Fact Sheet: 7

Trade Rules

Author
Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability
Published
Ottawa, May 2007
Translation
Cette document est aussi disponible en Français

Through multilateral, regional and bilateral trade agreements, the Government of Canada has created unprecedented rights for the private sector. These new rights were first established in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The investor-state provisions found in Chapter 11 of NAFTA provide companies with the right to sue signatory governments if they take regulatory action that diminishes the company's expected earnings. Under this greatly expanded interpretation of expropriation, governments must compensate investors if they can demonstrate that their income will be adversely affected.

These provisions create stability for cross-border investors. They also create a regulatory chill, making governments reluctant to adopt legislation that provides greater environmental or social protections but that may require the private sector to incur additional costs. Governments fear that companies could challenge these regulatory provisions on the grounds that they diminish the profitability of their investments. If a corporation wins a Chapter 11 challenge, the taxpayers of the losing NAFTA nation must foot the bill. Chapter 11-style provisions have become standard in most bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, including the new Canada–Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Case Study

Glamis Gold in California

Glamis Imperial Corp., a subsidiary of Canadian-owned Glamis Gold Ltd., sought to dig three large pits for its proposed Imperial mining project in California. The pits were to be located near a spiritual trail sacred to the Quechua Indian Tribe.

In 2000, under the Clinton Administration, the U.S. Department of Interior issued new mining standards that protected the sacred sites. Glamis launched a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Reno, Nevada, to challenge the new standards.1 Ultimately, the Bush Administration reversed the Clinton policy, opening the door to mining in sacred sites.

In 2003, the State of California passed legislation that required metallic mining sites near sacred indigenous sites to be restored to pre-mining conditions through backfilling. Glamis argued that these requirements made its proposed mine economically unviable.2 Glamis invoked NAFTA's Chapter 11 to sue the U.S. Government, demanding reimbursement for land it purchased ($15 million) and for anticipated loss of profit ($35 million).3 The case continues.

In 2006, Canadian company Goldcorp Inc. acquired Glamis.4

Endnotes
  1. Glamis Gold Ltd. "News Release: Glamis Gold Lawsuit Challenges New Standards from U.S. Department of Interior on Imperial Project Permitting." April 14, 2000. Available online at http://web.archive.org/web/20010306155223/http://glamis.com/pressreleases/2000/apr14-00.pdf Back to text
  2. Friends of the Earth & Oxfam. "Glamis Gold: A Case Study of Investing in Destruction." 2004. Available online at http://web.archive.org/web/20040728184659/http://www.oxfamamerica.org/pdfs/glamis_en.pdf Back to text
  3. Glamis Gold Ltd. "Notice of Arbitration under NAFTA, Glamis Gold vs. The Government of the United States." December 9, 2003. Available online at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/27320.pdf Back to text
  4. Gray, John. "Gold handshake: Goldcorp's Glamis takeover." Canadian Business, September 11-24, 2006. Back to text
Next
Team Canada Trade Missions
Previous
Mining Code Reforms
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8