What's new

Canadian government sells itself out to China

nahadef

Doing it for himself
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
777
Canada has been bending over backwards to China for going on twenty years, so at the very least, this news is not that surprising, but it is depressing.

While Canada has very strict guidelines for human rights, and what countries it will deal with in trade, it has ignored all of that for Chinese money, going out of its way to do trade missions, selling land to China, etc etc.

It's the current prime minister who's taking it to a new low, despite the anger of citizens. He hates the common people of Canada, and has always worked against them (anti-First Nations, anti-environment, anti-poor, anti-culture, all business). His party's rule is based on a 39% share of the vote, basically the Canadian equivalent of those who voted for Bush in the States.

So, he has made it so China can sue Canada in secret tribunals if any laws are passed that go against Chinese business.
http://www.newsweek.com/new-treaty-allows-china-sue-canada-change-its-laws-270751
The treaty goes into effect on October 1 and will last for 31 years, until 2045. It allows China to challenge Canadian laws it deems harmful to Chinese assets, and only requires the lawsuit be made public once an award is issued by a tribunal. Treaty law expert Gus Van Harten warns this could be problematic. “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," he told the Vancouver Observer. The treaty makes no limits on the damages that can be awarded.

The treaty also threatens treaty obligations Canada has with its First Nations regarding resources and commercial management. Paired with the terms allowing Chinese entities to buy anything they wish without foreign investment review, China will have access to and potentially be able to gain control of Canadian resources―including resources on First Nations’ lands, which Canada does not own.

The deal is almost impossible to undo. Even if Canadian courts decide the treaty is unconstitutional, China would have to agree to abandon the treaty, and analysts say this is unlikely since it is so heavily in China’s favor. Chinese investment in Canada is much larger than Canada’s investment in China. Chinese companies have invested more than $30 billion in Canada’s energy industry alone, while Canadian investment in all Chinese sectors totaled $4.2 billion in 2012.
China has money, so the government is selling out its people for them. It's appalling.

*other examples of the government kowtowing to Chinese interests from the recent past:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/maude-barlow/harper-china-oil_b_1263034.html
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/11/Chairman-Harper/
 

FinancialWar

Suspended
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
42
Have you read the treaty because jump to your anti China sentiment?

Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments

Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments

Reciprocal. It means Canada can sue China for the protection of their investment in China in the same tribunal. It's secret not because it's a secret organisation, but because the nature of the case with involves confidentiality, trade secret and national security of the two nations. Would America and UK disclose their dispute to the world? Stupid article.



Article 15
Disputes between the Contracting Parties
1. Any dispute between the Contracting Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall, as far as possible, be settled by consultation through diplomatic channels.
2. If a dispute cannot thus be settled within six months, it shall, upon the request of either Contracting Party, be submitted to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal.
3. Such tribunal shall be comprised of three arbitrators. Within two months from the date on which either Contracting Party receives the written notice requesting arbitration from the other Contracting Party, each Contracting Party shall appoint one arbitrator. Those two arbitrators shall jointly select a third arbitrator, who shall be a national of a third State which has diplomatic relations with both Contracting Parties. The third arbitrator shall be appointed by the two Contracting Parties as Chairman of the arbitral tribunal within two months from the date of appointment of the other two arbitrators.
4. If within the periods specified in paragraph 3 of this Article the necessary appointments have not been made, either Contracting Party may, in the absence of any other agreement, invite the President of the International Court of Justice to appoint any arbitrator who has or have not yet been appointed. If the President is a national of either Contracting Party or is otherwise prevented from discharging this function, the next most senior member of the International Court of Justice who is not a national of either Contracting Party shall be invited to make the necessary appointments.
5. The arbitral tribunal shall determine its own procedure.
6. The arbitral tribunal shall reach its decision by a majority of votes. The arbitral tribunal shall, upon the request of either Contracting Party, explain the reasons for its decision. Unless otherwise agreed, the arbitral tribunal shall make best efforts to render its decision within six months of the appointment of the Chairman in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.
7. Each Contracting Party shall bear the cost of its appointed arbitrator and of its representation in the arbitral proceedings. The relevant costs of the Chairman and the arbitral tribunal shall be borne in equal parts by the Contracting Parties.
8. The decision of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and binding on both Contracting Parties. The Contracting Parties shall, if necessary, within 60 days of the decision of an arbitral tribunal, meet and decide on the manner in which to resolve their dispute. That decision shall normally implement the decision of the arbitral tribunal. If the Contracting Parties fail to reach a decision, the Contracting Party bringing the dispute shall be entitled to receive compensation of equivalent value to the arbitral tribunalツ’s award.
 

nahadef

Doing it for himself
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
777
China has eight times as much money invested in Canada as vice versa. This is a pro-China business law. It's pretty obvious.
Chinese companies have invested more than $30 billion in Canada’s energy industry alone, while Canadian investment in all Chinese sectors totaled $4.2 billion in 2012.
It's not anti-Chinese sentiment, it's hypocrisy of Canadian politicians who sell out their constituents interests to support business. Money first. China has money.

Why would they need secret tribunals?

<edit> Why does an Australian care so much?
 

FinancialWar

Suspended
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
42
Chinese have more investment in Canada is simply because China has a large economy. Just like America would have a more FDI in Canada than Canada would in America. By your logic, NAFTA is a pro USA treaty.

That's like saying a property protection law is pro-rich people because they have more property, and because it's pro-rich, we should remove property protection law, otherwise the law-makers are kowtowing to the rich.

The treaty was made to safeguard FDI make both country in each other country, protecting each one's FDI, encourage more saving and investment, flow of fund, better use of saving. This is basic economic structure of globalism. At a microeconomic level, you would want your fund be protected too, not from stupid investment decisions, but from the AFI (authorised deposit taking institutions) from abusing your funds, right? Of course you do, that's why in Australia, the Corporations Act that grants organisations like ASIC enforce and prosecute AFI and it's subsidiaries from the wrongful use of your investments. FOFA has further strengthened ASIC's power.

The article does not even say anything about the selling of Canadian human right other than the possibility getting sue under the new agreement. It puts the treaty under the category as NAFTA.

Can you give me an example in a Chinese FTA where the other party's citizen is abused by it's government or China? Eg, are New Zealand citizen suffering a declining human right because of her FTA with China?

Maybe you want to live in North Korea where it part of no trade block or sign bilateral FTA, maybe you'll enjoy their human rights?
 

nahadef

Doing it for himself
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
777
Yes, you got it. Since I think it's better for a country to serve its own interests than a massive trading partner, I'd rather live in North Korea. You caught me.
 

Dotanbatan

先輩
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
319
Reaction score
61
I would be very worried if I was a Canadian.

Foreign investment is very important but when the treaty overrides a nation`s constitutional protections it is another thing altogether.


This is an interesting topic and after reading all the links on this thread and others articles I have come to the conclusion that there are very real risks for all Canadians and their land / environment.

This article sums up those risks perfectly for me:

Breaking Down the Harm to Canada Done by Treaty with China | The Tyee


I don`t want to join the China bashing bandwagon ... which is rolling along at a fine speed in Australia by the way; but this Canada/China investment treaty is a stinker.
 

nahadef

Doing it for himself
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
1,543
Reaction score
777
Yes, Dotanbatan, you got the gist of it. Business first, people second.
 
Top