Harper signs off on FIPA

[White Out 403]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/new...orce-october-1


Saw this link in another thread and can't believe this isn't bigger news and being talked about more. Why would Canada agree to such a ridiculous thing? Allowing Chinese investors to sue us if the pipeline deal is interfered with?

Chinese companies can sue Canada

As FIPA comes into force, it would have a major impact on projects such as Enbridge Northern Gateway and potentially some LNG proposals. The deal would allow Chinese investors to sue British Columbia if it changed course on the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal.

"It is true that Chinese investors can sue Canada for any actions by the federal government or the B.C. government (or legislature or courts) relating to Chinese assets connected to the [Enbridge] Northern Gateway pipeline," Van Harten said.

"More troubling, there is no requirement in the treaty for the federal government to make public the fact of a Chinese investor's lawsuit against Canada until an award has been issued by a tribunal. This means that the federal government could settle the lawsuit, including by varying its conduct in a way that many Canadians would oppose, or by paying out public money before an award is issued, and we would never know."

Harper is entering Bush leave territory here for how much I dislike this guy. Or maybe I'm not seeing something.

[Hugh Jahrmes]

I've seen a handful of people on my Facebook news feed declaring Harper is guilty of treason and should be published to the full extent of the law.

Really makes you wonder what the hidden agenda is though, as well as what forces/influences were at play for this to not only happen, but also to almost fly under the radar.

[SebC]

If it's actually a clever way to get Northern Gateway through (something that I view as to be in Canada's national interest), then props to Harper!

I don't believe we couldn't actually rip it up if we wanted to though. What's China gonna do, start World War 3?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by SebC

If it's actually a clever way to get Northern Gateway through (something that I view as to be in Canada's national interest), then props to Harper!

I don't believe we couldn't actually rip it up if we wanted to though. What's China gonna do, start World War 3?

I think the Northern Gateway is just an example. Chinese investors will probably be able to sue our governments for anything that they have an investment in that doesn't go their way. We just gave away some of our sovereignty to a dictatorship.

It's probably set up like NAFTA, where a supposed third party can rule on disagreements. From what I've read we've lost every NAFTA dispute so far and I don't see that we'll have any better luck with China.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I don't know all of the particulars, but I would think that the Canadian or BC government would have to do something against the law, in order for an investor to win a lawsuit. Having an investment not go your way is not grounds. Still don't like it, unless Canadian companies have the same rights in China.

[Resolute 14]

I don't know the particulars either, but I do know that I would prefer to learn about them from a source far better than the Vancouver Observer.

[GGG]

It's set up so if China or Canada makes an investment in each other's country and then the government changes it's laws and that law change causes the investment to become worthless Canada or China becomes liable for the loss.

Efeectively it prohibits China from expropriating Canadian companies who have invested in China. It also gives Chinese businesses protection here if they build a billion dollar gas plant in kitamat and the gas pipeline that has been approved were to be canceled.

There was a really good radio show on the CBC a few weeks ago discussing it called 180. I thought they provided a pretty balanced view of the agreement rather than the fear mongering. I am still concerned with the length of the agreement and the lack of opt outs.

The fear mongering is like when Nafta came into force people said that it would result in a water pipeline being built from the ice fields to California with nothing canada could do about it. It didn't happen.

Edit: here is the link to the CBC program.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/The+180/ID/2523881705/

[nik-]

The problem is China doesn't really have to honour their end, and their practice of allowing foreign companies in, learning all their processes, stealing their IP and then cutting them out will probably continue. And what are we going to do about it ... cut off China? We don't even have the ability or infrastructure to manufacture half of the things we buy from China anymore. This isn't good for us.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I think the Northern Gateway is just an example. Chinese investors will probably be able to sue our governments for anything that they have an investment in that doesn't go their way. We just gave away some of our sovereignty to a dictatorship.

It's probably set up like NAFTA, where a supposed third party can rule on disagreements. From what I've read we've lost every NAFTA dispute so far and I don't see that we'll have any better luck with China.

I also oppose this even thouhg I don't actually know the details.
I'm just going to be upset about what I think is "Probalby" in it.

[MarchHare]

This article from the Financial Post is nearly two years old, but presumably the language contained within FIPA is unchanged since that time.

“There is nothing in this deal with China [the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement] that will protect Canadians there because they have not agreed to apply our laws there,” he said. “It’s quite unbelievable.”

In fact, the Tories, backed by a naïve Canadian Chamber of Commerce and a handful of big, conflicted business interests, have demonstrated the worst negotiating skills since Neville Chamberlain.

Ottawa capitulated to China on everything. The deal, using a hockey metaphor, allows only a select few to play on Team Canada on a small patch of ice in China and to be fouled, without remedies or referees. By contrast, Team China can play anywhere on Canadian ice, can appeal referee calls it dislikes and negotiate compensation for damages while in the penalty box behind closed doors.

The terms agreed to by Ottawa are unprecedented and would be laughed out of Britain, Brussels, Canberra or Washington. Beijing has negotiated a heads-I-win-tails-Canada-loses deal.

[...]

Opposition parties are screaming but they always do about trade deals. By contrast, I am a free enterpriser, a free trader, a small “c” conservative and an experienced business person and believe this agreement represents a naïve, shocking lapse in judgment.

There is not a single gain for Canada here whatsoever: No market access, no reciprocity, zero rights for our investors there. China Inc. gets everything.

Obviously, this deal would never have happened in Europe or the U.S. and Canadians must demand the same national protection. This deal must be overhauled or, better yet, shredded. The provincial governments must challenge this in the Supreme Court.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...too-one-sided/

[Regorium]

So according to the article in the OP, the deal is only unfair because Chinese investment into Canadian energy is 30B+, while Canadian investment into Chinese energy is only 4B. We both get the same terms and conditions, but because Chinese investment is 30B, they get 8x the benefit.

How is this, in any way, logical? Perhaps we should have negotiated reduced import tariffs or other parts of a free-trade agreement, but isn't this a good start? In fact, I would consider the likelihood of China seizing our 4B of Canadian assets much higher than Canada's policies affecting the 30B of Chinese assets, meaning FIPA would have a net benefit to Canada.

To me, this is standard baseless Harper hatred, or standard hating on O&G. Look at this somehow being brought up in the HK protests thread. So many people just have an agenda.

[FlamesAddiction]

My opposition to it might not be the most pragmatic (I don't claim to be an expert on trade agreements), but it stems from fact that China is simply not a friendly country and hasn't shown that they deserve the goodwill that such a deal requires. Aside from their own repulsive human rights record, they have shown themselves to oppose Canadian interests in the past on many other political levels.

If money was no object, we should be putting sanctions on China and isolating ourselves from them, and not making deals with them. But alas, money is the most extenuating of circumstances in this day. I don't even blame the Conservatives. I have no doubt that any other political party would have made the same deal because these days, China gets what they want from most countries not named USA or EU (and sometimes even then).

[Hemi-Cuda]

If the Liberal party doesn't take full advantage of this with "Harper is a traitor" campaign ads, then they're completely incompetent

[octothorp]

So, something I have not seen in all of this is an explanation from its opponents of why the environmental exemptions in the agreement aren't enough to give BC leeway to object to the NGP. I haven't read what those exemptions actually are so I don't know if they are effective or not, and I can't find a decent, impartial discussion of them. But in theory, as long as any BC legislation is legitimately targeting environmental concerns, it should hold up to an arbitrator. (And if it doesn't, it's going to be the federal government, not BC, that would be paying out, so there isn't much to prevent BC from continuing with its own strategy.)

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So, something I have not seen in all of this is an explanation from its opponents of why the environmental exemptions in the agreement aren't enough to give BC leeway to object to the NGP. I haven't read what those exemptions actually are so I don't know if they are effective or not, and I can't find a decent, impartial discussion of them. But in theory, as long as any BC legislation is legitimately targeting environmental concerns, it should hold up to an arbitrator. (And if it doesn't, it's going to be the federal government, not BC, that would be paying out, so there isn't much to prevent BC from continuing with its own strategy.)

Not only that, but how does this work when you bring division of powers into the equation, First Nations land claims, etc.?