There is some concern in Canada over the provision that if something is sold even once as a
commodity, the government cannot stop its sale in the future.[
dubious – discuss]
This applies to the water from Canada's lakes and rivers, fueling fears over the possible destruction of Canadian ecosystems and water supply.
Other fears come from the effects NAFTA has had on Canadian lawmaking. In 1996,
MMT,
a gasoline additive that some studies had linked to nerve damage, was brought into Canada by an American company. The Canadian federal government banned the importation of the additive.
The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11
seeking US $201 million, and by Canadian Provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT"). The American company argued that their additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,
the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US $13 million.
The United States and Canada had been
arguing for years over the United States' decision to impose a 27% duty on Canadian
softwood lumber imports, until new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper compromised with the United States and reached a settlement on
July 1,
2006, though the settlement has not yet been ratified by either country, in part due to domestic opposition in Canada. Canada had filed numerous motions to have the duty eliminated and the collected duties returned to Canada. After the United States lost an appeal from a NAFTA panel, it responded by saying "We are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders", (Neena Moorjani, spokeswoman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman. On
July 21,
2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade found that imposition of the duties was contrary to U.S. law. The U.S.'s apparent failure to comply with various rulings against it in this case has generated widespread political debate in Canada.
