An excerpt from the above linked-to article (by Elizabeth May?) follows:
Ever since September 2012, when news of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Hu Jintao of China witnessing the signing of the Canada-China Investment Agreement in Vladivostok Russia, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has been raising the alarm about the threat to our sovereignty, implicit in any such agreement.
Tabled in the House of Commons on September 26, 2012, quietly and without any briefings or news release, the treaty was never subjected to study in any committee, other than one hour before the trade committee. Ratification involves a vote of Cabinet, not Parliament…
Elisabeth May went on to say, “Once ratified, the Canada-China Investment Agreement will bind Canada, including future governments, for a minimum of 31 years. Unlike NAFTA, with an exit clause of 6 months’ notice, this agreement, also called a FIPA (Foreign Investor Protection Agreement) cannot be exited for the first 15 years. After 15 years, either country can exit on one year’s notice, but any existing investments are further protected for another 15 years. Despite some claims by other politicians that the treaty could be voided by a future government, that is not the case.”
“The only way to exit the treaty would be through negotiations with China in which the government in Beijing agrees. Unilateral withdrawal would trigger a multi-billion dollar claim by the Peoples Republic of China against Canada, with damages open to collection in one hundred countries around the world.”
“Cabinet’s signing of this deal behind closed doors, instead of giving Parliament a say, is not just undemocratic in itself,” added Deputy Leader Bruce Hyer. “It is also a profound attack of Canada’s sovereignty as a nation, and an erosion of the rights of all Canadians to make democratic decisions about our economy, environment, and energy. The Conservatives have now allowed for secret tribunals that will work to re-write our laws in order to protect Chinese interests.”
Green Party Elizabeth May concluded by saying, “This agreement will permit state-owned enterprises (SOEs) of the Peoples Republic of China to bring claims for damages against Canada for decisions taken at municipal, provincial or federal levels if those SOEs believe the decisions will harm their profits.”
My (typo-corrected) online response to the above linked-to article follows:
My view of the matter is that there could be more to this than the clear insanity on display. There may be in this move, a method by which the US can bolster any argument for invading Canada in order to protect it’s own national security. (The US is exceptional and above all laws and can do this sort of thing. Russia can’t.) The invasion I’m envisioning will [be] along the lines of assistance to the Canadian military in dealing with ‘terrorists’ and radicals who are sabotaging tar sands operations and pipelines and fracking operations. If oil is at the core of the US’s national security doctrine, then so is Canada, which is providing a lot of it, free of – it is to be desired – the kind of trouble that attends taking oil from ‘hostile’ people elsewhere.
It probably won’t be Harper who invites the US in (and Will the US depend on such an invitation?), but that doesn’t matter. Harper is setting things up. And China may be getting set up. As for it’s egregious hacking of a Canadian agency, That could just be that state’s bad behavior on display. But we don’t know. How did it happen? Were they tricked into doing it so that one day, the US could point to it as an example of how it’s presence, through Canada as a proxy, is an unacceptable threat, along with the terrorists (First Nations, enviros, landowners, concerned citizens, etc) sabotaging tar sands operations and pipelines, to it’s national security?