Skip to main content

International Business Ottawa to pay $17.3-million to Exxon, Murphy Oil for Nfld. trade violation

In the decision in favour of Exxon Mobil and Murphy, the panel found that a research-spending rule established by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board contravenes the trade pact.

Federal-provincial relations are being tested on the free-trade front once again with the awarding of $17.3-million in damages to two U.S. oil companies over a requirement they spend research money in Newfoundland and Labrador.

A tribunal at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) recently decided on the amount to be awarded to Exxon Mobil Corp., the largest oil company in the United States, and Murphy Oil Corp., almost three years after a NAFTA panel ruled against Ottawa.

The amount is considerably less than the more than $60-million the companies were claiming. But it is another decision putting Ottawa on the hook for international trade-related payments to be made as a result of actions taken by provincial governments.

Story continues below advertisement

In 2010, the federal government had to pay AbitibiBowater, now known as Resolute Forest Products, $130-million to settle a NAFTA complaint after former premier Danny Williams's decision to expropriate the company's mill in the province.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at the time he intended to "create a mechanism" under which Ottawa could reclaim money it was forced to pay because provincial actions violated the North American free-trade agreement.

"Ottawa and the provinces need to get together to resolve this issue so that it doesn't continue to be a problem in the future," Toronto trade lawyer Lawrence Herman said.

"It's a political issue rather than a legal one, it seems to me, and requires Ottawa and the provinces to settle it amongst themselves."

In the decision in favour of Exxon Mobil and Murphy, the panel found that a research-spending rule established by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board contravenes the trade pact.

The companies challenged the rule after changes were made to it in 2004 requiring them to make additional research and development expenditures in the province related to their Hibernia and Terra Nova offshore oil projects.

The 2004 toughening up of the rule was based on the conclusion that the companies were not meeting their R&D commitments, said Scott Sinclair, senior research fellow at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Story continues below advertisement

As in the AbitibiBowater case, Newfoundland refuses to foot the bill for the payment ruling. It has also stated it has no intention of changing the offshore petroleum research spending rules.

And Ottawa could be held accountable for more payments: Exxon Mobil has filed a second claim with ICSID for the 2012-2014 time frame, company spokeswoman Margot Bruce-O'Connell said.

Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade spokesman John Babcock said in an e-mail message the AbitibiBowater and Exxon Mobil cases are "2 different matters, each assessed on a case by case basis, based on individual facts" but that Ottawa is "considering all options" for decisions arising strictly from provincial policy or legislation.

Over the past 20 years, of the $175-million awarded under Chapter 11 of NAFTA to protect foreign investors' interests, "the vast majority was from one case (AbitibiBowater)," Mr. Babcock said.

With files from reporter Shawn McCarthy in Ottawa

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter