China Conundrum

This trade deal raises more questions than answers

By coincidence, your Nov. 13 issue not only reported MP James Lunney’s support for the new FIPPA deal with China —but printed Greta Taylor’s letter roundly condemning it.

Taylor, as one of  Lunney’s constituents, was of course not asked for her opinion either on the need for such an agreement, or the details.

Nor, I suspect, was Lunney himself, nor most of his fellow back-benchers — at least we heard nothing of it.

Their role now is to say “Yes, Minister,” and vote accordingly. Their input is not required, and heaven help any who openly question policy as developed by the inner cabinet and the unelected Prime Minister’s Office.

The clause allowing China to sue a whole raft of Canadian institutions if its expected profits fail to materialize, raises interesting questions.

For instance, perhaps the entire property involved be registered abroad as a numbered company, so that if a judgement were passed against it by the (unknown and secretive) disputes tribunal, it could just declare bankruptcy and evaporate?

It is a not unknown ploy in big business.

Again, why should not the next federal government (they will change many times over the 31-year life of this agreement) simply renege on the deal — with electoral consent of course, a strange thought — and the Chinese company be asked to leave, with all services terminated, much as foreign companies were quite rightly ejected from China years ago?  It was their country after all,  as Canada, oddly enough, belongs to us although that thought jars heavily with the current administration.

An even more disturbing thought — with proper electoral representation, integrity in governments and voter trust could actually re-appear. But then, how could governments function?

Russ Vinden

 

Errington