Canada being sued under NAFTA by US firm

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63


THE COMPANY that wanted to develop a quarry on Digby Neck will seek damages of at least US$188 million for the way Canada handled its environmental review of the project.

In a notice of intent to be filed today in Ottawa, Bilcon of Delaware is seeking a massive compensation package under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

And be warned, folks: If Canada loses this trade action, Nova Scotia will end up coughing up a lot of cash.

Under international trade law, Bilcon has to name the federal government as the respondent in this dispute. But sources say Ottawa would go after Nova Scotia as a key player if compensation is awarded to the firm.

Bilcon is part of the Clayton family empire, a New Jersey concrete conglomerate, that is arguing — in essence — that the environmental assessment of this project uncovered anti-Americanism.

"This is perhaps the worst example of regulatory failure that I have ever seen," said Toronto trade lawyer Barry Appleton, who is representing the Claytons in the NAFTA dispute.

The notice of intent alleges that Canada violated NAFTA by taking "discriminatory" actions against Bilcon — imposing "treatment far less favourable than that accorded to similar Canadian-owned investments."

Asked to elaborate on this, Mr. Appleton referred to the new gold mine project at Moose River, which he says was reviewed and assessed by the province in 11 months.

The review process for the Whites Point quarry took 5 1/2 years.

"That’s a tremendous difference of treatment," Mr. Appleton said in an interview. "The Clayton family was treated significantly less favourably."

Mr. Appleton said other odious (or unfavourable) comparisons will be cited when Bilcon tables its formal complaint under NAFTA after a 90-day waiting period.

Today’s action triggers a process that should take about two years to complete, he said. After adjudicating the facts, a NAFTA tribunal would award appropriate compensation — or not.

Last October, environmentalists heaped praise on the work of the federal-provincial environmental panel that reviewed the proposed Whites Point quarry.

The panel, chaired by Robert Fournier of Dalhousie University, called on the federal and provincial governments to reject the project. (Both governments did just that.)

Mr. Fournier’s panel also suggested Nova Scotia should put in place a comprehensive management plan for coastal development. More dramatically, it cited community values as a key factor in its decision.

At the time, the use of core community values was praised as precedent-making.
"We are making history here in Nova Scotia," said Gretchen Fitzgerald of the Sierra Club of Canada.

But neither the Claytons nor their lawyer were impressed. Mr. Appleton, a veteran international trade litigator who has written books on NAFTA, said Monday that the "wheels fell off" this regulatory process.

The Fournier panel "included novel, non-scientific criteria" in its decision, Mr. Appleton said.
"They used this concept of community core values, which they had no authority to invoke. Bilcon was never informed of these community core value criteria so it could address them."

Mr. Appleton says, in essence, that the Fournier panel stepped outside its jurisdiction.
In the notice of intent, Bilcon also says the panel ignored favourable submissions from government departments, including Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour.

Mr. Appleton’s comments make it clear that the Claytons also expected a warmer reception from the province. Nova Scotia promotes international investment, he said, but you sure wouldn’t know it from the treatment that Bilcon received here.

"It takes a lot of beautiful tourism advertising to try to overcome this kind of international investment record," he said. Are there other signs that this dispute is turning bitter, if not personal? My impression is that the Claytons are determined to get a fair hearing at NAFTA, after they feel they were denied one by a Nova Scotia government they see as hypocritical. (Politicians here got behind the project, until the opponents started winning the war for hearts and minds.)

And then there’s the personal and symbolic stuff. Sources say at least one government minister cancelled a meeting with members of the Clayton family. They also say the photograph of the supposed quarry site, on the cover of the panel’s report, missed the target by several hundred metres.

Are they bitter?

Maybe not. But Clayton family interests will clearly argue that the loss of "aggregate" from the quarry and a flawed regulatory process will cost their companies a fortune — at least $188 million, I guess.

In short, the real battle is just beginning. In all likelihood, Bilcon will never develop a quarry on Digby Neck. But it might just grab the Nova Scotia government by the scruff of the neck and give it a good shake, instead.

( jmeek@herald.ca)


Yikes8O
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
So basically this US company wants to mine in Canada...Canada has decided they do not want them there...so the company is filing suit. This is garbage. Before NAFTA would Bilcon even have a leg to stand on?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
They'd have had no leg before NAFTA eagle.

but, they do now. This'll be a great one for fostering peace and brotherly love hey?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So basically this US company wants to mine in Canada...Canada has decided they do not want them there...so the company is filing suit. This is garbage. Before NAFTA would Bilcon even have a leg to stand on?

Actually, the Federal Government is only on the hook for the marine terminal, the quarry is the provinces jurisdiction.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
So basically this US company wants to mine in Canada...Canada has decided they do not want them there...so the company is filing suit. This is garbage. Before NAFTA would Bilcon even have a leg to stand on?

In Ontario, assuming all the environment stuff hadn't got in the way, anyone whose living could be negatively impacted by the new guy could go before the Ontario Municipal Board. The new guy could file any litigation he wanted, nothing would go before the Court until there was a ruling by OMB.

Woof!
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Actually, the Federal Government is only on the hook for the marine terminal, the quarry is the provinces jurisdiction.

Ok...but it is still part of the Canadian Govt. Because I am not sure exactly how the provinces vs govt run...would it be like saying a Canadian firm wants to sue the state of Maine as opposed to the US Fed Govt. in a similar circumstance? (hypothetical)
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
In Ontario, assuming all the environment stuff hadn't got in the way, anyone whose living could be negatively impacted by the new guy could go before the Ontario Municipal Board. The new guy could file any litigation he wanted, nothing would go before the Court until there was a ruling by OMB.

Woof!

I think I am getting this. So NAFTA allows a US company to file suit against a Canadian Province. To me it should be as easy as "Yankee Go Home" you aren't welcome here. I would feel the same if a Canadian company wanted to come to my town and mess things up for their gain.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Ok...but it is still part of the Canadian Govt. Because I am not sure exactly how the provinces vs govt run...would it be like saying a Canadian firm wants to sue the state of Maine as opposed to the US Fed Govt. in a similar circumstance? (hypothetical)

I think it would be similar. The federal government is probably named just because they were an involved party. Like If Manitoba wanted to sue North Dakota for water use of something like that, but that might be a different thing altogether removed from NAFTA.

I think they'll get some money, but not all. The 5.5 years is a long time to wait. But the panel that made it's decision took a long time, because they were also looking at NS's lack of coastal zone development strategy. They actually recommend that no proposed quarries on North Mountain be granted license to operate until they draft a strategy to deal with the issues.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
NAFTA has been used against Mexican municipalitys as well as Canadian and American, nationalitys don't matter in these in cases under NAFTA regulations. It's corporations against the public interest in all three countries. The bigger the corporation the less chance countys states and provinces have as esentially the outcomes depend on the size and cost of the law firms. NAFTA really is a corporate crime.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I think I am getting this. So NAFTA allows a US company to file suit against a Canadian Province. To me it should be as easy as "Yankee Go Home" you aren't welcome here. I would feel the same if a Canadian company wanted to come to my town and mess things up for their gain.

Read the very first lines. It's an environmental issue - not a political one. Yankee go home would never fly in our prissy Courts.

Woof!
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Encompassing all of your responses I think that this is just wrong. I think it is a question of sovreignty. Canadians should be the ones (Federal, Provincial, or local) to decide what is down with their land. The same goes with Mexicans and Americans. I never liked NAFTA but I did not think that foreign companies were allowed to force themselves on foreign nations or else.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Read the very first lines. It's an environmental issue - not a political one. Yankee go home would never fly in the Courts. Besides, lumber tariffs and the California Hydro thing should be proof enough that the US doesn't pay attention to Court rulings any more than they care about another nation's soverignity.

Woof
Woof!

Now Now Now...for once don't turn this into another one of THOSE threads. I am not here to look for a chink in Canadian armor here Wolf. I am in agreement with with you folks. That is of course if you agree with the stand the Nova Scotians are taking. Whether it be environmental or political it should not matter what the reason is. The province has decided it does not want Bilcon there and that should be that.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Now Now Now...for once don't turn this into another one of THOSE threads. I am not here to look for a chink in Canadian armor here Wolf. I am in agreement with with you folks. That is of course if you agree with the stand the Nova Scotians are taking. Whether it be environmental or political it should not matter what the reason is. The province has decided it does not want Bilcon there and that should be that.

Words eaten and the crow is delicious....

Woof!
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
'The province has decided, and that should be that.'

No. Not entirely.

There's enough room for abuse by governments without making it possible for a provincial or federal government to only allow in investors that they like or benefit from in some way. All investment opportunities should be open to bidders, and should be rejected only on tangible grounds. I don't know that 'community values' is a ground upon which I want to start seeing investors turned away. I've seen that sort of strangle hold on a community at a municipal level, and the lack of new business nearly destroyed the town.

I'm kind of on the fence with this one as it reads.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
'The province has decided, and that should be that.'

No. Not entirely.

There's enough room for abuse by governments without making it possible for a provincial or federal government to only allow in investors that they like or benefit from in some way. All investment opportunities should be open to bidders, and should be rejected only on tangible grounds. I don't know that 'community values' is a ground upon which I want to start seeing investors turned away. I've seen that sort of strangle hold on a community at a municipal level, and the lack of new business nearly destroyed the town.

I'm kind of on the fence with this one as it reads.

Well perhaps I am more stuck on the sovreignty issue. I see your point. I am putting myself in the shoes of the Nova Scotians that don't want Bilcon. There are enough of them to make the politicians shudder and back off. But you make a good point.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Well perhaps I am more stuck on the sovreignty issue. I see your point. I am putting myself in the shoes of the Nova Scotians that don't want Bilcon. There are enough of them to make the politicians shudder and back off. But you make a good point.

Yeah, the sovereignty issue bugs me too, but, as a sovereign nation we signed the NAFTA.

Either we stand by the agreements we make, or we don't. So many Canadians had their hackles up over the softwood tariffs (not wanting to start a fight here, but, we wanted the agreement upheld), so how can we then be right to expect to get to ignore it when it suits us?
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Really, it seems awful petty to me when they use an aesthetics plea to spark an environmental issue. Quarrying operations are tough on the landscape. That's the nature of the business. It changes for nobody no matter whose flag you fly. A pit can (and in Ontario it is required by law) be rejuvinated. The loss of your people because there is no work for them can't....

Woof!
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
For those who don't know, Digby neck is a very narrow finger of land that juts out into the Bay of Fundy. It's actually a very old mountain range. If you follow the contours northeast from there, up the coast, you'll find North Mountain.

The topography to me makes me think that in this particular case, erosion would be a big issue. If they can't deal with that in an adequate way, then they risk interfering with the marine life in the area. Which brings us to the crux of the issue. By far the largest income source in that area relies on the marine life. They fish, and in the summer they supplement their income by taking tours of rich tourists out to see the whales.

That is a very important aesthetic issue Wolf. We've seen here in the Maritimes that when tourism starts to fall off, for whatever reason, it is very hard to convince people to come back. Having the renowned natural landscape of this area of NS, or any other for that matter, would be horrible for a big part of the local economy.