 TransCanada formally seeks NAFTA damages in Keystone XL rejection TransCanada Corp. is formally requesting arbitration over U.S. President Barack Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, seeking $15 billion in damages.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Nice try but I doubt TCPL will win. Canada's status as doormat at the NAFTA dispute tribunal is pretty much set in .
FTFY
The whole thing is ridiculous. Governments shouldn't be obligated under turn law to automatically approve whatever plan a business puts before them. If the government wants to deny their proposal, that's their prerogative, right or wrong. The world we live in today.
The problem with all the free trade deals - they're there for the corporations, not the people.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Governments shouldn't be obligated under turn law to automatically approve whatever plan a business puts before them. If the government wants to deny their proposal, that's their prerogative, right or wrong. The world we live in today.
The problem with all the free trade deals - they're there for the corporations, not the people.
I've never understood why some critics get so frustrated at the antics of the "Court Party" who use court challenges to achieve legal changes that they can't persuade legislatures to adopt, saying that it leads to the courts intruding into areas that are supposed to be the legislature's responsibility...
...and yet they have no problem when these unelected, unaccountable trade lawyers are used by foreigners to achieve much the same thing, either by getting laws and actions struck down as detrimental to trade, or even just by threatening it.
The thing is that the courts and judges have their roles legitimized by the Constitution, and they also have important constitutional checks on their authority, most notably the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The ISDS panels have like this. No Constitutional mandate, and few if any formal limits on their scope or power.
Oh, and they provide foreigners with more legal avenues than we as citizens get in our own damn country.
If they feel they've been ripped off, foreigners should use the same damn court system as the rest of us. Smaller Canadian firms and individual citizens have to do it, so why shouldn't the foreigners have to do it too?
If they feel they've been ripped off, foreigners should use the same damn court system as the rest of us. Smaller Canadian firms and individual citizens have to do it, so why shouldn't the foreigners have to do it too?
Because that is what our politicians have committed us to. Hey, we get the same deal in return, so it's all good, right?
And, we are told, this is to the net benefit of our country. The losers, ie the undereducated, both in Britain and US/Canada, just have to suck it up for the good of their countries. Like they used to march off to war. Trump says he loves the undereducated, but if they do manage to elect him, I think they will be as surprised as the Brexit voters who woke up to find that Brexit wouldn't stop immigration after all.