Canada being sued under NAFTA by US firm

[darkbeaver]

Fornicate NAFTA and the life sucking corporations. There was the MTBD case in California which if I recall was a case brought under NAFTA rules about a municipalitys not wanting the chemical anywhere near thier community, I think the same thing happened in BC with the same chemical.

 

[lone wolf]

I'm thinking in terms of Ontario - where the closest parallel we have are the quarries on the Quinte Peninsula. I'm also a bit biassed toward the aggregates industry considering my business ran on hauling quarried material to the cement plant. Odd how Free Trade and GST conspired to bankrupt me....

Woof!

 

[karrie]

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.

Ecological and Economical impact are valid reasons to deny a bid.

Why didn't they do that in this case? Why the community values bull?

 

[Tonington]

Ecological and Economical impact are valid reasons to deny a bid.

Why didn't they do that in this case? Why the community values bull?

I believe it was the reasoning. As I said earlier, the panel recommended that no quarries be given license to operate until NS drafts a comprehensive plan for coastal zone development.

What troubled me was the language used in the statement by Bilcon's lawyer. I think it was way off base.

 

[Praxius]

This made me laugh:

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."

This coming from a guy who has a president who still believes Creationism over Evolution?

A concept of community core values indeed.... I remember when this was all going on. They wanted to mine in that location. The people who lived there didn't want the damn thing there, so they didn't allow it.

Now they're sueing because they didn't get what they wanted?

It took that long because of the amount of controversy from the local community and what the provincial government had to juggle with NAFTA and these guys.

That's like a Canadian company who flies down to the Mississippi River to buy out a few KM's for a giant Beaver Farm. I'm pretty sure the community nearby would be a bit PO'd and it wouldn't be allowed for many reasons... scientific or not.

The Province/Government has to answer to the people they work for, not the companies from another country who want to buy us out for their own reasons. And besides, if they did allow it, then they'd still be out of a job because the community wouldn't put up with it.

They're suck holeling the crap right out of this NAFTA BS and since they couldn't milk all the money out of the community and their resources one way, they'll just sue all the money out of the community in court.... either way they get rich at the expense of some small town/community.

If Ottawa doesn't back up our proviences and our people in this matter, then they truly have no spine and took it one too many times bent over for my liking.

Election.

 

[Nuggler]

Praxius:"If Ottawa doesn't back up our proviences and our people in this matter, then they truly have no spine and took it one too many times bent over for my liking"

Certainly the case here, no doubt.

I believe that NAFTA was signed for the benefit of CORPORATIONS, countries be damned. Unless, of course, it's the US................Just me?

Ottawa will fold on this one also.

Are there any examples of Canada suing the US under NAFTA, and winning? Just wondering. A mining company in the Midwest??

8O

 

[Praxius]

One other thing:

....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."

Well......... Duh, that's because their company isn't a Canadian one, therefore more checks and background searches are required to make sure their regulations meet our own.

• Do their environmental practices meet Canadian requirements.
• What employment procedures will be in place (US employed or Locals?)

And a bunch of other crap I don't even know about. But I know it's not just as simple as saying "Oh you're from the US, so your company should work just the same as our own, and we're pretty sure you have our country and community's best interests at hand."

I mean, why did they target Canadian soil for this project and not in the US to begin with?

Also, wtf do they care? Go somewhere else.

Money Grab.

 

[EagleSmack]

Praxius:"If Ottawa doesn't back up our proviences and our people in this matter, then they truly have no spine and took it one too many times bent over for my liking"

Certainly the case here, no doubt.

I believe that NAFTA was signed for the benefit of CORPORATIONS, countries be damned. Unless, of course, it's the US................Just me?

Ottawa will fold on this one also.

Are there any examples of Canada suing the US under NAFTA, and winning? Just wondering. A mining company in the Midwest??

8O

I agree with this. It was never about the benefit of the people but the corporations who tend to prosper exploiting other countries and now superceding their right for sovreignty.