U.S. firm sues Canada for $10.5 billion over water
Our case stems from the Sunbelt Water Inc case and this article was published about it and tells Sunbelts story, in a nutshell, but there are some major errors in this article, which I will point out in red. Also, this was written by the globalist run, Canada Broadcasting Corporation, and required those errors (lies) to make it look like the government was correct. It was useful for my purposes.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-firm-sues-canada-for-10-5-billion-over-water-1.180821
CBC News · Posted: Oct 22, 1999 9:44 PM ET | Last Updated: July 9, 2015
Sun Belt Water Inc. of California is suing Canada for $10.5 billion US, the Canadian foreign ministry said Friday.
The suit has been filed under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Sun Belt says it has been "mistreated" by the B.C. government. [The mistreatment had nothing to do with the banning of bulk water. It had to do with treating the Canadian company different than the American company by not settling with them as promised, a NAFTA violation.]
The clash over exporting water goes back to 1993, when Sun Belt and Snowcap Waters Ltd., a Canadian partner, sued the B.C. government for banning bulk water exports to California. Snowcap Waters agreed to a settlement of $335,000 (Cdn).
Sun Belt did not settle with the province. [Sun Belt was asked to wait until a provincial election was over and then the BC government would settle with them too. But after the election, an anti-American Premier, Glen Clark, was elected, and they told Sun Belt to "take us to court" where the court then requested
Security for Costs from Sun Belt, in order to proceed!! Knowing they could not win in the BC courts, Sun Belt refused to pay the
Security for Costs and seeing they were "being treated differently then the Canadian partner," a violation under NAFTA, they took their claim to NAFTA in Ottawa]
The company says the B.C. government's banning of water exports from the province violates the terms and conditions of NAFTA. [Sun Belt may have said this, but this statement had nothing to do with the NAFTA claim. The NAFTA claim arose after BC treated a foreign company differently than a Canadian company, a violation of NAFTA.
The BC government said they would settle with Sun Belt too, and Sun Belt wanted to settle, just like Snowcap, but BC told them, after BC had paid out Snowcap and the election was over, to "take us to court"!!! A foreign company being treated differently from a Canadian company was the assault that constituted a violation, NOT the banning of water exports]
The lawsuit has upset environmentalists who are angry that companies wanting to make money exporting water are using NAFTA to override environmental laws. [The environmentalists should have gone after Western Canada Water who paid politically to get the contract from Santa Barbara and water would have been sold as Western Canada Water had many politicians, bureaucrats, and other HIGH PROFILE Canadians and other nationalities from around the WORLD investing in it. This is an excuse in an attempt to cover up the real reason Sun Belt was stonewalled.]
Ottawa has 90 days to examine the Sun Belt lawsuit. [The time period is immaterial and is an attempt to confuse and sideline the REAL reason Sun Belt was not able to proceed, which was because Canada did not comply with the NAFTA guidelines and produce their documents as required in the "transparency" regulations of NAFTA.]
In a related development, at a hearing Thursday night in Montreal, groups concerned about exports of bulk water demanded the International Joint Commission include this recommendation when it reports to Ottawa and Washington early in the new year.
The IJC is the group appointed by the Canada and U.S. governments to manage the countries' shared water.
The problem with NAFTA's Chapter 11 is that it allows water to be regarded simply as a good or product that can be sold or traded between countries. If a country stops its export, the company proposing the commercial use could sue for compensation. [This has no context in relation to why Sun Belt used Chapter 11 against Canada. This article is a fine example of FAKE NEWS!]
Notes in red are the explanation of the editor of Water War Crimes!
Our case stems from the Sunbelt Water Inc case and this article was published about it and tells Sunbelts story, in a nutshell, but there are some major errors in this article, which I will point out in red. Also, this was written by the globalist run, Canada Broadcasting Corporation, and required those errors (lies) to make it look like the government was correct. It was useful for my purposes.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/u-s-firm-sues-canada-for-10-5-billion-over-water-1.180821
CBC News · Posted: Oct 22, 1999 9:44 PM ET | Last Updated: July 9, 2015
- UPDATED: Since this story was first published, the federal government has posted a status update [page taken down by government] on the case on the Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development website stating that despite the initial notice of intent to submit a claim for arbitration, a valid claim was not filed [because after Sun Belt submitted it's required documents under the transparency provision of NAFTA, the government refused to submit theirs] and no Chapter 11 arbitration occurred. [It could NOT occur due to Sun Belts lawyer NOT RECEIVING Canada's required documents, in return. THIS WAS WHERE THE STONEWALLING occurred. This was the very reason Sun Belt could not continue on and "file a claim", no required mutual transparency was received and the government stonewalled them from then on. The government had all of Sun Belts documents and knew Sun Belt was a slam dunk case, and refused to budge when they were required to submit their documents. The reason it was a slam dunk case, is BC ADMITTED LIABILITY AND PAID OUT SNOWCAP'S CLAIM but refused to deal with Sun Belt and told them to "take us to court". The American company was treated differently than the Canadian company, a NAFTA violation.]
- There has been no financial settlement either, according to the government. [The NAFTA tribunal could not continue any further without mutual transparency, and because they were being stonewalled by Ottawa. The BC government DID admit liability over not allowing the Joint Venture Company to ship water, and paid Snowcap and after asking Sun Belt to wait to settle until after the provincial election, then told Sun Belt to "take us to court".]
Sun Belt Water Inc. of California is suing Canada for $10.5 billion US, the Canadian foreign ministry said Friday.
The suit has been filed under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Sun Belt says it has been "mistreated" by the B.C. government. [The mistreatment had nothing to do with the banning of bulk water. It had to do with treating the Canadian company different than the American company by not settling with them as promised, a NAFTA violation.]
The clash over exporting water goes back to 1993, when Sun Belt and Snowcap Waters Ltd., a Canadian partner, sued the B.C. government for banning bulk water exports to California. Snowcap Waters agreed to a settlement of $335,000 (Cdn).
Sun Belt did not settle with the province. [Sun Belt was asked to wait until a provincial election was over and then the BC government would settle with them too. But after the election, an anti-American Premier, Glen Clark, was elected, and they told Sun Belt to "take us to court" where the court then requested
Security for Costs from Sun Belt, in order to proceed!! Knowing they could not win in the BC courts, Sun Belt refused to pay the
Security for Costs and seeing they were "being treated differently then the Canadian partner," a violation under NAFTA, they took their claim to NAFTA in Ottawa]
The company says the B.C. government's banning of water exports from the province violates the terms and conditions of NAFTA. [Sun Belt may have said this, but this statement had nothing to do with the NAFTA claim. The NAFTA claim arose after BC treated a foreign company differently than a Canadian company, a violation of NAFTA.
The BC government said they would settle with Sun Belt too, and Sun Belt wanted to settle, just like Snowcap, but BC told them, after BC had paid out Snowcap and the election was over, to "take us to court"!!! A foreign company being treated differently from a Canadian company was the assault that constituted a violation, NOT the banning of water exports]
The lawsuit has upset environmentalists who are angry that companies wanting to make money exporting water are using NAFTA to override environmental laws. [The environmentalists should have gone after Western Canada Water who paid politically to get the contract from Santa Barbara and water would have been sold as Western Canada Water had many politicians, bureaucrats, and other HIGH PROFILE Canadians and other nationalities from around the WORLD investing in it. This is an excuse in an attempt to cover up the real reason Sun Belt was stonewalled.]
Ottawa has 90 days to examine the Sun Belt lawsuit. [The time period is immaterial and is an attempt to confuse and sideline the REAL reason Sun Belt was not able to proceed, which was because Canada did not comply with the NAFTA guidelines and produce their documents as required in the "transparency" regulations of NAFTA.]
In a related development, at a hearing Thursday night in Montreal, groups concerned about exports of bulk water demanded the International Joint Commission include this recommendation when it reports to Ottawa and Washington early in the new year.
The IJC is the group appointed by the Canada and U.S. governments to manage the countries' shared water.
The problem with NAFTA's Chapter 11 is that it allows water to be regarded simply as a good or product that can be sold or traded between countries. If a country stops its export, the company proposing the commercial use could sue for compensation. [This has no context in relation to why Sun Belt used Chapter 11 against Canada. This article is a fine example of FAKE NEWS!]
Notes in red are the explanation of the editor of Water War Crimes!
|
|
|
|
