One of the issues that was frequently raised in the last round of town hall meetings I held with constituents in January 2013 was the threat of the Canada–China Investment Treaty. As of right now, the treaty has still not been ratified. While this is very good news, the treaty could be ratified at any time by a decision of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. If ratified, the treaty would be binding on Canada and on future Canadian governments for a minimum of 31 years.
Meanwhile, there have been a number of interesting developments in countries around the world related to this type of treaty, often called a Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (FIPA). Australia recently undertook a cost-benefit study of investment treaties, which showed that these treaties create far greater costs than benefits. Since this study, Australia has taken a new and strong position: they have decided not to enter into any new FIPAs.
I am writing this newsletter in response to the large number of my constituents who have asked for more information on these types of treaties, and I hope you find this information helpful and will share it with others.
- What is an Investor-State Agreement?
- Is an Investor-State Agreement necessary to pursue trade?
- Why is the Canada-China Investment Treaty worse than NAFTA Chapter 11?
- What happened under Chapter 11 of NAFTA??
- Are these cases taken to court?
- In the House of Commons – Hearings on the Canada-China Investment Treaty
- In the House of Commons – How did Benin get better terms than Canada?
- Your opinion matters!