy continues to be plagued with
shortages, the implications for Canada's No. 1 export market will be
devastating. "Water is no longer perceived as a gift from God, but a
commodity for which one has to pay," says Dr. Isabel Al-Assar, an
international trade expert based at the University of Dundee, Scotland.
"Water will become like oil one day, I have no doubt about it."

If Al-Assar is right, then Canada, through a miraculous stroke of lucky
geography, is sitting on a liquid gold mine. Pinpointing exactly how much
Canada could reap by selling fresh water depends heavily on a long list of
questions: what price would buyers be willing to pay? How would it be
transported? How much could be safely withdrawn without damaging sensitive
ecosystems? But in 2001, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a
Winnipeg-based think tank, constructed a theoretical business model showing
that if Manitoba could sell 1.3 trillion gallons of water per year (roughly
the amount that drains from provincial rivers into Hudson Bay in only 17
hours) at the same price charged for desalinated sea water in California,
the province could reap annual profits of close to $4 billion. In 1992, the
World Bank estimated that worldwide trade in water could be worth US$1
trillion within the next generation. Even the opponents of water trade
acknowledge that much of that market could belong to Canada.

The alternative is not pretty. As water shortages worsen around the world,
increasing attention is sure to focus on Canada's water usage, and this
country has a woeful story to tell. Canada has already been singled out by
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development as one of the
world's most profligate wasters of water. On a per capita basis, Canadians
consume 1.6 million litres of water a year -- twice as much as people in
France and four times as much as the average Swede. The vast majority of
that is lost through primitive irrigation techniques in the agriculture
industry, but personal waste is also a major culprit. And we're getting
worse, while most of the world is learning to be more responsible. Between
1980 and 1999, Canada's total water use rose by 25.7 per cent, while water
consumption in the U.S. declined over the same period. Several experts have
suggested that the abundance of water in Canada and the fact that Canadians
pay little for access to it has contributed to a culture of waste. And if
the country refuses to share its water wealth in the decades ahead, it's not
hard to anticipate the reaction around the world. Canada will look like the
neighbour who leaves his sprinkler on all night while the rest of the street
dies of thirst.

A tarnished reputation, however, is the least of Canada's concerns. Already,
pressure is building in the U.S. to tap new sources of water, and replace
supplies depleted through years of intensive farming, population sprawl and
explosive economic growth. And as George W. Bush hinted four years ago,
Canada is seen as the logical solution to the looming crisis. "I predict
that the United States will be coming after our fresh water aggressively
within three to five years," former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed wrote in
a recent article for the Globe and Mail. "I hope that when the day comes,
Canada will be ready."

If water is indeed to become a flashpoint in Canada-U.S. relations, the
Great Lakes are almost sure to provide the spark. The importance of the
lakes to both countries is obvious. They collectively supply drinking water
to more than 45 million people and irrigation for a quarter of Canada's
agriculture, and they provide the lifeblood of the industrial economies in
Ontario, Quebec, New York, Michigan and Illinois. But vast as they are, the
lakes are fragile. They were created by receding glaciers, and only about
one per cent of their volume is replenished by rainfall each year, which
means substantial withdrawals from the system have far-reaching impacts.

Already, the city of Chicago pulls more than two billion gallons of water a
day from Lake Michigan and flushes it into a sanitary and shipping channel
that drains into the Mississippi River. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has
capped the amount of water the city can withdraw, most experts agree little
can be done if Chicago decides to increase its take to satisfy a population
expected to grow by 30 per cent in the next 20 years. And Chicago isn't the
only community clamouring to tap the enormous bounty of the Great Lakes.
Several counties that currently straddle the watershed in Wisconsin and
Illinois have petitioned to get access to lake water to shore up dwindling
groundwater supplies, and environmentalists worry that if they get access,
it could open the door to a never-ending escalation of demands from further
and further afield.

Provincial and state governments are currently negotiating a deal that would
place limits on transfers of water out of the watershed. But even if it is
approved, the agreement would be non-binding, and the International Joint
Commission that administers border waters has already received a legal
opinion saying that the states and provinces do not have the authority to
prohibit transfers of water to other parts of the country. Similar demands
have recently bubbled up in the West, with U.S. communities demanding
greater access to cross-border water supplies, including the Souris, Milk
and St. Mary's rivers.

The vulnerability of Canada's southern watersheds was highlighted by the
recent Devil's Lake controversy, in which North Dakota diverted potentially
dangerous lake water into the Red River system that drains into Manitoba.
Canadian officials complained but were ultimately powerless to stop the
diversion, which many fear will have serious consequences for the health of
Lake Winnipeg. The lesson was that Canada's water systems can only really be
protected through co-operation, not litigation. If Canada chooses to fight
rather than share, legal experts agree there is little to stop the U.S. from
abandoning the border waters treaty. As Adèle Hurley, director of the
program on water issues at the Munk Centre for International Studies, has
said, "It seems likely that the U.S. will act aggressively to ensure its
water security." And if that determination were to result in large-scale
diversions from the Great Lakes, or intensive mining of underground aquifers
that straddle the border, the effect would be like dozens of giant straws
draining the lifeblood of Canada's environment and economy.

Still, the vast majority of Canadians would prefer to keep fighting with
tighter controls, and more ironclad assurances that Ottawa will never allow
water to flow across the border, rather than facing up to the irresistible
forces of supply and demand now shaping the world order in water. Even
Lougheed, one of the staunchest proponents of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement, recently came out against water trade. "We Canadians should be
prepared to respond firmly with a forceful 'No. We need it for ourselves,' "
Lougheed wrote.

Many of the objections, however, are based on misinformation. Most
Canadians, for example, believe Canada has no water to spare -- despite the
fact that, of the 18 principal watershed systems in Canada, 15 are currently
providing less than 10 per cent of their annual renewable supplies to human
uses, according to StatsCan. There is also a widespread belief, fostered by
anti-trade activists, that if Canada were to agree to sell any portion of
its water, the U.S. could demand unlimited access to the resource under
NAFTA. But several legal opinions have debunked this notion. The University
of Arizona's Glennon points out that NAFTA and the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) both include specific passages allowing countries
to limit trade in any good to safeguard threatened ecosystems or to protect
human health. Both treaties also state that countries can limit trade to
conserve exhaustible natural resources.

Nevertheless, ultra-nationalists like Barlow continue to play on Canadians'
fears of losing control and ending up dry. To the critics of water trade,
deficits in the rest of the world are simply not Canada's problem to solve.
In this country, stories of U.S. water shortages conjure images of golf
courses in the desert, and evoke little sympathy. Andrew Nikiforuk,
Toronto-based author of Political Diversions: Decision Time on Taking Water
from the Great Lakes, and a vocal opponent of water trade, puts it bluntly.
"As for the water crisis in the Southwest, tell them to move," he says.

That kind of talk rankles Dr. Dale Devitt, a soft-spoken professor of soil
and water at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, who has spent most of his
career studying the science behind Nevada's water challenges. He advises the
region on ways to conserve water, and is working with companies to find ways
to reduce the amount needed to support plant life in the desert. "It's easy
for people to criticize and say we don't use our water well," he says. "But
people in the north rely on heating oil to survive winter. People in Florida
and Louisiana get hit regularly by hurricanes, and in Oklahoma by tornados.
Here we have problems with water -- but every place has natural challenges
to overcome."

As far as Devitt is concerned, water markets are the only way that the
profound gaps in water supply will be solved. New technologies in water
filtration and desalinization will help, he says, but only by allowing water
to flow freely will the world ensure that all those who need water get it,
and all those who have it, use it responsibly. "I hope that marketing of
water will happen at some point," he says. "Because it's only going to get
tougher. If we think things are tight right now, wait 10 or 20 years. It's
going to get downright nasty."

To proponents like Devitt, Glennon and Al-Assar, the status quo is as
hypocritical as it is unsustainable. If it's okay to use water to irrigate
crops that are then shipped across national borders; if it's okay to bottle
millions of litres a year for sale in corner stores around the world; if
it's okay to divert water to make steel or refine oil that is then shipped
across national borders, then why not the water itself?

Pat Mulroy agrees, but she isn't holding her breath waiting for Canadian
exports to quench her region's considerable thirst. "People are irrational
when it comes to water. They get very emotional about it, and that's not
going to change." For now, she and scientists like Devitt keep working to
stretch what they have and delay that day of reckoning, when there simply
isn't enough water to go around. And while they look to the skies and hope
for a little relief, Canada's treasure of Blue Gold stays safely locked away
from those who might sell it, and those who might drink it.

With Barbara Righton

To comment, email letters@macleans.ca


The outcome is EXTREMELY predictable.  You have only to read Jane Jacobs'
"Systems of Survival, A Dialgoue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and

Your work and mine is dependent upon a properly-functioning system of
democratic governance.  Jacobs' analysis sets forth a framework for
understanding that the system will succumb to disintegration if we fail to
appreciate the functional roles of two separately evolved sets of ethics,
one for the commercial function in a society and the other for governance

"Societies need both commercial and guardian work . the two types are prone
to corruption if they stray across either their functional or moral
barriers."  The formation of "Public Private Partnerships"  is not only
"straying across" the functional barriers, it is the having of intercourse
between the two.  The consequences are exactly what Jacobs tells you:
corruption.  Look in Africa - the same process is at work here in Canada.
With corruption, people of power and influence sack "the commons" at the
expense of others in the society.

"The relationship between a regulator and the regulated. must never become
one in
which the regulator loses sight of the principle that it regulates only in
the public interest
and not in the interest of the regulated."

Jacobs warns:  "  ideally ethical behavior is understood and embraced by a
majority of citizens in a society - a more efficacious state than legislated
standards.   It is very costly for a society to recover a lost moral

Then we have Justice Krever, Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in
Canada, 1996
"Industry can't be regulated by government - and for environmental and
reasons they must be - if that government is in bed with them."

Mae-Wan Ho, Genetic engineering - Dream or Nightmare?, 1998
"To reassure us, they lie to us, and then treat us as idiots by insisting on
things we all know are untrue. Not only does this prevent a reasonable
debate from taking
place, but it also creates a very unhealthy relationship between citizens
and their elected

John Ralston Saul, "Health Care at the End of the Twentieth Century", 1999
"The Panel identified. serious concerns about the undermining of the
scientific basis for risk regulation in Canada due to. the conflict of
interest created by giving
to regulatory agencies the mandates both to promote the development of
technologies and to regulate it."

From John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Economics of Innocent Fraud - Truth for
our Time", published in 2004 : "... As the corporate interest moves to power
in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate
interest. That is its purpose. ...One obvious result has been well-justified
doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no
question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. . Needed is
independent, honest, professionally competent regulation ... This last must
be recognized and countered. There is no alternative to effective
supervision. ."

Globe & Mail editorial following the Westray Mine disaster, Dec. 2, 1997
"Science is not bad, but there is bad science."  Genetic engineering is bad
science working with big business for quick profit against the public good.

SO:  our experience and the thinkers of the day tell us the same thing:  the
corruption and break-down  of the rule of law in Canada have their roots in
"public-private-partnerships".  The most egregious examples are in the area
of biotechnology where the Governments have taken to bed the most corrupt
and corrupting of partners - the chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech complex of
companies. (Monsanto fined $700 million in Alabama, Dow Chemical fined $1
million by the Attorney General of New York State, Monsanto found guilty of
bribery in Indonesia, Monsanto and attempted bribery over Bovine Growth
Hormone in Canada, Senate Hearing, Bill Moyers' documentary on PBS, "Trade
Secrets", Intervenors on the side of Monsanto in the Schmeiser case are
BioTec Canada and AgWest Biotech, both are "Government fronts" (publicly
funded organizations but their name doesn't tell you that), etc. etc.)

Email from:
Sandra Finley
Saskatoon, SK

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.0/203 - Release Date: 12/15/2005