Postby Oscar » Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:19 am


----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Arney

Cc: Harper. Stephen ; Fast, Ed ; Nicholson, Rob ; Baird, John ; Kent, Peter ; Oliver, Joe ; Ashfield, Keith ; Mulcair, Thomas ; Julian, Peter ; Leslie, Megan ; Davies, Don ; Cullen, Nathan ; Davies, Libby ; Dewar, Paul ; Stoffer, Peter ; Rae, Bob ; Goodale, Ralph ; Garneau, Marc ; Trudeau, Justin ; Duncan, Kirsty ; May Elizabeth ; Garrison, Randall ; Crowder, Jean ; CBC ; ; CBC Ombudsman ; ctv ; CPAC ; The Ottawa Citizen ; Globe & Mail ; Toronto Star ; Island Tides ; Gulf Islands Driftwood ; The ; Paradis, Christian ; Charlton, Chris ; Quach, Anne Minh-Thu ; Clark, Christy ; Coleman, Rich ; Thomsom, Steve ; Dix, Adrian ; Horgan, John

Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:30 AM


[ ... eng&view=d ]

You asked for submissions prior to November 11th 2012. Here is mine dated 10th November 2012

Upon examination of the Harper Government Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website entitled: Final Environmental Assessment of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA)

There are some comments I feel I must make

1. Framework for Conducting Environmental Assessments of Trade Negotiations

An Initial EA of the Canada-China FIPA was completed in January 20082. The Government of Canada opened the Initial EA for public comments from February 20 to March 21, 2008. No public comments were received.

I didn’t hear anything about this at the time and therefore wonder if it was hidden in some obscure back page of the Gazette specifically so that it would not be noticed. I find it hard to believe that no-one had any comments to make on this subject at all. Of course at that time the government was creating the seeds for calling an early election so it would have been an excellent time to bury it in the Gazette.

b. Estimated Economic Impacts of the Canada-China FIPA

FIPA seeks to reduce the risk of investing in a foreign market; however, this type of government-to-government treaty cannot directly facilitate new investments or directly create new opportunities for investment. As such, it is not feasible to establish direct causal link between changes in investment patterns and the presence of a FIPA.

But wait a minute, we are constantly being told by the Prime Minister in the House during Oral Questions that his government wants to help Canadian corporations make money in China. How can he do that if he has a hands off approach?

c. Estimated Environmental Impacts of the Canada-China FIPA

As new flows of investment from China into Canada (or Canada into China) cannot be directly attributed to the presence of a FIPA, there can be no causal relationship found between the implementation of such a treaty and environmental impacts in Canada. It is for this reason that the claim made in the Initial EA, that no significant environmental impacts are expected based on the introduction of a Canada-China FIPA, is upheld. Regardless, as in all Canadian FIPAs, the Canada-China FIPA ensures that the Parties retain the ability to regulate in the public interest, including with respect to environmental issues. Moreover, the FIPA will not inhibit Canada’s ability to develop and implement environmental policies. All foreign investors in Canada are subject to the same laws and regulations as domestic investors, which includes laws aimed at protecting the environment.

This might make some sort of sense if the Harper government was not totally dismantling the Environmental Protection Acts in all their forms in Canada so that they will not be an impediment to Chinese companies. When looked at in this light it does make sense for the environmental assessments, fish habitat, navigable waters protection and so on and so on should all be repealed and abandoned.

III. Environment-Related Provisions in the Canada-China FIPA

Finally, and as is found in the model, Annex B.10 of the Canada-China FIPA provides that regulations designed and applied to advance legitimate public welfare objectives, such as those respecting health, safety and the environment, do not constitute an indirect expropriation.

Here again we have an attack on the healthcare system in Canada through reduced payments to the provinces once the Liberal government’s agreement on 10 years of guaranteed payments expires, not to mention the attacks on health food products also by Health Canada; safety is a dirty word as bridges and roads are crumbling and lakes, rivers and canals are turned into toxic messes in which fish can no longer survive and the water it too contaminated to drink, simply because they are not navigable (to large ships I think as canoes only need a few inches of water to float). Far from regulations in Canada being designed to “advance legitimate public welfare objectives” these regulations are designed to benefit the large corporations at the very expense of the health and safety of Canadians and the environment.

Canada-China Framework Statement for Cooperation on Environment into the 21st Century:

It appears that nearly all of this was negotiated by the Liberal Government and therefore the Reform/Alliance coalition Harper government will not feel bound by any of it. They feel free to destroy any previous laws simply to accommodate their corporate friends, so any MOUs from the Liberals will be caste aside as soon as expedient.

The result of all this is, I fear, one monstrous mess designed to hid the truth from Canadians and to settle on our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren a constant and ever increasing obedience to China and debt, through” lack of Chinese corporations’ profits” tribunal hearings against any measures taken by future governments of Canada to protect our land, resources environment or sovereignty.

I cannot endorse this FIPA with China any more than I can accept that the PRP is good for the Canadian people or that CETA will bring even one job to a Canadian in Canada. However, these are all very good for International and maybe some Canadian corporations which is the aim of this Harper Reform/Alliance regime.

These are some of my thoughts on the China-Canada FIPA in relation to the Environmental impacts, which I repeat I do not and will not support as I believe it is the surrender of Canada and Canadians to the corporate China, and by extension of NAFTA to the US as well.

Jeremy Arney
Past CAP candidate for SGI
#6, 2931 Craigowan Rd
Victoria BC V9B 1N1
Site Admin
Posts: 8248
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Return to FIPA - NOT really a Trade Agreement

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest