Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watcgl!lrbartram From: lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) Newsgroups: can.general Subject: Re: Free Trade: Why is there no 'Plan B'? Message-ID: <6848@watcgl.waterloo.edu> Date: 18 Nov 88 16:47:45 GMT References: <410@telly.UUCP> <1826@pembina.UUCP> <6761@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <8811142039.AA19223@harbord.csri.toronto.edu> Reply-To: lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) Distribution: can Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 37 In article <8811142039.AA19223@harbord.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: >What inquiring minds want to know is, why is this stuff in can.general instead >of can.politics? I can get all the biased flame-throwing I want from the >Toronto Star or the Calgary Herald; if it's to be on this network too, let it >at least appear in the designated snakepit. Or at least, if it's to appear >in can.general, let the article not contain errors that *I* can correct. It strikes me, Jim, that *you* are the first person to indulge in biased flame throwing - at people who are expressing honest doubts, and more to the point, asking questions. You are right in one sense about the dispute settlement arrangement: the free trade agreement does provide a mechanism that establishes a panel not slanted to one country or another to settle disputes. Fine. However, the larger problem lies in the rights guaranteed to any citizen of the US by their constitution, which allows them to appeal *any* ruling affecting a US citizen in that country to the US Supreme Court. It is a point of concern to those aware of the ramifications of constitutional law that trade laws and agreements in the US do NOT fall outside the potential jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because of this basic constitutional guarantee. I say "potential", because civil laws in both countries depend heavily on precedent, and i do not know the precedents in the US in such matters (if indeed there are any yet). To be fair, one wonders how the Canadian negotiators could have gotten around this basic inequitable arrangement since of course the US constitutional provisions are inviolate. My own opinion (sorry, Jim, but i feel i have the right to put an opinion in this newsgroup :) ) is that they should have used this as a bargaining point and forced more concessions. My personal concern lies in the area of environmental protection. Even before the agreement is in place, American companies have already demanded a loosening of Canadian restrictions in two crucial areas: emissions and dumping. The agreement states that each country must accord the other's citizens/businesses equal treatment. I feel that the danger here is that we will have to let the Americans do here as they do there - dump and spew. Think of the ramifications in a case such as the Wabigoon-English River mercury poisoning case in northern Ontario. This would remove the legal restriction on such companies and force the poisoned to take it to litigation - which takes years, millions and lives.