...Except in Quebec. In recommending that La belle province sells its water to the highest international bidder, a Montreal think tank does the unthinkable.

A4

Alec Bruce

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

In a report last week, the Montreal Economic Institute recommended that the Quebec government consider selling its vast reserves of fresh H2O to the highest international bidder. This is, according to the proponents, a "wealth-creating idea" necessary because "it is urgent to look at developing our blue gold" and become more "imaginative in exploiting our water resources."

Enlarge Photo

In other words, never mind those cringing, tree-hugging apologists of that tyrant, Mother Nature. There's money to be made, and lots of it. In fact, the study suggests that if La belle province breaks with its Canadian counterparts and U.S. Great Lakes states on the subject of bulk water exports, and sells 10 per cent of its total reserve (approximately one trillion cubic metres), it stands to gain more than $65 billion a year. And as Quebec's former environment minister Thomas Mulcair told Le Devoir in 2004: "If I can raise billions of dollars with water, without affecting the aquatic ecosystems, why. . .would I deprive us of the possibility of having an important economic activity?"

I can think of a couple of reasons.

Canada's fresh water is a molecular migrant flowing away from the populated south into the newly enfranchised territories which bound the Arctic circle. If Quebec City decides to dam the province's wild streams along the St. Lawrence Seaway, what happens to the river basins of Ungava and Labrador; to these regions' economies, towns, people? Do they have the right to sue the federal government for compensation? And if the Supreme Court decides, in its inconsistent wisdom, that they do not, do they then have the obligation to fight, outside the rule of law, for their water?

It's a nightmarish scenario for such a peace-loving nation. But every so often, we invite these sorts of spectres if only to scare the wits out of our student-loan-burdened children, and line our pockets with the proceeds from our institutional greed.

In the late 1970s, a biologist came up with the brilliant idea of patenting life. He argued that since he, alone, combined a few enzymes to create a new strain of oil-eating bacteria, he should benefit from its commercial applications. As the development was more sauce than substance, he never did. But the precedent was set. And companies like Monsanto and Con-Agra got the message.

What had worked for thousands of years "" the family farm "" became both a laboratory for genetic manipulation and a hot bed of legislative rape. Because its genetically altered canola seed had literally blown into a Saskatchewan field in 1996, Monsanto successfully sued the unwitting owner for, of all things, patent infringement. Hundreds of corporate actions against independents followed in rapid succession and with similar results.

Today, six multinationals control the planet's food supply. They own the means of seed, pesticide and herbicide production. They tinker with the DNA of corn, soy, tomatoes, and black-eyed peas with virtually no oversight. They've created an apple that tastes like a grape, a squash that looks like a pig, and a chicken that squats like a pigeon (for what purpose, only the architects of this brave, new world know).

Is there a sinister link between the corporatization of agriculture and the privatization of water? Maybe not, but the relationship seems far too close for comfort. Governments should not have the right to sell renewable resources on which life, itself, depends. In fact, they have a moral and legal responsibility to protect them from the very exploitation some now entertain as nothing more than business as usual.

Alec Bruce is a Moncton-based writer. He may be reached via www.thebrucereport.com.