Each Party undertakes to promote cooperation by promoting and protecting the investments of investors of the other Party. Foreign direct investment in Canada was over $1 trillion. No recent trade or investment agreement has met with so much opposition in Canada – and for good reason. No investment treaty since NAFTA poses a greater threat to the environment, public health, First Nations and the fundamentals of democracy. If FIPA is ratified, China-based companies will be able to directly challenge local, provincial and federal policies that affect their "right" to profit from energy, mining or other controversial projects. Canadian companies will have the same "right" in China, which will have a direct impact on human rights and environmental protection in that country as well. In short, these various agreements make it possible to cover foreign investment and prevent the risks inherent in developing countries. The name DFAIT of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People`s Republic of China on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments The name DFAIT of the Agreement is the Agreement on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments between Canada and China.  McCarthy Tétrault referred to the agreement as a China-Canada BIT.  In Canada, the term "bilateral investment treaties" refers to the Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (PDAC) or the Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (PDAC). [Notes 1] Companies that trade bilaterally can use AFPE to protect themselves from public policies that affect the revenues of their activities.
 [Notes 2] Tens of thousands of people sent letters to the government demanding that the investment agreement be torn up and wrote hundreds of letters in newspapers across the country. Public opposition to the coalition pact for corporate rights is welcomed by MPs, who are calling for a public debate that the government does not want to conduct. Opposition to China`s FIPA also affects Canada`s other investment protection agreements with countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Today, British Columbia`s Hupacasath First Nation sued FIPA, directly attacking the Harper government`s anti-democratic agreements on corporate rights. The fight against FIPA is far from over. And we still have a role to play in deciding the fate of the agreement. Other provisions are aimed at promoting transparency of national legislation on the rights of indigenous peoples (Article 15) and dialogue between investors and indigenous peoples and communities (Article 16). In addition, in investment disputes, the tribunal may appoint experts on the rights of indigenous peoples, either at the request of a party or on its own initiative (Article 38). There are 2 400 treaties in force worldwide, including 99 agreements between the France and third countries. The 2009 Treaty of Lisbon highlighted a common commercial policy for the European Union. The European Union has exclusive competence to negotiate future investment protection agreements using the "great paternity" norm of previous treaties. ► Prompt, reasonable and effective compensation: The agreement provides for the conditions of expropriation, including reasonable value, which must take into account the statistical value and loss of profits resulting from such expropriation.
While investment treaties more often refer to the right to regulation in the preambles, the FIPA model includes, where appropriate, an operational provision affirming the right of the parties to the regulation (Article 3). In particular, its scope extends to "indigenous peoples` rights, gender equality and cultural diversity". A general provision such as this may be useful in defending against claims and in shaping the way arbitral tribunals perceive the conduct of States, not least because Article 3 does not require compliance with obligations elsewhere in the FIPA model. The inclusion of an ISDS mechanism in the FIPA model also contrasts with the trend in the EU towards a Move away from ISDS and towards a World Investment Court. This also contrasts with two current models of agreements of EU Member States – the Dutch ILO 2019 model and the 2019 Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union ILO model – both of which contain ISDS mechanisms. It remains unclear how Canada`s APIF model could affect trade and investment negotiations with EU member states. The objective of these agreements is to ensure an investment-friendly environment by providing legal stability, clear conditions, effective dispute settlement and uniform standards, fairer and more equitable treatment of investments, a commitment to ensure full investment security, national treatment of investment, a most-favoured-nation standard and a prohibition of expropriation of the investor without equity. immediate and effective compensation. Investment treaties and model treaties increasingly contain provisions on responsible business conduct ("RBC").
Previously, Article 16 of the 2014 FIPA model dealt with corporate social responsibility, but without reference to specific internationally recognised standards. Article 31 of the updated FIPA model identifies the former Article 16 under the RBC heading and extends its scope and contains specific references, inter alia, to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. However, as is often the case with rbC regulation, it contains only one desirable wording and applies directly to states, not investors. Today, the Honourable Mary Ng, Minister of Small Business, Export Promotion and International Trade, introduced Canada`s modernized and inclusive FiPA (Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement) model, which will help create a stable, rules-based investment environment for Canadian companies investing abroad and for foreign companies investing in Canada. In 2020, the value of Canadian foreign direct investment was over $1.45 trillion, and in 2018, the assets of Canadian foreign affiliates abroad amounted to more than $4.2 trillion. This article states that in the event of a political reversal in a fragile country, investors are assured that foreign companies will be compensated in the same way as local companies, thus avoiding "an expropriation unfavorable to the foreign investor". Hong Kong IPAPs give foreign investors additional assurance that their investments in Hong Kong are protected and allow Hong Kong investors to benefit from similar protection with respect to their overseas investments. The original iteration of the FIPA model dates back to 2004, which Canada said was building on its NAFTA experience. .