SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Corporation Uses NAFTA to Sue Canada for $250 Million Over Fracking Ban
Delaware company uses trade agreement to have profit trump environmental interests
Nov 27, 2012
A US company is taking advantage of a corporate-friendly NAFTA provision in suing the Canadian government for over $250 million due to lost profits from Quebec's moratorium on fracking.
The company, Lone Pine Resources Inc., which is incorporated in the state of Delaware and headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, held mining permits in the Saint Lawrence Valley and has already spent "millions of dollars" to get the permits and approvals, according to the company, but the moratorium passed in 2011 by the province to study environmental risk revoked those permits.
As Jeff Gray reports in the Globe and Mail, NAFTA allows "U.S. and Mexican companies to sue Ottawa if they feel they have been wronged by a government policy or action."
The company filed on Nov. 8 its arbitration intent (pdf) "under Article 1117 of the NAFTA for the arbitrary, capricious, and illegal revocation of the Enterprise's valuable right to mine for oil and gas under the St. Lawrence River by the Government of Quebec without due process, without compensation, and with no cognizable public purpose."
Public Citizen, an advocacy organization for the "the people's voice," explains NAFTA's chapter 11 further:
If a company believes that a NAFTA government has violated these new investor rights and protections, it can initiate a binding dispute resolution process for monetary damages before a trade tribunal, offering none of the basic due process or openness guarantees afforded in national courts. These so-called "investor-to-state" cases are litigated in the special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations, which are closed to public participation, observation and input. A three-person panel composed of professional arbitrators listens to arguments in the case, with powers to award an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations whose NAFTA investor privileges and rights they judge to have been impacted.
The Sierra Club's Ilana Solomon and Deb Nardone explain how Lone Pine Resources is hardly alone is using trade agreements to sue governments over lost profits.
By the end of 2011, corporations such as Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and Cargill have launched 450 investor-state cases against 89 governments, including the United States. Over $700 million has been paid to corporations under U.S. free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties, about 70 percent of which are from challenges to natural resource and environment policies. Corporations have launched attacks on a range of public interest and environmental regulations, including bans or phase-outs of toxic chemicals, timber regulations, permitting rules for mines, green jobs and renewable energy programs, and more. This case, however, is the first to directly threaten the obligation of governments to protect its people from the destructive effects of fracking.
They add that these corporate-friendly trade practices are expected to increase under the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being secretly negotiated now:
Amazingly, instead of looking for ways to scale back and eliminate the rules in our trade agreements that threaten public interest policies in favor of corporate profits, eleven countries, including the United States and Canada, are currently in the middle of negotiations to expand the NAFTA investment rules in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, our air and our water could be threatened by more cases like this one. Governments must stop writing and signing trade pacts that put the interests and profits of corporations above the well-being and rights of communities.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A US company is taking advantage of a corporate-friendly NAFTA provision in suing the Canadian government for over $250 million due to lost profits from Quebec's moratorium on fracking.
The company, Lone Pine Resources Inc., which is incorporated in the state of Delaware and headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, held mining permits in the Saint Lawrence Valley and has already spent "millions of dollars" to get the permits and approvals, according to the company, but the moratorium passed in 2011 by the province to study environmental risk revoked those permits.
As Jeff Gray reports in the Globe and Mail, NAFTA allows "U.S. and Mexican companies to sue Ottawa if they feel they have been wronged by a government policy or action."
The company filed on Nov. 8 its arbitration intent (pdf) "under Article 1117 of the NAFTA for the arbitrary, capricious, and illegal revocation of the Enterprise's valuable right to mine for oil and gas under the St. Lawrence River by the Government of Quebec without due process, without compensation, and with no cognizable public purpose."
Public Citizen, an advocacy organization for the "the people's voice," explains NAFTA's chapter 11 further:
If a company believes that a NAFTA government has violated these new investor rights and protections, it can initiate a binding dispute resolution process for monetary damages before a trade tribunal, offering none of the basic due process or openness guarantees afforded in national courts. These so-called "investor-to-state" cases are litigated in the special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations, which are closed to public participation, observation and input. A three-person panel composed of professional arbitrators listens to arguments in the case, with powers to award an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations whose NAFTA investor privileges and rights they judge to have been impacted.
The Sierra Club's Ilana Solomon and Deb Nardone explain how Lone Pine Resources is hardly alone is using trade agreements to sue governments over lost profits.
By the end of 2011, corporations such as Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and Cargill have launched 450 investor-state cases against 89 governments, including the United States. Over $700 million has been paid to corporations under U.S. free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties, about 70 percent of which are from challenges to natural resource and environment policies. Corporations have launched attacks on a range of public interest and environmental regulations, including bans or phase-outs of toxic chemicals, timber regulations, permitting rules for mines, green jobs and renewable energy programs, and more. This case, however, is the first to directly threaten the obligation of governments to protect its people from the destructive effects of fracking.
They add that these corporate-friendly trade practices are expected to increase under the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being secretly negotiated now:
Amazingly, instead of looking for ways to scale back and eliminate the rules in our trade agreements that threaten public interest policies in favor of corporate profits, eleven countries, including the United States and Canada, are currently in the middle of negotiations to expand the NAFTA investment rules in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, our air and our water could be threatened by more cases like this one. Governments must stop writing and signing trade pacts that put the interests and profits of corporations above the well-being and rights of communities.
A US company is taking advantage of a corporate-friendly NAFTA provision in suing the Canadian government for over $250 million due to lost profits from Quebec's moratorium on fracking.
The company, Lone Pine Resources Inc., which is incorporated in the state of Delaware and headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, held mining permits in the Saint Lawrence Valley and has already spent "millions of dollars" to get the permits and approvals, according to the company, but the moratorium passed in 2011 by the province to study environmental risk revoked those permits.
As Jeff Gray reports in the Globe and Mail, NAFTA allows "U.S. and Mexican companies to sue Ottawa if they feel they have been wronged by a government policy or action."
The company filed on Nov. 8 its arbitration intent (pdf) "under Article 1117 of the NAFTA for the arbitrary, capricious, and illegal revocation of the Enterprise's valuable right to mine for oil and gas under the St. Lawrence River by the Government of Quebec without due process, without compensation, and with no cognizable public purpose."
Public Citizen, an advocacy organization for the "the people's voice," explains NAFTA's chapter 11 further:
If a company believes that a NAFTA government has violated these new investor rights and protections, it can initiate a binding dispute resolution process for monetary damages before a trade tribunal, offering none of the basic due process or openness guarantees afforded in national courts. These so-called "investor-to-state" cases are litigated in the special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations, which are closed to public participation, observation and input. A three-person panel composed of professional arbitrators listens to arguments in the case, with powers to award an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations whose NAFTA investor privileges and rights they judge to have been impacted.
The Sierra Club's Ilana Solomon and Deb Nardone explain how Lone Pine Resources is hardly alone is using trade agreements to sue governments over lost profits.
By the end of 2011, corporations such as Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, and Cargill have launched 450 investor-state cases against 89 governments, including the United States. Over $700 million has been paid to corporations under U.S. free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties, about 70 percent of which are from challenges to natural resource and environment policies. Corporations have launched attacks on a range of public interest and environmental regulations, including bans or phase-outs of toxic chemicals, timber regulations, permitting rules for mines, green jobs and renewable energy programs, and more. This case, however, is the first to directly threaten the obligation of governments to protect its people from the destructive effects of fracking.
They add that these corporate-friendly trade practices are expected to increase under the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being secretly negotiated now:
Amazingly, instead of looking for ways to scale back and eliminate the rules in our trade agreements that threaten public interest policies in favor of corporate profits, eleven countries, including the United States and Canada, are currently in the middle of negotiations to expand the NAFTA investment rules in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, our air and our water could be threatened by more cases like this one. Governments must stop writing and signing trade pacts that put the interests and profits of corporations above the well-being and rights of communities.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.