Having mentioned some Canada - EU investment text tension the other day, let me follow-up with some additional notes on Canadian happenings in investment law.
First, some Canadian groups are challenging the signed, but not yet ratified, Canada - China investment treaty in domestic court:
If Canadian legislators do sign a pending 31-year trade agreement with China, it likely won't happen anytime soon – not if First Nations and other Canadians across the country have anything to say about it.
A BC First Nation has formally launched its campaign to prevent Ottawa legislators from signing a trade agreement with Beijing that would enable Chinese businesses to sue Canada for legislation deemed prejudicial to their interests.
The Hupacasath First Nation filed affidavits Friday in its case against the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA), which the band maintains will infringe on preexisting aboriginal rights to resources.
The government now has one month to compile evidence and file its own affidavits, at which time authorities will set a court date. But the Hupacasath are prepared to file affidavits in response to the Harper administration's, lengthening a judicial process that it hopes will stave off any formal decision by the government.
And second, Canadian trade lawyer Lawrence Herman is having some doubts about the current state of investment obligations:
The problem is that Canada has proceeded down the FIPA path for years without a critical look at how these agreements really help us, both abroad and at home.
Whatever happens with the EU agreement, it’s still not too late to re-examine Canada’s policy on these investment agreements to satisfy ourselves that they answer Canada’s long-term national interests.