Using NAFTA to Restrict Canadian Oil Imports?

  • In their submission, the environment groups charge that oil extraction processes leach contaminants into both surface and groundwater in the Athabasca watershed. (Photo courtesy of Aude CC-2.0)

You might think about imported oil and Saudi Arabia or Venezuela come to mind. But, the single biggest source of imported oil to the U.S. comes from Canada. And half of that comes from a dirty form of oil called tar sands oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists are trying to use NAFTA to get restrictions on tar sands oil:

Transcript

You might think about imported oil and Saudi Arabia or Venezuela come to mind. But, the single biggest source of imported oil to the U.S. comes from Canada. And half of that comes from a dirty form of oil called tar sands oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists are trying to use NAFTA to get restrictions on tar sands oil.

Environmental groups say extracting tar sands oil causes a lot of water pollution. Matt Price is with Environmental Defence Canada:

“We keep on presenting the evidence to the government, and they just sort of keep on ignoring it which is why we filed this citizens’ complaint.”

They’ve filed the complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The say oil companies in Canada are not complying with Canadian environmental laws and that might be a violation of the NAFTA treaty. So, his group and others are taking the fight to Canada’s trading partners.

They’re hoping the U-S and Mexico will step in.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

U.S. Cuts Tariffs on Canadian Softwood Lumber

Canadian officials say they’ve been vindicated after the U.S. commerce department recently announced it would drastically cut duties on imports of Canadian softwood lumber. But the U.S. hasn’t entirely given in. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports, it’s now become an issue in Canada’s national election:

Transcript

Canadian officials say they’ve been vindicated after the U.S. commerce department
recently announced it would drastically cut duties on imports of Canadian softwood
lumber, but the U.S. hasn’t entirely given in, and as Dan Karpenchuk reports, it’s now
become an issue in Canada’s national election:


Just before a NAFTA deadline, the U.S. commerce department said it would cut duties on
Canadian softwood from just under 19 percent to just under one percent, but it also said
even though it was complying it doesn’t agree and adds that the case is not final.


Since 2002 the U.S. has collected more than 3-and-a-half billion dollars in duties. Duties,
which the Canadians say are illegal, and want returned.


Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in launching his election campaign this week
lambasted his main opponent, Conservative leader Stephen Harper, on the issue.


“He has been silent, he has been silent as we have defended Canadian workers against the
Americans on softwood lumber, such a vital issue, and yet Stephen Harper has had
nothing to say.”


Washington has said it wants a negotiated settlement, but with NAFTA ruling five times
in Canada’s favor and thousands of jobs lost in the country’s forestry industry the mood
north of the border appears uncompromising.


For the GLRC, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links

Counterpoint: Agreements Will Invite More Diversions

  • The proposed Annex 2001 agreement is the subject of lively debate as to whether it will help or hinder the conservation of the Great Lakes (Photo by Jeremy Lounds)

Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:

Transcript

Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements
that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing
Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in
the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne
Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:


In theory, the proposed Agreements are supposed to provide a framework for using the water of the
Great Lakes. In reality, they’re about as leaky as a sunken lake freighter. The framework’s
there, but they fail to impose an overall limit on the volume of water that can be diverted,
or who can take it.


Not only that, but proposals to take less than a million gallons per day out of the basin won’t
require a region-wide review, several of these smaller withdrawals could eventually add up to a
whole lot of water. And whether it’s one large pipe or a lot of tiny ones, the end result is the
same.


Given that the Great Lakes basin contains 20% of all the fresh water on the planet, diverting
some of it shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, only 1% of that water is renewed each year.
It would be a good idea to first figure out how much water can be taken without disrupting the
ecological balance of the Lakes. Only once that’s been done should we be looking at allowing
large-scale withdrawals.


And then there’s the threat of trade challenges. Each state or province that approves a water
taking permit won’t be paid directly for the water. Instead they’ll recieve a funding to upgrade
sewage treatment plants or to improve local habitats for example. Recently, a Canadian non-profit
asked for legal opinion about the Agreements. The response was that linking the approval process
to funding for public works basically means that the water is being sold, and under the terms of
NAFTA, once you’ve identified something as a commodity, you can’t restrict its sale.


Canadians should be particularly concerned about these Agreements. The Council of Great Lakes
Governors drafted them. And although the premiers of Ontario and Quebec have signed off on them,
in the end, neither province has the right to veto the decisions made by the Council. In my book,
that’s a lot like being invited to dinner and then being asked to leave before the main course.
And the reverse is true too. If Ontario or Quebec approves a withdrawal, states in the U.S.
wouldn’t have the ability to veto the decision. We share these lakes. If we are all called on
to protect the Great Lakes, then we all need to have an equal voice. That’s why our federal
representatives in Washington D.C. and Ottawa need to draw up a binding international agreement
on water withdrawals.


If nothing else, the proposed Agreements have made it clear that the Great Lakes must be
protected. And with 40 million users already relying on this irreplaceable resource, we clearly
need something better than these Agreements currently have to offer.


Host Tag: Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario.

Related Links

Attorney General Takes on Canadian Pollution

The Attorney General in New York has recently led the fight against any softening of laws on air pollution. He’s even taken on the administration in Washington. Now he’s setting his sights across the border where pollution from Canada is affecting his state. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:

Transcript

The Attorney General in New York has recently led the fight against any softening of laws on air
pollution. He’s even taken on the administration in Washington. Now he’s setting his sights
across the border where pollution from Canada is affecting his state. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:


New York’s Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has taken on the White House and big air polluters in
the U.S. Now he’s filing a complaint with the Environmental Commission set up under NAFTA.
He wants the commission to look into whether coal fired generating plants in Ontario violate any
Canadian laws.


That move is not sitting well with authorities across the border. Canada’s environment minister,
David Anderson, says he welcomes the challenge, but says Spitzer should be cleaning up his own
backyard first.


“His plants in New York aren’t little innocent neighborhood Dairy Queens. These are major
emitters of pollution.”


Ontario’s environment minister, Chris Stockwell, admits that Ontario doesn’t have a perfect
record, but he, too, says Spitzer shouldn’t be doing any finger pointing.


“The Americans have states where 90% of their energy is coal. Now who’s embarrassed,
Americans or Canadians?”


Ontario has pledged to shut down its coal-fired generators by 2015.


But that isn’t soon enough for Spitzer. If he proves his case, the environmental commission could
impose penalties against the province.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Report Says Small Industry Pollution on Rise

A recent study on pollution in North America shows a drop in environmental pollution between 1995 and 2000. The study was conducted by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which was set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports, one trend being noted is that smaller industries across the continent are becoming the big polluters:

Transcript

A recent study on pollution in North America shows a drop in environmental pollution between
1995 and 2000. The study was conducted by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
which was set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement. But as the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports, one trend being noted is that smaller industries
across the continent are becoming the big polluters:


Officials for the Commission say it’s a good news-bad news picture of what’s going on across the
continent. The environmental watchdog says the biggest polluters such as electrical generating
plants and steel factories are releasing fewer hazardous chemicals. But smaller industries, who
have tended to pollute less are showing a significant increase in their emissions.


Victor Shantora is with the Commission.


“The smaller polluters, probably about 15,000 such facilities across North America, are actually
tracking upwards. And we think that that’s problematic.”


The study shows a seven-percent decline in the amount of toxins released by big industries from
1998 to 2000, while the smaller polluters showed a 32-percent increase over the same period.


Environmental groups like the Sierra Club say negative publicity has shamed the big polluters
into cutting down on emissions. They say that hasn’t worked against the small polluters. So it’s
up to governments to force them to make the reductions.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Region Tops List for Toxic Chemcials

Two Great Lakes states and one Canadian province are near the top of the list when it comes to the production of toxic chemicals. That’s the finding of the latest study from an international agency set up under NAFTA. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen reports:

Transcript

Two Great Lakes States and one Canadian province are near the top of the list when it comes to
the production of toxic chemicals. That’s the finding of the latest study from an international
agency set up under NAFTA. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen reports:


If you want to find the largest producers of dangerous chemicals in all of North America, look no
further than the Great Lakes Region. Officials from the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation say coal-fired power plants, steel mills, and waste treatment facilities put the region
high on the list.


Victor Shantora is director of the agency:


“The ranking is Texas number 1, Ohio number 2, the province of Ontario is number 3, and
Pennsylvania is number 4. They represent over about 25% of total releases in North America.”


Among the toxic chemicals cited are hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, and mercury. But the report
isn’t all bad news. It indicates while some of the toxic chemicals wind up as pollution in the air,
water, and soil, a growing amount of it is simply being transported for proper disposal in
landfills or for recycling.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Cohen in Columbus.

Environmental Effects of Free Trade

When NAFTA was passed in 1994, environmentalists feared catastrophic results. Polluting industries would move to Mexico, where environmental protections hadn’t caught up with those in the U.S. and Canada. They were worried that air pollution would increase as more goods were shipped across international borders, and they were concerned that shared resources like the Great Lakes might lose their protected status and become commodities subject to trade. Supporters of NAFTA argued that increased prosperity would lead to improved pollution technology and a strengthening of environmental protections. But eight years later, the effects of NAFTA on the environment appear to be mixed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer explains why:

Transcript

When NAFTA was passed in 1994, environmentalists feared catastrophic results. Polluting industries would move to Mexico, where environmental
protections hadn’t caught up with those in the U.S. and Canada. They were worried that air pollution would increase as more goods were
shipped across international borders. And they were concerned that shared resources like the Great Lakes might lose their protected status and become commodities subject to trade. Supporters of NAFTA argued that increased prosperity would lead to improved pollution technology and a strengthening of environmental protections. But eight years later, the effects of NAFTA on the environment appear to be mixed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer explains why:


Two years ago, a private Canadian company got permission from a provincial government to ship water from Lake Huron to water-starved countries in Southeast Asia. When the federal government got wind of the deal, the contract was revoked. But environmentalists feared that
another assault on Great Lakes water could arise under a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 11 is a clause that allows private foreign investors to sue local governments if they believe their trade rights have been violated. In the case of Great Lakes water, that could mean that trade laws could trump environmental regulations – and that businesses could overturn a government’s ability to protect natural resources and human health.


[ambient sound]


At a recent U.S./Canada law conference held in Cleveland, government officials, policymakers, and trade lawyers gathered to discuss the environmental consequences of Chapter 11 and other trade issues. In the
Great Lakes region, the sharpest impact may have been to air quality.

“Increased freight transportation
linked to NAFTA has led to significant air pollution at border crossings at both borders.”


Jannine Ferretti heads the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, an international agency established to address environmental concerns under NAFTA. She admits that as yet, there’s been only limited assessment of those impacts. But she says what data there is, shows it’s not all bad news.

“The Mexico steel, because of NAFTA’s investment provisions, actually enabled Mexico steel to upgrade its technology, making the sector actually in some ways cleaner than that of the United States and Canada. But what about the effects of trade rules on environmental policy? And this is where we go to NAFTA’s Chapter 11.”


(Frank Loy) “Chapter 11 is a chapter designed to protect investors from one NAFTA country that invested in another NAFTA country and it has led to a number of cases that have worried the environmental community.”


Frank Loy served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs under the Clinton administration. He says under Chapter 11, a number of private investors have successfully sued foreign governments for millions of dollars, contending that meeting local environmental regulations violated their rights under free trade laws.

“I would say the cases worry me a lot. My guess is
there already is a regulatory chill, a timidity on the part of governments
to take certain actions for fear of subjecting the state to liabilities.”

Part of that regulatory chill may derive from the concern that it’s not an open process. One of the sharpest criticisms of Chapter 11 is that the cases are heard and decided by a closed-door, three-person tribunal, with no mandate to hear testimony from third parties. So while the public has a hard time benefiting from NAFTA, companies have it relatively easy. In one of the first challenges under the provision, U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation won nearly 20-million dollars in damages from the Canadian government for its ban on a gasoline additive called MMT. Canada has since dropped the ban. Another case involved an Ohio company, S.D. Meyers, that treats the chemical compounds known as PCBs.


James McIlroy, a trade lawyer from Toronto, says the company wanted to import the waste from Canada, despite a Canadian prohibition.


“The government of Canada said we are prohibiting this for environmental reasons. But the real reason, when you really looked at it hard, the real reason was there was a PCB plant in Alberta in western Canada that the government of Canada wanted to promote.”


McIlroy is not alone when he says a number of Chapter 11 cases apparently based on environmental protection have proved on closer scrutiny to be a cover-up for government trade protection. While he doesn’t dismiss the environmental issues, he does caution against blowing them out of proportion.


“I think it’s fair to say, whether the cases are valid or not, there sure haven’t been a whole lot of them. And therefore this is not this huge, massive problem that people are talking about. And
we’ve had this what, since 1994, and you can count the number of cases on two
hands.”


Ohio Democrat Congressman Sherrod Brown voted against NAFTA. He disagrees with McIlroy’s assessment.


“Their arguments are specious. Perhaps in the opinion of trade lawyers, these challenges have served as a cloak for protectionism. But to trade lawyers, everything’s seen as a cloak for protectionism.”


Brown says while companies began making use of Chapter 11 only about four years ago, there have been plenty of other trade challenges to environmental laws.


“Time after time after time, both in NAFTA and every public health law challenge under the WTO, 33 straight times, public health laws, environmental laws, and food safety laws, every single time they’ve been struck down. That’s wrong, whenever a trade law can be used to undercut or repeal a democratically-attained rule or regulation.”


Both opponents and supporters agree it’s unlikely NAFTA will be revised anytime soon. But the precedents set under NAFTA could affect future trade agreements. Arguments on both sides of the issue will undoubtedly be aired again as Congress takes up approval of new fast track trade
legislation with similar investor protections this spring. Environmental groups believe equitable settlement of future trade challenges may have to rely on the strength of public opinion to sway government decisions.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Schaefer in Cleveland.

Canada Lags Behind U.S. In Pollution Control

A new environmental study has found toxic emissions increased in Canada during the late 1990’s, while pollution in the United States decreased over that same period. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, critics say the findings reflect the differences in the governments’ commitment to cleaning up the environment:

Transcript

A new environmental study has found that toxic emissions increased in Canada during the late 1990’s while pollution in the United States decreased over that same period. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, critics say the findings reflect the differences in the governments’ commitment to cleaning up the environment:


Between 1995 and 1999, the amount of toxic waste released into the environment by American manufacturers decreased by about seven
percent. However, in Canada, toxic releases increased by six percent. That’s according to a new study conducted by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. It was established under the North American Free
Trade Agreement. The study compares industrial pollution in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, where the system is voluntary. Ken Olgivie is the executive director of Pollution Probe, an environmental group based in Toronto. He says the findings reflect the tightening of environmental regulations during the Clinton years. And the simultaneous
budget-cutting that was going on in Canada.


“When the U.S. is going down and we’re going up, I think that raises a serious question on Canadian policy and Americans should be aware of that because I’m sure you’re told all the time by our politicians how we do such wonderful things and we’re ahead of you, but I don’t think that’s true.”


For instance, the Ontario progressive conservatives cut their
environmental budget in half in 1995. Such cuts are significant because the regulation of air and water pollution in Canada lies with the provinces, rather than the federal government. That leads to different laws all across the country. An independent inquiry blamed the Ontario cutbacks for the deadly E. coli outbreak that occurred in the town of Walkerton in 2000.


The NAFTA report found Ontario had the largest increase in pollution of any state or province – at 19 percent. It remains the fourth largest polluter in North America and is the biggest recipient of American toxic waste. But it’s not the only place in the Great Lakes highlighted in the report. The study’s director, Erica Phipps says the region is responsible for a significant amount of North America’s pollution.


“Five Great Lakes jurisdictions, Ohio, Ontario, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois, represent one quarter of the facilities and one quarter of the total releases that we’re looking at in this report…when we’re looking at the toxic releases and transfers coming from that region, it is certainly of concern.”


Phipps says that close to half of the landfill disposals of toxic waste occur in this region. Landfills in Ontario, Michigan and Ohio are the
biggest recipients. But at least one government is considering a change. Ontario’s new premier, Ernie Eves, is promising to pour new funding into the province’s environment ministry and tighten its enforcement.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Quebec Considers Stricter Water Law

Canadians are looking at new measures to ban the export of water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

Canadians are looking at new measures to ban the export of water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


If it’s passed, legislation in Quebec would prevent the export of water from that province. In a report in the newspaper Le Journal de Quebec, the Environment Minister noted that the North American Free Trade Agreement already bans shipment of water by tank, but since the term “tank” is not defined in NAFTA, the Minister feels Quebec should define clear policy. Under the measure, Quebec would still allow the sale of water bottled in containers of less than 20 liters, about the size of a water cooler jug. It would not allow any large vessels or trucks to carry water away and would also ban piping the water out of the province. Canada has been especially sensitive to water issues since President George Bush suggested earlier this year Great Lakes water could be shipped to more arid parts of the U.S. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.

Commentary – NAFTA Used to Sue Province

Late last month (October) Sun Belt Water of California filed a $10.5
billion suit against the Canadian government under the North American
Free Trade Agreement. The company claims that it has been mistreated
because the province of British Columbia banned the bulk exports of
water. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston points
out, the outcome of the suit will probably cost us all a lot more than
money: