[Sust-mar] ACTION ALERT: Reject corporate sabotage in Canada-China investment treaty

[David Wimberly]

*ACTION ALERT: Reject corporate sabotage in the Canada-China investment 
treaty*

September 28, 2012

The Harper government has quietly tabled in Parliament a Foreign 
Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China. But Parliament 
will have no opportunity to debate it before it comes into force next 
month, giving Chinese firms in Canada the right to challenge public 
health, environmental and other policies before unaccountable corporate 
tribunals. We need to write our MPs today to let them know the FIPA with 
China should be rejected outright. At the very least, we deserve a 
democratic debate and chance to make amendments to the treaty.

*What is a FIPA?*

The Canada-China FIPA, or bilateral investment treaty, is cut from 
NAFTA's elaborate cloth of excessive investment protections, with some 
modifications. These corporate rights pacts, for lack of a better term, 
allow companies to sue governments when they feel wrong done by from any 
number of public policies, including public health or environmental 
measures.

Canada is already the sixth most sued country in the world under this 
investor-rights regime and has paid out $165 million in awards and 
settlements to foreign investors. Yet the Harper government continues to 
sign FIPAs and put investor-state dispute settlement into free trade 
deals, including the proposed Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement.

*Let the oil profits flow freely*

The FIPA with China will notably allow Chinese energy companies, once 
they are established in Canada, to threaten the federal, provincial or 
territorial governments against imposing environmental rules on tar 
sands production, pipeline construction and other projects. Delays or 
denials on energy and mining investments could result in costly lawsuits 
outside Canada's courts, which will be settled by unaccountable private 
arbitrators with a vested interest in the outcome. Canadian firms would 
have the same rights to frustrate public policy in China. It's a corrupt 
process to begin with, made more so by the lack of transparency in this 
particular investment treaty.

It is inevitable that Chinese firms will use these corporate rights to 
frustrate public policies affecting their profit opportunities. For 
example, U.S. firms Exxon Mobil and Murphy Oil had no qualms about suing 
Canada under NAFTA because they did not like having to transfer a 
portion of their profits into research and development in Newfoundland 
and Labrador. A private NAFTA tribunal just this year ruled against the 
R&D measures. Canada is on the hook for another $65 million, most of 
that to be paid to 2011's richest company in the world (Exxon).

*FIPA and the Nexen takeover by CNOOC*

You would think Parliament should have a chance to debate these kinds of 
corporate sabotage pacts before they become law, especially as the 
Harper government considers selling nadian energy firm Nexen to the 
Chinese state-owned CNOOC. You'd be wrong. Unlike past free trade and 
investment agreements, the Prime Minister is not setting aside any time 
for Parliament or any parliamentary committee to study the FIPA. This is 
completely unacceptable given the threats this and other investment 
pacts pose to democracy in Canada.

*Australian approach -- Investors should protect themselves*

Last year, the Australian government, faced with the threat of 
investor-state challenges to public health measures related to 
cigarettes and environmental regulations on coal-fired plants, decided 
it would not negotiate FIPA-like protections into its trade deals. If 
companies wanted to invest abroad, they should take out insurance 
instead of dumping the financial risks onto the Australian public. When 
companies invested in Australia, they should have no greater rights than 
local companies whose disputes with government policies must go through 
national courts.

*TAKE ACTION -- Demand parliamentary hearings into the Canada-China FIPA!*

Send a short note to your Member of Parliament today saying you demand, 
at the very least, a fair parliamentary hearing into the Canada-China 
FIPA. Ideally, Canada should tear up the corporate rights pact and any 
others it has signed with other countries. It should follow Australia's 
lead by not negotiating investor-state dispute systems into trade deals 
like the proposed Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade 
Agreement and, eventually, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

Find your MP's contact information 
here:http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC 


*For more information on the FIPA with China:*

1.Text of the FIPA: 
http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/china-text-chine.aspx?lang=en&view=d 


2.Council of Canadians press release (September 27): 
http://canadians.org/media/trade/2012/27-Sep-12.html

3.Canada-China investment: Big risk in the fine print, Macleans magazine 
(September 27): 
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/27/canada-china-investment-big-risk-in-the-fine-print/ 


4.Tories quietly table Canada-China investment treaty, The Globe and 
Mail (September 28): 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-quietly-table-canada-china-investment-treaty/article4573635/?cmpid=rss1 


*SAMPLE LETTER*

/Dear [YOUR MP HERE],/

/I am opposed to the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and 
Protection Agreement. These investment agreements are nothing but 
corporate rights pacts that put public policy at risk of costly, 
secretive lawsuits. They undermine basic notions of democracy. Canada 
has already paid out over $165 million in awards or settlements with 
foreign investors under NAFTA's investor-state dispute settlement 
system. It was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now./

/Last year, faced with the threat of investor-state challenges to public 
health measures related to cigarettes and environmental regulations on 
coal-fired plants, Australia decided it would not negotiate FIPA-like 
protections into its trade deals. If companies wanted to invest abroad, 
they should take out insurance instead of dumping the financial risks 
onto the Australian public. When companies invested in Australia, they 
should have no greater rights than local companies whose disputes with 
government policy must go through national courts./

/I urge you to support the Australian government's approach to 
investment protection, and to discontinue the policy of including 
investor-state dispute settlement in trade deals or standalone treaties 
like this FIPA with China. At the very least, Parliament should have the 
opportunity to debate and make changes to the treaty, or to eventually 
reject it if MPs determine it is not in Canada's best interests. The 
Chinese government may deny their people basic democratic rights. We 
would be sinking to that level by quickly bringing this treaty into 
force as the Prime Minister is proposing./

/I look forward to your response./

/Sincerely,/

/[YOUR NAME] /


Thanks and good luck!*
Stuart Trew*
Trade Campaigner, Council of Canadians
www.canadians.org/trade <http://www.canadians.org/trade>
Twitter @StuJT
_______________________________________________

ACTIVlist mailing list
Unsubscribe or update your profile here: 
http://lists.canadians.org/mailman/options/activlist
_______________________________________________




-------------- next part --------------
__________________________________________________
Questions? Email arthurcaldicott at sqwalk.com