FIPA bad for Canada?
Dear Editor,
In September 2012, Pime Minister Harper signed a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China, which has not been ratified by Parliament yet. Despite its far-reaching consequences for our economy, environment and public programs, most Canadians never heard about it, the government has refused any public debate or independent review on the subject.
As currently drafted, the proposed FIPA is bad for Canada. If it were ratified, for no less than 31 years Chinese investors would have more rights than our own businesses, and the ability of our governments to regulate on environmental, social and other important matters would be constrained.
Several Articles of FIPA raise serious concerns:
Chinese investors could ask for compensation ? to be paid by Canadian taxpayers ? by saying they incurred economic loss or damage as a result of federal, provincial, territorial or municipal laws, regulations or practices (Article 20.1).
Whereas Canadian businesses have to submit their claims to our courts, Chinese investors would submit them to arbitrators whose decisions would be final (Art. 15.8).
All the documents of the parties, as well as the hearings, could be kept secret from the Canadian public (Art. 28).
Chinese investors could allege that measures taken by any level of government in Canada to protect the environment, workplace health and safety or social programs are applied in an arbitrary manner or constitute a disguised restriction on international investment (Art. 33.2), or are simply not “necessary”(Art. 33.2 (a) and (b)).
Article 33.2(b) is particularly worrisome since it deals with [measures] “necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.” What is “necessary,” and hence the applicability of measures legislated by our elected representatives to protect Canadian workers, the general public and our land, water, air, forests, and wildlife, would be left to the interpretation of arbitrators who are not accountable to Canadian citizens. In a nutshell, the proposed FIPA would offer Chinese investors new possibilities to evade their legal responsibilities in Canada.
Contrary to our government’s claims, access to similar treatment for Canadian investors in China would not create an even playing field. First, FIPA would not apply to “existing non-conforming measures” (Art. 8.2), and China has more of those measures than Canada. Second, in Canada only the Investment Canada Act could be used to shield a decision from FIPA, while in China any “laws, regulations and rules relating to the regulation of foreign investment”, at any level of government, could be used to refuse a Canadian investment (Annex D.34).
If this deal is as good for Canada as the federal government claims, there is no reason to refuse a public debate or independent review on the subject. Yet, on October 25, 2012, the Conservative-dominated Standing Committee on International Trade voted down a motion to study the Canada-China FIPA. The country’s interest commands that Parliament does not ratify it and subjects it to public review. Greater public awareness could go a long way towards that end.
Sincerely,
Gilles Gamas
Hinton, Alberta
For more info: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/china-text-chine
Hot spring privatization harms middle class
Dear Editor,
After reading Jack Templeton’s Jan. 17 letter on hot springs privatization, I thought that some of his points needed further discussion.
Mr. Templeton pointed out that the hot springs are a drain on the public purse and taxpayers are funding them. I find it hard to believe that Jasper National Park needs a lot of taxpayer money when they bring in huge sums of money daily at the park gates during the summer months. These fees should cover the running of the park facilities so people get some value for their hard earned dollars.
Since our current government has been in charge, fees have risen and services have been reduced. I know of several families that no longer visit our parks because the fees are becoming too prohibitive.
One point made by Mr. Templeton about work apathy does not hold water in my view. If Parks privatize the hot springs, the good jobs will be lost to temporary workers that would be paid less. I don’t see where paying them less will make them care more. Our society in general needs good paying jobs, but our government today seems to prefer to let the businesses profit on the backs of the middle class. When we replace good paying jobs with lower paying jobs it affects all of us. The cost of living is rising rapidly and the middle class is losing more ground every day. Our government should be trying to give the middle class a bigger piece of the pie instead of taking it away.
Randy Daniels
Jasper, Alta.
