Path: utzoo!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley
From: soley@ontenv.UUCP (Norman S. Soley)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Free Trade: Why is there no 'Plan B'?
Message-ID: <288@ontenv.UUCP>
Date: 19 Nov 88 14:44:43 GMT
References: <410@telly.UUCP> <1826@pembina.UUCP> <6761@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <22267@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Distribution: can
Organization: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto
Lines: 50

In article <22267@watmath.waterloo.edu>, twltims@watmath.waterloo.edu (Tracy Tims) writes:
> In article <6848@watcgl.waterloo.edu> lrbartram@watcgl.waterloo.edu (lyn bartram) writes:
> >	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.
> 
>As far as I can tell (I've read the FTA), there is nothing in it that says
>that we have to allow U.S. companies to behave as they do in the United States.
>What we have to do (more or less) is allow U.S. companies to behave exactly
>as we would allow Canadian companies behave.  There are however, a number
>of articles which require the eventual harmonization of U.S. and Canadian
>standards on a wide range of issues, including pesticide certification and
>testing, and other environmental issues.  The articles do not say HOW the
>harmonization should take place, nor does it give deadlines or penalties.
> 
>The risk lies in the pressure U.S. interests will be able to bring to bear
>through their economic links.

An even greater risk is the pressure Canadian companies will be able
to exert against environmental controls. Take for example the recent
situation with Kimberly Clark in Marathon. The Ontario Ministry slaps
them with a control order to stop direct discharges to Lake Superior
within a set period, they go to the preimier and say "revoke the order
or we close the plant, Marathon become a ghost town", for a change the
Government did'nt back down, although they did agree to subsidize the
capital costs of the treatment plant. Under free trade relocation to
the US would become a third option for such companies. And our subsidy
of the waste treatment facilities could result in countervailing
duties. 

Also consider the MISA program (MISA stands for Municipal Industiral
Strategy for Abatement) when it comes on line, (the first phase begins
in January) it will be the toughest environmental legislation in the
world (in it's area, it applies only to direct dumping to rivers and
lakes). The pressure from forces saying, it's too tough, we can't
compete will be immense, and what company in it's right mind would
build new facilites when they can do it across the border for much
less cost in treatment facilites.



-- 
Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment
UUCP:	uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley	VOICE:	+1 416 323 2623
OR:     soley@ontenv.UUCP 
  " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want"