The document discusses concerns about the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). Key concerns include: - FIPA allows foreign corporations to sue governments in private tribunals over policies that reduce profits, threatening environmental and other public interest regulations. - The agreement locks Canada into the deal for 31 years with little ability to terminate or change terms. - It may discourage progressive legislation due to threat of expensive lawsuits, and influence policymaking away from evidence-based decisions. - Canada has paid out over $170 million under similar agreements so far, and costs could be much higher under FIPA.

1. >Aredesignedto
givereciprocal
protectionsfor
investorsoperating
inoneanothers
countries.
>Allowclaims to be
settled by
unelected, private
arbitrators in
offshore
tribunals
>Give foreign
companiesthe
right to claim
damagesiflaws
arepassthatharm
corporateprofits
Unlike NAFTA, which we can
leave with six months notice,
the FIPA treaty has a 15-year
minimum term, requires one
year's notice prior to
termination, and adds another
15-years of treaty coverage for
assets that are Chinese-owned
at the time of termination. This
FIPA would lock us in for
Under NAFTA’s Chapter
11, Lone Pine Resources
brought an arbitration
against Quebec when the
province declared a
moratorium on new
fracking projects. Citizens’
choice— to take the time
to study fracking carefully
—may cost Quebec
taxpayers
Stephen Harper signed the Canada China FIPA agreement in Vladivostok, Russia. Cabinet
could have ratified it as early as November 2012. The fact that it has still not been
ratified indicates that there are concerns within the Conservative Party about the
wisdom of signing on to this deal.
"When I wake up at
night and think about
arbitration, it never
ceases to amaze me
that sovereign
states have agreed to
investment arbitration at all
... Three private individuals are entrusted
with the power to review, without any
restriction or appeal procedure, all actions
of the government, all decisions of the
courts, and all laws and regulations
emanating from parliament."
— Juan Fernández-Armesto, arbitrator from Spain.
A slow-down or policy shift in the oil sands or in infrastructure such as the Northern
Gateway Pipeline could trigger billions of dollars in claims . These damages would be
payable to Chinese State Owned Enterprises by Canadian taxpayers.
CANADA-CHINA
FEDERAL
INVESTMENT
PROTECTION &
PROMOTION
AGREEMENT
FIPA=
A FIPA IS AN
INVESTOR-STATE TREATY.
THESE TYPES OF AGREMENTS:
CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY:
“The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion
and Protection Agreement (FIPA) has profound
implications for Canadian labour law,
environmental regulations and democratic
standards.” GUS VAN HARTEN, OSGOODE LAW SCHOOL
In the Canada-China treaty, Canada reserved a right for the federal
government to keep trade arbitration documents secret if our government
deems it not "in the public interest" to do so.
There is a concern that FIPA could have a chilling effect on legislators’ ability to
pass progressive legislation. The knowledge that a law could potentially trigger
millions or billions of dollars in lawsuits could have an influence on legislators’
decision making, even if legislation is evidence-based, sound, and popular.
In August 2013, the federal judge ruled in favour of
Canada and ordered the Hupacasath to pay
$100,000 to cover the federal governments court
costs. Most of those costs were for the expert
testimony of an investment trade lawyer whose
testimony was coloured by the fact that his career
is dependent on investor-state arbitration
arrangements. Investment trade lawyers typically
make between $1,000 to $2,000 an hour. The
Hupacasath are currently appealing the ruling at the
Supreme Court with support from crowdfunding
through Lead Now and the Council of Canadians.
In June 2013, the Hupacasath First Nation took the Federal Government to court
over the failure to consult First Nations on matters that would affect their
sovereignty over their traditional territories.
Brenda Sayers has led the
Hupacasath campaign, which has
attracted support from the
Council of Canadians, the
Federation of BC Indian Chiefs,
West Coast Environmental Law,
Lead Now, UNIFOR, and the BC
Teachers Federation.
As land stewards with a bold plan to achieve sustainability
in energy, forestry, and mining sectors in their Port Alberni
territory, the Hupacasath are concerned that decisions
they take to direct the pace and scale of development
could trigger lawsuits by Chinese investors.
In June 2013, the Hupacasath First Nation took the Federal Government to court
over the failure to consult First Nations on matters that would affect their
sovereignty over their traditional territories.
Also under NAFTA Chapter 11, Eli Lilly plans to
take Canada to a NAFTA arbitration panel. The
pharmaceutical company is asking for
$500 million after Canadian courts
invalidated two of its
drug patents.
Canada has paid out
$170 million in compensation
under NAFTA to date.
Even though Australia
does not have an
investor-state treaty
with China, they lead
the globe in Chinese
investment.
NO:
AUSTRALIA RECENTLY UNDERTOOK A COST-BENEFIT STUDY OF
INVESTMENT TREATIES, WHICH SHOWED THAT THESE TREATIES CREATE FAR
GREATER COSTS THAN BENEFITS. SINCE THIEN,
THEY HAVE DECIDED NOT TO ENTER INTO ANY NEW FIPAS.
CONCERNS ABOUT DEMOCRACY:
CONCERNS ABOUT ECONOMIC IMPACTS:
CONCERNS ABOUT DURATION:
Though FIPAs are meant to be reciprocal, Canadian investors have never won compensation in any of
their 16 known lawsuits against the U.S. or other countries under NAFTA and FIPAs.
THE CANADIAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
$250 MILLION
NAFTA-RELATED CONCERNS:
Is an Investor-State Agreement necessary to pursue trade?
CONCERNS ABOUT NECESSITY:
31 YEARS
28% OF OIL SANDS INVESTMENT IS CHINESE
Concerned?
:
If you are concerned about the FIPA, and have friends, colleagues, and relatives in
other ridings across the country who can collect signatures and write letters, please
go to this link to download a pdf Petition and Letter Writing Kit.
MPs pay attention when their constituents phone, write, and present them with
petitions. Let’s keep FIPA, and the concerns citizens have about the deal, as part of
the conversation in the House of Commons.
{{
It is important to bring this issue to a wide variety of ridings so that MPs of all
parties hear their constituents’ positions on FIPA.
Only 25 signatures are needed on a petition before a constituent can
request that it be presented in the House of Commons.
http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/FIPAPetition