Canada vs the human right to water and projected trade agreement with the European Union
An article by Maude Barlow and Anil Naidoo from the Council of Canadians in the Toronto Star outlines Canada's role as the leading opponent to the materialisation of the right to water as the UN general Assembly has been presented with a motion on this issue.
Canada's official position is that recognition of the right to water would force Canada to share its water with the USA. This is a weak argument from a legal point of view. As the article points out, a state's obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights are to its own citizens. The article identifies a more pressing menace to Canadian waters:
«Far more dangerous to this country’s water are the provisions of NAFTA, which give American companies rights to Canada’s water, and the proposed Canada-E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), which will give water corporations the right to challenge local public control of water services.»
The impact of NAFTA on water apportionment and conservation in Canada has been studied in detail by legal doctrine. However, the impact of the projected CETA on water resources management needs to be studied.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has some information to start with. A legal opinion by Steven Shybman from Sack, Glodblatt, Mitchell LLP is made available by the Columbia Institute Centre for Civic Governance and focuses on the impact of CETA on municipal procurements and in particular on the procurements related of drinking water services (see p.18 & ff).
I do not have have the time to look at primary sources and the general legal context of CETA at the moment, but Shybman's opinion suggests that the agreement would be detrimental to municipal control over drinking water services in Canada.
It appears that the draft text of CETA was leaked by the Trade Justice Network last April. One question is why governmental secrecy in the first place? Another one is why do Canadian negotiators appear to agree to initially unfavourable terms for Canadian interests? This seems to be a general tend in international economic trade to the extent that incompetence has been envisaged as an explanation (see Shybman's opinion p.22).
I do not believe this is the case. However, as demonstrated regularly over recent years in daily news, a critical perspective on our political leaders' commitment to general public interest and welfare is healthy.
This entry was posted on at 3:06 AM and is filed under Canada, Human right to water. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Medical marijuana legal in some states, is creating some employment law problems . Seems employees with prescriptions for medicinal use of ...
-
Today marks day 100 of the Mott's strike . The pro-union writer, Michael Winship, does a pretty good job of outlining the economics of ...
-
This business owner's letter to the editor makes a strong case for preservation of the secret ballot for determining a union's maj...
-
Here is another example (the leather goods industry) of the absolute collapse of domestic manufacturing causing the elimination of high pa...
-
Responding to a request from Congressman Darrell Issa (R. CA), David Berry, the Inspector General for the NLRB has determined Craig Becke...
-
Attorney Kelsey will be appearing on Money Matters with Scottie McCall on Friday, April 30, 2010 at 3:30 P.M. Attorney Kelsey will discuss...