[PEN-L:360] Camp Blasts Government on NAFTA, MAI (fwd)

[michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Forwarded message:
Delivered-To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Sid Shniad <shniad@xxxxxx>
Subject: Camp Blasts Government on NAFTA, MAI (fwd)
To: ccpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 15:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-UID: 1092

> Toronto Star
> July 29, 1998
>
> In September, 1996, Canada's Minister of the Environment, Sergio Marchi,
> spoke on third reading of Bill C-29, otherwise known as the
> Manganese-Based Fuel Additive Act. The bill would prohibit the use of
> the additive MMT in gasoline produced in Canadian refineries. The
> minister said the additive was a hazard to the public health and to the
> environment. In addition, the minister pointed out, automobile
> manufacturers believed the substance ``damaged emissions control
> equipment'' installed in their cars and trucks in order to monitor fuel
> performance, producing a reduction in harmful tail-pipe pollutants.<P>
>
> <!--LEADIN END-->
>
>  Parliament approved Bill C-29. It was a lot like motherhood: MMT, a
> product of the Ethyl Corp. of Virginia, had been banned in Europe and in
> California. Almost every major U.S. petroleum producer, the minister
> said, had indicated support for the decision by the U.S. Environmental
> Protection Agency to forbid MMT being marketed as a gasoline additive.
> One-third of the American market uses a reformulated gasoline, refined
> for areas with acute air pollution problems. The use of MMT as an
> additive is prohibited in these areas. <P>
>
>
>  Early in 1991, the present Prime Minister, then Leader of the
> Opposition, was urging the Mulroney government to ban the use of MMT,
> which he called ``an insidious neurotoxin.'' <P>
>
>  In a letter to a Tory government minister, Jean Chr&eacute;tien wrote:
> ``Some of our leading neurotoxic scientists, as well as studies and
> documents from medical schools and universities, in addition to other
> institutions, outline in detail the truly horrific effects that allowing
> the continued use of this neurotoxin could have on the Canadian
> people.'' Five years later, the Chr&eacute;tien government would
> introduce, and Parliament would pass, Bill C-29, banning the
> transportation or importation of MMT. <P>
>
>  Ethyl Corp. then launched a $347 million lawsuit against the government
> of Canada. The government served notice it would contest the suit. It
> didn't. Last week it settled ``out of court,'' so to speak, killing its
> own bill, paying Ethyl Corp. nearly $20 million and providing a written
> letter of apology. In return, Ethyl dropped its suit. <P>
>
>  This is called free trade. <P>
>
>  The North American Free Trade Agreement, in Chapter 11, allows private
> corporations to sue sovereign member nations. In this example, it
> allowed Ethyl to sue the government of Canada. Such suits are not
> brought before Canadian courts but before a panel of three members, one
> of whom is appointed by Canada, another by the United States and a third
> chosen by mutual agreement. In the event Canada would fail to appoint
> its member, the World Bank would do so; the bank would also appoint the
> third member of the panel should the two countries involved not agree on
> a nominee. <P>
>
>  The decision of the panel cannot be appealed and all its procedures and
> arguments are conducted privately. Some believe Canada settled with
> Ethyl last week because it did not think it could win its case before a
> NAFTA panel. <P>
>
>  A California company in the waste disposal business recently acquired a
> site for a toxic waste dump in one of the states in Mexico, another of
> our NAFTA partners. The local citizens demonstrated against the
> corporation, forcing it to shut the site down. The corporation has
> brought a $97 million Chapter 11 suit against the government of Mexico.
> Guess who'll win? <P>
>
>  So that we understand this bizarre episode in our own history: A
> government bill approved by the Parliament of Canada has been vetoed by
> Ethyl Corp. of Virginia. This is the substance of the matter. What is
> not of substance is whether MMT poisons the air, destroys catalytic
> converters, is harmful to children, older people, and those suffering
> from respiratory ailments, or frightens the horses - or whether it
> doesn't. The Canadian government and Parliament, whether certain,
> uncertain, or indifferent, has the sovereign power to pass whatever laws
> it wishes. At least, that had been the case. <P>
>
>  When we come to think of it, the Canadian Parliament also voted in
> favour of NAFTA. In doing so, it cut off its own head. Which brings to
> mind John Crosbie, the then minister who sponsored the free trade
> agreement before Parliament and who admitted he hadn't read it all. It
> was a laugh; honourable members hadn't read it either. So, what the
> hell, free trade promised cheaper imports, more exports, a stronger
> dollar, and 500,000 new jobs. And in the long run, it may prove to be a
> good thing for Canadians. Still, something has surely been lost. We are
> not as free as we used to be. Ask Ethyl. <P>
>
>  We must now remind ourselves to read the fine print in the proposed
> Multilateral Agreement on Investment, after it emerges from the shadows
> where it fled after its brief appearance last year. MAI would allow
> private corporations to sue any government of the 29 nations in the
> Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Canada
> included, for real or imagined injury to their businesses caused by any
> law, past, present or future. <P>
>
>  My morning paper - the national edition - has celebrated Ethyl's win
> over Canada's Parliament. It advised those ambitious Tories running for
> the leadership to climb on the bandwagon while there's still room. It
> would not be my advice. I suggest the Tories review the Ethyl travesty,
> bone up on the MAI, and remember their honoured past. Chances of the
> party doing so are, I fear, slight - about as likely as Ethyl suing the
> state of California. <P>
>



--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx