Elizabeth May said FIPA was a threat to Canadian sovereignty. May called the negotiations “secret.” The terms of the agreement were not made public until after the fall of the Harper government. Critics said certain conditions were considered unfavourable to Canadian investors and citizens.  A FIPPA requires each signatory state to offer some protection to foreign investors and foreign investment from the other state. Protection measures generally include non-discrimination obligations, expropriation rules for the agreement and binding dispute settlement. 7 Canada has five trade agreements, including NAFTA, abbreviated 3, which provide for the ISA, and has concluded 25 Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (FIPPAs) (i.e. Bilateral Investment Agreements (ILOs) that provide for all ISAs. The relevant contract texts are available online at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD) . See also Appendix 1 and 2 of this article. The agreement contains a number of exceptions to the above rules. These exceptions are the norm for this type of agreement and ensure that neither state loses the ability to protect its culture, environment, banking and financial systems or national security.
51 Canada`s four PSAs prior to 1994 do not include these general exceptions. The nafta and Canadian trade agreement with Chile limits exemptions to certain performance requirements. See for example. B NAFTA, see 3, art. 1106(6). See Appendix 1 of this article. Until 2017, Canada`s China FIPA remained unknown to most Canadians, even investors, according to the China Business Council of Canada, the International Business Institute. The Rotman Institute said the agreement provided considerable security for the co-candidate party.
:Each state is required to provide fair and equitable treatment, total protection and security to investments under the agreement, in accordance with international law. This provision sets the minimum standard for treatment. If FIPA is ratified with China, Chinese companies will be able to challenge local, provincial and federal policies or laws that infringe their “right,” such as profit from proposed tea-board or hydraulic fracturing, pipeline or mining projects. Canadian companies will have the same “right” in China, which will have an impact on human rights and environmental protection. We believe that FIPA fundamentally undermines democracy. There will be Chinese companies in Canada and Canadian companies in China for 31 years of “protection” against environmental, human rights or preservation measures they do not like, while private companies and investors will have the right to sue Canada or China in controversial and irresponsible private courts outside the justice system. While in 2014, Canadian trade officials declared that FIPA was “discreet” and that it was a continuation of “Canada`s past practice in promoting and protecting foreign investment,” an article in the 2014 Canadian Yearbook of International Law described fiPPA as “new” because it was “not mutually favourable to China.”  The directory article stated that the FIPPA offered a “general right of access to the market of Chinese investors in Canada, but not in China by Canadian investors.”  China has been given “greater flexibility in tracking investment” than Canada.  The agreement did not contain a “long-standing Canadian reservation for performance requirements that favour Aboriginal people.”  It watered down “Canada`s established position on transparency in investor-state arbitration.”  These and other aspects of the text of the CHINA FIPPA are highlighted in relation to other trade and investment contracts, particularly those to which Canada is affiliated, which provide for investor-state arbitration.  There are six chapters of the Foreign Investment Law that