Topic
Love The Tyee? We need your support. Become a Tyee Builder for as little as $5/month.
Toronto-based authority urges PM to halt ratification, laying out numerous 'deep' concerns.
Osgoode law professor Gus Van Harten: 'Deeply concerned about implications for Canada of the Canada-China investment treaty.'
Who needs democracy? Secret treaty is a massive giveaway of Canadian resources and rights with no vote in Parliament.
Pollution, bribes, more. Nikiforuk pries open the record of China's oil giant, business partner for Northern Gateway pipeline.
[Editor's note: Gus Van Harten, a global authority on investment trade deals and international arbitration panels, has written a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper urging a full public review of a highly controversial investment and promotion treaty with China, the world's second largest economy. We publish that letter below.
The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) has profound implications for Canadian labour law, environmental regulations and democratic standards. If enacted by Nov. 1, the trade promotion deal will give unprecedented powers to China's state owned enterprises (SOEs) that are now investing billions in Canada's natural resources. The 41-year-old Osgoode law professor not only teaches investment law but is also the author of Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2007). Unlike most experts in the field of investment trade deals, Harten makes no income from the lucrative legal work of international trade arbitration. Investment trade lawyers typically make between $1,000 to $2,000 an hour.
Neither the prime minister nor anyone on his behalf had responded to Van Harten's letter as of 4:30 p.m. eastern time, Tuesday, Oct. 16.]
Oct. 12, 2012
Dear Prime Minister Harper and Minister Fast,
I am an expert in investment treaties. As a Canadian, I am deeply concerned about the implications for Canada of the Canada-China investment treaty. As I understand, the treaty is slated for ratification by your government on or about Oct. 31. I hope you will reconsider this course of action for these reasons.
1. The legal consequences of the treaty will be irreversible by any Canadian court, legislature or other decision-maker for 31 years after the treaty is given effect. The treaty has a 15-year minimum term, requires one year's notice prior to termination, and adds another 15-years of treaty coverage for assets that are Chinese-owned at the time of termination. By contrast, NAFTA for example can be terminated on six months notice.
2. Other investment treaties (aka FIPAs) signed by Canada have a similar duration and, in this respect, are exceptional among modern treaties. Yet none put Canada primarily in the capital-importing position. As such, the Canada-China treaty effectively concedes legislative and judicial elements of our sovereignty in a way that other FIPAs do not. Chinese asset-owners in Canada will be able, at their option, to challenge Canadian legislative, executive, or judicial decisions outside of the Canadian legal system and Canadian courts.
3. To elaborate, the treaty will likely be largely de facto non-reciprocal due to anticipated in-flows of Chinese investment to Canada outstripping Canadian investment in China. The deal gives Cadillac legal status to Canadian investors in China and vice versa. Yet Canada will be much more exposed to claims and corresponding constraints as a result of the de facto non-reciprocity. Two awards of a billion dollars-plus, and many over $100 million, have been issued against countries to date under these treaties, with more likely on the way. The awards are immune from judicial review, largely or entirely, and are often extra-territorial, depending on how the investor's lawyers frame the claim.
4. Usually, the capital-importing position under these treaties is occupied by a developing or transition economy. Under the Canada-China treaty it is occupied by Canada. This poses a serious fiscal risk. Notably, to sue under the treaty, a Chinese company requires only a minority share in any Canadian enterprise or other asset in Canada. Based on interpretations by arbitrators in numerous cases, a Chinese investor could obtain, or may already have obtained, ownership in Canadian assets via a holding company in a secrecy jurisdiction such as the Cayman Islands, without losing its right to sue under the Canada-China treaty. What steps have you taken to ensure that there is not now and will not be in future Chinese-ownership of assets of which the government is unaware?
5. The only comparator for Canada in terms of fiscal risk is NAFTA. Canada has been sued about 30 times under NAFTA Chapter 11 although many cases were minor. Canada has paid out around $170 million in compensation in four cases to date. Other countries have been ordered to pay much more. Our biggest loss apparently came last May in a claim by Mobil Oil/ Murphy Oil involving R&D expenditure requirements in the Hibernia and Terra Nova projects. To my knowledge, a damages award has not yet been issued in that case although Canada was found by the arbitrators to have violated NAFTA. The decision reportedly undermined Canada's standard approach to reservations in investment treaties with potential implications for the Canada-China treaty. It is not possible to confirm this because your government has not released the Mobil/ Murphy award against Canada in spite of your commitment to openness in these arbitrations. Would you please send me a copy of this award?
6. This heightens my concern that you have, in the Canada-China treaty, retained the right of the federal government not to release documents filed in Chinese investor lawsuits against Canada under the treaty if the government deems it not "in the public interest" to do so. This is not consistent with longstanding Canadian government policy to make such documents, and the arbitration hearings, public as a matter of course. If you intend to release the documents in any event, then why have you retained the right not to do so in the treaty? Other Canadian FIPAs state very clearly that all of the documents will be made public.
7. In terms of the fiscal risks, the Canada-China treaty goes beyond NAFTA in important respects and probably increases Canada's exposure to lawsuits under NAFTA itself, on a non-reciprocal basis. Under NAFTA, the fiscal risk is contained by carve-outs of existing state and provincial measures from various NAFTA disciplines. The Canada-China treaty goes beyond NAFTA by extending a ban on performance requirements to existing provincial measures, including legislation. This ban will extend to Canadian provincial treatment of U.S.-owned, as well as Chinese-owned, assets due to the most-favoured-nation requirement under NAFTA. However, Canadian investors in the U.S. will not receive reciprocal treatment in relation to U.S. state measures. This will likely frustrate the ability of any federal or provincial government to ensure that value-added benefits of resource exploitation in Canada accrue reasonably to Canadians. Have you analyzed the risk-benefit comprehensively in light of all existing provincial measures?
8. Other legal protections that will be extended to Chinese investors under the treaty involve topics of expropriation and fair and equitable treatment, among others. These concepts sound straightforward but arbitrators in many cases have taken them in unanticipated and investor-friendly directions by requiring public compensation for foreign firms whose "legitimate expectations" were not met by a government or who were denied a "stable regulatory framework" over the lifespan of an investment. These arbitrator-made disciplines are far- reaching because they may preclude any changes to legislation that affect negatively a Chinese investor, without taxpayer compensation to the investor for its business losses. The possibility of the arbitrators reading such requirements into the Canada-China treaty adds to the fiscal risk and illustrates the concession of sovereignty under the treaty. So-called "stabilization clauses" are usually found in investment contracts signed with governments in developing countries, not treaties agreed by Canada.
9. The arbitration process itself is a long story. Briefly, it does a lot for the lawyers and arbitrators in the field, for investors from major capital-exporters (here, China or the U.S.), and for major multinationals able to entangle governments in never-ending legal contests of attrition, especially in the resource sector. Philip Morris has used these mechanisms to attack, for example, anti-tobacco measures in Australia and Uruguay. On the other hand, the arbitration process does little for, and may harm, anyone else. Above all, the process is not judicial in the manner of domestic or international courts and thus not reliably independent.
10. Canadian investors have never won compensation in any of their 16 known lawsuits against the U.S. and other countries under NAFTA and FIPAs. I have not heard this mentioned by Canadian lawyers and arbitrators who champion these treaties. It may be that Canadian companies have benefited by their ability to pressure governments to settle disputes in cases that are not public, but if so this reaffirms the danger that Chinese investors will pressure governments in Canada to back away from laws or regulations without public knowledge.
11. Because the arbitrators under the Canada-China treaty operate outside of the authority of the Canadian legal system and Canadian courts, the treaty appears to contravene the judicature provisions of the Constitution concerning the role of the superior courts. In various historical cases, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down legislation that contained broad privative clauses precluding review of tribunal decisions by the superior courts. The treaty's transfer of judicial authority to arbitrators is analogous and, arguably, more far-reaching. Notably, the arbitrators may make non-monetary orders against states as well as issue damages awards for potentially massive amounts.
12. The treaty clearly impacts on provincial powers on natural resources, taxation, land and property rights, and other matters. It applies to provincial legislation, regulations, or court or tribunal decisions that affect Chinese-owned assets, with limited exceptions. It does not contain a NAFTA-style carve-out for provincial performance requirements or any carve-outs for provincial measures regarding the treaty's expropriation and fair and equitable treatment provisions. Thus, there is a real possibility that, over the lifespan of the treaty, Canada will face billion dollar-plus awards due to provincial decisions that are not reviewable in Canadian courts. Does your government intend to assume the fiscal risk and have you obtained formal provincial consent for the proposed ratification of the treaty in light of its constitutional implications?
13. This quote by one of the arbitrators emphasizes the significance of a decision to ratify this treaty, including its arbitration mechanism:
"When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all" ... "Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament." -- Juan Fernández-Armesto, arbitrator from Spain.
14. This treaty will have major implications for core elements of Canadian legislative and judicial sovereignty. It will tie the hands of all levels and branches of government in Canada in relation to any Chinese-owned asset in ways that many governments in Canada, I suspect, have not considered closely. The implications will be legally irreversible by any Canadian court or other decision-maker for at least 31 years.
I urge you please to reconsider your decision to proceed with ratification of this treaty, without provincial consent or a serious public debate, on or about Oct. 31. I request replies to the questions posed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 above.
Yours sincerely,
Gus Van Harten
Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School
Open access to my publications here.
Open access to my research database here. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
31
Login or register to post comments
Skywalker
34 weeks ago
Excellent article!
Good for the professor. The irony is that Harperites think that they and only they are intelligent enough to know what is good for us. You might as well be an academic during Stalin's terror because our great and glorious leader knows best.
Okanagan Orchardist mentioned in a post on another article that ED Fast, Trade Minister claimed that the Opposition had opportunities to raise the matter and they did not. What Fast is talking about is Question Period. You know that part of parliament where you ask question and the Harperites talk about anything except the answer. The government members have no shame and certainly no integrity. They are just puppets who stand up or applaud when the puppet master dictates.
ordinaryguy
34 weeks ago
Democracy?
Very scary for a country and it's democracy to be taken over by contracts. Very, very scary.
boondoggle
34 weeks ago
What Constitution
Does the Canadian Constitution not provide any protection from such an act of treason? Are Canadian citizens going to stand by an allow our country to be taken over? How many of our forefathers died to prevent this from happening? Harper and his conspirators should be imprisoned for life!
As in Europe and around the world we are witnessing the occupation and pillage of our sovereign nations by the 0.01% and very few shots fired.
lynn
34 weeks ago
What boondoggle said...."Lest We Forget"
Outstanding analysis and letter by Gus Van Harten.
Outstanding coverage by The Tyee.
In a crucial yet disturbingly silent time in our country......many thanks to both of you for your work and for your courage in bringing this to the attention of the Canadian public..
Hakuin
34 weeks ago
what rough beast
it's a terrible thing to see and remember. War doesn't just "happen".
Hughes
34 weeks ago
Canada for Sale
How dare they! It's obvious that Shyster Harper and minister Fast 'n' Loose lack any concern for Canada's sovereignty.
They must be stopped. Look forward to their reply to Mr. Van Harten's letter.
frances
34 weeks ago
Kinda doubt there'll be much
Kinda doubt there'll be much response from the Cons. They just stiff arm their way through all the opposition & do whatever they want. It's not a functional democracy anymore.
All the spluttering outrage that occurs on this & similar sites means nothing to them. Some might suggest that direct action/taking it to the streets is the only way to make them listen
wiley
34 weeks ago
Plaguarize this!
This IS what fascism looks like in the 21st century. We'll get the boot stepping on our faces for 31 years, long after these archaic scoundrels are pushing up daisies.
I highly recommend exercising your rights to democracy by copying the text of this letter and emailing it to all pertinent federal ministers. It takes only a bit longer than making a comment here. You can get any Fascist Party MP's email add. by clicking on a link here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainCabinetCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
freebear
34 weeks ago
The lack of news in mainstream media is galling!
Mostly preaching to those who understand here.
I hope Beers makes mention on Bill Good!
anne cameron
34 weeks ago
just one
of too many. If we knew and understood what had already been given away to foreign powers we'd probably sit on the floor in our living rooms and weep.
The FBI and CIA (and , probably, Homeland Security) now have been given legal right to come over the border to arrest Canadian citizens in Canada and haul them off to the Excited States to be held, incommunicado, for as long as the Great Warbird wants...
Harper and his cronies seem to glory in being the northern arm of the Amuruccun Empire.
They won't respond properly to this letter, all they'll yammer on about is jobs jobs jobs, not mentioning the jobs will be done by imported workers and not by Canadians.
Disgusting. Really!
Talon
34 weeks ago
Be in their faces.....
I have written to the PM and many of his ministers about this terrible trade deal and have never had a response. But this really accurate article has ratcheted up my anger about the trade deal and I will get out of my studies for the next few days and visit CON offices around the lower mainland and throw a fit right in front of anyone and everyone within them. (I have been known to throw a memorable fit!)Afterwards, I can hardly keep from smiling.Thanks Tyee and fellow readers for keeping this issue on the front burner.
Birch
34 weeks ago
Further evidence
Further evidence, as Chris Hedges argues, that resistance is the only moral stance in contemporary society.
Both Albert Camus and John Raulston Saul have pointed out that the hallmark of a free citizen is the assumption of the right to say, "No." More and more of us will have to begin saying it (and acting on it). At some point "no" becomes a verb.
lynn
34 weeks ago
We stand on guard for thee. Really?
This is such a massive betrayal of Canada.....Tricky Dicky looks like a rookie in comparison.
CBC has been covering Felix Baumgarten's dive, sacred hockey news, and the US election debates as their top stories.
For real irony, they have been presenting a documentary produced by Alexandre Trudeau on the changing balance of power in the world. It's an interesting doc that in part maps the rise of China.....and how it is madly scooping up resources, especially oil, from resource rich countries like Iran..
Here we have the discussion placed right in the face of CBC news and Mansbridge....with China now given the keys to resource-rich Canada's door....and about to walk right in and make itself very comfortable....eager to put its secret fingerprints all over our environmental laws and governmental policies - and our 'public broadcaster' has other...and apparently more pressing stories to report?!
This is a massive betrayal of our country by The Chairman and his gang, a massive betrayal by most of our media in their failure to report on it in any depth...if at all, and a massive betrayal by almost all of those elected to represent the interests of the Canadian people.
If you are not utterly outraged by the present tragic state of Canada, you should check your pulse to see if you are among the increasing walking dead in this country.
In the words of Kurt Vonnegut:
"How nice - to feel nothing, and still get full credit for being alive."
Skywalker
34 weeks ago
Well said Lynn.
The tragedy is that the CBC and that includes Mansbridge are almost as bad as Goebbels. It is like propaganda and pablum news is all they can come up with.
lynn
34 weeks ago
Hi Skywalker
I agree. It's not that I was surprised by the lack of coverage by any of the mainstream media, including the underfunded and infiltrated latest incarnation of the CBC....they've all been failing the public for years now.
Only I thought as Canadians.....just on that level alone....my gosh, the loss of our sovereignty, our country...the clearly treasonous implications....it's like giving secret power of attorney over Canada to China....I really don't get it...what does it take to (literally) move people these days?
gsarahs
34 weeks ago
Canada's democracy needs to be altered!
Well, I wrote to Chairman Harper and included the prof's letter. I sincerely doubt that there will be any response, or even if anyone will read it, since I doubt that Stevie could care less what we think. Too bad we have a prime minister who thinks that he is the head of a dictatorship, using his power to do whatever he wants, and his intelligence to get around any obstacles that might be in his way. In all my years, I have never viewed a prime minister as being as dangerous to Canada's well being as this piece of work. I wrote to the MSM yesterday imploring them to cover this issue, but of course no response.
RickW
34 weeks ago
Ok - So Answer Me This Question......
Just what WOULD happen if the next government of Canada simply refused to honour any of Harper's "deals"?
uptoit
34 weeks ago
Think Agriculture not just Energy
Sad that the Opposition and media are doing so little to protest this despicable treaty.
People will wake up too late when the large agribusinesses of the prairies are sold to China. I'm thinking of huge, private companies like Nilsson Brothers, who own extensive pasture land, feedlots, auctions, and, of course, XL Foods slaughterhouse. Another big player is One Earth Farms Corp which farms 2.1 million acres of some of the best grain-growing land in Canada. Between the two companies, China would have all the beef and wheat it wanted. What would we get? Likely, over 31 years, ruined soil and water as a result of poor agriculture practices and not much else.
Currently, the agriculture industry employs numerous temporary foreign workers, mostly from Africa and Central America. Chinese-owned companies would replace them, along with many of the Canadian workers, with their own cheap labour force.
Looking back, it's interesting how Harper recently took away power from the Canadian Wheat Board - farmers and agribusiness no longer have to sell their wheat and barley to the government marketer. They also recently changed the review threshold for foreign investment - doubled to 600 million and up to 1 billion soon, so no scrutiny if these corporations are sold. They've made it easier to bring in foreign workers and pay them less. Environmental protections were slashed in the omnibus bill.
I wonder if all these recent changes were in anticipation of this treaty and future take over of our food production?
khed67
34 weeks ago
The other side?
Where are the usual Con voices in this comment thread? I want to hear from someone who supports our government's actions on this. Anyone?
Feverish
34 weeks ago
Rally in Victoria on Monday
Defend our Coast rally at the BC legislature on Monday Oct. 22.
This is an opportunity to purge some disgust at those trying to give it all away! Its a rally against Northern Gateway but what better opportunity to raise a collective FINGER to those that would sell us out on every front. Get your signs out and make the message unmistakable... make 'em big, make 'em bold!
Time to defend our country from Steve the Peeve!
This is COLOSSAL and we all need to be there to stand and be counted, particularly if you live on southern Vancouver Island. We have an obligation to attend public events like this to represent those who can't get here. (Victorians also have another opportunity coming their way soon, by way of a bi-election.)
This is literally our future that is being negotiated by individuals that do not have a right, nor our permission to sign jack sh!t on our behalf!
Time to SCREAM "NO" to the vermin that are masquerading as "elected leaders." Oh Canada... the land of sheeple led by lemmings controlled by a weasel. What a cruel frikkin' joke!
What a soulless new order raider - What a dangerous traitor!
It's time to stop bleating and make some changes.
Feverish
34 weeks ago
Rally in Victoria on Monday
Defend our Coast rally at the BC legislature on Monday Oct. 22.
This is an opportunity to purge some disgust at those trying to give it all away! Its a rally against Northern Gateway but what better opportunity to raise a collective FINGER to those that would sell us out on every front. Get your signs out and make the message unmistakable... make 'em big, make 'em bold!
Time to defend our country from Steve the Peeve!
This is COLOSSAL and we all need to be there to stand and be counted, particularly if you live on southern Vancouver Island. We have an obligation to attend public events like this to represent those who can't get here. (Victorians also have another opportunity coming their way soon, by way of a bi-election.)
This is literally our future that is being negotiated by individuals that do not have a right, nor our permission to sign jack sh!t on our behalf!
Time to SCREAM "NO" to the vermin that are masquerading as "elected leaders." Oh Canada... the land of sheeple led by lemmings controlled by a weasel. What a cruel frikkin' joke!
What a soulless new order raider - What a dangerous traitor!
It's time to stop bleating and make some changes.
Feverish
34 weeks ago
Sorry
I had the "best" comments tab pressed and did not see that my comment had actually been posted - twice! (so I posted again - YIKES!)
The turnout should be great based on all the chatter here :)
alpuddlepants
34 weeks ago
Criminal
These Cons belong in Kent Institution. They are nothing more than treasonous agents working for a foreign government. Nothing short of life in prison is what they deserve.
OwlRol
34 weeks ago
Media, trade & takeovers
Aw, c'mon, uptoit, it's just a little trade deal to help Canada's economy, and oh yeah, jobs.
The NHL players' strike, er, owners' lockout, it's much more interesting, who knows, they might even reach a 50/50 deal. Just think of how much local economic activity will be lost if there's no resolution. Money, money, money. :-)
Lynn and others, the time for your input into our CBC future is short (this weekend). Looking for constructive suggestions. Interesting questionaire and more. Check out
ReimagineCBC.ca
Could make a difference.
Also check out the non-partisan, Green party petition to stop this so called trade deal.
Skywalker, that's harsh. CBC has shifted to the right over 2 decades. Don Cherry and Kevin O'Leary are a dark but somewhat significant piece of the Canadian mosaic, not good role models, but...
Yet if you're looking for real fascism, you must shift past CTV, then Global, and even more extreme than Fox or Sun media, although the last surely have fascist tendencies.
But our media, so far, don't come even remotely close to Goebbels or Julius Streicher, (publisher of Der Stürmer.)
That doesn't mean they won't shift moreso in that direction. And once it gains momentum, ita hard to stop.
But it's the Harper govt. that's moving it, especially guys like immigration minister, Jason Kenney, regarding some nasty refugee treatment.
I recall "Watch how the government treats refugees and you'll see how they would treat all of us if they could."
Of course, if we go by Mussolini's explanation, that fascism is really corporatism, an alliance between government and corporations, then we're already there, without most of the really nasty stuff.
Despite some serious abuses, I haven't seen any systematic, tied to a tree, broken legged, Castor oil filled victims. Doesn't mean it can't happen, as in pre WW2 Italy.
We're not there yet.
Rick W., my sentiments also, but if we tried that, Canada's business sector would be treated a lot like Iran or Zimbabwe. Once passed, we're stuck, better to follow Australia's lead to avoid such deals in the first place. Otherwise it's Harper's legacy, as was Mulroney's FTA.
Fiat lux
34 weeks ago
Fascism, corporatism,
Fascism, corporatism, communism, capitalism, conservativism have all the same mindset leaders, out to rule, enslave and rob,
I've lived under all of them, and had years of experience in the homes, offices and boardrooms of the biggest capitalists in Vancouver, heard them talk tome, each other and on the phone.
Could have made a fortune in painting their portraits, but by then I would rather have starved than glorify them.
As I wrote it many times, their beautiful brotherhood in China is the best proof. Globalization is nothing but the continuation of Stalin's collectivization of the economy, albeit with the use of imaginary capital "created" for the purpose.
Ed Deak.
pmsassyharper
34 weeks ago
"A global authority on investment trade deals"???
Wow, they sure do hand out the accolades pretty freely here, don't they?
Until this comment was written, the only person who would have told you that Gus Van Harten was a "global authority" on this field would have been his mother.
How many cases has Gus been involved in, as counsel or as arbitrator? None. Nada. Zip. Zero.
Safe (from reality) in his ivory tower, the guy throws bombs at a process that his own criticisms demonstrate he does not understand.
It actually tells you something pretty important about the "quality" of this earnest young man's criticisms that the only way he can apparently communicate them to 'the powers that be' is by means of an open letter published here.
Fiat lux
34 weeks ago
OK friend , let's hear your
OK friend , let's hear your expertise.
Ed Deak.
lynn
34 weeks ago
Standing up for Canada and our Constitutional Rights
Gus Van Harten is presenting an excellent case that there is very good reason for the provinces to challenge the constitutionality of the FIPA agreement.
His work has often highlighted this principle and challenged agreements that conflict with a basic principle of Canada's system of constitutional democracy.
That principle is the principle that Parliament or a provincial legislature is supreme and that it may legislate or regulate on any matter within its constitutional authority without payment of compensation to private parties whose economic interests are affected by the legislation.
This is a long-standing principle of parliamentary democracy and the common law tradition.
The ONLY thing those presently signing away Canada's resources, sovereignty, rights and freedoms are expert at is chicanery.
ruthschris
34 weeks ago
Two Interviews with Gus Van Harten on Desmogblog
In these interviews Van Harten explains why Canada would think about signing this agreement. And he says that the feds might be obligated to protect Chinese investors NOT First Nations or environmental groups who protest the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
Yikes.
Part one: http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/15/china-canada-investment-treaty-designed-be-straight-jacket-canada-exclusive-interview-trade-investment-lawyer-gus-van
Part two: http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/16/china-canada-investment-straitjacket-interview-gus-van-harten-part-2
Boris Badenov
34 weeks ago
Provincial Veto Rights
What about the veto rights of Provinces?
What about the "Not withstanding Clause"?
What about asking permission from the electorate?
What happened to our Democracy?
This prime minister has taken a step too far!!!
judisomm
34 weeks ago
trade deal
To Boris
If this trade deal trumps our charter rights, then this is the most frightening thing that has happened to our counrty-and most voters are blissfully unaware until it is too late. Is there a higher world court we can appeal to? Can we as citizens sue Harper after this goes through? If Chinese companies are not happy with provincial regulations, I understand the compant will sue the federal government? In this case, will it be the province or the entire Canadian government who will be on the hook?