6 GOLDEN GATE UNIV. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW J. [Vol. 7 nt and apter tionsal ds in storsshed, ts of vestor adians, and intent a werful ars of al by-es on ly for s also by-law was r in a wereuébec continued to lead the effort against cosmetic pesticide use, passing legislation banning cosmetic pesticide use in 2003 that targeted certain overall concerns with NAFTA’s Chapter 11 dealing with Investmethe Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. First, Ch11 grants foreign “investors”—that is foreign-based corporaoperating in Canada—wide-reaching, quasi-constitutional commercirights.
Second, despite health and environmental safeguar NAFTA’s preamble and Chapter 11 itself, the rights granted to invewould be interpreted and applied by internationally establicommercially focused tribunals. Therein, additional key aspecChapter 11 would be applied that provide for over-arching inrights. Moreover, these tribunals would operate outside of the Can judicial system’s existing public-interest and procedural safeguardcould therefore allow bias in favour of foreign investors over the of both domestic law and public aspirations for legal reform.
Concurrent with the NAFTA debate during the early 1990s,unique step was taken in a small Québec town spawning a pograssroots movement across Canada. In 1991, following several yecitizen-led actions seeking reductions in pesticide use, a municiplaw passed by Hudson, Québec, banned the cosmetic use of pesticid private property. The term “cosmetic” refers to pesticide use solethe purpose of influencing the appearance of lawns or gardens. It ireferred to as non-essential or unnecessary use. The Hudsonchallenged in
Spraytech v. Hudson
, which culminated ten years latelandmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling upholding the by-law.
decision, dozens of Hudson-style by-laws passed across Canada limiting the cosmetic use of pesticides.
26,65 (1996); A
39(1997); Michelle Swenarchuk,
Stomping on the Earth: Trade, Trade Law, and C Ecological Footprints
, 5 B
.L.J. 197, 198-99 (1998).
, Samrat Ganguly, Note,
The Investor-State Dispute Mechanism (ISDM Sovereign's Power To Protect Public Health
, 38 C
L. 113, 115-22 (19
) and a
Canadian Constitutionalism and Sovereignty After
, David Schneider
, 5 C
.F.93, 94-98 (1994); Charles E. Reasons,
NAFTA and Inequality: A C Perspective
, 5 C
.F.72, 74 (1994); Swenarchuk,
note 2, at 201, 208-14;
Michael W. Dunleavy,
The Limits of Free Trade: Sovereignty, Environmental Protection and NAFTA
, 51 U.T
. 204, 235-39 (1993).
114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town),  2 S.C.R. 241 (Can.).
(Dec. 31, 2010),
Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 7, Iss. 1 , Art. 4