The overall effects of such a step would collapse the Canadian economy. NAFTA's energy provisions cover just 12 out of a total of over 2000 pages.
So while it is possible in theory, it's not in practice. The signees were well aware of this. That's probably why they chose to leave it in.
Another effect of NAFTA is the facilitation for US investors to purchase and hold Canadian assets. Hence, abrogation would mean endless litigation with potentially devastating financial penalties.
The only feasible step would seem to be a separate renegotiation of the energy part of NAFTA. But the first demands the US would bring to the table, if it were to agree to negotiations, would be a long list of extremely expensive ones.
The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement provides insights into what can be expected to result from NAFTA. The evisceration of Canada's National Energy Board (NEB) due to the U.S.-Canada trade deal encapsulates NAFTA's broad reach. After examining a number of natural gas projects being developed by several U.S. companies, the NEB determined the projects would provide no net benefit to Canada and rejected the companies' applications for export licenses. The companies appealed the ruling, arguing that the NEB's cost-benefit analysis was, in effect, a price test that violated the free- market intent of the Free Trade Agreement. In the end, the NEB conceded that its cost/benefit analysis might violate the Free Trade Agreement, and, rather than risking potential arbitration, it backed down.
Dillon explains in an upcoming book entitled The Political Economy of North American Free Trade that before the deregulatory measures of the free trade agreement were implemented, "the NEB applied a 'surplus test' requiring that minimum supplies of nonrenewable hydrocarbons be available for Canadians before sanctioning exports. However, under [the trade agreement] the NEB has been reduced to a monitoring agency with limited ability to restrict exports."
NAFTA is a commerical accord that Canada can legally abrogate with 6 months notice. Anyone who asserts that Canada will be forced to continue to ship NatGas to the US while her citizens freeze to death - is an absolute and utter moron.
Roel may envision a thriving Canadian economy without heat in our homes but I most certainly do not.
As for the NEB...
The posted example of the NEB giving up on a cost/benefit argument in a time of surplus is a strawman.
In truth, no one really knows how the above will play out, however, we have a few years left to ponder the consequences or better yet, lay the groundwork for a neighborly agreement that will see Canadians share - as they always have.
So while it is possible in theory, it's not in practice. The signees were well aware of this. That's probably why they chose to leave it in.
Another effect of NAFTA is the facilitation for US investors to purchase and hold Canadian assets. Hence, abrogation would mean endless litigation with potentially devastating financial penalties.
The only feasible step would seem to be a separate renegotiation of the energy part of NAFTA. But the first demands the US would bring to the table, if it were to agree to negotiations, would be a long list of extremely expensive ones.
From
Resource Imperialism
Energy Policy under NAFTA
by David Lapp
NAFTA is a commerical accord that Canada can legally abrogate with 6 months notice. Anyone who asserts that Canada will be forced to continue to ship NatGas to the US while her citizens freeze to death - is an absolute and utter moron.
Roel may envision a thriving Canadian economy without heat in our homes but I most certainly do not.
As for the NEB...
The posted example of the NEB giving up on a cost/benefit argument in a time of surplus is a strawman.
In truth, no one really knows how the above will play out, however, we have a few years left to ponder the consequences or better yet, lay the groundwork for a neighborly agreement that will see Canadians share - as they always have.