SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 24 2009, 08:26am EDT
Contact:
Dylan Penner, Council of Canadians Media Officer, 613-795-8685
Council of Canadians Warns Against Alberta Water Market Plans
OTTAWA, Ontario
The Council of Canadians is sounding the alarm over recommendations the
government received today to formalize and extend a water market system
throughout the province of Alberta. The Alberta government released
reports today containing recommendations from a few select sources,
including an advisory group appointed by the Minister of Environment.
"The implementation of these recommendations would open the door to
full private water markets, which have wreaked havoc on the environment
in countries like Australia and Chile," warns Maude Barlow, national
chairperson of the Council of Canadians. "Letting the market decide who
will have access to water violates the public trust doctrine, a
principle of common law which regards water as belonging equally to all
peoples and managed by governments on their behalf."
"The Alberta government has clearly decided that it is not interested
in other potential solutions to the province's looming water crisis
besides turning Alberta's water over to the market system," says Scott
Harris, Prairies Regional Organizer for the Council of Canadians. "This
is an obvious attempt to frame the discussion in forthcoming public
consultations to focus exclusively on market-based solutions."
The Minister's Advisory Group report recommends further entrenching the
water transfer system which now exists in the South Saskatchewan River
Basin and extending it to entire province. The Council of Canadians
warns that this plan would give water resources up to the highest
bidder forcing cash-strapped municipalities to compete with big oil and
other large industries for increasingly scarce water resources.
While expanding the market for water allocation transfers to the entire
province and compelling all users to participate in the market, the
minister's advisory group also recommends removing much of the
government oversight in approving transfer applications.
The Council of Canadians is calling instead for the Alberta government
to adopt a public trust doctrine that makes governments responsible for
distributing water according to the public interest. The group is
demanding that such a policy also establish a hierarchy of use that
places environmental needs, the right to water, local food production
and cultural use above the commercial use of water.
"This highlights the lack of federal legislative safeguards in Canada
allowing provinces to sell off water resources," says Meera
Karunananthan, national water campaigner for the Council of Canadians.
"A water market in Alberta sets a dangerous trend with regards to the
management of water resources in Canada."
The organization is calling for a national water policy that recognizes water as a human right and a public trust.
Founded in 1985, the Council of Canadians is Canada's leading social action organization, mobilizing a network of 60 chapters across the country.
Office: (613) 233-4487, ext. 249LATEST NEWS
'An Arsenal of Profiteering': Military Contractors Have Gotten Over Half of Pentagon Spending Since 2020
"These figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing," said the project's director.
Jul 08, 2025
Less than a week after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a budget package that pushes annual military spending past $1 trillion, researchers on Tuesday published a report detailing how much major Pentagon contractors have raked in since 2020.
Sharing The Guardian's exclusive coverage of the paper on social media, U.K.-based climate scientist Bill McGuire wrote: "Are you a U.S. taxpayer? I am sure you will be delighted to know where $2.4 TRILLION of your money has gone."
The report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft shows that from 2020-24 private firms received $2.4 trillion in Department of Defense contracts, or roughly 54% of DOD's $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending for that five-year period.
The publication highlights that "during those five years, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion)."
In a statement about the findings, Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War Project, said that "these figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing."
"This is not an arsenal of democracy—it's an arsenal of profiteering," Savell added. "We should keep the enormous and growing power of the arms industry in mind as we assess the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and globally."
Between 2020 and 2024, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. By comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. [5/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
The paper points out that "by comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. In other words, the U.S. government invested over twice as much money in five weapons companies as in diplomacy and international assistance."
"Record arms transfers have further boosted the bottom lines of weapons firms," the document details. "These companies have benefited from tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel and Ukraine, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. U.S. military aid to Israel was over $18 billion in just the first year following October 2023; military aid to Ukraine totals $65 billion since the Russian invasion in 2022 through 2025."
"Additionally, a surge in foreign-funded arms sales to European allies, paid for by the recipient nations—over $170 billion in 2023 and 2024 alone—have provided additional revenue to arms contractors over and above the funds they receive directly from the Pentagon," the paper adds.
The 23-page report stresses that "annual U.S. military spending has grown significantly this century," as presidents from both major parties have waged a so-called Global War on Terror and the DOD has continuously failed to pass an audit.
Specifically, according to the paper, "the Pentagon's discretionary budget—the annual funding approved by Congress and the large majority of its overall budget—rose from $507 billion in 2000 to $843 billion in 2025 (in constant 2025 dollars), a 66% increase. Including military spending outside the Pentagon—primarily nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy, counterterrorism operations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other military activities officially classified under 'Budget Function 050'— total military spending grew from $531 billion in 2000 to $899 billion in 2025, a 69% increase."
Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month "adds $156 billion to this year's total, pushing the 2025 military budget to $1.06 trillion," the document notes. "After taking into account this supplemental funding, the U.S. military budget has nearly doubled this century, increasing 99% since 2000."
Noting that "taxpayers are expected to fund a $1 trillion Pentagon budget," Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler said the paper, which he co-authored, "illustrates what they'll be paying for: a historic redistribution of wealth from the public to private industry.”
Semler produced the report with William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute. Hartung said that "high Pentagon budgets are often justified because the funds are 'for the troops.'"
"But as this paper shows, the majority of the department's budget goes to corporations, money that has as much to do with special interest lobbying as it does with any rational defense planning," he continued. "Much of this funding has been wasted on dysfunctional or overpriced weapons systems and extravagant compensation packages."
The arms industry has used an array of tools of influence to create an atmosphere where a Pentagon budget that is $1 trillion per year is deemed “not enough” by some members of Congress. [9/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
In addition to spotlighting how U.S. military budgets funnel billions of dollars to contractors each year, the report shines a light on the various ways the industry influences politics.
"The ongoing influence of the arms industry over Congress operates through tens of millions in campaign contributions and the employment of 950 lobbyists, as of 2024," the publication explains. "Military contractors also shape military policy and lobby to increase military spending by funding think tanks and serving on government commissions."
"Senior officials in government often go easy on major weapons companies so as not to ruin their chances of getting lucrative positions with them upon leaving government service," the report notes. "For its part, the emerging military tech sector has opened a new version of the revolving door—the movement of ex-military officers and senior Pentagon officials, not to arms companies per se, but to the venture capital firms that invest in Silicon Valley arms industry startups."
The paper concludes by arguing that "the U.S. needs stronger congressional and public scrutiny of both current and emerging weapons contractors to avoid wasteful spending and reckless decision-making on issues of war and peace. Profits should not drive policy."
"In particular," it adds, "the role of Silicon Valley startups and the venture capital firms that support them needs to be better understood and debated as the U.S. crafts a new foreign policy strategy that avoids unnecessary wars and prioritizes cooperation over confrontation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Applauds Vote by Largest US Teachers Union to Cut ADL Ties
"Despite its reputation as a civil rights organization, the ADL is not the social justice educational partner it claims to be," said the National Education Association.
Jul 08, 2025
A leading Muslim civil rights group was among those applauding on Tuesday after the largest labor union in the United States took a major step toward "fostering respect for the rights and dignity of all students in public schools" by voting to cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League.
The National Education Association (NEA), which represents nearly 3 million educators, approved a measure saying it "will not use, endorse, or publicize materials from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), such as its curricular materials or statistics."
The move is significant considering the influence the ADL has had over curriculum related to Israel in U.S. schools for decades, with the organization devising recent lesson plans about antisemitism "in the extreme political left" in the U.S., noting that such supposed antisemitism "is often centered on opposition to the state of Israel."
The ADL published a report last year that equated antisemitism with anti-Zionism and pointed to nationwide demonstrations against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Palestinians in Gaza as evidence that antisemitism is on the rise in the United States. The group has also lobbied in favor of legislation like the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which critics have said could be used to limit the right to criticize Israel on school campuses.
The NEA's 7,000-member Representative Assembly voted for the measure on Sunday, finding that "despite its reputation as a civil rights organization, the ADL is not the social justice educational partner it claims to be."
In the lead-up to the vote, former Massachusetts Teachers Association president Merrie Najimy cited the ADL's attacks last year in the MTA as evidence that the national group is focused on rooting out and ostracizing critics of Israel's U.S.-backed policies and defenders of Palestinian rights—not on promoting civil rights for all members of school communities.
"This principled move is a significant step toward fostering respect for the rights and dignity of all students in public schools, who must receive an education without facing biased, politically driven agendas."
When the MTA's elected board of directors called on the union to create resources for teachers to use to educate themselves about the history of Palestine, the ADL accused the union of "glorifying terrorism" and displayed what the MTA called "manipulated" resources at a state commission hearing on antisemitism in February.
"We had been led to believe that the commission hearing would provide the opportunity for a thoughtful discussion about how to teach this very difficult conflict with our students," said the MTA about the ADL's use of the resources. "The way these resources were manipulated in such a fashion, so as to label the state's largest union of educators as promoters of antisemitism, remains one of the more deplorable displays witnessed at the State House."
Labor Notes reported on Monday that MTA members are still facing attacks stemming from the ADL's claims that the union was promoting antisemitism in schools.
"Why would we partner with an organization that does us harm?" Najimy said ahead of the NEA vote.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said Tuesday it welcomed the vote "to stop exposing public school students to biased materials provided by the Anti-Defamation League," and noted that in addition to "using false allegations of antisemitism to silence advocacy for Palestinian human rights," the ADL has historically demonstrated "opposition to Black movements for racial equality, including Black Lives Matter and the South African anti-apartheid movement."
ADL CEO and national director Jonathan Greenblatt wrote in the New York Jewish Week in 2016 that Black Lives Matter leaders "have expressed support for efforts to boycott and divest from the state of Israel" and claimed those efforts "often are rooted in bigotry." The group also targeted activists who opposed apartheid in South Africa
"The ADL has only become worse under its increasingly unhinged director Jonathan Greenblatt, who has repeatedly smeared and endangered students in recent years," said CAIR. "This principled move is a significant step toward fostering respect for the rights and dignity of all students in public schools, who must receive an education without facing biased, politically driven agendas."
CAIR pointed to recent statements made by Greenblatt in which he reportedly equated pro-Palestinian protesters to ISIS and falsely claimed that Jewish and other students protesting Israel's bombardment of Gaza are "campus proxies" for the Iranian government.
Palestinian-American civil rights attorney Huwaida Arraf said the ADL "has long masqueraded as a civil rights organization while actively working to suppress antiracist movements."
The anti-war group CodePink has led efforts to end the ADL's influence over public education, with organizer Marcy Winograd speaking out against the group's so-called "No Place for Hate" program earlier this year.
"The ADL's stated mission is to empower students, teachers, and parents to 'stand against bias and bullying...' with schoolwide pledges, projects, and games aimed at celebrating diversity and stamping out hate," wrote Winograd in a column at Common Dreams.
But when the Los Angeles Unified School District instituted the No Place for Hate program, its official website shared "an article attacking American Muslims for Palestine for 'being at the core of the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist movement in the United States.'"
"While selling schools on activities to bolster respect and community, the ADL... engineers the death of debate over Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nationalist state in historic Palestine," wrote Winograd.
"Schools," she wrote, "are no place for the ADL."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Warn Against 'Massively Corrupt' Trump Golden Dome Plans
"We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks," the lawmakers wrote.
Jul 08, 2025
A quartet of Democratic lawmakers are warning that U.S. President Donald Trump's plans to build a "Golden Dome" missile defense system could open the door to a corrupt boondoggle.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) made the case that the proposed missile defense system goes well beyond what is actually needed to defend the nation against foreign missile attacks.
"The Trump administration's plans for Golden Dome could make it prohibitively expensive, operationally ineffective, massively corrupt, and detrimental to U.S. and global security by igniting a nuclear arms race with Russia and China," the Democrats wrote. "We are concerned that Golden Dome will be much more effective at wasting taxpayer dollars than countering missile attacks. We urge you to rein in this dangerous plan."
The Democrats then pointed to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office that the system could cost up to $542 billion to complete, which is more than three times the cost that the Trump administration projected to have the system "fully operational" within the next four years.
They also warned about conflicts of interest posed by SpaceX, which is owned by estranged Trump ally Elon Musk, being awarded contracts to handle the project.
"In addition, U.S. Department of Defense recently announced plans to significantly scale back the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, which in the past conducted essential testing of missile defense systems to ensure their military effectiveness," the lawmakers added. "As a result, the administration could rush ahead to award multibillion-dollar Golden Dome contracts with little ability to assess whether the money is being well-spent."
Trump has said that he was inspired to develop such a missile system for the United States after being impressed by Israel's "Iron Dome" system, despite the fact that Israel has a vastly smaller landmass to defend compared to the U.S. and has historically faced far more danger from missile and rocket attacks than the U.S.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular