FIPA - borderline treason

[na85]

Complete lock-in for 31 years with no exit clause, leaving Canadian businesses and taxpayers at the mercy of Chinese businesses who don't give a flying fuck about our economy or our environment. Chinese businesses to be given sovereign power over Canadian laws, in secret, behind closed doors.

Even were it to be found unconstitutional by SCOC, given that this is an international treaty, it would bear an enormous political cost to Canada if we were to unilaterally withdraw from FIPA.

Without a word of exaggeration, I have never been more appalled at the actions of our government in all my 29 years on this Earth.

Expert opinions against this treaty:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/02/canada-china-trade-deal-is-too-one-sided/

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/16/China-Investment-Treaty/

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/commentary/don%E2%80%99t-be-fooled-spin-canada-china-treaty

There can be no spin possible on this, even for the most ardent Harper supporters. This is treasonous.

[PrimeNumber]

I bet you won't find a single Canadian citizen that will support FIPA. You also won't see a single conservative supporter who will openly talk about how terrible a bill like this is for our country or how Harper literally just threw Canada under the bus with this, which I'm sure has personal gain for himself and the conservative party.

Germany's government vetoed our FTA with the European Union and publicly criticized us because it gave Canada a lot of these same rights in the European Union.
Harper hates the environment, you wouldn't expect him to do anything for it would you?

[waldo]

There can be no spin possible on this, even for the most ardent Harper supporters. This is treasonous.

in the 2012 'first go-around', MLW member 'jacee', attempted to raise questions/concern over this FIPA - here: It didn't get a lot of detailed discussion, went off the rails several times... but... there was spin from some of those most ardent Harper supporters, a few of who are still posting regularly today. I expect once someone writes them their updated talking points, they may be emboldened to appear in this thread.

China ratified it almost immediately; I had pretty much figured this FIPA agreement had died out given the absence of a Canadian ratification... that the heavy criticism put forward in 2012 was actually taken seriously by Harper Conservatives. And now, almost 2 years to the date of the original agreement signing, out of the Conservative blue, comes this ratification notice - here:

2 years to ratify... sat on for 2 years by Harper Conservatives... and now? Why now? What's changed? It was boldly trumpeted by Harper Conservatives as the most significant trading agreement for Canada since NAFTA... but went nowhere... until now, 2 years later.

everything done in secret ala the highly "transparent and accountable" Harper Conservatives. Like Harper said in 2006:

[Keepitsimple]

Former Liberal Cabinet Minister John Manley has become known as a pragmatic, balanced politician and business man. Here's his take on the China FIPA deal back in 2012 - it bears repeating as the same old myths re-appear:

A great deal has been said and written in recent days about the proposed Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, or FIPA for short. Unfortunately, the critics have gone overboard in their assessment of the deal. It’s time to dispel the myths and set the record straight.

Link: http://www.ceocouncil.ca/publication/we-need-not-fear-the-fipa

Edited September 14, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

Former Liberal Cabinet Minister John Manley has become known as a pragmatic, balanced politician and business man. Here's his take on the China FIPA deal back in 2012 - it bears repeating as the same old myths re-appear:

Link: http://www.ceocouncil.ca/publication/we-need-not-fear-the-fipa

I find him unconvincing. In particular, he assures us that Canadian investors in China will receive the same protection as domestic investors. This is in a country where law is whatever the local apparatchik says it is at any given point in time depending on how much money he has at stake. So in essence, the amount of protection is zilch.

He also says Canada can enact any laws it wants with respect to Chinese companies, and can refuse investment as before, but he says nothing about the possibility those companies can then sue the government and get compensation - in secret.

[PrimeNumber]

FIPA would let China’s companies sue Canada for unlimited damages if our governments make decisions that put Canada’s interests first. A FIPA with China, a nation that is soon to be the biggest economy in the world, with massive state owned companies that have countless billions to buy out Canadian resource companies for their own national interest, including their current aquisitions by PetroChina of massive shares of oil sands companies. which will lead to their total disregard of our environment here in Canada.

Why make ourselves vulnerable to that kind of risk?

Our experience with NAFTA has shown us that bigger countries have the advantage in these systems. Canada has lost every case brought against us by a US company, costing us millions of taxpayer dolars.

So what if this FIPA turns out to be a disaster? We can just get out of it, right? No, we can’t.

Unlike NAFTA, which we can leave with six months notice, FIPA will lock us into an international deal for 31 years.

We’re talking about an investor protection deal with the soon to be super power of the 21st century!

[-1=e^ipi]

See, foreign investment helps to create jobs and increases the physical capital in the country, thereby increasing Canada's GDP and making us better off.

Foreign investment is good, and I'd rather live in a country with good employment prospects than a country with poor employment prospects.

Not everyone agrees with protectionist BS and wants to implement protectionist policies that will make us poorer.

Fortunately, protectionists are not in power (well sort of, we still have the supply management BS in eggs, chicken, milk and other areas which is supported by all 3 political parties; too bad Martha Hall Findley didn't win the liberal leadership).

I bet you won't find a single Canadian citizen that will support FIPA.

I do.

Why make ourselves vulnerable to that kind of risk?

Our experience with NAFTA has shown us that bigger countries have the advantage in these systems.

Vulnerable to risk? Risk of what? Being better off due to more foreign investment?

Your understanding of the effects of NAFTA is not based on reality. NAFTA has been mutually beneficial for all 3 countries involved.

[Mighty AC]

I have some concerns about this deal. If it's so good for Canada why was it negotiated and signed secretly? Why would we allow Chinese companies to sue the Canadian government in secret trials? NAFTA could be cancelled by either nation with 6 months notice. If FIPA is so good for us why did China insist on a 31 year guarantee?

[-1=e^ipi]

I have some concerns about this deal. If it's so good for Canada why was it negotiated and signed secretly?

To speed up negotiations and make them easier to do. Would you rather waste tax payer money on never ending negotiations?

Why would we allow Chinese companies to sue the Canadian government in secret trials?

To guarantee that Chinese companies that invest in Canada have property rights. Foreign investors are less likely to invest if they think their is a good chance that their investments will be expropriated by the government.

If FIPA is so good for us why did China insist on a 31 year guarantee?

Probably to increase confidence in FIPA. Investors are less likely to invest if they think the agreement will suddenly end in 5 years.

Also, this is an investment agreement rather than a trade agreement like NAFTA. So the role of property rights is more important.

[waldo]

If FIPA is so good for us why did China insist on a 31 year guarantee?

as it's been mentioned a couple of times now, a point of clarification: the secretly negotiated agreement, sat on for 2 years by Harper Conservatives, now suddenly ratified out of the Conservative blue, can be wrapped up after 15 years, with a one-year notice; however, any agreements in place, must continue for another 15 years after notice is given.

[Mighty AC]

Yes, I am aware of that point, but it's still worth noting.

[Big Guy]

No matter what one thinks of Harper, he continues to do what he thinks is best for Canada. Any trade agreement must be beneficial to both parties if it has any merit. The benefits for China seem fairly obvious. What are the benefits for Canada? Why does Harper feel it is a good deal? I do not think he would have agreed to it if he did not think so.

[Bryan]

I wonder if the people who claim to be upset by the signing of this FIPA deal are even aware that previous prime ministers have signed us on to DOZENS of them.

[waldo]

I wonder if the people who claim to be upset by the signing of this FIPA deal are even aware that previous prime ministers have signed us on to DOZENS of them.

I wonder if people who continue to point at the previous number of FIPA agreements Canada has with other countries, as a defacto rationalization for any single agreement... and most pointedly, for this particular Canada-China FIPA, are even aware that no 2 agreements are the same - duh!

[Keepitsimple]

I have some concerns about this deal. If it's so good for Canada why was it negotiated and signed secretly? Why would we allow Chinese companies to sue the Canadian government in secret trials? NAFTA could be cancelled by either nation with 6 months notice. If FIPA is so good for us why did China insist on a 31 year guarantee?

Not true. After 15 years, either party can cancel with one year's notice. That's a pretty reasonable time period given the nature of international trade. A lot of large business deals take many years to complete so you want to make sure the political landscape is secure for the duration of those negotiations.

The Left - unions and academics among other usual suspects - polarize any debate by being fervent protectionist, anti-trade adherents. They swore that NAFTA would be the death of Canada as we know it - and are using the same rhetoric this time round. It's a Global economy - either get on board and get ahead - or die on the vine. Go back and read John Manley's critique of all the myths surrounding the China FIPA deal.

[Mighty AC]

Not true. After 15 years, either party can cancel with one year's notice. That's a pretty reasonable time period given the nature of international trade. A lot of large business deals take many years to complete so you want to make sure the political landscape is secure for the duration of those negotiations.

And after that 1 year notice, all deals enacted in the first 15 years can operate, as is, for an additional 15 years. Edited September 15, 2014 by Mighty AC

[waldo]

Go back and read John Manley's critique of all the myths surrounding the China FIPA deal.

is that the uhhhh... now lobbyist John Manley... that guy? Go back and read the OP links... just who is 'Gus Van Harten' to you, Simple? Oh, that's right... you simply dismiss him as a "usual suspect academic".

[Argus]

To guarantee that Chinese companies that invest in Canada have property rights. Foreign investors are less likely to invest if they think their is a good chance that their investments will be expropriated by the government.

This is spurious nonsense. Chinese companies already have property rights in Canada, just like anyone else. The government does not have the legal ability to simply take someone's investment away without compensation. On the other hand, there are no protections in place for Canadian companies investing in China and this does not appear to change that.

Probably to increase confidence in FIPA. Investors are less likely to invest if they think the agreement will suddenly end in 5 years.

That's nonsense, too. All our other trade agreements have the ability to terminate them early. Why not this one?

Also, this is an investment agreement rather than a trade agreement like NAFTA. So the role of property rights is more important.

This agreement appears to provide no protection whatsoever for Canadian firms investing in China. Why then should we provide extraordinary protection to Chinese government investments in Canada?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Not true. After 15 years, either party can cancel with one year's notice. That's a pretty reasonable time period given the nature of international trade. A lot of large business deals take many years to complete so you want to make sure the political landscape is secure for the duration of those negotiations.

The Left - unions and academics among other usual suspects - polarize any debate by being fervent protectionist, anti-trade adherents. They swore that NAFTA would be the death of Canada as we know it - and are using the same rhetoric this time round. It's a Global economy - either get on board and get ahead - or die on the vine. Go back and read John Manley's critique of all the myths surrounding the China FIPA deal.

*Academics. haha

We wouldn't want the best educated people in our society having a say on things, now would we? Those damn learned people.

[cybercoma]

This agreement appears to provide no protection whatsoever for Canadian firms investing in China. Why then should we provide extraordinary protection to Chinese government investments in Canada?

This is the thing. It's that these companies are not companies at all. They're the companies of the communist Chinese government, which routinely violates people's rights and has had absolutely no regard for foreign interests ever in its history. This isn't just another business deal with just another country.

[Keepitsimple]

*Academics. haha

We wouldn't want the best educated people in our society having a say on things, now would we? Those damn learned people.

I know I'm speaking in generalities - and we could probably have a separate thread on the topic......but the vast majority of academics/professors have never had a meaningful job in real-world Canada. They typically suffer from the "smartest person in the room" syndrome. That's why I take their views with a big grain of salt. They are so insulated from the real world that........well, lets just say they are not the best people to deal with many of society's issues.

Have you ever tried to debate an academic? In general, the arrogance and close-minded attitude is permeating. They are so used to their classroom professor persona that they can't help themselves. That said, I did meet one professor who actually seemed to keep an open mind to various topics - so it's not a blanket condemnation......and believe me, I've met a lot of them.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

ya ya, Simple... those non-real world academics are just so annoying to you! This thread gave you a chance to go beyond your "grain of salt"... to possibly debate that academic through your own interpretation of his writings criticizing the Canada-China FIPA... possibly taking on others acting as proxy substitutes for that "usual suspect academic" of yours! Reach a bit Simple; you might like it!

[cybercoma]

Have you ever tried to debate an academic? In general, the arrogance and close-minded attitude is permeating.

Many, many times and I find academics to be some of the most open-minded people as a whole. Sure there's some stubborn closed-minded one, but I would argue there's far less closed-minded academics than the general public. It is their job, after all, to learn and be open to new ideas and information. Typically they're stubborn and closed-minded when it comes to people who argue nonsense.

[overthere]

Typically they're stubborn and closed-minded when it comes to people who argue nonsense.

Except on certain subjects: tenure, their own compensation, and Israel. Then it gets real ugly.

[Mighty AC]

I wonder if Canada could now be sued in secret courts if we prevented the Northern Gateway pipeline.