7 ms·

It's pretty straightforward; from 2012-2015 the previous government, led by Stephen Harper (Prime Minister), and in partnership with Erin O'Toole (at the time P

by ygjb 6y ago

It's pretty straightforward; from 2012-2015 the previous government, led by Stephen Harper (Prime Minister), and in partnership with Erin O'Toole (at the time Parliamentary Secretary with oversight over International Trade) negotiated a trade agreement with China [1]. Under this treaty, if the Canadian government takes actions that damage or undermine Chinese investment in Canada, then Chinese companies can sue Canada in a tribunal that is separate from both Canadian and Chinese court systems; these tribunals have broad authority to mark the findings as confidential, keeping the rulings and outcomes, including financial penalties secret. The duration of the trade agreement is 31 years. If Trudeau and his Cabinet had endorsed this motion, it would have been a tacit attack on China, and grounds for Canada to be sued under this treaty, with virtually no defense. Naturally, Erin O'Toole (the current leader of the opposition party in Canada) is aware of this, and the easy political points he can score by attacking Trudeau for failing to support this policy, since he had a direct hand in promoting and passing the legislation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-China_Promotion_and_Reciprocal_Protection_of_Investments_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-China_Promotion_and_Rec...

dleslie 6y ago
I wish more Canadians were aware of this. It's easily the worst trade agreement we've signed in generations. Harper _really_ screwed us over.
1MachineElf 6y ago
Sounds like somewhat the TPP. I wonder what in the trade agreement made this a worthwhile compromise.
- dleslie 6y ago
  It basically ensured that Canada could do little to stymie resource exploitation projects that receive Chinese investment funds; this is a boon to Albertan/Saskatchewan oil companies, and BC coal companies.
CogitoCogito 6y ago
After reading that wiki article (i.e. not the actual treaty), it seems like any argument that Canada’s vote harms profitability of Chinese companies could be flipped around just as effectively. China’s restrictions harm Canadian media companies. So I don’t see why Canada should be all that worried about passing this law. I think it’s more likely just straight politics as usual. Trudeau might very well have done the same thing without the restrictions of the treaty.
- ygjb 6y ago
  Here[1] is an article that illustrates how much China has invested in Canada. In contrast, Canada has invested very little. Canada has a great deal to lose by provoking China, and due to foreign policy implications in the United States under their previous administration, Canada was basically pushed into apprehending the CFO of Huawei. That went over well in China. There is no doubt that there is a political motivation for doing this, but in particular this treaty presents a specific extra-judicial legal jeopardy for any government at any level in Canada for taking action against China. [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/as-geopolitical-tensions-rise-chinese-investment-into-canada-continues-to-fall-data-show https://nationalpost.com/news/as-geopolitical-tensions-rise-...
- fiona_kingfluff 6y ago
  Also from the wiki article: "Corporations from either country can sue if the country in which they have their operations has public policies even those intended on protecting the environment, health, or safety that the corporation says "interferes with the corporation’s profitability".[10]:23[5] Canada's risk of such lawsuits is much greater than China's, since "China's foreign direct investment in Canada is much higher than Canada's in China."[5] By 2015, Chinese foreign direct investment in Canada in 2015 was roughly three times the amount of Canadian investment in China."
abledon 6y ago
Wow, that is nasty, and the article makes no mention of this? Is there a page on the canadian government website that details this agreement with china?
- dleslie 6y ago
  https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/china-chine/fipa-apie/index.aspx?lang=eng https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreeme...
jcranmer 6y ago
Quickly reading the treaty itself (you can too at https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/china-chine/fipa-apie/index.aspx?lang=eng https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreeme...), I see this bit in 33(5)(c): > Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed [...] to prevent a Contracting Party from taking action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security. Labeling an act as genocide and taking measures against China as a result of it would fall under that clause, so any Chinese investors who would sue would be out of luck.
- dleslie 6y ago
  The tribunals are outside of the scope of the normal Canadian justice system and can act entirely in secret; there's no guarantee, really, that they can be counted on to agree that such a declaration is within the scope of that clause. We Canadians might not ever know how they ruled, if they ruled at all, and how much it cost us in total.
  - monkeybutton 6y ago
    To me, an average citizen, this sounds absolutely insane. Why is there a need for such secrecy? How does that benefit us?
    - ygjb 6y ago
      It generally doesn't. As an example of what kind of things might be kept secret, take a look at the history of softwood lumber disputes and aluminum disputes between Canada and the United States.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    Again, reading the treaty quickly, I don't see any mention that the tribunals "can act entirely in secret." Actually, to the contrary, Article 28 does lay out: > Where, after consulting with a disputing investor, a disputing Contracting Party determines that it is in the public interest to do so and notifies the Tribunal of that determination, hearings held under this Part shall be open to the public. In other words, the tribunals are really no less secret than any other regular court case.
macspoofing 6y ago
That still doesn't explain why Liberal MPs voted for the resolution. Presumably Trudeau could have prevented them from voting, or forced abstention.
- vkou 6y ago
  Because it would have still passed, and they'd look bad in the press.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  How would be prevent them from voting or force them to abstain? He doesn't have the power to do that. Also, back-bench MPs speak on behalf of their constituencies more than on behalf of the government.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >He doesn't have the power to do that. He's the party leader. He can force his will.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      You cannot force an MP to vote in any particular way. You can only retaliate afterward.
      - refurb 6y ago
        If I threaten to kick you off a committee and you change your vote as a consequence I just forced you to vote a certain way.
      - shitgoose 6y ago
        They can't force an MP to vote in a particular way, but they can fire them, like O'Tool (leader of CA Conservative party) recently fired Poilievre and Sloan, or Ford (ON PC) fired Roman Baber for dissent.
andrepd 6y ago
> Under this treaty, if the Canadian government takes actions that damage or undermine Chinese investment in Canada, then Chinese companies can sue Canada in a tribunal that is separate from both Canadian and Chinese court systems; these tribunals have broad authority to mark the findings as confidential, keeping the rulings and outcomes, including financial penalties secret. And people still think they live in democracies.
cannabis_sam 6y ago
This is pretty much the essence of international “free” trade agreements...

by ygjb 6y ago

dleslie 6y ago

I wish more Canadians were aware of this. It's easily the worst trade agreement we've signed in generations. Harper _really_ screwed us over.

1MachineElf 6y ago

Sounds like somewhat the TPP. I wonder what in the trade agreement made this a worthwhile compromise.

dleslie 6y ago
It basically ensured that Canada could do little to stymie resource exploitation projects that receive Chinese investment funds; this is a boon to Albertan/Saskatchewan oil companies, and BC coal companies.

CogitoCogito 6y ago

After reading that wiki article (i.e. not the actual treaty), it seems like any argument that Canada’s vote harms profitability of Chinese companies could be flipped around just as effectively. China’s restrictions harm Canadian media companies. So I don’t see why Canada should be all that worried about passing this law. I think it’s more likely just straight politics as usual. Trudeau might very well have done the same thing without the restrictions of the treaty.

ygjb 6y ago
Here[1] is an article that illustrates how much China has invested in Canada. In contrast, Canada has invested very little. Canada has a great deal to lose by provoking China, and due to foreign policy implications in the United States under their previous administration, Canada was basically pushed into apprehending the CFO of Huawei. That went over well in China. There is no doubt that there is a political motivation for doing this, but in particular this treaty presents a specific extra-judicial legal jeopardy for any government at any level in Canada for taking action against China. [1] https://nationalpost.com/news/as-geopolitical-tensions-rise-chinese-investment-into-canada-continues-to-fall-data-show https://nationalpost.com/news/as-geopolitical-tensions-rise-...
fiona_kingfluff 6y ago
Also from the wiki article: "Corporations from either country can sue if the country in which they have their operations has public policies even those intended on protecting the environment, health, or safety that the corporation says "interferes with the corporation’s profitability".[10]:23[5] Canada's risk of such lawsuits is much greater than China's, since "China's foreign direct investment in Canada is much higher than Canada's in China."[5] By 2015, Chinese foreign direct investment in Canada in 2015 was roughly three times the amount of Canadian investment in China."

abledon 6y ago

Wow, that is nasty, and the article makes no mention of this? Is there a page on the canadian government website that details this agreement with china?

dleslie 6y ago
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/china-chine/fipa-apie/index.aspx?lang=eng https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreeme...

jcranmer 6y ago

Quickly reading the treaty itself (you can too at https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/china-chine/fipa-apie/index.aspx?lang=eng https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreeme...), I see this bit in 33(5)(c): > Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed [...] to prevent a Contracting Party from taking action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security. Labeling an act as genocide and taking measures against China as a result of it would fall under that clause, so any Chinese investors who would sue would be out of luck.

dleslie 6y ago
The tribunals are outside of the scope of the normal Canadian justice system and can act entirely in secret; there's no guarantee, really, that they can be counted on to agree that such a declaration is within the scope of that clause. We Canadians might not ever know how they ruled, if they ruled at all, and how much it cost us in total.
- monkeybutton 6y ago
  To me, an average citizen, this sounds absolutely insane. Why is there a need for such secrecy? How does that benefit us?
  - ygjb 6y ago
    It generally doesn't. As an example of what kind of things might be kept secret, take a look at the history of softwood lumber disputes and aluminum disputes between Canada and the United States.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Again, reading the treaty quickly, I don't see any mention that the tribunals "can act entirely in secret." Actually, to the contrary, Article 28 does lay out: > Where, after consulting with a disputing investor, a disputing Contracting Party determines that it is in the public interest to do so and notifies the Tribunal of that determination, hearings held under this Part shall be open to the public. In other words, the tribunals are really no less secret than any other regular court case.

macspoofing 6y ago

That still doesn't explain why Liberal MPs voted for the resolution. Presumably Trudeau could have prevented them from voting, or forced abstention.

vkou 6y ago
Because it would have still passed, and they'd look bad in the press.
chrisseaton 6y ago
How would be prevent them from voting or force them to abstain? He doesn't have the power to do that. Also, back-bench MPs speak on behalf of their constituencies more than on behalf of the government.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >He doesn't have the power to do that. He's the party leader. He can force his will.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    You cannot force an MP to vote in any particular way. You can only retaliate afterward.
    - refurb 6y ago
      If I threaten to kick you off a committee and you change your vote as a consequence I just forced you to vote a certain way.
    - shitgoose 6y ago
      They can't force an MP to vote in a particular way, but they can fire them, like O'Tool (leader of CA Conservative party) recently fired Poilievre and Sloan, or Ford (ON PC) fired Roman Baber for dissent.

andrepd 6y ago

> Under this treaty, if the Canadian government takes actions that damage or undermine Chinese investment in Canada, then Chinese companies can sue Canada in a tribunal that is separate from both Canadian and Chinese court systems; these tribunals have broad authority to mark the findings as confidential, keeping the rulings and outcomes, including financial penalties secret. And people still think they live in democracies.

cannabis_sam 6y ago

This is pretty much the essence of international “free” trade agreements...