Harper Government effectively privatizes Canada's water - News & Events - Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP

Harper Government effectively privatizes Canada's water - News & Events - Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP

SGM's Steven Shrybman recently told the the Standing Committee on International Trade that the Harper Government appears to have entered into a NAFTA settlement that will allow foreign investors to assert propriety claims to Canadian water.

In December 2008, AbitibiBowater announced the permanent closure of its Grand Falls-Windsor pulp and paper mill in Newfoundland. The Province claimed that AbitibiBowater had reneged on agreements to continue operating the mill, and that it had been granted water and timber rights on that condition. The Province then passed legislation expropriating AbitibiBowater's assets and terminating the water and timber licenses.

Rather than seeking recourse in the Canadian courts, AbitibiBowater filed an arbitration claim under NAFTA investment rules seeking $500 million in compensation. The claim not only sought compensation for the physical assets taken by the Province, but also for the loss of its water and forest licenses, which it referred to as "Water and Waterpower Rights" and "Timber Rights".

Instead of standing up for the public ownership of water and timber resources and refuting AbitibiBowater's claims to proprietary “rights” in Canadian public goods, the Harper Government entered into a $130 million consent judgment to settle the NAFTA claim. The potential consequences for the protection and regulation of Canada’s public resources are dire: the settlement goes farther than any NAFTA judgement to date, recognizing AbitibiBowater's “rights” to Newfoundland’s water and timber. This sets a precedent in which the obligation of governments to treat water as a public trust essential to both human well-being and biodiversity rank second to commercial and private interests.

CISDL-ILA Continuing Legal Education Course in International Law

CISDL-ILA Continuing Legal Education Course in International Law
Welcome to the course page for the following module: Emerging Issues in Trade & Investment Law: Briefing for Canadian Lawyers

This module lasts approximately 5 hours, and allows for 5 CLE credits with the Quebec Bar Association.

In this section, the instructors will present learning modules related to economic growth and prosperity; global, regional and bilateral trade law; international investment agreements; cross-border transactions; and international financial rules and the credit crisis.

Please click on the links below in order to access the course content (video and power point)

Once you have finished the course, please email preynaud@cisdl.org with cc to info@cisdl.org in order to receive your certificate of completion

Metalclad vs. Mexico, Toxic Waste and NAFTA | Solidarity

Metalclad vs. Mexico, Toxic Waste and NAFTA | Solidarity
Metalclad vs. Mexico, Toxic Waste and NAFTA
— Gerard Greenfield
LAST AUGUST 25 the NAFTA Tribunal for the case of Metalclad Corp vs. Mexico ruled in favor of Metalclad, ordering the Mexican government to pay US$16.7 million in compensation. It is the first ruling in an investor-to-state lawsuit under NAFTA.

In October 1996, Metalclad Corporation, a U.S. waste-disposal company, accused the Mexican government of violating NAFTA's Chapter 11 when the state of San Luis Potos<161> refused it permission to reopen a waste disposal facility.

The state governor ordered the site closed down after a geological audit showed the facility would contaminate the local water supply. The governor then declared the site part of a 600,000-acre ecological zone. Metalclad claimed that this constituted an act of expropriation and sought US$90 million in compensation.

All of these cases are based on the "rights" of investors guaranteed in NAFTA's Chapter 11, where a broad definition of "expropriation" is combined with the right of investors to directly sue governments for compensation (under "investor-to-state" dispute resolution).

A September 1 article in The Globe & Mail on the Metalclad ruling (again) drew attention to the threat posed by Chapter 11 to government regulations protecting the environment and public health. This may even add to the ongoing (though low-key) debate on whether the wording of investment rules should be revised.

Zapitistas,Mexico,Property Rights & Mexico

The Zapatistas timed the rebellion to coincide with the implementation of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, between Canada, the US and Mexico.

They called NAFTA a "death sentence", as it removed from the Mexican constitution Article 27, a provision won during the first Mexican revolution in the early part of the last century, designed to guarantee collective property rights to those who worked the land.

Vocal opposition to NAFTA gained the rebels support from trade unions and other social movements who tried - and failed - to stop the agreement.