I heard about this $25 million on the radio etc., a few weeks ago but never was there a mention that the $25 mil was only a precursor imposed by the ISDS of NAFTA. It sounded more like it was a payment to cancel the deal but that is not the case.
As CDNbear originally posted the big case is still ongoing and this 25 mil is a down payment of sorts.
The fact is, free trade is never free. The surrender of sovereignty rights, about which I have written
previously, is probably the most insidious aspect of such deals, given that corporations are granted the right to sue if national or subnational governments pass legislation that affects a corporation's
right to make money. That includes legislation to protect the environment or mitigate climate change and even Health Care.
Basically anything you can think of can and will be challenged under the new and improved ISDS in the TPP.
At the end of September, a panel convened by the Netherlands-based Permanent Court of Arbitration awarded $25.2-million in damages and almost $3-million in legal costs to Windstream, saying the province broke rules under the North American free-trade agreement when it put a moratorium on offshore wind developments in February, 2011, effectively scuttling the Windstream project.
The case pitted New York-based Windstream against the Government of Canada, rather than Ontario, because under the NAFTA process Ottawa is considered to be responsible for the actions of the provinces. The claim, filed under the “Chapter 11” investor protection sections of NAFTA, asked for $568-million in damages.
The full text of the ruling has not yet been released, because both parties are given a chance to make revisions to the public version. Windstream said it made no cuts, but the federal government can also request that certain information remain private.
Windstream has said that the tribunal ruling makes it clear that the contract it signed with the province is still in force, and has not been unilaterally terminated by the government.
An
analysis (link is external) of the Trans Pacific Partnership yields this chilling truth:
"The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism included in the TPP investment chapter grants foreign investors access to a secret tribunal if they believe actions taken by a government will affect their future profits. This provision is a ticking time-bomb for climate policy, because many government policies needed to address global warming are subject to suits brought before international investment tribunals. ..
.Other TPP chapters like the one covering trade in goods can be the basis for state-to-state suits challenging climate policies."Here in Ontario, citizens were recently reminded of the consequences of corporate displeasure via the NAFTA investor dispute settlement provisions. Opting for some sober second thoughts, the province decided to put a moratorium on offshore wind turbine development, a pause that
did not sit well (link is external) with Windstream , the American company that had signed a $5.2 billion with Ontario.
A fine of $25 million has been imposed after Windstream invoked its investor rights that were granted under under NAFTA, but the fine is a
mere precursor (link is external) to future action.
At the end of September,
a panel convened by the Netherlands-based Permanent Court of Arbitration awarded $25.2-million in damages and almost $3-million in legal costs to Windstream, saying the province broke rules under the North American free-trade agreement when it put a moratorium on offshore wind developments in February, 2011, effectively scuttling the Windstream project.
The deal is still considered to be in force, and Windstream has every intention of making sure it comes to fruition:
“
We have a contract here, and contracts don’t go away,” [Windstream director David] Mars said, even though the moratorium on offshore wind is still in effect.In other words, taxpayers will have to brace themselves for further, much deeper compensation to the company in the future, unless Ontario gives in to the extortion NAFTA has made possible.
And despite free-trade cheerleader Freeland's
ceaseless chatter (link is external) about making the investor dispute settlement process more transparent, the unalterable fact is that the rights of corporations to sue governments remains solidly intact.
