Force of Nature -- Quebec Prohibition -- 2008 10 24 -- NAFTA -- CELA -- McClenaghan -- Cooper -- T&R -- MODIFIED -- PDF -- 300 Dpi

8/6/2019 Force of Nature -- Quebec Prohibition -- 2008 10 24 -- NAFTA -- CELA -- McClenaghan -- Cooper -- T&R -- MODIFIED

1/21

PPaa rr tt 11..

William H. Gathercole & Norah G. [email protected] Force of Nature Media Report.

FFoorrccee ooffNNaattuurree was launched for continuous transmission on the Internet on January 1st, 2009. It is a

series of enewsletters destined for the GGrreeeenn SSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy, the eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall mmoovveemmeenntt, politi-

cians, municipalities, and the media, nationwide across Canada, and parts of the United States.

FFoorrccee ooffNNaattuurree is produced in two parts. First. TheMMeeddiiaa RReeppoorrttitself thatreports on the currentevents affecting the future of the GGrreeeenn SSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy.. Second. IInnddeeppeennddeennttPPeerrssppeeccttiivvee.., which isa running commentary, sometimes also of a more technical in nature.

FFoorrccee ooffNNaattuurree is the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his entourage. The opinions ex-

pressed in these enewsletters, even though from an independent perspective, may not reflect those

of everyone in the GGrreeeenn SSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy, or Mr. Gathercoles many associates. Be warned ! Mr. Gath-ercole and his team may sometimes be very irreverent and fearless with these enewsletters.

William H. Gathercole holds a degree in Horticulture from the UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooffGGuueellpphh, and another pure

and applied science degree fromMMccGGiillll UUnniivveerrssiittyy. He has worked in virtually all aspects of the GGrreeeennSSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy, including public affairs, personal safety, and environmental issues. Mr. Gathercole has

been a consultant and instructor for decades. Mr. Gathercole has been following the evolution ofeennvvii--

rroonnmmeennttaalltteerrrroorriissmm

for over a quartercentury. His involvement in environmental issues reached a fe-vered pitch in the 1990s, when he orchestrated, with others, legal action against unethical and excessive

municipal regulations restricting the use of pest control products. ( i.e. the Town of Hudson. ) Although

he can be accused of being aannttiieennvviirroonnmmeennttmmoovveemmeenntt, he is, in fact, simply a strong advocate for the

GGrreeeenn SSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy. However, this position has not precluded him from criticizing the industry itself.

Nonetheless, his vast knowledge of our long journey with environmental issues is uunnddeenniiaabbllee. ( Hope-

fully ! )

For many years, Mr. Gathercole has been a contributing columnist for TTUURRFF && RReeccrreeaattiioonn

Magazine, Canadas Turf and Grounds Maintenance Authority.

All pictures contained in FFoorrccee ooffNNaattuurree were found somewhere on the Internet. We believe that

they are in the public domain, as either educational tools, industry archives, promotional stills, publicity

photos, or press media stock.

Information presented in FFoorrccee ooff NNaattuurree has been developed for the education and entertain-

ment of the reader. The events, characters, companies, and organizations, depicted in this

document are not always fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, may notbe coincidental.


2/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


he actions of the Government of Que-

bec are tantamount to a blanket banbased on nonscientif ic criteria. >>

he PMRA concluded that 2,4D can beused safely according to label direc-t ions for a variety of lawn, turf and ag-

ricultural applications, and that the productmeets all of Canadas pesticide health and safetyregulations, which are among the toughest andmost stringent in the world. >>


3/21


4/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


of modern science and concluded that it is safe for use according to label in-

structions.

On MMaa yy 11 66 ,, 22 00 00 88, Health Canadas Pest Management Regulatory Agency an-nounced the results of an extensive review on 2,4D. The PMRA concludedthat 2,4D can be used safely according to label directions for a variety of lawn,turf and agricultural applications, and that the product meets all of Canadaspesticide health and safety regulations, which are among the toughest andmost stringent in the world. The Notice of Intent was filed with The Depart-ment of Justice and is available online at

http://www.international.gc.ca/tradeagreementsaccordscommerciaux/dispdiff/gov.aspx?lang=en

Dow AgroSciences is seeking a $2 mil l ion CAD settlement, plus legalcosts, in f i l ing its Notice.

more About Dow AgroSciences

Dow AgroSciences Canada Inc. is headquartered in Calgary, Alberta with a re-gional office in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Learn more at

http://www.dowagro.com/ca

Dow AgroSciences LLC, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, is a toptier agri-cultural company that combines the power of science and technology with the"HHuummaann EElleemmeenntt to constantly improve what is essential to human progress.Dow AgroSciences provides innovative technologies for crop protection, pestand vegetation management, seeds, traits, and agricultural biotechnology toserve the world's growing population.

Learn more at

http://www.dowagro.com

For further information contact:Brenda HarrisRegulatory and Government Affairs ManagerDow AgroSciences Canada [email protected]


5/21


6/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


ow AgroSciences insists Quebec's prov-

incewide ban on the residential use ofweed kill ing chemicals breaches legal

protections owed by Canada to U.S. investors un-der the NAFTA. >>

ow insists Quebec and Ontario are out

of step with the international consensuson a product ( 2,4D ) that has beenused for decades in dozens of countries. >>


7/21

PPaarrtt 11..


UU..SS.. CChheemmiiccaall CCoommppaannyy

CChhaalllleennggeess PPeessttiicciiddee BBaann

OOccttoobbeerr 2222 nn dd ,, 22000088

Luke Eric Peterson

Embassy Policy BriefingKKaatthhlleeeenn CCooooppeerr

The issue of free trade was largely a nonissue during our recent federal elec-tion.

However, the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) might have gar-nered a few headlines if the Feds had disclosed that U.S. chemical giant Dowsignalled in late August that it is gearing up to sue Canada.

Dow AgroSciences insists Quebec's provincewide ban on the residentialuse of weed kil l ing chemicals breaches legal protections owed by Canadato U.S. investors under the NAFTA.

The U.S. company, which has an extensive manufacturing and sales operationin Canada, wants to be compensated by the Feds for losses incurred to its starproduct, 2,4D, one of the most popular chemical ingredients used in commer-cial pesticides.

The Dow claim is the latest in a long string of disputes to arise under Chapter11 of the NAFTA a legal back channel which permits foreign investors todetour around local courts and sue the federal government before an interna-tional tribunal.

The company triggered a 90day waiting period in AAuu gg uu ss tt, after which it canbring the federal government to binding arbitration.

For crossborder investors, these types of legal protections can come in handyif a tinpot dictator sends in the tanks and seizes your factories or oil fields.But when such legal provisions are invoked by foreign investors in an effort toward off health or environmental regulations, eyebrows drift skyward.


8/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


Kathleen Cooper, a senior researcher with the Canadian EnvironmentalLaw Association, says the Quebec ban has been warmly endorsed by medical

and environmental organizations and enjoys wide support in public opinionsurveys. She's troubled that chemical producers can invoke NAFTA in aneffort to " uunnddeerrmmiinnee tthhee ddeecciissiioonnss ooff ddeemmooccrraattiiccaallllyyeelleecctteedd ggoovveerrnn--mmeennttss. "

The spectre of a NAFTA lawsuit comes at an auspicious moment.

The Province of Ontario has signalled that it will follow Quebec's lead, passinglegislation earlier this year, and working on regulations that could come intoforce next spring. Such regulatory moves will eventually draw wider attentionand scrutiny in other jurisdictions including the far more lucrative U.S.

market. If the U.S. chemical industry hopes to avert a domino effect, it mayneed to borrow a page from the War on Terrorism tactics book : fightingtougher regulation abroad, so they don't have to fight it on the home front.

For its part, Dow insists Quebec and Ontario are out of step with the in-ternational consensus on a product that has been used for decades indozens of countries.

The company points to a22000077 risk assessment by Canada's own Pest Manage-ment Regulatory Agency which said the product could continue to be usedsafely on lawns. Dow stresses that Quebec's decision to ban certain uses of the

product is not based on scientific evidence. Spokesperson Gary Hamelin saysit is a real problem when companies are "making investments of tens of mil-lions of dollars for products that based on a scientific assessment [are]acceptable."

While Dow jousts with its critics over the scientific evidence, Quebec ( and nowOntario ) have taken the view that more stringent standards should be imposedby provincial health regulators particularly where the product is not neces-sary, but is used for purely cosmetic purposes.

It could fall to a panel of three arbitrators to decide whether such provincial

regulations run afoul of Canada's NAFTA A commitments.

Of course, threatening to file a NAFTA claim is hardly a guarantee of success.Nevertheless, chemical producers seem to be warming to the NAFTA option.Already, the government is defending against another NAFTA Chapter 11 claimfiled by another U.S.based chemical producer. When Canada's Pest Regula-tory Management Agency moved to ban the use of Lindanebased seed treat-ments, U.S.based Chemtura Corporation sued for $100 million in damages.


9/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


That arbitration is currently going on behind closed doors, following a Januaryconfidentiality order.

One wonders if this is the tip of the legal iceberg. After all, the Feds are nowundertaking a broad review of thousands of undertested chemicals currentlyon the market.

Just last week, the government added the controversial substance Bisphenol A( BPA ) which is used widely in plastics to a registry of toxic sub-stances. Although there are no immediate plans to ban the use of the sub-stance as a lining in food and drink cans, it is very likely that BPA will beeliminated from polycarbonate baby bottles.

It remains to be seen whether tougher regulations on BPA and other chemicalswill also be challenged under NAFTA Chapter 11.

For almost two months, the federal government has been mum about the latestlegal salvo from Dow. Although Dow formally signalled its intentions in ll aa tteeAA uu gg uu ss tt setting in motion a 90day consultation period the Departmentof Foreign Affairs only disclosed the potential lawsuit yesterday.

Until now, Canadian taxpayers who foot the bill to defend NAFTA lawsuitsand pay any compensation awarded by arbitrators have been denied theopportunity to weigh in with their own views on the matter. However, giventhat nearly 7,000 members of the public submitted comments on the OntarioGovernment's proposed pesticides ban, one can guess that the Feds will receiveplenty of feedback in the weeks to come.

Luke Eric Peterson is a columnist for Embassy and the editor of an investiga-tive reporting service tracking NAFTAstyle arbitrations, the Investment Arbi-tration Reporter ( www.iareporter.com ).

[email protected]

Kathleen Cooper is Senior Researcher at Canadian Environmental Law Association (C.E.L.A.).

She is also Web Site Editor and a member of the Secretariat at Canadian Partnership for Chil-

dren's Health and Environment (C.P.C.H.E). [email protected]


10/21

PPaarrtt 11..


CCEELLAACCaallllssffoorrRReemmoovvaall ooffNNAAFFTTAA

EExxpprroopprriiaattiioonn PPrroovviissiioonnss

TThhaatt CCaann UUnnddeerrmmiinnee

HHeeaalltthh aanndd EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall PPoolliiccyy

NNoovvee mmbbeerr 11 33 tt hh ,, 22 000088

Toronto In a letter sent jointly to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Presi-

dentElect Barack Obama, the Canadian Environmental Law Association

( CELA ) asks the two leaders to take immediate action to repeal or at the very

least, amend Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement

[ NAFTA ].

CELAs concerns arise from the claim by Dow Agroscience [ sic ] filed in August

this year pursuant to Chapter 11, the Investment chapter of NAFTA. The claim

is against the government of Canada in which Dow seeks $2 million in com-

pensation (plus legal fees and any taxes) for revenues lost due to the ban of its

pesticide 2,4D under the Quebec Pesticides Code.

UUnnddeerr oouurr ccoonnssttiittuuttiioonn,, CCaannaaddiiaann pprroovviinncceess aanndd mmuunniicciippaalliittiieess ccaann

ttaakkee aaccttiioonn oonn aa rraannggee ooff eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall iissssuueess,, iinncclluuddiinngg ppeessttiicciiddeess,

notes Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director and Counsel with CELA.

SSuucchh aaccttiioonn,, aanndd ddiivviissiioonn ooff rroolleess ccoonncceerrnniinngg tthhee rreegguullaattiioonn ooff ppeess--ttiicciiddeess aaccrroossss tthhee ffeeddeerraall,, pprroovviinncciiaall//tteerrrriittoorriiaall aanndd mmuunniicciippaall lleevveellss

ooff ggoovveerrnnmmeenntt iinn CCaannaaddaa,, hhaass aallssoo bbeeeenn ccoonnffiirrmmeedd bbyy tthhee SSuupprreemmee

CCoouurrtt ooff CCaannaaddaa. Moreover, the court of public opinion in Canada is con-

sistently and solidly behind the further restriction, in provincial laws or mu-

nicipal bylaws, of cosmetic pesticide use.


11/21

PPaarrtt 11..


CELAs letter to the two leaders cites provisions in several bilateral trade

agreements between the US and other countries that very clearly and inten-

tionally exclude the same archaic provisions contained in NAFTA. For exam-

ple, recent bilateral agreements negotiated between the United States and each

of Chile, Singapore, and Australia, among others, have included express lan-

guage to assure that NNoonnddiissccrriimmiinnaattoorryy rreegguullaattoorryy aaccttiioonn ddeessiiggnneedd

ffoorr lleeggiittiimmaattee ppuubblliicc wweellffaarree oobbjjeeccttss,, ppuubblliicc hheeaalltthh,, ssaaffeettyy aanndd tthheeeennvviirroonnmmeenntt ddoo nnoott ccoonnssttiittuuttee iinnddiirreecctt eexxpprroopprriiaattiioonn..

TThheeyy ssiimmppllyy nneeeedd ttoo ttaakkee tthheeiirr oowwnn aaddvviiccee, noted McClenaghan.

BBootthh CCaannaaddaa aanndd tthhee UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess pprroovviiddee ooffffiicciiaall gguuiiddaannccee ffoorr tthhee

nneeggoottiiaattiioonn ooff bbiillaatteerraall FFrreeee TTrraaddee AA ggrreeeemmeennttss.. TThheeyy eexxpplliicciittllyy rreecc--

oommmmeenndd tthhaatt aann uuppddaatteedd pprroovviissiioonn bbee iinncclluuddeedd ttoo nnoottee tthhaatt rreegguullaa--

ttiioonn ffoorr lleeggiittiimmaattee ppuubblliicc wweellffaarree oobbjjeeccttiivveess,, ssuucchh aass hheeaalltthh,, ssaaffeettyy

aanndd tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt,, ddooeess nnoott ccoonnssttiittuuttee iinnddiirreecctt eexxpprroopprriiaattiioonn..

SSuucchh pprroovviissiioonnss wwoouulldd pprreecclluuddee tthhee ttyyppee ooff ccllaaiimm tthhaatt DDooww AA ggrroo--

sscciieennccee [[ ssiicc ]] hhaass nnooww ffiilleedd aaggaaiinnsstt CCaannaaddaa.. CCEELL AA bbeelliieevveess tthhaatt iittiiss iimmppeerraattiivvee tthhaatt tthhee NNAA FFTTAA iittsseellff bbee bbrroouugghhtt uupp ttoo ddaattee wwiitthh ssuucchh

ooffffiicciiaall gguuiiddaannccee.

For more information, please contact :

Theresa McClenaghan,

Executive Director and Counsel 4166628341

[email protected] MMccCClleennaagghhaann


12/21

PPaarrtt 11..


NN

oo

vv

ee

mm

bb

ee

rr

11

11 tt hh

,,

22

00

00

88

Canadian Environmental Law AssociationLAssociation canadienne du droit de lenvironnement

Prime Minister Stephen HarperOffice of the Prime Minister of Canada

80 Wellington StreetOttawa, ON

K1A 0A2 20500

PresidentElect Barack ObamaThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC20500

Obama for AmericaP.O. Box 8102Chicago, IL 60680

Honourable Sirs,

Re: CHAPTER 11 of NAFTA

Congratulations to you both on your recent election successes.

We write today to request that you take immediate action to repeal or at thevery least, amend Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

We raise this matter in light of the following concerns. Dow Agroscience [ sic ]recently filed a claim pursuant to Chapter 11, the Investment chapter ofNAFTA, against the government of Canada.

They base their claim on the Quebec Pesticide Code and regulatory decisionsby the government of Quebec contained therein. Actions by the provinces andmunicipalities in Canada are constitutionally valid regarding a range of envi-ronmental matters including pesticides. This division of roles with respect to


13/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


regulating pesticides across the federal, provincial/territorial and municipallevels of government in Canada was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Can-

ada in its decision concerning the Hudson, Quebec pesticide bylaw, whereinthe Court described a complementary trilevel regulatory regime.

(114957 Canada Ltee (Spraytech, Societe darrosage) v. Hudson (Ville) (2001), 40 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 1.)

The recent actions by Dow Agroscience [ sic ] will, if successful, compensatethis company for financial losses alleged due to the Quebec Pesticide Code.This law enjoys massive public support in Quebec and indeed across Canadaand represents progressive and precautionary public policy taken by a sover-eign government within Canada in the interest of environmental protection andpublic health. There can be no doubt that most Canadians would find it offen-

sive that Chapter 11 gives foreign companies the ability to obtain such finan-cial compensation.

Provisions in recent bilateral trade agreements between the United States andChile as well as the United States and Singapore, Australia, Morocco, and oth-ers, which were negotiated subsequent to NAFTA added express language toprevent valid environmental, health and safety regulation from being subject toinvestor compensation claims such as Chapter 11 of NAFTA provides.

These Agreements have included this language in part because of the experi-ence under NAFTA whereby these types of investor challenges have been

launched and adjudicated. Subsequent negotiators, including those of theUnited States, have determined (with Congresss input) that this clarifying lan-guage must be added to forestall such challenges to valid environmentalregulation.

We note that some recent NAFTA panels established in certain investor claimcases under Chapter 11 have found in favour of the state and the valid publicwelfare objects enactments. However, there remains a significant amount ofconcern that such claims may be brought, that there is some risk of success bythe claimant, and that these risks may operate as a regulatory cchhiillll,, causingsome jurisdictions to hesitate before taking the action they contemplate evenwhen it is for protection of health or environment.

Accordingly, recent bilateral agreements negotiated between the United Statesand Chile, as well as the United States and Singapore, and the United Statesand Australia, among others, have included express language which in generalis phrased as follows :


14/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


Nondiscriminatory regulatory action designed for legitimate public welfare ob-jects, public health, safety and the environment do not constitute indirect ex-

propriation. (see examples cited below)

For example, regarding the US Chile Free Trade Agreement, the Final Envi-ronmental Review by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representatives found in re-spect of that Agreement that :

the Parties have clarified the FTAs provision on expropriation (Article 10.9) byincluding an interpretative annex that elaborates on relevant principles of U.S.law and clarifies the relationship of indirect expropriations and domestic regu-lations. Specifically, the annex makes clear that [[ee]]xxcceepptt iinn rraarree cciirrccuumm--ssttaanncceess,, nnoonn--ddiissccrriimmiinnaattoorryy rreegguullaattoorryy aaccttiioonnss bbyy aa PPaarrttyy tthhaatt aarree

ddeessiiggnneedd aanndd aapppplliieedd ttoo pprrootteecctt lleeggiittiimmaattee ppuubblliicc wweellffaarree oobbjjeeccttiivveess,, ssuucchh aass ppuubblliicc hheeaalltthh,, ssaaffeettyy,, aanndd tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt,, ddoo nnoott ccoonnssttiittuutteeiinnddiirreecctt eexxpprroopprriiaattiioonnss..

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Chile_FTA/asset_upload_file411_5109.pdf

The Final Environmental Review further stated that :

Conclusion

The investorState mechanism in the FTA makes existing international arbitralfor available to Chilean investors in the United States to bring possible claimsbased on U.S. environmental measures. However, the FTAs provisions, in par-ticular the numerous improvements over previous investment agreements de-scribed above, reduce the risk that arbitral tribunals would find inconsisten-cies between the investment provisions and U.S. environmental measures.Thus, the FTA provisions should not significantly affect the United States abil-ity to regulate in the environmental area.

Other important differences between NAFTA and the US Chile Free Trade Agreement, for example, include the provision in the latter that all arbitral

panel proceedings under the Investment chapter be conducted in public.

The comparable provision in the US Singapore agreement reads :

EExxcceepptt iinn rraarree cciirrccuummssttaanncceess,, nnoonn--ddiissccrriimmiinnaattoorryy rreegguullaattoorryy aaccttiioonnss bbyyaa PPaarrttyy tthhaatt aarree ddeessiiggnneedd aanndd aapppplliieedd ttoo pprrootteecctt lleeggiittiimmaattee ppuubblliicc wweell--ffaarree oobbjjeeccttiivveess,, ssuucchh aass ppuubblliicc hheeaalltthh,, ssaaffeettyy aanndd tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt,, ddoonnoott ccoonnssttiittuuttee iinnddiirreecctt eexxpprroopprriiaattiioonnss.


15/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


Exchange of Letters on Expropriation, Side Agreement, U.S. Singapore Free

Trade Agreementhttp://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Singapore_FTA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file58_4058.pdf

The US Australia Free Trade Agreement also contains similar provisions in itsChapter 11, the comparable Investment Chapter :

EExxcceepptt iinn rraarree cciirrccuummssttaanncceess,, nnoonnddiissccrriimmiinnaattoorryy rreegguullaattoorryy aacc--ttiioonnss bbyy aa PPaarrttyy tthhaatt aarree ddeessiiggnneedd aanndd aapppplliieedd ttoo aacchhiieevvee lleeggiittiimmaatteeppuubblliicc wweellffaarree oobbjjeeccttiivveess,, ssuucchh aass tthhee pprrootteeccttiioonn ooff ppuubblliicc hheeaalltthh,, ssaaffeettyy,, aanndd tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt,, ddoo nnoott ccoonnssttiittuuttee iinnddiirreecctt eexxpprroopprriiaa--

ttiioonnss.. (U.S. Australia Free Trade Agreement, Annex 11B

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Australia_FTA/Final_Text/asset_upload_file248_5155.pdf)

In short, we urge you to recognize that Chapter 11 as it stands in NAFTA, con-stitutes an archaic approach that should not allow foreign investors to under-mine the public welfare, environmental, conservation, health and safety publicpolicy, decisions and legislation of democratically elected governments. Thefact that this issue continues to arise as an attempt to override such public

policy decisions is illustrated by the recent challenge filed by Dow Agroscience[ sic] against Canada with respect to the Quebec Pesticide Code.

By repealing or at the very least, amending Chapter 11 to protect enactments ofthe parties (and their subnational governments) designed for legitimate publicwelfare objects including public health, safety and protection of the environ-ment you would assist all of the governments and the public in reestablishingconfidence in the credibility of government acting first and foremost for the pro-tection and welfare of its residents.

This would also bring these provisions into line with the several more recently

negotiated Free Trade Agreements that better protect regulatory action in theserespects.

Importantly, both Canada and the United States official guidance for the nego-tiation of bilateral Free Trade Agreements recommend the inclusion of an up-dated provision providing this clarifying language that regulation for lleeggiittii--mmaattee ppuubblliicc wweellffaarree oobbjjeeccttss iinncclluuddiinngg ppuubblliicc hheeaalltthh,, ssaaffeettyy aanndd pprroo--tteeccttiioonn ooff tthhee eennvviirroonnmmeenntt does not constitute indirect expropriation (and


16/21

PPaarrtt 11..


would therefore preclude the type of claim that Dow Agroscience [ sic ] has nowfiled against Canada).

The Canadian Model Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements(FIPA) states :

The updated FIPA model incorporates a clarification of indirect expropriationwhich provides that, except in rare circumstances, nondiscriminatory meas-ures designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, suchas health, safety and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriationand are not subject, therefore, to any compensation requirements.

http://www.international.gc.ca/tradeagreementsaccordscommerciaux/agracc/fipaapie/what_fipa.aspx?lang=en#annexb (ANNEX B.13(1):EXPROPRIATION)

The U.S. Model provides similarly :

Except in rare circumstances, nondiscriminatory regulatory actions by a Partythat are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives,such as public health, safety, and the environment, do not constitute indirectexpropriations.

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Sectors/Investment/Model_BIT/asset_upload_file847_6897.pdf(Annex B, Expropriation)

It is imperative, therefore, that the NAFTA itself be brought up to date with theofficial guidance.

Furthermore, there are many other provisions included in the recent FreeTrade Agreements that also better protect the ability of the Parties to regulateand protect environment, health and safety. Accordingly, there will be otherrelevant measures that should similarly be negotiated in a revised NAFTA.

We thank you for your attention and look forward to your favourable considera-tion of this matter.

Yours very truly,

Canadian Environmental Law Association

Theresa A. McClenaghanExecutive Director and Counsel


17/21

PPaarrtt 11..


CCaannaaddiiaann EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall LLaaww AAssssoocciiaattiioonn

((CC..EE..LL..AA..)) ..

This nonprofit group was established in 11 99 77 00. It is an environ-mental law clinic within LLEEGGAA LL AA IIDD OONNTTAA RRIIOO . C.E.L.A. hasdeveloped expertise in providing free legal services to low incomepeople and disadvantaged communities, and advancing thecause of strong environmental protection through advocacy andeducation of PPOOLL IITTIICCIIZZEEDD SSCCIIEENNCCEE , and law reform. C.E.L.A.is composed of tthhiirrtteeeenn eemmppllooyyeeeess and ffiivvee lleeggaall ccoouunnsseellss.. The operating

budget has been estimated atover one million dollars per year. It is a memberof the OONNTTAA RRIIOOEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT NNEETTWWOORRKK . C.E.L.A. shares some of its staffmembers with CCAA NNAA DDIIAA NN PPAA RRTTNNEERRSSHHIIPP FFOORR CCHHIILLDDRREENN''SS HHEEAA LLTTHH AA NNDD EENNVVII--RROONNMMEENNTT (C.P.C.H.E.).

CC..EE..LL..AA.. aalllliiaanncceess aanndd sshhiieelldd oorrggaanniizzaattiioonnss..

In 11997700, CCAA NNAA DDIIAA NN IINNSSTTIITTUUTTEE FFOORREENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAA LL LLAA WW AA NNDD PPOOLL IICCYY

(C.I.E.L.A.P.) was formed simultaneously with C.E.L.A., and became its ssiisstteerrgroup.

In 22 00 00 22 (circa), CCAA MMPPAA IIGGNN FFOORR PPEESSTTIICCIIDDEE RREEDDUUCCTTIIOONN , now called

PPEESSTTIICCIIDDEEFFRREEEEOONNTTAARRIIOO, started as a national sshhiieellddcoalition with a Steer-

ing Committee that originally included C.E.L.A.

In 22 00 0022, C.E.L.A. forged a cclloossee aalllliiaannccee with TTOORROONNTTOO EENNVVIIRROONN--

MMEENNTTAA LL AALL LL IIAA NNCCEE (T.E.A.) and TTHHEE OONNTTAA RRIIOO CCOOLL LL EEGGEE OOFF FFAA MMIILLYY PPHHYYSSII--CCIIAA NNSS (O.C.F.P.) to create the public affairssshhiieelldd PPAA RRTTNNEERRSSHHIIPP FFOORR PPEESS--

TTIICCIIDDEEBBYYLLAA WWSS (P.P.B.). This sshhiieellddwas created to ensure the passage of the

Toronto prohibition of pest control products. This sshhiieellddorganization quickly

encompassed child, health, and animal welfare groups, as well as environ-

mental and labour groups that also supported the prohibition.


18/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


In 220000 77, C.E.L.A. became an aaffffiilliiaatteedd mmeemmbbeerr with the ultramilitant

but efficient PPEESSTTIICCIIDDEE AACCTTIIOONN NNEETTWWOORRKK NNOORRTTHH AAMMEERRIICCAA (P.A.N.N.A.),along with CCAA NNAA DDIIAA NN AASSSSOOCCIIAA TTIIOONN OOFF PPHHYYSSIICCIIAA NNSS FFOORR TTHHEE EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT (C.A.P.E.) and QQUUIITTEERRRREE.

In 22000088, C.E.L.A. used apublic affairssshhiieellddorganization called CCOOAA --LL IITTIIOONN FFOORR PPEESSTTIICCIIDDEE RREEFFOORRMM OONNTTAA RRIIOO . This sshhiieellddwas created to ensurethe passage of the Ontario CCOOSSMMEETTIICCPPEESSTTIICCIIDDEESSBBAA NNAACCTT, which C.E.L.A.clearly supports. Here is an excerpt from a22000088 coalition advertisement.

>

Overall, C.E.L.A. has forged aalllliiaanncceesswith the followings groups that mostlysupport the prohibition of pest control products.

CCAANNAADDIIAA NNAASSSSOOCCIIAA TTIIOONN OOFFPPHHYYSSIICCIIAANNSS FFOORR TTHHEEEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT (C.A.P.E.). CCAA NNAA DDIIAA NNEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAA LL LLAA WWAASSSSOOCCIIAA TTIIOONN(C.E.L.A.). CCAANNAADDIIAANNIINNSSTTIITTUUTTEEFFOORREENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALLLLAAWWAANNDDPPOOLLIICCYY (C.I.E.L.A.P.) ( C.E.L.A.s ssiisstteerrgroup ).

CCAANNAADDIIAANNPPAARRTTNNEERRSSHHIIPPFFOORRCCHHIILLDDRREENN''SSHHEEAALLTTHHAANNDDEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTT (C.P.C.H.E). CCAA NNAA DDIIAA NNUUNNIIOONN OOFFPPOOSSTTAA LL WWOORRKKEERRSS (C.U.P.W.). CCOOAA LL IITTIIOONN FFOORRPPEESSTTIICCIIDDEERREEFFOORRMMOONNTTAA RRIIOO. DDAA VVIIDDSSUUZZUUKKIIFFOOUUNNDDAA TTIIOONN. EECCOOJJUUSSTTIICCEECCAA NNAA DDAA . EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAA LL DDEEFFEENNCCEE. QQUUIITTEERRRREE( Suzukis ambassador in the Province of Quebec ). NNEEWWDDEEMMOOCCRRAA TTIICCPPAA RRTTYY OOFFCCAA NNAA DDAA (the third federal opposition party). OOTTTTAAWWAAEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALLLLAAWW AANNDDPPOOLL IICCYYCCLLIINNIICC (O.E.L.P.C.). PPEESSTTIICCIIDDEEAACCTTIIOONNNNEETTWWOORRKKNNOORRTTHHAAMMEERRIICCAA (P.A.N.N.A.). PPEESSTTIICCIIDDEEFFRREEEEOONNTTAA RRIIOO (formerly CCAA MMPPAA IIGGNN FFOORR PPEESSTTIICCIIDDEE RREEDDUUCCTTIIOONN ). PPOOLLLLUUTTIIOONNPPRROOBBEE. RREEGGIISSTTEERREEDDNNUURRSSEESSAASSSSOOCCIIAA TTIIOONN OOFFOONNTTAA RRIIOO (R.N.A.O.). SSIIEERRRRAA CCLL UUBB OOFFCCAA NNAA DDAA TTHHEEOONNTTAA RRIIOOCCOOLL LL EEGGEE OOFFFFAA MMIILL YYPPHHYYSSIICCIIAA NNSS (O.C.F.P.). TTOORROONNTTOOEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAA LL AALLLL IIAA NNCCEE (T.E.A.). WWOORRLLDDWWIILL DDLL IIFFEEFFUUNNDD OOFFCCAA NNAA DDAA (W.W.F.).


19/21

PPaarrtt 11..



20/21

PPaa rr tt 11..


Read all about the

EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL MMOOVVEEMMEENNTT.

In the March 2009 Issue

of TTUURRFF&& RREECCRREEAA TTIIOONN Magazine.

B.C. communitys lawn care industry under attack. Golf course conditioning can co-exist with environmental stewardship. Local politicians, activists, making claims based on fraudulent information. The 9/11 era of the green space industry. Time is now for Ontario golf courses to become IPM accredited. ... and more.


21/21

PPaa rr tt 11..

The following titles are currently available.(Or , wi l l be avai lable in the near future. )

Alberta Prohi bition . British Columbia Prohibition . Burnaby B.C. Prohibition. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

David Suzuki Foundation . Death and the Environmental Movement. Golf and Landscape Trade Industries. Kazimiera Jean Cottam . Kelowna B.C. Prohibition. New Brunswick Prohibition . Ontario Prohibition. Organic Fertilizers .

Pets and Lawn Care Chemicals. Prince Edward Island Prohibition. Quebec Prohibition. Richmond B.C. Prohibition . Saint Catharines Ontario. Salmon Arm B.C. Prohibition . The Failure of Integrated Pest Management. The Wisdom of the Solomons .

Victoria B.C. White Rock B.C. Prohibition . Wisconsin Prohibition.

AASSKK FFOORR AA CCOOPPYY OOFF AANNYY BBAACCKK IISSSSUUEE TTOODDAAYY ..

Documents

Force of Nature -- Quebec Prohibition -- 2008 10 24 -- NAFTA -- CELA -- McClenaghan -- Cooper -- T&R -- MODIFIED -- PDF -- 300 Dpi